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 corduroygt on 4/11/2012 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
1) I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.

2) No it's not an act of faith, since you can perform experiments and show real results. It's not a comparable leap of faith to go from 99.99% evidence to saying that it's 100% the case vs. 0% evidence (religion) to 100%. Therefore you are wrong.

UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born, just the fact that he got elected president in a country where people outside of a few states are 90% morons due to a crappy electoral college system does not mean anything.

3) Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

4) It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist. It indicated a level of mental development equal to one of a child.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 5:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.


And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

quote:
UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born.


And...? How does that discount his living by it, especially given it was both his job and legal obligation to live by it?

The constitution was made before you were born. Do we not have to abide by it as well? The Likelihood is that the UDHR was drafted before you were born (or were a wee lad), and your that's your standard.

Furthermore, what about the fact that it was Congress, not Bush that placed the Rider? Nothing? have nothing to say?

quote:
Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid


Give me another... one that involves YOUR standard (the UDHR), not the Constitution. Furthermore, give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

quote:
It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist


Prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 6:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them. Unless you're going to twist words around and argue that rejection is a form of influence, which is BS by the way, you have no case.

Here's what Bush did:

President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research. However, the Bush Administration chose to limit taxpayer funding to then-existing hESC cell lines, thereby limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made". The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.

quote:
Give me another...

I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.

quote:
give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.

quote:
Prove it.

Batman/Superman are fiction, so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them.


Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

quote:
Here's what Bush did: [his administration announced something in 2001]...


So the Bush Administration pushed Congress to relax their standard, and you BLAME him?

quote:
I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.
I believe, had you quoted me fully, that I asked you to give me another one that was made against YOUR standard (the UDHR), as opposed to the Constitution.

quote:
I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.


Ah, but you see, Roe v. Wade DID say viability = life. At least, initially. Later, the Roe v Wade argument (in PlannedParenthood vs. Casey) was altered by stating part of the fundamental rights Roe protected was the right to DECIDE for ourselves the mysteries of life, and our own existence. This is important, because the FIRST distinction in Roe has been proven precisely FALSE. LIFE - HUMAN life, as a distinct and unique organism - has zero to do with viability, as has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven to begin at conception (and let us not forget that this whole conversation is about science, so this is important).

Casey fundamentally did NOT to apply a technical definition to what constitutes a Human, but rather placed a VALUE on Human life at various stages of it's life span, by letting the woman choose how she values that life. It determined that the VALUE of a woman's constitutional right to privacy trumped the VALUE of human life weighed by its viability and her morality.

(FYI: this is why it is still argued today, and ALLOWED to be argued.)

The PROBLEM with assigning VALUE is that it is highly subjective, and will be formed based upon an individuals own morality (and from which that morality stems).

At any rate the Roe argument does NOT apply here as a basis since it has the specific balance of the value of a Human Life against the Woman's Privacy (as it is directly impacted by that human life). In the case of hESC, the woman is removed from the equation. The value imposed upon the human being's life now has no other weight of measurement beyond its own significance.

The Government (as you've stated) should not be making philosophical or theological decisions. Since they can't juxtapose the value of the fetus's life against the value of the woman, their only recourse is to treat the life as it's own measurement, and as such, apply the Constitution (or in your case the UDHR) appropriately.

Anyway, the UDHR does not make a distinction between VALUE, or between Human Life and Human Being. Since that is your standard of choice, you must adhere to it or give me a proper example of where it DOES make the distinction.

quote:
... so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction .


Again I say, prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 11:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

The probability of all organized religions in the world having ANYTHING to do with an actual god assuming such a god exists = 0.
The probability that god exists = 1/(infinity-1), which is the smallest positive real number.

Here's rest of the stuff that Bush did:
In April 2004, 206 out of 500 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research — by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors — despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act), 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

In 2005 and 2007, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act, with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon non embryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes; the bill was referred to committee. Paul argued that hESC research is outside of federal jurisdiction either to ban or to subsidize.[43]

Bush vetoed another bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed the Senate on April 11 by a vote of 63-34, then passed the House on June 7 by a vote of 247-176. President Bush vetoed the bill on July 19, 2007.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama removed the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines.

As you can see, he may have started an initiative, but then he vetoed progress and stifled research. This is due to his religious beliefs, and he's a POS.

Let's come back to Roe vs. Wade. According to UDHR and also our constitution, the value of each one of our lives is equal. We also all have a right to privacy. Now since the ruling says that a woman's right to privacy is more important than the life of a fetus up to its viability, that clearly means that the fetus is not considered to be a human, otherwise its life wouldn't be less important than a woman's right to privacy, until it's viable. So the viability is being used to determine if it really is a human worthy of the protections of the constitution or not.

A blastocyst, which is a lot removed from a viable or close to viable human fetus, and has not even undergone cell differentiation, is surely not a human being according to our laws. However Bush's laws (aka the Bible) say otherwise and he vetoed expanding stem cell research.

About the Bible, proving things do not work that way. I do not have to prove that the Bible is a work of fiction, you have to prove that it isn't. You have to prove that Jesus is a real supernatural being and all the other crap he did in the Bible, not the other way around. Your stories about Jesus have just as much credibility as my stories about a dragon in my garage. Both are equally (un)likely.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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