28

The claim is made here that none have.

Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.

  • 5
    even if no cures are yet found, it should still be an area of [active] research. – picakhu Jul 25 '11 at 14:39
  • 5
    Yes, but if a cure has been found it's a pretty neat and tidy argument for continuing research. Hence the desire to have this question answered. – Russell Steen Jul 25 '11 at 21:56
  • How much are (new) embryonic stem cells even used now that we can induce adult ones? – Kevin Aug 17 '18 at 17:02
  • @Kevin Almost never. Adult are easier to harvest and culture, therefore preferred. As a result many say they're better, but I've never seen any evidence either way. – fredsbend Sep 8 '18 at 15:04
34

As seems to be the case with complicated issues, any side of a debate will attempt to over simplify the issues involved. If it wasn't for embryonic stem cell research, there never would have been any adult stem cell advancements. We didn't know how to manipulate adult stem cells until we figured out more about them, specifically using embryonic stem cells.

For instance, these papers are what started our understanding:

Establishment of a germ-line competent C57BL/6 embryonic stem cell line

Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts

Also, there is a great deal of argument about the full efficacy of the adult stem cells.

3 . Adult stem cells are like supporting actors in the quest for stem cell treatments.

Adult stem cells are more specialized cells that arise from embryonic stem cells. Also known as tissue-specific stem cells, they are present in adults – but contrary to their name, they’re also found in children, newborn infants and developing fetuses. They have the ability to make one or two kinds of cells, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells.

The full article does a good job of talking about the reasons for embryonic research versus adult stem cell research.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFO: (This is not so much a response to the question, but rather more information as to why it is important to continue embryonic stem cell research. The reason this is included is that generally the claim in the question is made because they wish to discontinue said research.)

The University of Michigan also talks about why it is necessary to do embryonic research:

Why is embryonic stem cell research important?

Research with embryonic stem cells may lead to new, more effective treatments for serious human ailments and alleviate the suffering of thousands of people. Diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart failure and spinal cord injuries are examples.

Why do embryonic stem cells hold such promise?

They can develop into any cell type in the body. They can form unlimited quantities of any cell type in the body. They will help us understand inherited diseases by allowing us to study human cells bearing the exact genetic defects that cause disease in patients. They will allow us to discover safer and more effective drugs by making it easier to screen drug candidates.

What has stem cell research accomplished?

Bone marrow transplants have been performed for decades and involve the infusion of adult stem cells. Research based on embryonic and adult stem cells has yielded promising results for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and diabetes Stem cell research also has generated new knowledge about basic cell mechanisms that is critical to understanding the causes of disease, such as cancer.

Some have criticized embryonic stem cell research by arguing that adult stem cells have delivered more treatments, but that observation is misleading. While adult stem cells have been studied for decades, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998. There has not yet been time to develop new therapies using embryonic stem cells.

The overwhelming majority of stem cell scientists believe that to make the most rapid progress against disease, researchers must use all the weapons in their arsenal. That means using both embryonic and adult stem cells.

How long will it take for human embryonic stem cell research to yield medical treatments?

We can’t say how long it will take to find new treatments for any specific disease using embryonic stem cells. Biomedical research typically has a time frame of 10, 20, even 30 years. Fourteen years elapsed between the first unsuccessful clinical trial of bone marrow transplantation and the first successful transplant among unrelated patients. Now bone marrow transplants are widely touted as the best example of a successful stem cell therapy.

Biomedical research takes a long time, but the sooner the research starts, the sooner it will yield new insights and new treatments. If research were stopped by uncertainty, we never would have developed blood transfusions, cardiac bypass surgery, insulin therapy for diabetes, kidney dialysis, antibiotics, organ transplants and many other treatments we now take for granted.

So note that in this emotionally charged issue, people will tend to hyperbole and appeals to emotion in an attempt to shore up their argument over the other viewpoint. As even the University of Michigan states, those positions are misleading. Although it is notable that the generation of adult stem cells was motivated by a scientist with religious reasons for doing so, and overall, I find that his accomplishment is commendable.

  • 6
    -1: I dinged you because this is a general argument on why embryonic stem cell research is needed. I feel that instead of answering the question you've hijacked it to espouse your own viewpoint. Whether or not that viewpoint is correct is irrelevant because the question wasn't "Is embryonic stem cell research valid". As the question should be very easy to disprove, such a hijacking shouldn't be necessary. – Russell Steen Jul 25 '11 at 17:19
  • 9
    @Russell Steen, Fair enough. My attempt was to actually show that Embryonic Stem Cell research LED TO adult stem cell research. Hence, all the cures cites wouldn't have happened. Sorry if that didn't come through. – Larian LeQuella Jul 25 '11 at 22:07
  • 5
    Personally, I think that the context is vital here. And, in any case, it does demonstrate that embryonic stem cells are an ultimate, if not proximate, cause of the cures. – Joel Rein Jul 26 '11 at 0:22
  • 3
    @Kyralessa - Your definition of "obviously" must be opposing to mine then. Thats like saying we did not need to do the early apollo missions to go to the moon we could have just started at Apollo 11 and saved time. – Chad Jul 27 '11 at 19:42
  • 3
    @Kyralessa, bone marrow is not the same as a true stem cell. That's sort of the whole point. And the theory was not at all understood in 1968 when they started the practice, aside from "replace the bad stuff with good stuff". Much like today we know what a hemotoma is, but they did "trepanning" for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. They got most of it wrong, but there was a validity in their ignorance. The actual GENETIC benefits are still in their infancy. You are confusing two different things. – Larian LeQuella Jul 28 '11 at 1:04
13

Embryonic stem cells improve sight of legally blind women, CNN.com, 23 January 2012:

Two women with untreatable eye diseases said they had dramatic improvements in their vision after injections of human embryonic stem cells, making it the first documented time these controversial cells have helped someone.

Also, as pregnant mice benefit from fetal stem cells, the same might occur in pregnant humans.

  • The same does occur in pregnant humans, but that's a bit irrelevant to the question. skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27812/… – fredsbend Sep 8 '18 at 15:13
  • Repaired organ damage sounds like a cure to me. – Cees Timmerman Sep 8 '18 at 22:23
  • I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but pregnancy is itself a condition of the body. It's not a medical treatment, therefore any inherent effects are not cures. The context of the question is medical treatment. – fredsbend Sep 9 '18 at 1:51
  • Google's first definition of the noun "cure": "a substance or treatment that cures a disease or condition." - Embryonic stem cells curing the condition of organ damage, answering "Has any cure come from embryonic stem cells?" – Cees Timmerman Sep 9 '18 at 3:27
3

Stem cell treatment for parkinsons disease has proven the most effective form of treatment , actually regaining functions and neurons.

From a more digestible version.

US researchers say they have overcome previous difficulties in coaxing human embryonic stem cells to become the neurons killed by the disease. Tests showed the cells survive and function normally in animals and reverse movement problems caused by Parkinson's in monkeys.
- Stem cells transformed into brain cells to treat Parkinson's disease - The Guardian

  • 1
    Right, but is that embryonic stem cells? – Sean Duggan Aug 18 '18 at 15:16
  • 1
    @SeanDuggan literally the second paragraph states that. – NimChimpsky Aug 20 '18 at 0:05
  • 1
    Yes, but you didn't include that in your answer. :) Burying the lede. – Sean Duggan Aug 20 '18 at 1:45
  • @Nim I edited relevant quotes into your answer. That's highly preferred on this site. – fredsbend Sep 8 '18 at 15:23
  • I don't think animal studies count as cures. – Eike Pierstorff Sep 9 '18 at 5:41

You must log in to answer this question.

protected by Community Sep 8 '18 at 14:54

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .