Amniotic Stem Cells Not Substitute for Embryonic Stem Cells

Opponents of embryonic stem sell research are citing the recent discovery that amniotic stem cells may have comparable benefits as reasons to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The author of the study on amniotic stem cells has “urged Congress yesterday not to consider his work a substitute for the search for disease-fighting material from embryonic stem cells.”

“Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion,” wrote Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, the author of a study published this week and widely seized upon by opponents of embryonic stem cell research as a more moral option.

Atala and other researchers reported Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

In a letter to sponsors of legislation up for a House vote tomorrow, Atala wrote that it was “essential that National Institutes of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.”

3 Comments

  1. 1
    petra says:

    It’s also weird to hear the anti-abortion types cheering on amniocentesis, which poses a small but definite risk to the fetus, and is often used to determine genetic abnormalities while there’s still time for a legal abortion. Why they’re for that and not for the use of stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded, I don’t understand.

    But as someone who suffers from a condition that could be helped by stem-cell research, I suspect that if they found themselves or a loved one in my position, they’d probably suddenly be all for stem-cell research, the more the better. They’ll decide that their real life matters more than theoretical embryonic life.

  2. 2
    Dr. Daniel Howell says:

    It’s really not weird at all… I’ll put it in simple terms for you using some of your own words: Amniocentesis “poses a small… risk to the fetus” while abortion, well, totally destroys the fetus. See the difference? Amniocentesis can provide valuable information to guide doctors prior to in-utero surgeries.

    And by the way, what exactly is a “theoretical life”?

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    That totally misses the point.

    Embryonic stem cell research does not involve abortion or the destruction of an embryo which would otherwise later be born and go on to live a full life. The embryos used in embryonic stem cell reserch can be obtained from places such as fertility clinics using embryos which are ultimately fated for destruction. It is not a question of destryoing life but using such embryos to save lives.

Leave a comment