Evaluation of the Evidence for and against Stem Cell Plasticity - Article Example

EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST STEM CELL PLASTI By Location Evaluation of the Evidence for and against Stem Cell Plasticity Some of the endorsers of stem cell plasticity use the fact that stem cell plasticity can be used in tissue repair to justify their support for it. Some of the body tissues such as skin, blood, gut, testis, and others always have to be renewed. However, it has been noticed that a majority of human cells usually show a very low rate of turnover under normal circumstance. Cells such as the heart might have poor response to regressive pressure (Larsson 2011 p. 198). However, others, such as the liver cells might have a good response to regressive pressure. This can be translated to mean that the highly regenerative tissues have stem cells while those that are poor regenerators lack stem cells (Frank, Schatton & Frank 2010, p. 41). However, cells that have been believed to be non-regenerators such as the heart and the brain have lately shown signs of regeneration. This has opened the doors for researches in stem cell population and their regenerative potential. Studies of tissue injury repair have discovered that there is a strong support for important stem cell functions in the hematopoietic system, dermal epithelium, intestinal epithelium, and skeletal muscle. This is a clear indication that stem cell plasticity can be of high importance in repairing of damaged cells in these tissues (Langer, Vacanti &Lanza 2014, p. 231). Hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) exist predominantly in the bone marrow of human beings. They have always been known to serve the purpose of generation all lineages of mature blood cell types that are needed for the maintenance of proper hematopoietic function (Cetrulo, Cetrulo&Cetrulo 2009, p. 234). However, a series of studies have challenged this assertion. These studies suggest that if bone marrow cells are enriched by hematopoietic stem cell activity, they could appear to be of contribution to the lower levels of multiple nonhematopoietic tissues because of injured or irradiated recipients (Bhattacharya & Stubblefield 2014, p. 199). These studies reveal that these activities can result to nonhematopoietic cells within the skin, intestinal epithelium, lung epithelium, kidney epithelium, pancreas, liver parenchyma, skeletal muscle, and myocardium. Some of the support for the stem cell plasticity comes from opposes of abortion. The main reason as to why this group of people is in support of stem cell plasticity is the fact that a majority of stem cell researchers always use embryos that were created in virto fertility treatment. These are the embryos that were produced but were never used. Most of these embryos had the fate of destruction or being kept till they go past their validity point (Quesenberry, Dooner & Aliotta 2010, p. 588). This means that there is no necessity for donation of embryos for the sake of stem cell plasticity researches. Those people who endorse stem cell plasticity assert that stem cells can grow indefinitely in a lab setting, thus being able to differentiate into almost all types of body tissues.As a result of this possibility, many of the people who endorse stem cell plasticity believe that this is a technology that can be used in the treatment of many types of diseases (Krishan, Krishnamurthy &Totey 2010, p. 311). This can serve as some kind as a repair mechanism for the body. Through using stem cell plasticity, medical conditioned such as cancer and birth defects can be controlled because they mostly occur as a result of abnormal cell division or differentiation (Theise 2010, p. 529). This means that further research on stem cell plasticity might lead to the discovery of ways through which health conditions such as cancer and birth defects can be controlled. Other endorsers of stem cell plasticity also argue that stem cell plasticity can be used in attaining the potentials of human abilities. Most of the supporters of stem cell plasticity believe that an embryo cannot be equivalent to human life if they do not have the ability to survive when they are not inside the womb (Atala & Lanza 2013, p. 311). At that moment it can only be said that they carry the potential of human life.This is a simple implication that stem cell plasticity will give the embryos a way through which they can overcome the obstacle that keeps them from being mere holder of human patentability to holders of humanity (Ulrich 2010, p. 201). Most of the endorsers of the use of adult stem cells do so on the explanation that the uses of adult stem cells for medical purposes do not lead to any kind of death. This is because stem cells can be obtained from the bone marrows of a living person and they will continue to live without having to worry life complications because of the loss (Srivastava & Shankar 2012, p. 202). On the other hand the same cell that is obtained from a living human without causing any kind of suffering to them can be used in bringing an end to pain in another person. This is especially true given the fact that adult stem cells have proved to be important in the treatment of cancer, leukaemia, autoimmune diseases, and heart disease (Sell 2013, p. 213). This would be basically using knowledge of human cells in treating medical conditions that have proved to be hard to treat. Those opposing stem cell plasticity has also had their reasons for opposing stem cell plasticity. One of the common arguments lies in the use of embryo stem cells. One thing that needs to be known about use of embryo stem cells is that for these cells to be obtained the embryo has to be destroyed (Charbord 2015, p. 287). As much as many people would have argued that embryos are just potential lives, there is no moral justification for destroying embryos even if they are just potential lives. To most of the people who oppose use of embryo stem cells, there is no much difference between destroying an embryo and destroying an actual human being (Wang, Grisham & Thorgeirsson 2011, p. 224). For those who claim that embryo stem cells are much safer in treatment of some health conditions, the question will be if it is moral for someone to take away a potential life with the reason of trying to save another life. Just like the person whose life is going to be saved, the one whose potential life is being taken away deserves to live too. Other people who oppose stem cell plasticity give the explanation that stem cell plasticity whether using adult stem cells or embryo stem cells can always lead to some complications in the lives of the recipients. Some genetic conditions can always be transferred from one individual to another through transfer of stem cells (Lanza & Atala 2013, p. 187). When this takes place there is always a question on whether the process is making the situation worse or better. There are recorded cases where the conditions of recipients have become worse after receiving stem cells that have no compatibility to their bodies (Ratajczak 2014, p. 219). Other critics of stem cell plasticity claim that much of the developments that are supposed to be brought by stem cell plasticity have not been practically confirmed to be true. The argument in this case is that those people who support stem cell plasticity and the researchers tend to give confident information about their findings (Inscough, Yamanaka & Tada 2011, p. 243). However, since there is not practical evidence of successful use of stem cell plasticity in treating health conditions that they supposedly treat, it would be advisable for them to keep it at the level that it is until the medicinal values that are said to be related to stem cell plasticity are fully confirmed (Fagan 2013, p. 187). Some of the results from these studies and researches have even been used by politicians in giving false hopes during political campaigns. It might be undeniable that most of the proposed usages of stem cell plasticity will be beneficial in the field of human health. However, the use of stem cell plasticity in treating a health condition should not be spoken about as if it is something that is already practically in use. There are many other factors that seem to raise questions regarding the applicability of stem cell plasticity in medicine. For instance, it is commonly known that the body usually rejects foreign tissues. The case of embryo stem cells, it should be noticed that the potential recipients do not have any kind of relationship with the embryo from which the cell was obtained (Hug &Hermerén 2011, p. 237). Therefore, there is a big possibility that the body of the recipient will treat the cells as foreign one thus rejecting them. This will mean that the introduced cell will be dealt with by the body’s immune system (Lynch 2011, p. 209). However, there are some scientists who claim to have come up with a solution to this problem. It should be noted that some of these solutions seem sinister. Whatever the case, the embryo from which the cell was obtained would have lost the potential of living in vain in any case the all process turns out to be unsuccessful. Embryonic stem-cell therapies also risk of "tracking in". When the new stem cell is introduced to the new body there is a possibility that the body will react to the introduction negatively because the differentiated tissue will be treated like a foreign tissue. This has happened with those potential embryonic stem-cell therapies that were considered more promising (Bongso& Lee 2011, p. 199). A good example of such therapies is for Parkinsons disease. Even though some trial experiments that were carried out on mice have successfully led to the production of some brain cells that people suffering from Parkinson lose, there are common side effects that are associated with the whole process (Scheel& Weinberg 2011, p. 2312). For instance, there were cases where the mice developed serious tumours. This is an indication that the same side effects can be experienced by Parkinson patients who choose to go through this process. Bibliography Atala, A &Lanza, RP 2013, Handbook of stem cells, Academic/Elsevier, London.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859426. Bhattacharya, N & Stubblefield, PG 2014, Regenerative medicine: using non-fetal sources of stem cells. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=888761. Bongso, A & Lee, EH 2011, Stem cells: from bench to bedside, World Scientific, Hackensack, New Jersey. Cetrulo, CL, Cetrulo, KJ &Cetrulo, CL 2009, Perinatal stem cells, John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10361224. Charbord, DP 2015, Stem cell biology and regenerative medicine, River Publishers. Fagan, M 2013, Philosophy of stem cell biology knowledge in flesh and blood, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Frank, NY, Schatton, T & Frank, MH 2010, “The therapeutic promise of the cancer stem cell concept” The Journal of clinical investigation, 120(1), 41. Hug, K &Hermerén, G 2011, Translational stem cell research: issues beyond the debate on moral status of the human embryo, Humana Press, New York. Inscough, J, Yamanaka, S & Tada, T 2011, Nuclear reprogramming and stem cells, Humana Press, New York. Krishan, A, Krishnamurthy, H &Totey, S 2010, Applications of flow cytometry in stem cell research and tissue regeneration, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, N.J. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=18660. Langer, R, Vacanti, JP &Lanza, R 2014, Principles of Tissue Engineering, Academic Press, London. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1495640. Lanza, R &Atala, A 2013, Essentials of Stem Cell Biology, Elsevier Science, Burlington. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=105830. Larsson, LI 2011, Cell fusions: regulation and control, Springer, Dordrecht. Lynch, J 2011, What are stem cells?: definitions at the intersection of science and politics, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Quesenberry, PJ, Dooner, MS &Aliotta, JM 2010, “Stem cell plasticity revisited: the continuum marrow model and phenotypic changes mediated by microvesicles” Experimental hematology, 38(7), 581-592. Ratajczak, MZ 2014, Adult stem cell therapies: alternatives to plasticity. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=845585. Scheel, C & Weinberg, RA 2011, “Phenotypic plasticity and epithelial‐mesenchymal transitions in cancer and normal stem cells?”International Journal of Cancer, 129(10), 2310-2314. Sell, S 2013, Stem cells handbook, Humana Press, New York. Srivastava, R & Shankar, S 2012, Stem cells and human diseases, Springer, Dordrecht. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2801-1. Theise, ND 2010, “Stem cell plasticity: recapping the decade, mapping the future” Experimental hematology, 38(7), 529-539. Ulrich, H 2010, Perspectives of stem cells: from tools for studying mechanisms of neuronal differentiation towards therapy, Springer, Dordrecht [etc.]. Wang, XW, Grisham, JW &Thorgeirsson, SS 2011, Molecular genetics of liver neoplasia, Springer, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6082-5. Read More