Stem cell finding offers IVF hope

[JAG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4104680.stm

British scientists say they have taken a step towards showing human eggs and sperm can be created from stem cells.

The finding may help IVF treatment, hit by a shortage of egg and sperm donors.

Previous research had found mice stem cells were capable of developing into sperms and eggs so the researchers checked if this was true in humans.

The Sheffield University team found some stem cells developed the genetic signature of primordial germ cells, the ancestors of eggs and sperm.

The work may make up for a shortage of egg and sperm donors for IVF treatment.

This lack of egg and sperm donors has led to the growing trend of fertility tourism - couples seeking help abroad.

The team from Sheffield University say many more tests are needed to check the technique is safe.

Typically, sperm banks have relied on donations from younger men in their 20s, targeted through football programmes, magazines and student unions.

Egg donation is more intrusive and riskier, making it more difficult to recruit donors.

But numbers of both donors have been dwindling.

Some say that laws lifting anonymity on donations from April 1 this year might put off even more potential donors.

Other research looked at stem cells from mice and found they could be encouraged to change into early sperm and egg cells, called primordial germ cells (PGCs), and eventually mature sperm and eggs.

The team at the Centre for Stem Cell Biology in Sheffield decided to see if the same was true in humans.

Sperm production

Using stem cells taken from embryos donated for research by couples undergoing IVF, they found some formed into a collection of cells called embryoid bodies.

When they looked at these cells in detail they found that within two weeks a small number of cells expressing some of the genes found in human primordial germ cells were present.

Some cells also expressed proteins only found in maturing sperm.

Mr Behrouz Alfatoonian, one of the team which carried out the study, said: "This suggests that human stem cells may have the ability to develop into primordial germ cells and early gametes as has been shown previously for mouse embryonic stem cells."

He said the challenge now was to choose the cells that were going to develop into primordial germ cells and then work out how to encourage them to grow into mature sperm and egg.

"Producing functional gametes is much more difficult because we have to recreate for the cultured cells the environment of the developing follicle for the egg or the tissue of the testis for the sperm."

Professor Harry Moore, who runs the centre, said: "Ultimately, it might be possible to produce sperm and eggs for use in assisted conception treatments."

British Fertility Society secretary Dr Allan Pacey said: "This is a really exciting step forward that has huge implications for the way we could undertake research studies to investigate the processes of egg and sperm development.

"We still don't really understand why some men and women can't produce sperm and eggs of their own, and sadly for them that leads to infertility. But if we could better understand the basic biology then we might be in a better position to help them one day."

Laura Witjens of the National Gamete Donation Trust said: "Donation has gone down over the last eight or nine years. Any research that could ultimately help patients requiring egg or sperm is fantastic news."

Another benefit of the great satan that is stem cell research! Is it not time the US and religious fundamentalists embraced something which is going to clearly make the lives of millions in the future better off, rather than hiding behind ancient ideological mantra which is used to stifle debate on important aspects such as this research, merely because they are scared of it?

Maybe it will take them 20 years to follow on like normal...

[Papewaio]

Of course a lot of infertility is because the couple are overweight and past their child bearing prime...

A lot cheaper and effective to get on a diet of fresh food and exercise for a year then most IVF programs.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it not time the US and religious fundamentalists embraced something which is going to clearly make the lives of millions in the future better off,

No proof of that. So your claim is false. You are just intolerant of religion

[bmolsson]

You are just intolerant of religion

He means well.....

[Redleg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4104680.stm



Another benefit of the great satan that is stem cell research! Is it not time the US and religious fundamentalists embraced something which is going to clearly make the lives of millions in the future better off, rather than hiding behind ancient ideological mantra which is used to stifle debate on important aspects such as this research, merely because they are scared of it?

Maybe it will take them 20 years to follow on like normal...

Now what is wrong Jag with the opposite side voicing their opinion in a free society?

It seems its prefectly acceptable for you to express your opinion on a subject, but anyone who has a counter postion is wrong. How nice you are with throwing out the labels on others who might disagree with you.

If I didn't know better - I could state you are just Anti-American with the bolded comment.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's always amusing how lefties try to stifle arguement against them by pretending to cry out for 'free debate' i.e. totally disregarding any religion and/or morals.

And this research- they have to take cells from an embryo (created with sperm and eggs) to make more sperm and eggs?

And can you offer one example of anything embryonic stem cell research has done, compared to the thousands of advances adult stem cell research has provided? Hmm?

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

10 marks) Compare and contrast the following two quotes:

And can you offer one example of anything embryonic stem cell research has done, compared to the thousands of advances adult stem cell research has provided? Hmm?

What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Xiahou]

And this research- they have to take cells from an embryo (created with sperm and eggs) to make more sperm and eggs?

You know, I was wondering about that one myself. If they already have an embryo why do you need the sperm/egg?

[Productivity]

You know, I was wondering about that one myself. If they already have an embryo why do you need the sperm/egg?

Presumably because you can get far more than 1 set of sperm/egg out of said embryo.

Look at it from a pure economic view. You can use 1 embryo to create 1 baby, or you can use 1 embryo to create 10 sets of sperm/egg and then produce 10 babies (this is making assumptions about efficiency but it's designed to be illustrativge, not accurate).

As to if that is moral, well I'm not sure.

[Ja'chyra]

Presumably because you can get far more than 1 set of sperm/egg out of said embryo.

Look at it from a pure economic view. You can use 1 embryo to create 1 baby, or you can use 1 embryo to create 10 sets of sperm/egg and then produce 10 babies (this is making assumptions about efficiency but it's designed to be illustrativge, not accurate).

As to if that is moral, well I'm not sure.

Should you deny one life to possibly have 10?

That's a tough one, I can see why the people who would benefit would want this but I can also see the argument against playing God and deciding who lives and who dies. I don't think a blanket decision would work, if, as Pape says:

Of course a lot of infertility is because the couple are overweight and past their child bearing prime...

A lot cheaper and effective to get on a diet of fresh food and exercise for a year then most IVF programs.

Then no way should this even be considered, if you can't show the comittment that a diet needs how are you going to devote the next 18+ years of your life to a child, and if you're too old to naturally have children then take the hint, nature's been at this game for a long time. The problem, as always, is who would make the decisions.

I personally don't agree that IVF should be free on the NHS to anyone who wants it, I believe that each case should be individually assessed and judged. In all I think I would have to go with the no's on this one.

[bmolsson]

Why am I suddenly thinking of an omelett ??

[English assassin]

Hurrah for the onward march of science.

There's no need to be rude about the US though. Leave it to the market. They can choose whether to accept the benefits of modern science and technology, or all sign up for snake handling like it commands you to do in the bible (Book Of Loonies, Chpt 2 v11). I approve of people being free to make informed choices (sadly this is of course philosophical position incompatible with any religion I know of, but tant pis).

Somehow I think they'll be voting for science, and anyway on this one its no skin off my nose if they don't (unlike the bloody carbon emissions)

[doc_bean]

I'm actually with the Pope on IVF. I find it unnatural and unnecessary. While I don't care enough to try and have it banned, I won't cheer at its advances.

Adopt if you can't make one yourself.

[Papewaio]

The internet is unnatural and for the most part unnecessary.

As is flying, cars, DVD's, computer games.

There is more to life then just basic needs.

I don't think either IVF or abortion should be stopped, I just don't think they should be used as a want payed for by others. If they are a need (no other option) then the community should help that person.

If it is a want... I'm 25, I want four children yet only I pregnancy so I choose IVF... or I am obese and so is my partner but rather then a healthy lifestyle and diet I want the taxpayer to pay for my IVF.

If it is a need... did everything else and cannot get pregnant naturally then the couple should get the help.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The problem (in the US at least) is that the judicial system, no, everybody, can't figure out what is a want and what is a need.

[Papewaio]

If you don't get it you die: basic need

If you don't give it to me you die: unreasonable want.

The rest are somewhere inbetween.

[bmolsson]

If you don't get it you die: basic need

If you don't give it to me you die: unreasonable want.

The rest are somewhere inbetween.

Eh... I don't get it.... Does that mean I am going to die ??

[doc_bean]

If it is a need... did everything else and cannot get pregnant naturally then the couple should get the help.

Like I said, I don't believe having children of your own is a need.

I mostly don't care what people do, as long as it doesn't affect me, I just don't want to pay for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Of all the reasons to support stem cell research this has to be one of the least and most pathetic Ive heard..

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Isn't this a step torwards the cloning humans that we've been trying to prevent? Why, yes it is.

[Papewaio]

Why are people so much against clones?

I think it is a silly thing to do, but I don't see clones as evil.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Why are people so much against clones?

I think it is a silly thing to do, but I don't see clones as evil.

Ever see starwars?

[Don Corleone]

I think the big objection is not so much cloning itself, but the genetic manipulation & destruction of fetuses along the way that's implied.

Call me a caveman, but creating 50 or 60 organisms (I know, for God's sake, don't call them human), letting them get to be about 8 months old, then scrapping all but one seems a little ghoulish to me. I've tried hard to become more enlightened, but I'm afraid I'm stuck with this vestigal thing called a conscience.

Anyway, Kaiser wasn't far off, but he picked the wrong movie. If you really want to know why people get so squeamish about cloning, check out Alien Ressurection.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I've tried hard to become more enlightened, but I'm afraid I'm stuck with this vestigal thing called a conscience.

I think we'll have to clone you until it goes away.

[Papewaio]

So we should destroy all identical twins, triplets and quads?

They are all clones of each other...

A clone is an identical twin. If anything it will be less then identical due to the intervening years potential to change the doners DNA.

[Don Corleone]

No. That's my point. I don't think anybody has a problem with clones, in and of themselves. It's the things doctors do to create, manipulate and dispose of clones that bother some people.

To use your analogy, it's not the triplets themselves. But if upon reaching the delivery room, the mother decided to dispose of one of the three, would that bother you?

[English assassin]

Where did this idea that to make a clone you have to let embryos get to 8 months and then kill them come from?

Don's alien resurrection comment was not too far from the money. (See, who says you can't learn from Hollywood?) Cloning a mammal is difficult. Humans can live for 80 years. Can we be sure, even if we have got it sorted for sheep and goats (and we haven't) that there won't be some sort of effect that shows up at 40,50,60 years? No. So for now we shouldn't do it. Even if we could do it I can't immediately see why we would want to, but that is another story.

This is not about cloning though. A sperm and an egg fusing is the very opposite of cloning. It creates a genetically new individual, different to both parents, and in a way that I think is not quite understood "resets" the aging of the DNA. So this isn't cloning at all.