I'm actually a little ashamed to admit that before MS became a factor in my life, I didn't pay much mind to stem cell research. All I really knew about the subject was that Christopher Reeves was an advocate, and it was a controversial issue for the pro-lifers. Now that I have a disease which could very well one day benefit from this research, and perhaps in some ways already is, I want to know more. Bear in mind that I am coming at this issue from a blank slate, and the questions I am attempting to answer for myself are pretty basic. Hopefully not all of you are as dim on the subject as I, and if you have any corrections for me, by all means. If any of this stuff is new to you, then I encourage you to take this as a starting point and further it with more detailed research of your own.

What are stem cells? What do they do? Why are they so important?
Stem cells can be seen as a kind of building block in the world of cells. What makes stem cells so interesting is that they are an undifferentiated type of cell, meaning they are essentially a blank page. They are able to divide and make copies of themselves, often times becoming a "specialized" cell such as a brain cell or a red blood cell for example. Another good way to look at stem cells is as a sort of healer, since it is through them that things like the gut and bone marrow are able to be replenished with appropriate specialized cells following damage or wear and tear, due to disease or injury.

 Embryonic and adult stem cells are the two main types of stem cells. While both types of stem cells are of course undifferentiated, generally when adult stem cells are divided they can only become a specialized cell which belongs to the tissue or organ from which it originated. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand, are known as pluripotent, meaning they can and do become all cell types in the human body. Scientists are divided on whether or not adult stem cells can be used to create a specialized cell for any tissue or organ from which it did not originate. This is one of the many research questions that scientists are working to answer.

So obviously we'd all be screwed without a kiss if it weren't for stem cells. It is the stem cells found in the embryo which work to create us, and our specialized cells that then birth our most vital organs. They are not only a sort of foundation, but also a huge part of renewal and regeneration.  

What are the pros and cons for both embryonic and adult stem cells?

On the plus side of embryonic stem cells is the fact that they are pluripotent, and have pretty much boundless potential to make any other sort of cell we may need. They are also immortal in the sense that one cell line can provide an endless amount of cell lines with specialized characteristics. They are also available in fairly large quantities from fertilization clinics, being that many fertilized eggs are never even implanted into the uterus and thus donated for research. Some of the cons for embryonic stem cells is that they are capable of forming tumors or promoting the formation of tumors. Also, accepting stem cells from a random embryo donor carries with it the risk of rejection. I for one suck at rejection, but it generally doesn't keep me from trying.

 And now onto the adult stem cells. The cons include the fact that they aren't as easy to obtain in large numbers, they don't live nearly as long in research cultures, and are much less flexible than their embryonic counterpart in their ability to become specialized. On the pro side of things, adult stem cells do not carry with them the risk of rejection, because if we are receiving this sort of therapy, it would be coming from our own personal stock. Recent research has also found that adult type stem cells from both bone marrow as well umbilical chords have been found to have more flexibility than those found in other adult tissues/organs, and could be capable of differentiating into cells that aren't native to their tissue of origin. 

On a related "pros and cons" sort of note, neurons are pretty important business for those of us with MS, being that we are forever in battle with our nervous systems. Unfortunately with adult stem cells, scientists haven't been able to identify and isolate neural progenitors which are what develop into neurons and other nervous system cells. In this case embryonic stem cells would be a better match for being able to create these sorts of cells. 

What is the flipping controversy?

Obviously the main controversy with stem cell research comes from ethical issues involved with the use and destruction of human embryos. Some people believe that human life begins once an egg is fertilized. Either way there are a number of fertilized eggs which will never see the light at the end of the birth canal, whether they're used for research purposes or not. Embryos which have been donated for research come from fertilization clinics. Once a couple/woman has completed a family, and does not wish to implant any more of the embryos, there are one of three options to choose from: donate the embryo to another woman/couple; allow the clinic to discard the embryo; or donate it for research.

I'm not going to get all soap-boxy here, but I will say I'm not exactly the 700 Club type, and I have a disease that will most likely eventually benefit from embryonic stem cell research. This is obviously a no-brainer for me. I'm all for less atrophy, eventually.

How is stem cell research going to be helpful for those of us living with MS?

Stem cell research, most likely from an embryonic source, could have the potential to help those of us living with MS repair and even protect brain tissue. Being able to find new ways to treat MS is also a potential, since stem cells can become human brain cells in lab dishes and then be used to test different treatments. Another huge factor in stem cell research and it's potential benefits for MS is in learning what the underlying causes of MS are. If we know how we got here, or why we have this disease, then every other aspect of this disease and it's research are going to benefit.

All of this sounds pretty flipping enticing to me. To be totally realistic however, all of these findings via stem cell research may be a long way off, however the hope that potential further research holds is incredible. We still have some major hurdles to cross before we can begin to really get into the nitty gritty. Helping open peoples minds to how life changing this research actually is will be a huge factor in getting the funding aspect (which is VITAL) more on track, which brings me to my next question...

What is this stuff in the news about Obama lifting a ban on research?

On March 9th of this year President Obama lifted Bush's stem cell policy through an executive order. By overturning Bush's stem cell policy, the doors were opened for further human embryonic stem cell lines that were eligible for federally funded research. When I heard this news I knew it meant something important was moving forward, but again, I was totally ignorant on what Bush's stem cell policy even was, and what Obama’s order meant to do. So here's what I have come to discover....

In order for shit to really get done in terms of research, federal money is key. The amount of money we need in this field of research is huge, so private funds aren't really going to cut it. The problem with this is that the Bush administration (which is no longer... WOO!) had some major ethical issue with embryonic stem cell research. This being the case, there were ultimately only 22 approved cell lines available for researchers through federal funding, and they were all contaminated by nutrients from mouse cells. This means that they wouldn't most likely not be available for clinical use in humans. 

Luckily there are some major changes in the works with Obama in office, as mentioned above, he has lifted the ban on limiting federally funded research on embryonic stem cell lines, meaning the number of stem cell lines available to researchers will increase. However this doesn't mean that federal money has magically appeared to get the ball rolling. According to the latest issue of Neurology Now, federal funding at the National Institute of Health is the lowest it's been in 25 years. Looks like there's more work to do...