A foray into a fray… (Stem) Cellular development 1 Some of my long-time readers might've noticed by now that I haven't written much about something a lot of folks with strong opinions about health and medicine (not always a lot of knowledge, but definitely opinions) are talking a lot about: Stem cells. This isn't because I'm opposed to stem cell based research, especially when those conducting it are using non-polarizing sources of stem cells - like umbilical cord blood from live births (not aborted fetuses) or existing stem cell lines. This may surprise some of you newer readers, who may have formed the opinion that I'm nothing if not willing to delve deep into the politics of an issue… But if you've been with me for a while, you know that I'm open-minded about the medical and health ramifications of even the most politically charged technologies. Once I've formed an opinion about them, that is. But once I've formed an opinion about them, well, I'm less open minded-but I'm still winning to listen. An open mind that remains open for a lifetime never forms any opinion. (Since this is an obvious truth, people should not be allowed to vote below the age of 40, and attorneys should never be allowed to vote-or run for public office beyond the county level.) Case in point: My stance on things like meats and milk products from cloned animals - and biologically enhanced foodstuffs that contain boosted levels of Omega-3s and other vital nutrients. These are positions a lot of my readers have expressed surprise about. The reason I haven't written much about stem cell research is because it's an area of medicine that has been largely co-opted by the political parties in America for their own reasons. The technology, still in its infancy and largely unexplored, has nevertheless become a battleground issue between the Elephants and Donkeys - and because of this, there's a lot of rhetoric being bandied around about stem cells by folks who don't know anything about them… In fact, up until now, most of "the story" about stem cells has been its impact on domestic politics, not the difference they have made for large numbers of patients (though stem-cell therapy has been applied for things like cancer treatment). And since my stock in trade is cutting through myth and meaningless folderol to the nuts and bolts underneath, I've been holding up on a lot of stem-cell commentary until I've both researched the topic AND discovered interesting things to report about it that don't involve politics. Now, I have - and I do. But before I make what amounts to my first real foray into the stem-cell discussion, I need to prime you with a little bit of background. That's what this - part 1 of a two-part essay series - is for: Making sure you understand the stem cell basics, and that you haven't been brainwashed by the rhetoric of either political party. Keep reading… Another reason I haven't written about stem cells before is that I've been sorting out for myself where my "lines" are in the debate. One of the reasons this hasn't been such a piece of cake is because there are different types of stem cells, some of which are more controversial than others in their utility… Here's what I mean: * Embryonic Stem Cells - These are the ones everyone on the right side of the aisle is squawking about. Can't say I blame them too much, since the single best source of these today is aborted fetuses. These cells are derived from the ones that divide so rapidly in the first few days of a fetus' development. Theoretically, these can be used to "grow" as many as 200 different types of human tissues when given proper chemical stimulation at the right time. Because of their ability to aggressively multiply, these cells may also have potential benefits for tissue replacement and regenerative medicine. * Adult Stem Cells - These cell lines are found throughout the body and are "undifferentiated," meaning they aren't readily chameleon-esque, like embryonic cells. They likely can't be formed into specific body structures, but they can (and naturally do) replenish themselves to heal damaged or injured tissues. It's in this capacity that they most interest medical science. * Cord Blood Cells - These are harvested from the blood in the umbilical cords of babies after birth. They are similar in structure to embryonic stem cells in their ability to differentiate, but can only adapt to various types of BLOOD cells, not all bodily tissues, like their embryonic counterparts. See what I mean when I say there's a lot to know here? And I'm sure you also see why the debate about stem cells can be so politically charged - the embryonic cells are the ones with the most wide-reaching ramifications… But that's a discussion for a distant day. In the next Daily Dose, however, I'm going to tell you about some very real developments in "stem cell" medicine - both of which could signal significant changes in the way we practice medicine. Regardless of how you (or I) feel about stem cells, they're coming in a big way, one way or another. Stay tuned. | 
