Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Latest News on Stem-Cell ResearchFollow

#1 Jun 06 2007 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The news wrote:
Scientists have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails and rewinding their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, according to studies released today.

If the discovery applies to human cells -- and researchers are optimistic that it will -- it would offer a straightforward method for creating a limitless supply of cell lines tailor-made for patients without any ethical strings attached.

Three research groups said they accomplished their feat by activating four genes that are turned on in days-old embryos. Some of the rejuvenated cells grew into new mice, demonstrating the cells' ability to create every type of tissue in the body.

"This is truly the Holy Grail -- to be able to take a few cells from a patient, say a cheek swab or some skin cells, and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Dr. Robert Lanza, an embryonic stem cell researcher and head of scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., who was not involved in the research. "It would be like turning lead into gold."

MIT biologist Rudolf Jaenisch, who worked on two of the studies, said there are still "lots and lots of technical hurdles to overcome." Some of the thorniest problems might take years to resolve despite the fact that mice and humans share many fundamental aspects of cell biology.
Excellent news. Doesn't change my opinion on embryonic stem cell research and I believe that we could be years further along if we didn't have people debating the ethics of pulling cells from an embryo for research vs. throwing it into an incinerator, but if this pans out in a way to jump-start the federal funding, then so be it.

There's supposed to be a House vote on ESC research funding tomorrow and, hopefully, it will pass and not be held up by this.

Edited, Jun 6th 2007 2:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jun 06 2007 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
I would like to order several pairs of lungs. Do they accept paypal?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#3 Jun 06 2007 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not lungs, but the can product other things...
Science Daily wrote:
Doctors in Italy used stem cells to reconstruct vaginas for two patients suffering from rare malformations.

The vaginal tissue was grown using stem cells from the patients’ own bodies, ANSA said Wednesday.

In the first case, a 28-year-old woman received a tiny square of mucous membrane a year ago and has since grown a ******. A 17-year-old girl underwent the same procedure Tuesday in Rome’s Umberto I hospital.

Approximately one in every 5,000 female infants is born without a ******, the news service said.
Smiley: eek
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Jun 06 2007 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
Approximately one in every 5,000 female infants is born without a ******, the news service said.


Around here, we call them drag queens.
#5 Jun 06 2007 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Bad j00 j00
Avatar
***
2,159 posts
I wonder if the cells they use suffer the same problem that Dolly clones suffered. Since Dolly was aged (I forget how old she was), her clones were essentially that old when they were born. They didn't live long lives because their cells had already multiplied and aged as Dolly.

I realize this is different, but it might not be. I'm not a biologist.
#6 Jun 06 2007 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't think the Dolly situation applies because that was "mature" DNA injected into the egg/embryo (my memory fails me here). Point being that it didn't involve embryonic stem cells aside from the normal development of the embryo.

The full article does mention that ~10% of the mice injected with the "artifical" embryonic stem cells developed tumors. It didn't say whether the tumors were malignant or not and the cells could still be an incredibly useful tool for initial research even if they prove unsuitable for actual theraputic use.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Jun 06 2007 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
I spoke to a guy this week who worked on an old chap who was blind through Macular Degeneration. They took cells from the unaffected sides of his retina and slapped 'em in the affected part. After 20 years he watches TV and reads.

"Aha!" you cry "Those weren't stem cells!"

Correct, I reposte, with hand on hip and a monocle in me right eye. But the technique was a bye-product of SCR.

Strikes me that organised God-Botherers can try as they might to put the brakes on science, but it will find a way.

Without the Cafflick Church, I'm convinced we'd have sorted out alchemy by now
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#8 Jun 06 2007 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Trib wrote:
An example of the complicated research picture arose on Wednesday, when teams from the U.S. and Japan published studies showing they could reprogram skin cells from adult mice to behave like embryonic stem cells.

Some critics of embryonic research hailed the reports as proof that embryonic stem cells are obsolete. But the researchers themselves rejected that conclusion, saying that applying the work to humans will require far more research on many kinds of stem cells.
Shades of the last thread we had on this with the amniotic stem cells. Speaking of ole Doc Atala, let's see what he's had to say about his own research ever since Gbaji declared himself more knowledgable in the area of stem cell research and said that the amniotic cells could do anything ESCs could...
Quote:
This year, for example, Atala published a paper detailing a novel method of obtaining stem cells from amniotic fluid. Critics of embryonic research cheered the method as a replacement for embryonic stem cells, but Atala says it is not that simple.

So far, Atala said, it seems that his cells may be more stable than embryonic cells and less prone to produce tumors in patients—but they also appear to be less versatile.
[...]
Part of the value of embryonic stem cells is the genetic flexibility that lets them develop into different cell types. Left unchecked, the cells can form a kind of benign tumor called a teratoma, which contains many kinds of tissue. In fact, the ability to form teratomas is part of the scientific definition of embryonic stem cells.

Because amniotic-derived stem cells do not form tumors, "it stands to reason that they will not be as nimble" as embryonic stem cells, Atala said.
Huh. So they're not exactly the same just as Atala predicted they may not be. Fancy that.

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 1:11am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jun 06 2007 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
If they can grow entire vaginas, lord knows what this will do to the male enhancement industry.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#10 Jun 06 2007 at 11:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Good luck getting your mouse tail-like ***** beyond its embryonic stage there, Jo. Maybe next Congressional session?

Totem
#11 Jun 07 2007 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Fourth Estate wrote:
The Democratic-controlled Congress passed legislation Thursday to loosen restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, but the bill's supporters lacked the votes needed to override President Bush's threatened veto.

The 247-176 House vote marked the second time in recent weeks that Democratic leaders chose to confront Bush over an issue on which they command widespread public support, following a veto struggle over a proposed troop withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Jun 07 2007 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The Nadenu of Doom wrote:
Quote:
Approximately one in every 5,000 female infants is born without a ******, the news service said.


Around here, we call them drag queens.


I'm on a call with a user who sounds like Ben Stein. I just laughed in his ear.

I hate you.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Jun 07 2007 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
I'm on a call with a user who sounds like Ben Stein. I just laughed in his ear.
Will Mr. Stein be getting his $4.95/min reimbursed for the lost erection?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Jun 07 2007 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Wow, that's great! I'd like my own ******, please. And a new pair of eyes. And knees.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Jun 07 2007 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Part of the value of embryonic stem cells is the genetic flexibility that lets them develop into different cell types. Left unchecked, the cells can form a kind of benign tumor called a teratoma, which contains many kinds of tissue. In fact, the ability to form teratomas is part of the scientific definition of embryonic stem cells.

Because amniotic-derived stem cells do not form tumors, "it stands to reason that they will not be as nimble" as embryonic stem cells, Atala said.
Huh. So they're not exactly the same just as Atala predicted they may not be. Fancy that.


Of course there different. One is embryonic, the other amniotic. However, the difference here is the formation of the benign tumors. If that's your definition, then of course that's going to define the difference between them. It's circular.

However, it should be noted that the tumor formation has been the biggest obstacle to ESC. Scientists have had a hard time controlling the growth of those tumors and getting them to actually do anthing other then form more tumors. They've had much more success with forms of stem cells that *don't* form those tumor structures. He can call that "more nimble", but that's also the very thing that making ESC less useful. The question is whether or not those problems are worth solving. Do we *need* those "more nimble" cells to do what we need for medical reasons. Even if they are better at doing something, that doesn't mean they are required to do that thing.

We make decisions all the time to do things in a more difficult/costly way because the socio-ethical repurcussions are lessened. We do this with pollution. It would be much cheaper and easier not to control pollution in our industry. We choose to pay more for things because we'd rather not pollute in the process. I see no difference here.


I'd also like to point out that it's somewhat silly to complain or dismiss arguments that arise with new research like this. The entire argument for harvesting embryos for stem cells is that only ESCs can do X, Y, and Z. I think it's quite reasonable that when a study shows we can do X, Y, or Z using some other method to suggest that we don't actually need to harvest embryos. At the very least is weakens the argument that *only* ESC can do those things...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jun 07 2007 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Samira wrote:
The Nadenu of Doom wrote:
Quote:
Approximately one in every 5,000 female infants is born without a ******, the news service said.


Around here, we call them drag queens.


I'm on a call with a user who sounds like Ben Stein. I just laughed in his ear.

I hate you.


Smiley: clown
#17 Jun 07 2007 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We make decisions all the time to do things in a more difficult/costly way because the socio-ethical repurcussions are lessened.
I have yet to hear a socio-ethical reason why research on cells from willingly donated embryos from IVF procedures is worse than the alternative. If you have one, please share.
Quote:
However, it should be noted that the tumor formation has been the biggest obstacle to ESC
No, it hasn't. That's not to say it's not an issue, but it's not the greatest one. I'm not really willing to get into another lengthy thread with you after watching you display your ignorance the last couple of times so I'll just invite you to heavily cite your claims from here on out.
Quote:
I'd also like to point out that it's somewhat silly to complain or dismiss arguments that arise with new research like this. The entire argument for harvesting embryos for stem cells is that only ESCs can do X, Y, and Z.
So far, the concensus is still that ESCs are unique in their capabilities. Amniotic cells have shown great potential but the reseachers involved still admit that they aren't quite the same. I mean, feel free to keep arguing the point but I'm going to trust that the researchers can make more qualified statements regarding it than you can.

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 6:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jun 07 2007 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I have yet to hear a socio-ethical reason why research on cells from willingly donated embryos from IVF procedures is worse than the alternative. If you have one, please share.


Well. If I were to take the standard pro-life argument: The embryo's didn't "willingly donate" themselves for medical research. At the risk of making yet another analogy, I'm sure slave owners "willingly donated" their property (the slaves) for all sorts of things back in the day. The issue is whether or not you believe that embryo's have rights. And it's a relevant ethical issue all on its own.

Ignoring that argument though, there's another one as well. Today, we have sufficient left over embryos from IVF to provide for research into ESC. However, IVF is a rare and expensive process. Currently, it's performed purely for the purpose of fertilization. However, if we assume that the research bears fruit (and that has to be the assumption behind funding it in the first place), then we must assume that the demand for those cells will increase at some point in the future. Will IVF at some point stop being about fertilizing and start to be about harvesting stem cells? Given the cost of the proceedure, might we not start seeing companies cutting that cost to encourage more couples to undergo it, with a contractual stipulation that they provide X number of "leftover" embryos so the company can offset its costs by selling the stem cells?

And, if we should develop some supercure, will we be able to prevent the public demand that we churn out ESC as quickly as possible? Will we see clinics paying women for their eggs for just this purpose? Will we see fertilization of whole batches of embryos purely so they can be harvested? Can you say for certain this *wont* happen? At the very least, it's an ethical concern that we should consider *before* we embark down the path we're headed.

And before you say "slipperly slope!" consider the realities of the situation. If our assumption for using embryos for research is that ESC will provide us with cures that cannot be obtained from other types of stem cells (that is the whole argument, right)? Then we must ask whether or not the current rate of "natural" IVF leftovers will be sufficient to meet the demand of those future cures/proceedures. If the answer is "no", then what do you think will happen? I can't find a result that does not end up with us fertilizing and harvesting embryos purely for their stem cells at some point down the line. It behooves us then to answer the ethical questions *now*. Not later.


There. You asked for just one. I gave you *two* ethical concerns. And I know that I've mentioned these same two issues the last several times we discussed this subject, so I'm a bit confused how you can claim to have never heard one...

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 6:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Jun 07 2007 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Well. If I were to take the standard pro-life argument: The embryo's didn't "willingly donate" themselves for medical research. At the risk of making yet another analogy, I'm sure slave owners "willingly donated" their property (the slaves) for all sorts of things back in the day. The issue is whether or not you believe that embryo's have rights. And it's a relevant ethical issue all on its own.


Well, I didn't read the chapter on slave history where they got incinerated as medical waste. My bad for skipping class, I guess.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#20 Jun 07 2007 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The point is that they were treated as property. Just like these embryos are. In a couple hundred years will we look on what we're doing with just as much distaste?

Joph asked for an ethical argument. I gave him two. Point being that there are valid ethical issues here. Just pretending that there aren't and dismissing anyone who disagrees is silly. If they weren't legitimate ethical concerns why are so many people opposed to ESC? It's not like they have something to gain here... Occam's Razor tells me that they must really believe that this is a big ethical deal. Even if others don't, they do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jun 07 2007 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Medical waste.

Just thought that bore repeating.

I realize some people are against destroying embryos in any fashion whatsoever. (That position, of course, conveniently ignores the redundant embryos that are implanted during IVF that don't survive.) However, the hard fact is that viable embryos that are no longer needed for IVF are destroyed, to the benefit of no one.

Slavery had a point, horrendous as the system was.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#22 Jun 07 2007 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
I realize some people are against destroying embryos in any fashion whatsoever. (That position, of course, conveniently ignores the redundant embryos that are implanted during IVF that don't survive.) However, the hard fact is that viable embryos that are no longer needed for IVF are destroyed, to the benefit of no one.


Sure. And the organ donator will die someday too. Eric Idle would be proud...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Jun 07 2007 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The embryo's didn't "willingly donate" themselves for medical research.
Or to being thrown in a fire. But we're good with that. Try again.

I'll also add that, if my child was to become braindead and kept alive via machine and the doctors requested that they be allowed to harvest his organs, it would be in my power to grant this request. Therefore, the idea that parents of frozen embryos can't consent to those embryos being used in medical research simply doesn't follow.
Quote:
Today, we have sufficient left over embryos from IVF to provide for research into ESC...
Slippery Slope!
Quote:
And before you say "slipperly slope!" consider the realities of the situation.
Too late.
Quote:
If our assumption for using embryos for research is that ESC will provide us with cures that cannot be obtained from other types of stem cells (that is the whole argument, right)? Then we must ask whether or not the current rate of "natural" IVF leftovers will be sufficient to meet the demand of those future cures/proceedures.
You are aware that they can grow additional stem cells, right? Hence Bush's original plan that all the research could be done off of the existing cells lines grown onto murine protein ladders? That not every experiment or treatment requires a fresh embryo?
Quote:
I gave you *two* ethical concerns
And, boy, were they poorly thought out!

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 8:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jun 07 2007 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll also add that, if my child was to become braindead and kept alive via machine and the doctors requested that they be allowed to harvest his organs, it would be in my power to grant this request. Therefore, the idea that parents of frozen embryos can't consent to those embryos being used in medical research simply doesn't follow.


And if your child could survive and be fully functional and live a full life? Would you believe you still had that right? Heck. We had a *huge* debate over whether a grown woman who'd been brain dead for a decade could be killed. We can discuss the validity of the arguments on both sides, but the point is that this *is* a valid ethical issue.

Any one of those embryos could be implanted and live full and productive lives Joph. That's where your analogy breaks apart.

Having said that, I'll grant that this isn't the strongest arguemnt from my point of view. However, it clearly is from many other people's. I think it's absurd to simply dismiss other people's ethical concerns purely because you don't happen to share them. I may not agree with many other people's beliefs, but I try to respect them. This is a case where that applies IMO.



Quote:
Quote:
If our assumption for using embryos for research is that ESC will provide us with cures that cannot be obtained from other types of stem cells (that is the whole argument, right)? Then we must ask whether or not the current rate of "natural" IVF leftovers will be sufficient to meet the demand of those future cures/proceedures.
You are aware that they can grow additional stem cells, right? Hence Bush's original plan that all the research could be done off of the existing cells lines grown onto murine protein ladders? That not every experiment or treatment requires a fresh embryo?


Great! Problem solved then. There's no need for federal funding for additional stem cells then, right?

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 7:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jun 07 2007 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if your child could survive and be fully functional and live a full life? Would you believe you still had that right?
What of it? That's not a realistic claim to make that every single excess embryo can be implanted and come to term. I've cited the Snowflake numbers often enough already but the point is that even the Snowflake program can't use up its donated embryos quickly enough.
Quote:
Any one of those embryos could be implanted and live full and productive lives Joph.
No, it couldn't. Embryos have a limited span of viability even prior to being frozen. Ones that are frozen continue to lose viability. Eventually, you're just going to burn it.
Quote:
I'll grant that this isn't the strongest arguemnt from my point of view.
Good, because it was **** poor.
Quote:
Great! Problem solved then. There's no need for federal funding for additional stem cells then, right?
The fact that you'd even ask shows how little you know about the topic beyond what the AM radio shows feed you.

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 9:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jun 07 2007 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
*****
15,952 posts
There is a massive difference between what something has the potential to be, and what it actually is, right now.

The scientific statistcs are: Within the first two months of a natural pregnancy, 5 out of every 8 pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.

Please stop a moment, and think seriously about where the majority of fertile, viable embryos end up.

This has been known forever. At various times as an adolescent, I got told by various female relatives: Never, Ever! tell anyone except a doctor you are pregnant, before the first two months are up. No-one! Not your Mum, not your sisters, not your partner. Unless there's some emergency reason he has to know. Because you can't count on keeping a pregnancy until after the third month!

(Of course it was also drummed into me: you can't count on a natural miscarriage to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. There's no shutting your eyes and hoping it'll go away.)

Anyway, us educated girls know a baby is forever, but an embryo isn't necessarily forever, and not to get attached too soon.

As a potential mother, I am happy fertilised embryos get used in medical research. It's a far far better destination than the tip or the sewerage plant, which is where the majority of fertile embryos naturally end up.

Edited, Jun 7th 2007 11:46pm by Aripyanfar
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 280 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)