Doctors grow new bladders

I don't know how or why I missed this, but I found a very interesting report from the Washington Post from April of this year.

Researchers said yesterday that they have grown complete urinary bladders in a laboratory and transplanted them into patients, improving their health and achieving a Holy Grail of medicine: the first cultivation of working replacements for failing solid organs in people.
The "neo-bladders," each one grown in a small laboratory container from a pinch of a patient's own cells, have been working in seven young patients for an average of almost four years, according to a report released yesterday by the British journal the Lancet. The organs have remained free of the many complications that bedevil the conventional practice of surgically constructing bladders from other tissues.

According to the article, no embryonic stem cells were used in growing the new bladders. That's great information for possible future health issues.
My decision is still out on embryonic stem cell research. I don't know enough about the issue to decide. On one hand, I believe we should be looking to cure every and all conditions and diseases we can and I have a hard time believing that it's OK to flush embryos from fertility clinics down the drain, rather than use them for research. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
I have a hard time believing its OK to kill anyone, embryo, fetus, newborn or a 115 year old senior living in a nursing home.
On the other hand, I have no issue with adult stem cell research, or umbilical cord stem cells, or even fetus stem cells if the cells can be taken without harming life.
But depending on which report you read, the research seems to go both ways on how much advantage embryonic stem cells might have over other stem cells.
I would love to see the conservatives (or anyone else) stand up and say "While we realize there may be ethical issues involved with embryonic stem cells, we'll fund research of umbilical cord stem cells, adult stem cells and others."
Quit arguing over embryonic stem cells and lets find a common ground with other cells that we know will not harm a life.

In contrast to research on embryonic stem cells, non-embryonic stem cell research has already resulted in numerous instances of actual clinical benefit to patients. For example, patients suffering from a whole host of afflictions -- including (but not limited to) Parkinson's disease, autoimmune diseases, stroke, anemia, cancer, immunodeficiency, corneal damage, blood and liver diseases, heart attack, and diabetes -- have experienced improved function following administration of therapies derived from adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells. The long-held belief that non-embryonic stem cells are less able to differentiate into multiple cell types or be sustained in the laboratory over an extended period of time --rendering them less medically-promising than embryonic stem cells -- has been repeatedly challenged by experimental results that have suggested otherwise.

If this is true, why are we not funding more research on adult stem cells? Chris Bell said in a phone interview last week that he would propose spending $30 million on stem cell research if elected. He didn't clarify if that was for embryonic or all stem cell research - but given the context of the interview, I would guess it would go towards embryonic.
If I were Gov. "McDreamy" I'd propose spending $30 million on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research in Texas right away. Show the supporters of embryonic stem cell research that there are other options. Prove it to us.
For more articles and information on other stem cell options, visit The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics