backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Asetha.. on Apr 23 at 1:37 AM


David Fluri  (Source: daylife.com)
The new suspension method allows stem cells to be collected in larger numbers instead of being scraped off of a surface

Researchers from the University of Toronto's Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (IBBME) have created a new method for growing stem cells in larger quantities.

David Fluri, a postdoctoral researcher at IBBME, and Peter Zandstra, a professor at IBBME, have developed a new suspension method for growing stem cells, which allows for the collection of greater numbers of stem cells and increases the chance of obtaining viable cells in a cost-effective way.

Traditionally, stem cells are grown on surfaces that need to be scraped and are then differentiated from other kinds of cells to avoid cell death. However, this method doesn't produce enough viable stem cells from each culture, and the high cost to use this method doesn't match the results.

But now, Fluri and Zandstra have combined the stem cell creation process with a bioreactor, which provides stable environments for such processes. The cells were also grown in suspension, making the process more stable and safer for more viable cells.

By doing this, mouse cells were reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells, which can become any kind of cell. They were then changed into cardiac cells.

Fluri and Zandstra hope that this new technique can be used to eventually treat heart disease. It is designed to work with large scale processes and provide the quantity needed for successful stem cell research and drug development.

"This is an enabling technology," said Zandstra. "It takes something we showed we could do before at low efficiency but not at such numbers that could be used in manufacturing."

Source: Eurekalert



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 8:48:02 PM , Rating: -1
How about this for logic: He did NOT ban it, you fucking moron you. Do you understand me? Can you speak English?

quote:
Are you implying that there would be LESS funding if he didn't ban Embryonic Stem Cells?


Holy shit, are you retarded? Of course there would be LESS funding! There was NO stem cell funding before Bush took office. Do you understand the difference between NONE and MORE THAN NONE?

quote:
As I said, religion is a cancer on humanity that needs to be eradicated.


I think idiocy of your level is a far bigger threat for the moment.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
He BANNED federal funding for embryonic stem cells, while approving funding for other stem cells.

There would be more funding if ALL stem cells received federal funds without restricting embryonic ones. As I said, emerging technology at the time and Bush held it back because of religious reasons, just like his faith based initiatives that got federal funding it's as simple as that.

This country would be a better place if all religious conservatives ceased to exist. If I had a button that achieved this, I'd press it without hesitating for a second.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 9:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Cord you're being willfully stupid. Very few Presidents have spoken about their religious faith as often, as deeply or as eloquently as Obama. Are you kidding me?

We've gone over this again and again. If you hate "religious" people, which you clearly do, you also must hate Obama just as much as Bush.

Just crawl back under your bridge, troll.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 9:03:59 PM , Rating: 1
Don't change the subject, you religious POS.
Obama significantly expanded stem cell research after Bush's restrictive policies and research has exploded since then.

It was Bush's policy which limited stem cell research by prohibiting federal funds to go to EMBRYONIC stem cells.

So I take this as your concession that Bush needlessly limited science by banning embryonic stem cell research and Obama reversed it.

I don't hate "religious" people, I hate the "religious conservatives", which is just an euphemism for the pro-life, bible-thumping, creationist "Christian Taliban" that forms the republican party's voter base. They do not deserve to live.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 9:21:29 PM , Rating: 1
Fuck you. I'm NOT religious. And this is over. I don't have to be a "religious POS" to take exception to your continued hate speech.

You sound like Hitler, seriously. That you feel you can judge who "deserves" to live? Please get help. You must be a miserable deranged person to have feelings like that.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 9:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
You surely defend the religious right/Fox News/Limbaugh crowd for a "non-religious" person.

It's also very ironic that you called me Hitler, while defending the party of social Darwinists (fascists).

In any case, the Christian Taliban should not be given any quarter and frankly the world would be better if they did not exist. I don't have the power to make it that way though.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 9:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well you've lumped all Conservative Republicans into a convenient stereotype of religious wackos, so I guess I have no choice BUT to be put on the defensive. I also don't have to be "religious" to take offense to your insanity when it comes to them. Even if someone said "we should kill all Liberals" I would not be on board with that. It's called maturity and empathy, something you should look up. Just because I don't agree with someone's ideology or lifestyle, doesn't mean I should feel that it's okay if they were killed off or marginalized in some other fashion.

You're talking about having the power to make hundreds of millions of people "not exist" in a casual manner like someone would talk about going out to eat. And you question ME? Something is VERY wrong with you. It's not "ironic" that I called you Hitler. Replace Jews with "religious" people and there you have it. The mentality is exactly the same. You are talking about genocide.

Social Darwinists, "Christian Taliban"....what the hell are you even talking about? Do you listen to yourself? These are all in your head.


RE: This could have been the US
By Alexvrb on 4/10/2012 1:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
They do not deserve to live? Because they do not agree with your point of view? You're no better than they are. Your opinions don't matter any more. You're just a mortal too, and a foolish, hateful, one at that. Your very speech is like a mirror image of the kind you claim to abhor. You are at least as closed-minded and bigoted as your counterparts on the far other side of the spectrum, and equally blind to this fact as well.

I've got news for you. To use your own words: You're STILL just a "clump of cells", meatbag. With an attitude like yours, I wonder if it's not too late to abort you. You know, for science, nothing immoral about it.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/10/2012 4:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
'Religious conservatives' seem to be a euphemism for caricatures of people you invent in your head. Apparently you've never read Plantinga, Piper, Aquinas, Craig, Wilberforce etc.

They don't deserve to live huh? Well, start shooting them, then. It's not murder if you kill sub-humans, and sub-humans exist in some countries.

Such as Nazi Germany, you Gestapo swine.


RE: This could have been the US
By antistormtrooper on 4/10/2012 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know who they are, but a quick glance at Plantinga (ID supporter LOL) and Aquinas (based his stuff on the Bible, LOL) shows that I am not missing much. Arguments formulated in ields outside of Sciences and Mathematics do not have much pull, and ones based on religious texts are absolutely 100% worthless.

Humanity would be better off if they did not live. However, that doesn't mean I'd do anything about it.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
Considering you are ignorant of both the authors and their works, I suggest you either a) stop talking about things you don't understand, or b) read their works?

Plantinga's naturalism argument goes something like this:

Natural selection selects based on survival, not anything else. This means you should have no reason to believe your own reasoning abilities. The example he uses is a man in the jungle faced with a tiger. The man may believe that tigers should be petted, and the best way of petting a tiger is to run away from it. The man survives and passes on his genes. Nature selected him not for his reasoning abilities but because he survived.

Basically naturalism and evolution are not coherent together.

But since you LOL at the man and not his arguments...I guess you win in your own mind? It's a great way of avoiding a difficult argument, I admit.

Nice support for murder, by the way. You don't look like a freak at all.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
I just noticed you advocated they die but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Why? If you think we are better of without people like them, why not kill them yourself?

Could it be because you know murder is wrong? Who said it's wrong? Can you give me an objective reason why murder is wrong without resorting to an immaterial reason? You said that mathematics and science are all that basically matters. Therefore, if blue is better than green should people with green eyes be killed?

Your statement is nonsensical, I suggest you leave the thinking to those who can.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














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