backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by desertvet.. on Apr 4 at 9:22 AM

Researchers announce possible treatments for two deadly and previously untreatable diseases

Researchers around the world are spending enormous amounts of time and money looking for treatments and cures to various diseases like cancer and neurological conditions. Scientists aren’t ruling out any type of treatment to combat these deadly diseases including genetic therapy and the use of stem cells.

Last week scientists from Yale working with researchers from Asuragen, Inc. announced they found a treatment that has performed well in lab mice for treating lung cancer using micro RNA (miRNA). The miRNA used in the study is called let-7.

Let-7 has been found to be present in reduced amounts in cancerous lung tumors. The low concentrations of this let-7 miRNA are thought to contribute to the development of lung tumors. The work of the researchers has demonstrated that the miRNA inhibits the growth of lung tumors and cancer cells in culture and lab mice.

Senior study author Frank Slack said in a statement, “We believe this is the first report of a miRNA being used to a beneficial effect on any cancer, let alone lung cancers, the deadliest of all cancers worldwide.” The researchers believe that let-7 miRNA applied as a intranasal drug could be a viable treatment for lung cancer.

This breakthrough follows just hours after another group announced a possible treatment for Parkinson’s disease, a fatal illness that currently has no treatment or cure. Researchers from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York have shown that cloned embryonic stem cells can be used to treat Parkinson’s like conditions in mice.

The researchers found that stem cells cloned from the mouse’s own body were less disruptive to its body that cloned cells taken from other mice. The researchers got the cloned embryonic stem cells by taking ordinary cells from the tail of the mouse and transferring the nuclei from the cells into hollowed out mouse egg cells, making clones of the mouse.

The embryonic stem cells were then harvested from the cloned embryos after a few days, coaxed into becoming the type of brain cells lost due to the chemicals used on the mouse to cause the Parkinson’s like state. Once the needed brain cells were grown they were implanted into the brain of the affected mouse.  The mouse got better.

Reuters quotes researcher Viviane Tabar as saying, “It demonstrated what we suspected all along -- that genetically matched tissue works better. It's incredibly hard [growing and implanting the cells] and it involves a series of inefficient steps," Tabar said.

While considerable debate rages over the use of cloned embryonic stem cells, there is little doubt as to the ability of the stem cell to help treat a myriad of conditions and disease states. DailyTech reported in February 2008 that researchers used stem cells to treat diabetes in mice.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Regardless of your beliefs
By FITCamaro on 3/24/2008 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 5
I just don't see how you can say that curing disease is a bad thing. As long as we're not growing lifeforms specifically to harvest body parts from, I think we're within the bounds of ethical science. Growing some embryos that wouldn't form a life if we let them isn't the same as abortion or anything.

I say this as someone who's against abortion.




RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By djkrypplephite on 3/24/2008 1:55:40 PM , Rating: 3
That's up to opinion. The people against it believe that pretty much the second a sperm gets into the egg, a new life is formed, and that's where the debate is.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By tastyratz on 3/24/2008 2:33:53 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed.

Just because there are 2 extremes to a side (those who may be full force pro life and those who may be pro abortion) doesn't mean there cant be varying shades of gray. This isn't scientific proof were debating its a specific individuals definition of life and any moral/ethical concerns. Although I support stem cell research just as you there are those who have concerns because to them it might be morally wrong, or they just simply fear how far humanity will take this like all other things once they "get their foot in the door"


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By JoshuaBuss on 3/24/2008 4:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
That shade of gray seems to have a pretty well-defined line already.. a very large majority of people are against abortions performed after the second trimester, but not nearly as many are against it before then. Seems like we should just draw the line there and call it a day.

Aside from drawing the line of legality there, I don't think the government should enforce any other laws on something so personal. No one has the right to tell other women what they should or shouldn't do with their often accidental pregnancies... if they go through with an abortion I think living with that for the rest of their life will be punishment enough.

So for this stem cell research stuff, let's just come to terms with the fact that these harvested stem cells are going to do more good then harm. It's not a slippery slope if we already know how far we have to go to see benefit from the research. I'm sure if someone started growing third-trimester, almost born babies for body parts it wouldn't be tolerated.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By tastyratz on 3/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By desertvet on 4/4/2008 9:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
An organ doesn't have the potential of becoming a conscious being.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By zinfamous on 3/25/2008 1:07:42 PM , Rating: 3
the caveat is that it isn't "pro-abortion," but "pro-choice." No one really likes abortion; it's a rather extreme decision for someone to make. The pro-choice crowd advocates that option should be available for those who really need it.

as for stem cells. speaking as someone who works in molecular genetics, and works with ES cells (mouse), my argument has always been that insemination is no guarantee of life occurring. So much can happen between insemination and up to and beyond blastula stage that will halt development. The process of cell division begins, but natural miscarriages are a part of reality, and always will be.

We also do IVF in our facility. One of our co-workers worked in a human IVF clinic with experience performing ICSI (injecting individual sperm into an oocyte--higher percentage of fertilization). She attests that IVF clinics routinely toss out frozen embryos after they have been fertilized. The debate around this issue is pretty silly, being that it's fostered by those who have no experience in the field. It takes physical space to house embryos, and such space is not infinite. Also, when per diems cost clients ~$50 per month to house their embryos, they aren't going to be willing to pay this ad infinitum. Embryos are frozen as backup, in the event that the initial implantation does not lead to pregnancy, or if the couple chooses this method for further pregnancies. No2 is also quite spendy.

simply put, individual IVF clinics can not function if they were expected to house frozen embryos for eternity. Those that argue that IVF clinics do this, only look at the theory of cryogenics, in that embryos, if frozen properly over infinite years, will still be viable. Indeed, this is the case, but doesn't touch on reality. No one will maintain embryos for this amount of time.

The issue that remains after this, then, is why toss out fertilized embryos? For those that think this is life, then it is indeed wasting life, and will always happen. Why not, then, put those embryos to use by potentially saving the lives of countless others.

For a man, and administration, that believes sacrificing the lives of his own soldiers, and 150,000+ innocent Iraqis is worth the cost of a very unlikely peace in a historically contentious region, to approach the actual facts behind stem cell research and IVF, yet hold the opposite moral viewpoint, is beyond hypocritical. And frankly, rather disgusting.

Sorry for the politics, but this is a sensitive issue with me. And when a jackass administration effs with my job and potential income b/c he uses blatantly false info to support a morally unjust side of a serious life-saving field of research....I get bitter.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 1:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
This administration was the first one to even consider the ethical dilemmas of this research by appointing a highly qualified multi-disciplinary council to prepare a report on it. Ultimately the council made its recommendations based on the research out there. The report was published. If you take issue with the facts it contains, I'd be interested to hear more.

If your field (ESC research) shows more than the twilight of promise that it has historically (being far eclipsed by adult stem cell therapies), then the issue will likely be reconsidered by a future administration. I realize that, by your view, you're hamstring by the current regulations.

While one side argues that the embryos will be wasted is research isn't done, the other side says it never should get to that point, and that by allowing 'some good to come of it' they are condoning that scenario that should not have been.

Though I disagree with your view, I think you laid it out well, and I can understand being upset; I work in pharma and the political prophecies of socialized medicine make me upset out of a fear for my paycheck and my industry, which, ultimately is in the business of helping people.

Dynamics like this balance our country well, in the end.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/24/2008 4:32:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The people against it believe that pretty much the second a sperm gets into the egg, a new life is formed, and that's where the debate is.
And how many of those people are against organ transplants? I honestly don't see where the difference is.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By phattyboombatty on 3/24/2008 5:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is that organ transplants are voluntary.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/24/2008 9:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
So is this. An embryo legally has as much say in the matter at anyone under 18 does. The parents have the power in either case.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By phattyboombatty on 3/25/2008 10:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Parents do not have carte blanche to make any decision they want for their child. Every decision they make for a child must be in the best interest of the child. If a parent needed a kidney transplant, they could not force their 16-year old child to donate the kidney to them.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 11:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take your strawman and throw it back at you. At what age should someone be able to object, and why? Should a 4 year old be allowed to dent their sibling a kidney?

And let's get back to the valid comparison. The embryo is about to be destroyed. It has no way of indicating its "wishes" on the matter. Just like that braindead 16 year old (or anybody without a living will, for that matter) who doesn't have any say. You propose that it's better to let the cells/organs die than to transplant them. I say that is absurd.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 11:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
It was hardly a strawman. Medical procedures have to be in the best interest of the patient. What he proposed isn't that we respect an embryo's 'wishes', but that we respect its life. It is a distinct difference.

Were the arguement as simple as you make it out to be, the matter would have been settled long ago.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 12:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
And as I noted, the "patient" in this case is about to be thrown in an incinerator. A heart transplant is not done for the benefit of the one giving up the heart. But they're already effectively dead, so it doesn't matter. Same as with the embryos on death row.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 1:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. Some would argue that we shouldn't have let it get to that point, though. This is reflected in the current administration's limited support of ESC research.


By phattyboombatty on 3/25/2008 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your fact scenario has changed since your initial post. I will grant you that there is not much difference between a harvested embryo that is no longer viable and the harvesting of organs from a deceased minor child, where in both cases the parents have consented.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By phattyboombatty on 3/25/2008 12:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At what age should someone be able to object, and why?


When a child has reached the age of majority (usually 18), they are allowed to make their own medical decisions. Prior to that time, the child's parents are entrusted to make medical decisions on behalf of the child, because the child is not yet competent to make complex medical decisions. However, the parents' decisions regarding their children's medical care are to be made in the best interests of the child.

quote:
Should a 4 year old be allowed to dent their sibling a kidney?


I'm not sure what you mean by "dent" here. I'll assume you mean "donate." This decision would be made by the 4-year old's parents, taking into account the best interests of the 4-year old.

quote:
And let's get back to the valid comparison. The embryo is about to be destroyed. It has no way of indicating its "wishes" on the matter.


A six-month old baby has no way of indicating its "wishes" on whether it would like to continue living. However, the law says that the baby has the right to continue living. As I've stated, parents are entrusted with making decisions on behalf of the child (who cannot indicate their "wishes" independently) taking into account the best interests of the child.

quote:
Just like that braindead 16 year old (or anybody without a living will, for that matter) who doesn't have any say.


The 16-year old in my example wasn't braindead. I'm not sure why you thought that. In the situation where a child has died or death is imminent, the choice of whether to harvest the child's organs rests with the parents. Obviously, since the child is dead or about to be dead, the "best interests" qualifier does not really apply in those cases.

quote:
You propose that it's better to let the cells/organs die than to transplant them. I say that is absurd.


Please show me where I proposed this. After reading your last reply, I have the impression that when you originally talked about organ transplanting, you were talking about the specific scenario of harvesting organs after a donor has died or is about to die. If this had been clear in the original post, it would obviously have changed the dynamics of this discussion.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 1:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After reading your last reply, I have the impression that when you originally talked about organ transplanting, you were talking about the specific scenario of harvesting organs after a donor has died or is about to die. If this had been clear in the original post, it would obviously have changed the dynamics of this discussion.
We're talking about whether or not to get material from something before it is destroyed. There is no "continue to 'live'" option involved. I assumed you were just ignoring that out of convenience.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, but it's not that simple. Your opponents don't think it should get to that point, but the reality is that it does. So what to do now? Condone it? What does that do for their arguement? It shows that if you can get into such a situation (no 'continue to live' option) before anyone can stop you, people who are against it will let you do it, which is also, a reality.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Those people are wrong. They have come to their reasoning out of a combination of ignorance and stubbornness, and I regret that they are paid any attention to. Thankfully, it appears that the next administration will be run by someone who is not wrong on this particular subject.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 2:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - they're wrong, huh? Why? Because you say so? Maybe you could provide some substantiation for such a baseless claim. I've given plenty, and I've given plenty of thought and reading to the subject, which I've laid out.

The current administration did likewise, as it was the first to appoint an interdisciplinary bioethics council for this exact issue. Ethics must be carefully considered and weighed against the potential advantages of any research, and that's exactly what Bush did.

It's not a position arrived at out of stubbornes, and it certainly isn't one arrived at out of ignorance - you might try reading the report yourself. Contrary to what some may think, the people who hold this position are not ignorant people who defend inconsistent positions to the death - many are just as educated, some much more so than you or I on the subject.

Since you're familiar with logical fallacies, and you often quote them, you must certainly realize that you just stereotyped an entire group so that you could blast their position with an ad hominem attack. If that's all you've got left, then any further discourse on the subject is rather futile.

Good day.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 7:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they're wrong, huh? Why? Because you say so? Maybe you could provide some substantiation for such a baseless claim.
Most people find it pretty self evident. Those who agree with them would generally never change their mind short of finding themselves in need of some therapy that stem cells may help with.
quote:
The current administration did likewise, as it was the first to appoint an interdisciplinary bioethics council for this exact issue.
Great way to add credibility to your side. Even when Bush's approval ratings were in the 70s, most people were against his policy on this.
quote:
Since you're familiar with logical fallacies, and you often quote them, you must certainly realize that you just stereotyped an entire group so that you could blast their position with an ad hominem attack.
I simply can't respect anyone who holds that position, and while I recognize the possibility of exceptions, those few who have tried to argue with me on it have all reinforced my view of themselves as a group.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By KCjoker on 3/24/2008 6:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
This debate could be EASILY avoided. There are other ways to get embryonic stem cells like from umbilical cords. However you very rarely hear that in the media.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By werepossum on 3/24/2008 7:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
These methods involve making and cloning stem cells from your own body, not from strangers. The one issue that many stem cell advocates miss is rejection of foreign matter; a fetal stem cell injection is literally a tiny little organ transplant, and successfully using such a therapy requires nuking your immune system just like for an organ transplant. Certainly freezing your umbilical cord at birth would greatly help if you grow up to need stem cell therapy, but it's not an option for those of us who have long since outlasted our cords.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By abzillah on 3/24/2008 6:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Many people don't understand where stem-cells come from and how they are used. Did you know that stem-cells can be taken from the spine of bone. Researchers are often taking stem-cells from the spine. Another source of stem cells are from animals. Here in UCSD, none of my professors work with human embryonic stem-cells.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By zinfamous on 3/25/2008 1:17:32 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like you don't understand where ES cells come from either, b/c they sure as shite aren't found in bone marrow.
these are adult stem cells, and no where near as useful as embryonic stem cells. ES cells are fully pluripotent, meaning a greater potential to become any type of cell.

Adult stem cells are only useful in treating undesirable side effects caused be the actual treatments of the diseases that they are wrongly thought to treat.

What every parentshould do, however, is save the umbilical blood when they have a newborn. There is absolutely no moral dilemma here, and ES cells from umbilical blood has already been used to more or less cure cerebral palsy in a handful of children. (This was their own umbilical blood). These aren't fully pluripotent as true ES cells (as I understand it), but are extremely effective in actually treating some very serious diseases.

Again, Adult Stem cells have not been shown to treat any disease, and seem to have extremely limited potential to do so. They are, however, effective at treating the side effects of the actual treatment (eg: chemotherapy).


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 1:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say that ESCs were found in bone marrow.

Adult stem cells are currently far more useful than ESCs are. They are currently used in scores of approved therapies. They have been shown to be particularly useful in treating conditions such as lupus and MS. Maybe you should read up a bit more.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By FeralMisanthrope on 3/24/2008 6:50:58 PM , Rating: 4
Judging from the controversy surrounding the morning-after pill and the Catholic church's stance on the use of condoms, I am forced to conclude that many on the pro-life side of the abortion issue believe that life begins before the sperm even meets the egg. Beliefs based on such a profound lack of rationality do not lend themselves to intellectual debate.

Arguments from the more objective pro-lifers typically revolve around the "sanctity of life." But what's so sacred about life? Pigs, trees, even bacteria, are all alive yet we have no qualms about killing them for our own benefit. Meanwhile, the sanctity of human life depreciates rapidly, following birth, to become virtually non-existent by the age of 18, as demonstrated by our social institutions and countless man-made atrocities.

The only thing that makes human life objectively more sacred (pardon the oxymoron) than that of a chicken or an amoeba is our capacity for rational thought. Unfortunately, empirical evidence suggests that the sanctity of a human life is inversely proportional to its cognizance. In other words: brain-development diminishes sanctity.

I find the whole "sanctity of life" concept to be a self-aggrandizing dogma in that the more vocally one advocates the sanctity of life, the more they demonstrate a profound lack of rationality, thus making their own life all the more sacred.

</pseudo-intellectual rant>


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 12:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
First, you have neither a concept of the pharmacokinetic properties of Plan B, nor a clue as to what the Catholic Church believes about when life begins.

Plan B isn't merely a contraceptive - it is an abortafacient, as are many 'contraceptives', including, but not limited to IUDs and the pill.

And no, the Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception, not before. Hence why it is against many 'contraceptives' which have abortafacient properties. Furthermore, it is against the use of condoms because it believes that sex is sacred and has two fundamental aspects - procreative and unitive. It holds that when either of these are deliberately and knowingly diminished and disrespected, that the act of sex is incomplete.

It is a very Aristotlean viewpoint, and it is very rationally laid out if you accept the precepts - the axioms on which it is based, because the view is consistent with those viewpoints.

Now that we've dealt with that strawman, "the sanctity of life" concept is centered on such concepts like every person has an immortal soul - something which is given by God, but as you aptly pointed out, is debased by man. Still, should it just simply be cast aside because some people are jerks? Most don't think so.

So, for 'pro-lifers', it doesn't have anything to do with brain development. It has to do with beliefs and how they apply in practice. It is a consistent body of thought, much as any other philosophy. By misunderstanding it you've managed to show what you think it is to be lacking, but I'm here to say that you shot the wrong guy.

Let the lashings commence.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By FeralMisanthrope on 3/25/2008 1:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point of my post was to present an absurd conclusion, rationalized from a set of naive observations (i.e., a joke). I appreciate your refutations but rest assured, my personal views are far more pragmatic.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/25/2008 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh damn. Sorry about that XD


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By bplewis24 on 3/24/2008 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just don't see how you can say that curing disease is a bad thing.


Because 6 months later they can turn into hemocytes!

;)

Brandon


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By clovell on 3/24/2008 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
> Growing some embryos that wouldn't form a life if we let them isn't the same as abortion or anything.

How would you respond to someone who denies the premise that these embryos wouldn't form a life if we let them? I'm not sure how you can logically make such an assertion.

These debates always come beack to how a person defines where life begins, which is something that isn't set in stone, and can often be rationalized no matter what you believe (albeit some positions are more defensible than others).

Those who are against abortion, but for ESC research walk a fine line of defining where life begins, because they're forced to chose some arbitrary time point between conception and birth in order to remain consisitent in their beliefs.

A lot of people are in that boat. Defining life as beginning at conception raises a myriad of other ethical issues that deal with 'contraceptives', which are generally regarded as 'archaic'.

Still, as many DT frequenters would agree - concensus is not science (see AGW), so the morality of such research, is not yet decided; I don't expect it to be decided within my lifetime.


RE: Regardless of your beliefs
By sweetsauce on 3/24/2008 4:01:42 PM , Rating: 1
I find all these abortion and embryonic research debates silly considering we are all products of alien genetic manipulation. Then again i don't subscribe to normal beliefs that some people do :).


Is it a miracle...
By Steve Guilliot on 3/24/2008 5:22:34 PM , Rating: 3
.. when we know the exact scientific basis? When the result is completely rational? Amazing, yes. Cool, yes. Miracle, no.




RE: Is it a miracle...
By James Holden on 3/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is it a miracle...
By Kaleid on 3/24/2008 8:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
Miracles are ridiculous.

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
--Hippocrates

"In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."
Ethan Allen Reason the Only Oracle of Man, pamphlet, 1784


RE: Is it a miracle...
By charliee on 3/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is it a miracle...
By Marvlarv on 3/25/2008 8:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the same which has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Fornication Wine fermented to you by her wrath. ^_^


RE: Is it a miracle...
By BMFPitt on 3/25/2008 8:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fornication Wine fermented to you by her wrath
Sounds like some good stuff. Where can I get some?


RE: Is it a miracle...
By Marvlarv on 3/25/2008 8:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
Walmart Liquor section, right next to the bible sale


RE: Is it a miracle...
By xzc145 on 3/25/2008 10:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
scripture < logical, rational thought

Do the nut jobs actually use the brain their god supposedly endowed them with?......A sin surely!


RE: Is it a miracle...
By Kaleid on 3/25/2008 9:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
So you need to believe in order to see miracles?
Well, I used to believe in a lot of things, like a God, ghosts, afterlife but as I grow older I began to see that first I had not observed any of that and that there's really nothing that support these claims and all these things could be made up by us humans. Of course as I grew older my education pushed me further away from a lot of the superstition and I finally came to a point where a vast amount of old truths became ignorant wishthinking. If one studies comparative religion enough how can one ever be certain that the religion one has been brought up to believe in is the correct one? I saw it rather early on as languange, something that is passed from our parents, our surroundings, the society as a whole. There's no need to invent answers no matter how comforting it may seem. Being stuck in one religion locks your mind to a certain point of view that really may not present the reality at all very well and if there is infact a deity (why is it always one? Had it not been possible that we would more easily consider more if we had been born in India?). Society programs us - a lot. Dare to deprogram yourselves, it's liberating :)

Freethinker n.
One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in his religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation — The American Heritage Dictionary

"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." [Bertrand Russell]

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." [Richard Dawkins]


RE: Is it a miracle...
By clovell on 3/25/2008 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should google modern miracles or just go take a look at the incorruptibles, and you'd see that not only are miracles not ridiculous, but they have been going on since well-past 1784 in many modernized societies.

On a more intellectual note, Hippocrates' proposition simply proves that miracles will always exist, because it has been proven that we will never be to understand everything in the universe.


RE: Is it a miracle...
By Kaleid on 3/25/2008 9:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
There is ZERO evidence for miracles. No supernatural events have been proven and not one person has been close to prove that they for instance are mind readers in a proper scientific test by say James Randi in his million dollar challenge.

Miracles. It's just the wording, just because one names ignorance as miracle does not make it so.

Why people believe strange things:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22

"...humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses."


Good times...
By 67STANG on 3/24/2008 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's really exciting to be alive right now. The more I read stories like this, the more it reaffirms my feeling that we are in a great technology renaissance.

Just one question though, why haven't they tried treating cancer with carbon nanotubes yet? Seems to work on everything else...




RE: Good times...
By therealnickdanger on 3/24/2008 2:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, I thought there was an article on DT that said they caused cancer... :P Actually, I think that was just some fear about nano-waste weakening cellular membranes or something. I'd find the link, but... y'know... lazy.


RE: Good times...
By White Widow on 3/25/2008 3:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...why haven't they tried treating cancer with carbon nanotubes yet? Seems to work on everything else...


Actually, they have:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34905/117/

:)


Perfect
By nvalhalla on 3/24/2008 2:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Now they just need to start putting this Let-7 miRNA in cigarettes and we're all set!




RE: Perfect
By KaiserCSS on 3/24/2008 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
Alack, if only life were so simple.


RE: Perfect
By maverick85wd on 3/24/2008 2:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
... or marijauan. Smoke weed and be lung cancer free 8-)


Word of caution
By geddarkstorm on 3/24/2008 3:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't all go announcing "it's a cure" just yet. The mouse was in a Parkinson's "induced" state (secondary Parkinson's), not a natural or primary Parkinson's state. Since primary Parkinson's is genetic, any stem cell cloned from a real diseased individual will have to be genetically treated and modified. Then it would have to survive back in the host and out compete the current dopaminergic cells in the brain. This is quite a bit harder than it sounds. Nevermind the fact we don't understand all of the genetic basis underlying Parkinson's or most other mental diseases. The mouse on the other hand had brain damage incurred by the drug to induce Parkinson's, so the treatment was only a matter of tissue repair, not replacement.

Repairing damaged tissue with stem cells is rather easy, as that's what our bodies have them around to do. Replacing genetically defective whole tissue with new stem cells, which have to compete with the current genetically deficient host somatic/stem cells, is a totally different ball park from what they did with the mice. So, this is a cool and highly important breakthrough for brain tissue repair and treating secondary Parkinson's, but not a cure for the actual genetic disease. Still, it is a step forward, and that's very much a good thing.




RE: Word of caution
By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2008 4:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
> " Since primary Parkinson's is genetic..."

So we think, at least. And don't forget there are many people who suffer from secondary Parkinson's, induced by drug use or other factors (Michael J. Fox for just one example).


RE: Word of caution
By geddarkstorm on 3/25/2008 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
There are dozens of genetic mutations associated with primary Parkinson's, though that is as far as it goes. Nevertheless, since Parkinson's is a loss of dopaminergic neuron function, there obviously can easily be genetic causes that disrupt the pathway at any point (from formation of dopamine, to release, to reception).

I did not forget such people who have secondary Parkinson's or their numbers (if you truly read what I posted), or how this could be a potential cure for that which is why it's so cool and important (among other reasons). But to call this a cure to all Parkinson's would be a fallacy and miss the complexity of the issue. This treatment repaired already damaged tissue which is amazing, yes, but it did not replace genetically defective tissue, which is what is needed to treat a wide variety of neural and degenerative diseases. That is a fundamental and very important difference.

Finally, just because it worked in a mouse model doesn't mean it will in humans, though I don't see why it wouldn't. For instance, this has been the case for many potential treatments for cancers like using vaccinia virus that works great in mouse models infected with human cancers, but doesn't work at all in humans.

Getting too far ahead of ourselves and missing the larger issue is a quick way to botch good science and lead to a disillusioned public. I'm just saying it is good to have restraint, even with such exciting news and prospects as all this.


By tmouse on 3/25/2008 9:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well my research is in the field of micro RNAs roles in stem cell development so here is my 2 cents. I personally do not see the overwhelming drive my colleges have in pushing the human stem cell agenda except for patents or fame. Our knowledge of what is actually going on during commitment and differentiation is virtually nil. These questions simply cannot be answered in a genetically intractable system like humans. There is a growing amount of "cowboy" science driven by the funding crisis caused by the past few decades of unprecedented growth of the number of life scientists. Some papers are quite scary and while they show interesting observations’ often offer no real explanations’ and do not adequately explore additional problems caused by the treatments.

Scientifically speaking it is absurd to define human life as starting at any other point other than fertilization. There has never been an example of trans-speciation that I am aware of, you do not become more or less human throughout life, and this is the central dogma of genetics. The zygote is simply not like any other cell, such thinking is simply nonsense. No other cell can be placed into a deciduas environment and result in the formation of an organism. Humans have a unicellular, free floating stage of life followed by a parasitical stage, finally resulting in an independent stage. A fly zygote is no more or less a fly than a larva or adult. Now if you want to debate when legal protection is offered that is not my field so I would yield to the majority’s views.

I personally feel embryonic stem cells are a quick, messy attempt and will not be fruitful in the long run. They are simply easier to use and very pliable but the multipotency is a feature as well as a problem. There are several studies showing rejection problems and tumorgenesis that seem to be ignored by the majority. Not to mention the legal /ethical dilemmas they generate. I guess I am more cynical than I used to be but I feel if someone can abuse something for profit someone will. Endogenous “adult” stem cells are a better venue and it may be possible to trans- differentiate cell types but this will require greater understanding of the normal process first. The problem is this is not “sexy” enough and since it doesn’t lead to direct treatments; projects which propose more observational research vs experimental manipulation are often given “lip praise” but poor peer review scores in the current funding crisis.

As for the papers in question I think they are fine works but I will reserve my judgments on their “medical miracle” status until I can read the entire papers. It doesn’t surprise me let-7 suppresses tumor growth, although it did not seem to stop it just reduce tumor load. It is interesting to see nasal application having effects but it is most likely transitory at best which is great for Asuragen, not so great for the patient. The Parkinson’s paper is also interesting but no surprise. Somatic cloning overcomes the rejection problems but since we have poor understanding of the long term effects of cells produced from epigenetically modified nuclei the potential for tumorgenesis remains, but I will concede maybe relief from Parkinson’s now may be worth the risk of brain cancer later for some. I do worry about the “egg” market this type of treatment would require if treatments for other more wide spread types of ailments are founded from this venue of research.




a movie last night
By lsman on 3/26/2008 10:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. I saw "I am legend" last night. Virus...LOL.




tinnitus!!! ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
By nckyd81 on 3/26/2008 5:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
I for one feel I'd benefit from stem cell research. If it could one day be used to repair the broken cell sized hairs in my ears to restore my hearing and get rid of this damned 110db ringing all of 24/7 in my ears then I'm all for it. I'm seriously on the edge of insanity.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki