backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 166 comment(s) - last by Hawkido.. on Jul 8 at 5:16 PM


An overview of the process. Note researchers can use any mouse tissue (the blue box) as the starting point for iPS creation. The method features less manipulation, reducing the cancer risk and produces, for the first time genetically identical cells. It also has higher yields.  (Source: Tom DiCesare/Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research)
Welcome to the stem cell revolution

There has been an ongoing moral debate in the U.S. which has crippled the funding of stem cells and left the future of stem cell research uncertain.  Fortunately, about a year ago, scientists made an exciting breakthrough -- ordinary adult cells in mammals could be reprogrammed with viruses to become pseudo-stem cells.  By eliminating the moral debate, the research reopened the door to one day developing treatments for Parkinson's Disease, Sickle Cell anemia, paralysis, and many other debilitating afflictions.

However, the pseudo-stem cells created from mice skin cells, known as induced pluripotent stem (IPS) stem cells, were not genetically identical like fetal stem cells, and required different methods of triggering for every tissue.  Now scientists with Rudolph Jaenisch's lab at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research have discovered a way to transform any type of tissue into a stem cell and ensure all the produced stem cells are genetically identical.

The transformation is triggered by the simple release of a drug; no additional genetic manipulation is necessary.  Marius Wernig, one of the paper's two lead authors and a postdoctoral researcher at the lab stated, "This technical advancement will allow thousands of identical reprogrammed cells to be used in experiments."

"Using these cells could help define the milestones of how cells are reprogrammed and screen for drug-like molecules that replace the potentially cancer-causing viruses used for reprogramming," added Christopher Lengner, the other lead author and also a postdoctoral researcher at the lab.

Lengner alluded to an important fear with the current method.  Past efforts used viruses to induce the transformation and it was found that the viruses could trigger cancer.  A batch of stem cells could unwittingly contain cancer cells that could do far greater damage to the diseased person's body than the ailment they're being treated for.

While the new research still uses viruses, it is different in two important ways.  First the viruses target a specific spot in the genome.  Past efforts inserted genes anywhere in the genome, raising the likelihood of cancerous mutation.  In the new research, lentiviruses artificial viruses, are used to randomly insert four genes (Oct4, Sox2, c-Myc and Klf4).  All mice cells processed thusly have the same number of viral integrations in the same location within the genome.  This both leads to genetically identical stems cells and cuts the cancer risk.

The second important way the research is different is that in its specificity, researchers can now focus on developing replacement molecules to the viruses, eliminating the cancer threat.  The old research only worked on skin cells, so the focus was on developing different methods that could trigger various tissues to become IPS cells.  The new method can trigger virtually any cell -- including cells from the intestine, brain, muscle, kidney, adrenal gland, and bone marrow -- into becoming an IPS cell.

After the cell is transformed, the cell was further modified to wait to switch on these genes upon a doxycycline trigger.  This allowed researchers to control when they wanted to transform the cells into stem cells, with a simple chemical.  The new method is much more efficient, with yields up from one in a thousand cells to one in twenty.

Jaenisch, who is also a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology said, "In experiments, the technique will eliminate many of the reprogramming process's unpredictable variables and simplify enormously the research on the reprogramming mechanism and the screening for virus replacements."

The research can be found here in the July 1, 2008, online issue of Nature Biotechnology.

Funding for the research was provided by the Human Frontiers Science Organization Program, the Ellison Medical Foundation, the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award, and the National Institutes of Health.



Comments     Threshold


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

By michal1980 on 7/2/2008 11:39:04 AM , Rating: 5
not a ban on the research itself.

As far as I know, a private company can do research on embyro stem cells, as long as the study is not funded by the federal goverment.

The amount of ignorance of posters on this issue here is funny.

esspically when you consider that they think the president is an idiot. Wheres that mirror.




By daftrok on 7/2/2008 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with everything you said...until you said that the president is NOT an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvNJWM_NDg

Yeah....


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 5
Your premise is incorrect. Morality and ethics have every place in politics. The fact those ethics are motivated by religion is irrelevant...the very nature of politics is the expression of an ethical position in terms of action.

While I happen to sharply disagree with Bush's ethical position in this, it's important to debate the topic rationally and honestly.


By Bender 123 on 7/2/2008 5:47:03 PM , Rating: 5
Please remember Mr. Bush, for all his issues is not Catholic and i am insulted to have him lumped in with it.

as to the serious point you are making, Religion is little else than Codified ethics and morality. There is no connection between freedom and ethics, in fact it is possible (however unlikely) that there can be a benevolent/ethical dictator.

There is a strong sense of religion in this country, that affects all things, because thats how we were built. If you dont want religious view points in our country, nothing is stopping you from electing an atheist, but you need to have a majority share to get there.

As for the point about stem cells saving lives, where do you put your values? Remember, the chicken has little skin in the game when it comes to your eggs for breakfast, but the pig is all in when you eat bacon. Same goes for embryos, either they are people or not, define that and then build an argument that supports it...Its exceedingly difficult and far more intelligent people than us have been unable to do so, so why do you feel that your belief is any more valid than someone elses?


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 6:57:36 PM , Rating: 4
> "Is it ethical to make a woman who was raped and inpregnated be required to have the baby?"

You're still missing the point. If a person believes abortion is unethical, they have a right to engage the political process to have it declared illegal. The fact their beliefs may be motivated by religious reasons are irrelevant.

Saying "religion has no place in politics" is an utterly nonsensical statement. People support laws which fit their ethical code. For anyone who is religious, their ethics are defined by their religious beliefs. Your statement equates to saying people shouldn't have the right to freedom of religion, which is certainly one of the more fanatically horrifying beliefs a person can hold.


By Ringold on 7/2/2008 8:29:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Saying "religion has no place in politics" is an utterly nonsensical statement.


I think the breakdown between his side and your own is straightforward. He believes government should only represent a liberal, secular ideology, where as you believe the government should represent whatever the wishes and values of the voters may be.

He makes it clear, however, he's not an American, so I for one forgive him of his ridiculous ignorance of our founding fathers, their beliefs, and the prevailing sense of what government should represent. Religion has been a fundamental part of the prism through which our government has viewed policy choices since, literally, day one.

In case European liberals need help, from Washington's first Inaugural Address:

quote:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations , and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge.


By phattyboombatty on 7/2/2008 7:01:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I agree morality and ethics do have every place in politics but those ethics get skewed because of religious beliefs.

One could easily define religion as a person's set of moral and ethical beliefs that they live by. Thus, your statement doesn't make any sense. What you probably mean is that your moral and ethical beliefs have every place in politics but those ethics get skewed because of the moral and ethical beliefs of other people.
quote:
You live in what you call the land of the free, yet denying stem cell research funding which may potentially cure many diseases and many people.

How does the government not spending money on certain research deny anybody their freedom? There is no right in the USA to a free handout from the government.
quote:
Those so called ethics stem from a heavy catholic influence especially for Mr. Bush.

As a previous poster mentioned, President Bush is not a Catholic, which you infer.
quote:
Not long ago 30 states were ready to make abortions illegal. Once again heavily influenced by Catholic ideologies.

Let me just point out that opposition to abortion does not rest exclusively with Catholics. In my experience, the majority of Christian denominations oppose abortion. Also, there is no need to be a Christian to be opposed to abortion. Fundamentally, whether a person opposes or supports the right to abortion depends on the answer to a single question--At what point in a baby's development does it acquire rights as a person to be protected by the state? Some people answer "at the point of inception." Others say after the first or second trimester. There is no scientific way to answer this question, so it necessarily depends purely on policy grounds, with both sides offering compelling arguments.
quote:
Is it ethical to make a woman who was raped and inpregnated be required to have the baby?

Is it ethical to force a husband to endure the shame of his wife's adultery by not allowing him to kill his wife?
Is it ethical to allow a mother to kill her one-year-old baby who she no longer wants because the baby is taking up all her free time. After all, who are we to tell the mother what she can and can't do with her own child.
quote:
In the land of the free you deny gays the right to marry which is once again backed up by religious overtones.

Marriage itself is full of "religious overtones." The federal government does not deny anybody the right to marry. States are free to decide for themselves whether to recognize or not recognize gay marriage. Its called democracy. And some states do recognize gay marriage, but most don't. Furthermore, no state denies anybody the right to get married, they just don't endorse or recognize certain marriages such as same-sex marriages, polygamist marriages, marriages between closely related persons, etc. "The land of the free" doesn't mean a free for all where anything goes. It means the People are free to decide issues democratically, rather than a tyrant deciding for them.
quote:
Bush is continuously quoted with the use of the word God in many of his speeches. He refers to the good book guiding him and his faith and uses it as his excuse for trying to bring freedom to places like Iraq and Afghanistan through war.

And so did almost every previous leader in the USA. Get over it. If you take away all the religious motivation of prior influential people in this country, our country would probably be split in two, there would still be slaves, and there would be very few civil rights.
quote:
At the same time he is doing little in terms of providing for the people of his country.

This country was founded by people who wanted the government to leave them the hell alone. That's what makes this country unique. Every other country in the world is full of citizens that simply want handouts from their government and feel it is their right that every need be satisfied by the almighty government. We don't want Bush "to provide for us." We want him to stay out of our way and let us make our own lives.


By mikeyD95125 on 7/3/2008 3:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it ethical to force a husband to endure the shame of his wife's adultery by not allowing him to kill his wife? Is it ethical to allow a mother to kill her one-year-old baby who she no longer wants because the baby is taking up all her free time. After all, who are we to tell the mother what she can and can't do with her own child.


A rape victim having an abortion is not about shame though. It is about a woman not being able to carry the burden of child she had no fault in creating.


By Myg on 7/3/2008 8:33:04 AM , Rating: 5
The child has no fault in being created either, so why perpetuate the cycle of fear and misdeed with more victims?

To assert a dominion over the child and be judge/jury and executioner makes the woman no different in essence then the person who did the same to her by violating her body.

It is often said that the bullied becomes the bully; which is a very wise observation, if looked at properly. It would reveal that the pain and emptyness caused by the bully leaves a gap which needs to be filled, which the person who was bullied tries to close this gap by trying to copying the actions done to them in order to try and undo what happened to them.

We all know this doesnt work and at times constitutes "revenge", thats no good. What these victoms of rape need, is not a way to make it appear as though it never happened. They need our Love and caring, our unwavering support and dedication to see they they are looked after.

You are right, it isnt mostly out of shame; infact most women in these circomstances look at their life and decide out of what supports they have. What abortion does is disrupt the natural healing process. It removes a wonderful and unique creation that is the child, it removes a chance for the women to properly heal personally from it (abortion always causes emotional scars) and it denies us, as a society a chance, and an opportunity to share Love and support to others.

Rape is a trajedy and a destructive force against the fabric of society, just as much as abortion is. So why continue the cycle of violence?

Concerning the defition of "Life", that is pointless; because we know and scientifically define a child at conception, "Life". We even concern sperm and eggs with such defintions. The issue with most people is defining wether the child in early stages is a human being AKA:"one of us". Of course it is, and that is scientifically proven by the fact that it wont be anything else; observations of the human growth cycle/DNA anyone?

Anyways, back to the topic at hand please.


By phattyboombatty on 7/3/2008 9:39:03 AM , Rating: 3
The examples weren't meant to be exactly analogous. They were intended to show that many crimes which you may not even give a second thought to have very similar ethical dilemmas.

As I mentioned in my previous post, each of these ethical questions turn on whether the victim is recognized as a life worth protecting.


By Frallan on 7/3/2008 10:32:21 AM , Rating: 3
Masher - for once we acctually agree on something, well at least mostly agree on something LoL.

I agree that morality and ethics has its place in politics - acctually I would even say that morality and ethichs together with law and a a touch of pragmatism should be the basic fundament in politics (would be good if it was so in reality huh?). However Religion should have no place in politics more then as part of the fundaments of our morality and ethical values. Once the boreder is crossed where religion becomes a driver in politics it has crossed into very murky waters.

However as u stated it is good that the religious beliefs of our politicians is discussed openly so that eac of us can make an informed decision.


By Denigrate on 7/2/2008 1:46:34 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure of actual percentages, but the vast majority of money from private investors goes into adult stem cell research, because that's where the actual progress has been made. Embryonic stem cells supposedly has potential, but nothing has actually been accomplished using them to my knowledge.

If adult stem cells can cure disease, then there is absolutely no reason for embryonic research.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 4:11:49 PM , Rating: 4
> "The progress has been made on adult cells because no one's had the money to do anything but"

While I disagree with Bush's action here, I can't allow such patently false information to stand. After Bush barred federal research funds, the state of California alone passed a measure to fund stem cell research at a level far beyond federal spending levels. That's in addition to the billions from private research, as well as nations which didn't bar federal spending on embryonic stem cells, such as Australia, Britain, and many others.

In short, the US action was primarily symbolic, with little real impact.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 4:31:54 PM , Rating: 4
Guess you don't read the Massachusetts news:
quote:
BOSTON, May 8 — Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday unveiled a $1.25 billion proposal intended to help the state maintain its status as a pre-eminent place for stem cell research and other life sciences.
These funds were, of course, not restricted to non-embryonic stem cell research.


By Suomynona on 7/2/2008 8:34:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can't allow such patently false information to stand. After Bush barred federal research funds, the state of California alone passed a measure to fund stem cell research at a level far beyond federal spending levels. That's in addition to the billions from private research


But you'll perpetuate your own patently false information? California passed legislation in 2004 to fund stem cell research at $3 Billion over 10 years. As of now, nearly 4 years later, $0 has been received to give out for research because it is tied up in litigation still. The Governor authorized a loan of $150 Million and they have been giving this out over the last 2 years. Many states talked about doing the same to bring in the biomedical research and to prevent people from leaving for California, but since opponents of this research have successfully tied up the funding in litigation (despite the fact it was VOTED in favor of by the citizens of California), most states have not passed such funding. In addition, your quote talks about a proposal, not actual funding. The law was signed only 2 weeks ago.

Please tell us where this "billions" from private research is?

The U.S. federal government provides the largest amount of funding for medical research in the world. Most people do not understand that what Bush has done isn't a simple blocking of funding. Anyone receiving any medical research funding is only allowed to do work on the stem cell lines that were grandfathered. Most of those are contaminated or useless. If you want to do private embryonic stem cell research, you must create a 100% separate lab. You can not share any resources that may've been funded by federal money. Who is going to pay for all that additional equipment? You risk all your federal money unless you segregate the embryonic stem cell research from everything else.

The action was not symbolic. It has crippled embryonic stem cell research in a country that outspends the rest of the world in medical research going on seven years.

The one thing I can and will credit Bush with is procedures like this and other similar ones probably would've never been investigated or pushed for without his ban. It would not have been necessary.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 10:44:23 PM , Rating: 3
> "Governor authorized a loan of $150 Million and they have been giving this out over the last 2 years"

Which all by itself is more than the $22.5M/year the Feds were funding. And that's just one state. Oh, and let's not forget that in 2000 - the last year Clinton held office, federal stem cell funding stood at $0. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

> "Please tell us where this "billions" from private research is?"

Glad to. This article is a bit old, but it details just a few of the many sources of stem cell research funding:
quote:
Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the California biotech company Geron, consider a few examples of private funding for academic stem-cell research. The Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. Weill Cornell Medical College, also in New York City, has established the Ansary Center for Stem Cell Therapeutics with a $15 million grant from philanthropists Shahla and Hushang Ansary.

In California, UCLA has established an Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine with $20 million in funding over the next five years. Stanford University created the Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, with a goal of $120 million in funding. An anonymous donor gave Johns Hopkins University a $58.5 million gift to launch an Institute for Cell Engineering. The University of Minnesota has set up a Stem Cell Institute with a $15 million capital grant. A grateful patient pledged $25 million over the next 10 years to finance stem-cell research at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34102.html

> "The action was not symbolic. "

It *was* symbolic. Federal spending on stem cell research before Bush was zero. During his tenure, it was still quite small, and utterly dwarfed by private and state funding. This is indisputable, and only someone utterly ignorant of the field could even attempt to dispute it.


By Suomynona on 7/3/2008 1:02:11 AM , Rating: 3
That's the only state to date. And nothing compared to the $1.2 billion it is supposed to be by now. And where do you think the bulk of the federal money would've gone had Bush not banned it? If the vast majority of the scientists believe the embryonic stem cells have more potential than adult stem cells, what would they research if given a choice between either without restrictions? $200M/yr goes to adult stem cell research. The reason only $20M/yr only goes to embryonic stem cell research is the restrictions.

I'm unsure why you want to include Clinton in this discussion, but embryonic stem cells weren't discovered until 1998. His intended policy was to allow for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as long as the funding was not used to destroy embryos and that the research was not done on embryos created for the sole purpose of medical research. Before the policy was finalized, the Bush administration put it on hold to reconsider. They then placed a bigger restriction than the ones that were to be enacted. So yes, it was $0, but it wasn't going to be for long.

Your private money examples don't even add up to half a billion dollars, and that includes the $150M in California. And all that is over a period of time, not per year.

I'm really not sure what you think symbolic means. If you think it means that what Bush has done (and what he continues to do with his veto power) has no impact on embryonic stem cell research, I can't disagree with you more. The public favors it and Congress favors it. The money currently spent on it (federally) is nothing compared to adult stem cell research. You make it seem like if the ban wasn't there, nothing would change. I'm not saying money isn't being spent. There is probably $200M/yr being spent currently. But if the harshest restrictions are dropped (as has been passed by Congress twice), many, many more Universities will be in line for funding for $100s of millions a year. Not to mention that this ban has been in place since 2001 and all the money that could've been spent in that time advancing research.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/3/2008 12:55:22 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'm unsure why you want to include Clinton in this discussion, but embryonic stem cells weren't discovered until 1998. "

Lol, what? Stem cells were discovered in the early 1960s...and we first isolated embryonic stem cells in 1981.


By Suomynona on 7/3/2008 11:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is all you had to say in response to my entire comment?

I wasn't clear. You are right, they were not discovered in 1998. Read about Dr. James Thomson. He was the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Yes, people knew about them, but no one could do anything with them. His research was published in 1998 and you can view the patent he filed in 1998 at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT... . No line was created before this time, so for all intents and purposes, human embryonic stem cell research (with regards to it's potential applications) began in 1998. That was the crux of my point. So LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and H.W. Bush did not make decisions about human embryonic stem cells despite their discovery in the 1960s. Clinton was the first one presented with the issues and Bush was the first one to set the official policy.


By Hawkido on 7/8/2008 4:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If adult stem cells can cure disease, then there is absolutely no reason for embryonic research.


Of course there is a reason for embroynic stem cell research! It is the primary justification for abortion. DUH!


By encryptkeeper on 7/2/2008 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, the stupidity of this was that the president's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (I think that was the name) prevented research on stem cells that were otherwise going to be thrown away. Basically, the bill would have allowed federal funding for research on stem cells that were left over in fertility treatments. You're telling me he was "smart" for not allowing federal money for research on legally created cells that are otherwise going in the trash?


To Be Clear
By tmouse on 7/2/2008 1:20:39 PM , Rating: 5
ok here we go: a federal funding primer

Animal stem cell work : adult or embryonic - fully fundable

Human adult stem cell work: fully fundable; IRB approval

Human primary tissue: fetal or adult- fully fundable IRB approval

Human stem cell work: approved lines- fully fundable

Newly created Human stem cell lines:- not fundable




RE: To Be Clear
By MrBlastman on 7/2/2008 1:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the clarity.

Now, since you are in this field, what is the total Budgeted amount towards this available and approvable funding?


RE: To Be Clear
By tmouse on 7/2/2008 2:58:04 PM , Rating: 3
This is the best I can do. There is no single line item that defines how much is spent on stem cells, or aids or cancer or any other field of study. Every single division of the NIH has RO1 and R21 applications relating to stem cells. Its around 655 million in grants directly focused on stem cell biology, more since many disease grants may use stem cell work as only a part. To put it into perspective its more than what is spent on liver, lung or prostate cancer, aids Vaccines , all of the dystrophic diseases combined and a tad less than Alzheimer's Disease you get the idea. About an 18% increase over 2004 levels. There are about 2100 funded clinical trials using stem cells


RE: To Be Clear
By Suomynona on 7/2/2008 8:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
I only have data through FY07 (millions $):

Stem Cell Research FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Human Embryonic 20 24 40 38 39
Non-Human Embryonic 113 89 97 97 96
Human Non-Embryonic 191 203 199 200 200
Non-Human Non-Embryonic 192 236 273 274 273
Total, Stem Cell Research 517 553 609 609 608


My 2 cents
By tmouse on 7/2/2008 11:54:52 AM , Rating: 5
Please forgive this long post but I think some may want a lay mans terms explanation of what this work is and is not doing. Let me try to explain what is going on. This work is fantastic from a research point of view. The field of inducible pluripotent stem cell holds great promise. To turn an adult cell into a stem cell; genes that express stem cell factors must be re-expressed. In the cells themselves these genes are silenced and we currently have no idea how to wake them, so we put in active copies than are not auto regulated. One complication has been that infection with retroviruses caused multiple insertions in the different cells, generating a random population with many different sites of integration. Some of these events could be a root cause of oncogenesis observed in IPS cells, however the genes that are currently absolutely necessary are in themselves oncogenic. To be fair the difference in an “oncogene” and a stem cell factor is more semantic than real. Rudy’s work cleans this up considerably by creating an animal source for the production of more uniform IPS cells by using them to create a chimeric animal (this obviously cannot be done with human cells). Instead of creating new lines each time with their multiple differences a single source removes some of the “noise” from the downstream analysis. Doxycycline is not a miracle chemical involved in stem cell behavior it is used merely as a switch to coordinate the activation of the transfected genes. The fact is we simply have no idea how a cell goes from toti/pluri potency to a differentiated cell. We understand some of the genes in specific differentiation cascades like myogenesis and hematopoietic differentiation, but we know little about the start of the process, heck only a few years ago dogma implied that differentiation was a one way street. Contrary to the blog not ALL cells can be used some are to specialized others have actual rearrangements of their DNA to reach their state and simply cannot go back. This work gives us a stable platform to use high throughput analysis like Microarrays and Proteomics to hopefully see potential targets that MAY be tractable to stimulation from exogenous agents instead of using transfection with stem cell genes (waking the stem cell genes). Then again when all is said and done we may find the process cannot be done without the risk of oncogenesis. Development is a symphony of internal and external signal cascades, many with feed back loops, the vast majority we still have virtually no understanding of. I fear there will be such a rush that stem cell work will be put into clinical application far too soon and when something bad happens the backlash could literally cripple science. The public are fickle and while many are behind this work a major outbreak of cancer or some zooologic cross transfer of a virus leading top a pandemic infection could lead many to put down their banners and pick up the pitchforks. I’m already seeing studies that NEVER should have been done; being done for the glory of being first and yielding to the pressure of application, before a reasonable understanding of the process has been gained (without exception these studies have failed and worse very little additional information has been gained). I believe slow and steady wins the race, I’m more and more in the minority.




RE: My 2 cents
By BarkHumbug on 7/3/2008 5:43:17 AM , Rating: 4
OMG man! You gotta hit enter now and again, this is like reading a psycho's diary or something...


By kattanna on 7/2/2008 11:42:14 AM , Rating: 4
seriously.. i wonder how long till stem cells are used to start enhancing people, female or males for that matter.

if you can use stem cells to regrow a body part.. how long till they can train them to "enhance" existing ones.




moral not morale
By mattclary on 7/2/2008 10:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
eom




Approved.
By excelsium on 7/2/2008 10:56:02 AM , Rating: 1
We can get away with opening live monkey skulls and stuff this should be easy to get approval or whatever :].




RE: Approved.
By oab on 7/2/2008 11:23:41 AM , Rating: 1
Some people eat that live monkey's brain as it's clamped in the middle of a table. With forks and stuff just pick it out.


Applicability?
By cparka23 on 7/2/2008 11:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
"Well so then if the stem cells are placed next to a Shakey's Pizza, they would become another Shakey's Pizza! And you'd have your own Shakey's Pizza where you wouldn't have to charge yourself to eat!"




Softness Saver!
By FDisk City on 7/2/2008 10:33:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Cells Can Now be Produced From Any Tissue


Excellent. Now we can stop wasting Charmin Ultra Soft and just use Sam’s Choice.




What is rediculous about all of this is...
By MrBlastman on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Bender 123 on 7/2/2008 10:25:29 AM , Rating: 1
As a conservative minded person, this statement is purely from lack of understanding as much as those that speak out against stem cell use are ignorant to the other options for obtaining it.

I, personally, agree that stem cells are a fantastic source of medical knowledge and advancement, but I am not in favor of embryonic stem cells, because of the whole messy abortion thing. There are other ways to collect these cells without that specific point. I say go for these methods.

By the way, beware of non-ethical science...We gained a lot of knowledge about humans and medicine from Nazi concentration camps, but I dont think anybody will say the price was worth the findings...


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Amiga500 on 7/2/2008 10:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
but I am not in favor of embryonic stem cells, because of the whole messy abortion thing. There are other ways to collect these cells without that specific point. I say go for these methods.

+1


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Parhel on 7/2/2008 10:50:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's the most ridiculous comment I've heard. Most of the so-called science at the campus focused on injecting people with chemicals and bizarre experiments on twins and things of that nature. The German SS researchers were obsessed with the occult and offered little in the way of real science.


You're talking out of your ass. Again

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experiment...

quote:
The modern body of medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to freezing to the point of death is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Parhel on 7/2/2008 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I posted the link incorrectly. It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experiment...


By sld on 7/2/2008 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
...Human nature to flippantly dismiss what their worldview refuses to accept.


By threepac3 on 7/2/2008 3:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
Can you prove Wikipedia wrong...? Did you follow there references and find misquotes, no quotes, or extrapolations based on incorrect information? Did you really? Before you make a comment like that do your own research, don't spout the latest nonsense you've found on the Internet.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Bender 123 on 7/2/2008 11:03:22 AM , Rating: 5
Jason, I like your work, but you are out of your league here. I have been in BioEthics for over 10 years and believe me, this is a prime example of how beliefs of a culture impact science in a negative way. With eight years of ethics classes and medical training, I can spout these examples from any culture, but everyone knows the Nazis, so its easy to trace back.

The Tuskeegee study is similar, if you are not into the whole Nazi example. Yes, the US government specifically did not treat black patients for easily curable diseases, just to see what happens.

Thats why if you read the post I made, I am for stem cell research, just not for a specific type. We are not going to answer the abortion issue any time soon, so lets use the alternatives, learn and inform about the viability of the alternatives and come to an agreement...These are the deals that happen before any drug/medical device/etc...even hits phase one testing.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 11:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "With eight years of ethics classes and medical training, I can spout these examples from any culture, but everyone knows the Nazis, so its easy to trace back."

You are absolutely correct. Furthermore, I'd like to add that, even with this new development, the usefulness of fetal stem cells isn't wholly replaced. As I understand it, these induced stem cells are still genetically modified and thus differ from the original; the advantage is that they're not randomly modified...and thus can be used to generate highly repeatable experiments.

So while this certainly reduces the need for fetal stem cells, I don't see that it eliminates it. The argument therefore is still with us.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2008 11:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
With the thought of original parts are usually the best parts in mind...
If we can generate stems cells from adults. Then could not the stems cells be generated from the patient? Thus matching him better?
Of course, I assuming that they can generate a clean, healthy stem cell and not one caring the same disease or whatever ills the patient. If this is not true then maybe stems cell can be generated from a health sibling or parent and still be better then a random donor?


By tmouse on 7/2/2008 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
You are absolutly correct. This is the exact thurst of this type of work.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/2/2008 11:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are not going to answer the abortion issue any time soon,


Yes we can, mind your own business :) /end of discussion


By Bender 123 on 7/2/2008 11:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
Let it never be said a Ethicist doesn't have a sense of humor...Nicely done!


By Myg on 7/4/2008 5:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Are 40 million+ aborted babies not worth thinking or discussing? (USA alone, not including European countries)

Anyone here could of been one of them (which is why it is all our collective business) and not be here today to have these fanciful discussions about perspective and preference. Apparently we didn't care enough to spare millions of others the same opportunity.

The 'Land of the free' is losing ground to the very "evils" it tries to destroy, shame really.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Parhel on 7/2/2008 11:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really can't believe you're trying to defend Nazi experimentation.


Where exactly did I defend Nazi experimentation? I was merely pointing out the fact that, as usual, you are talking out of your ass.


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/2/2008 11:21:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Most of the so-called science at the campus focused on injecting people with chemicals


Did you even read the linked wiki article you posted? Over half the "breakthroughs" described involved injecting people with toxic chemicals. AS I STATED. The rest chiefly dealt with exposure (high altitude, sea water, freezing).

While these had some scientific groundings, albeit being extremely immoral, there was a vast amount of research (ie. occult studies) that could not in the least what could be characterized as science.

And it seems to me that posting links lauding great breakthroughs from Nazi research is defending it.

I say that if you actually read that article, most of the "breakthroughs" only apply to warfare and or survival situations. Further, all of those "breakthroughs" could have been discovered without the use of human beings as guinea pigs.

If anyone is talking out their rear its you.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 5
> "there was a vast amount of research (ie. occult studies) that could not in the least what could be characterized as science."

You're ignoring the indisputable fact that much of the research conducted was valuable for science.

> "it seems to me that posting links lauding great breakthroughs from Nazi research is defending it."

Flatly incorrect. The OP was merely referring to one of the great debates in bioethics. It's a given that subjecting people to such experiments is unethical.

The debate, however, is this. Since people already WERE subjected to them, should we use the data or not? On one hand, we get valuable information, which very well might save lives in the future. On the other hand, the use of such data might (so the argument goes) encourage similar experiments in the future.


By GTVic on 7/2/2008 1:32:47 PM , Rating: 5
He said that science gained from Nazi concentration camps was not worth the price. Not hard to mistake that.

You then went on a rant about Nazi science, where your facts were apparently taken from your research of the Indiana Jones movies.

You wrote without thinking, got called on it and are now trying to unfairly blame someone else for being unclear. No excuses for that


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By SiN on 7/2/2008 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 4
I think everyone needs to get off this bandwaggon. If your trying to kill people and you investigating how your methods kill injure or mame i would have thought you will learn a lot more on how the subject reacts to the different methods of what you are trying to achieve through the process.

Regardless who did it how and why, there was probably a lot learned about the human body through the process.

To simply deny that the nazis are responsible for some of our knowledge about the human body is very ignorant. I hate how when something brought up is linked to a person/organisation that was imoral, people reject actual working knowledge brought to the table.

The Nazis also discovered testosterone then pioneered Anabolic Steroids to further their "super army".

The allies made great discoveries too, but you have to accept and give credit where its due.

/Just for the record i don't condone racial activities.


By Hawkido on 7/8/2008 5:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
/Just for the record i don't condone racial activities.


WHAT!!!?!!

You don't condone sports?!?!?!

/LOL/


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I really can't believe you're trying to defend Nazi experimentation.


I think he was actually doing the opposite. He's opposing mad, uncontrollable science regardless of which foot (American or Nazi) it happens to be on.

To your earlier post, women could be forced to have abortions in certain places in the world so that unscrupulous doctors and clinics could have access to the raw materials required to make massive amounts of money giving medical treatments to people using those materials.

You might not like what he's saying, but he's not saying what you think he's saying.

Japanese learned a lot about medicine by experimenting on humans. Think of it this way, we learn a lot about mice by experimenting on them. If they had unfettered access to humans, certainly they would be able to cure cancer and lord knows what else by now as they've been able to do with mice.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 11:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but the idea that people are going to start having abortions to harvest stem cells is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard from religious conservatives.


Jason, could you provide links to this? I've never heard the argument stated as you suggest... "having abortions to harvest stem cells"


By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 11:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I found a related link from what appears to be a conservative site claiming that this happened in Ukraine.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06121202....


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 11:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Directly from bbc now... pretty disturbing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 12:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
It seems those babies were taken more to feed a flourishing trade in organs, rather than specifically for stem cells. In any case, the argument could easily be made that, by barring the extraction of stem cells from Western abortions, we're simply encouraging an illegal trade from actual, live infants.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab...

Looks like there are plenty of abortions in Ukraine where stem cells could be obtained already. The BBC article seems dubious -- perhaps the stem cells are a convenient bonus but the real targets are the organs.


By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, I'm agreeing with your assessment of the article.

quote:
the argument could easily be made that, by barring the extraction of stem cells from Western abortions, we're simply encouraging an illegal trade from actual, live infants


However, this argument would be completely silly due to the large number of abortions performed outside the United States, in Ukraine and other countries.


By Hawkido on 7/8/2008 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"having abortions to harvest stem cells"


Try reading some of the quotes from enviromentalists... If you can stomach that much garbage... They are all out for the destruction of the human race, "so that mother earth..." (caps omitted deliberatly) "...can breath freely"


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By TheDoc9 on 7/2/2008 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but the idea that people are going to start having abortions to harvest stem cells is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard from religious conservatives.


where you see a ridiculous argument, many of us religious conservatives see a more accurate truth. This is just one in a series of reasons that people will and do use to justify abortion.

Others include: I'm too young, meaning old enough to get laid but not old enough to stop having fun and do what I want in life. Why have a child when I have my goals to accomplish?

Or how about: he/she isn't the right person, it was a night out and just for fun. I don't even know this person. I won't let her/him borrow my car but I'll have sex with them.

There's always an excuse and this is just another on the pile - an arguably more justifiable one because by ending one life you're helping save another.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By porkpie on 7/2/2008 12:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I won't let her/him borrow my car but I'll have sex with them.
I actually put a surprising number of people into that category.


By TheDoc9 on 7/2/2008 4:25:44 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not surprised I got modded down on that one. Some people might not like it but it's only because they don't want to face the truth. Maybe it's just too difficult for many to accept that they're putting there own self interest ahead of their own child's.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By abscoder on 7/2/2008 10:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell be you're not really comparing the plight of a 6 week old cell mass to a sentient being.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By Spivonious on 7/2/2008 10:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
Let's not get into the whole abortion debate.

A co-worker just went in for her 10 week checkup and listened to her cell mass's heartbeat.

For the record, I'm personally against abortion except in extreme cases (rape, health of the mother, etc.) but I don't think the federal government should have any say in it.


By abscoder on 7/2/2008 10:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, not interested in a debate on the finer points. Regardless of all our individual perspective on this subject, we'd never come to any reasonable ground on the matter. My comment was purposely neither for or against; was simply suggesting that there is a substantial difference. Maybe not morally (depending on perspective), but certainly empathetically.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By adiposity on 7/2/2008 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's not get into the whole abortion debate. A co-worker just went in for her 10 week checkup and listened to her cell mass's heartbeat.


If you didn't want to debate it, why did you bring up the heartbeat of a 10-week old "cell mass"? Here's something else with a heart beat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLkW7RuI5LU


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 12:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Here's something else with a heart beat..."

I have to say that was a very compelling rebuttal.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 4
Five bucks to anyone who can defend adiposity and masher's statements without explicitly or implicitly implying killing a chicken is the moral equivalent of killing a human.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By abscoder on 7/2/2008 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure the statement was trying to equate the two, but rather suggest a heartbeat alone doesn't make a human. It does, however, make a Chevy.


By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 2:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Spivonious didn't explicitly make the claim that heartbeat = human. I think people are reading too much into his statement.

He was arguing against "6 week old cell mass", by, oddly enough, talking about a 10 week old fetus.

Mostly irrelevant point that I probably should have let slide from the beginning.


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By adiposity on 7/2/2008 2:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Easy, all I did was show that heartbeats alone are not considered sacred.

-Dan


RE: What is rediculous about all of this is...
By CatfishKhan on 7/2/2008 3:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Spivonious didn't make the claim that heartbeat = sacred. He was arguing about your term "cell mass" to describe life at that stage.

You should have gone after him for using a 10 week example to counter a point you made about life at 6 weeks. Instead you and masher went after a straw man version of what he said.... not a big deal... I just get hung up on minutiae at times.


By adiposity on 7/2/2008 3:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Spivonious didn't make the claim that heartbeat = sacred


No, he didn't make any claims, except to tell a story about his friend. I didn't make any claims either, except to provide a link to something else with a heartbeat.

quote:
He was arguing about your term "cell mass" to describe life at that stage.


Actually "cell mass" wasn't mine. But I forgive you. I did notice that he used a different number of weeks, but I assumed that was because it was a personal anecdote. In any case, heartbeats can start at about 5-6 weeks, and can be heard at 7-8 weeks, so it's not really important.

In any case, if you think heartbeats are especially significant for some reason, which the original poster seemed to imply, perhaps the video will put that in perspective. Perhaps not.

-Dan