Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow 244

Posted by Hemos from the tip-toe-around-the-ethics dept.
BoogieChile writes "ABC News is reporting that a team of researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles, lead by Dr John Yu, are aiming to extract renewable stem cells from bone marrow - extracted from the patient him/herself - for a source of neural stem cells for treatment of brain cancers, Alzheimers and other neurological disorders. Problem solved! Yipee! New spinal column, anyone?" 'Course the story has no details - post anything else you can find below.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow More

New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow

Comments Filter:

  • Replacement (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Would this be able to replace getting stem cells from Fetuses?

    • Re:Replacement (Score:5, Informative)

      by _TheDoc_ ( 57819 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:47PM (#4930251)
      Well, this is a tricky question. Although the article doesn't mention this directly, I'm sure that it's one of the problems they're going to encounter. Fetal stem cells are what they call totipotential, in that they have the ability to become any type of specialized cell in the body given the appropriate "signals." Stem cells in the adult bone marrow are slightly less capable of this, usually being called pluripotential. While they can differentiate into a wide number of cells, they are relatively committed to becoming some type of formed element in the blood or bone marrow. The challenge at this point will be attempting to coax the marrow stem cells into taking a neural development route, something they hadn't originally planned on doing.

      • Re:Replacement (Score:4, Interesting)

        by japhyr777 ( 467923 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:34PM (#4930640)
        This is exactly the problem. The stem cells at this point are already specialized, and they essentially know how old they are. Hence the reason to use fetal stem cells that have not been programmed as to their task.

        I find it strange that this is something new. My friends who are working with stem cells have known about research of this type for some time, and know the inherent weaknesses in these methods.
    • I've always heard and read, except on Slashdot, where the news is always accurate, that adult stem cells are almost always considered to be better.

      One major problem, outside of the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cells, is that there will be rejection with fetal cells. If you use your own stem cells, there is no problem with rejection, since your DNA == your DNA and is thus not a foreign body.

      This is why if you get a transplant, you have to take anti-rejection (immunosuppressing) drugs the rest of your life. If you use your own DNA, you won't have to worry about this. While you're on anti-rejection drugs, it's live having chemically-induced AIDS -- no/little immunity.
  • Finally found something that people won't(hopefully) bitch at em about.
    • Nah, People will still complain about it but not as many. This will probably at least get the big organizations such as the catholic churches and political parties off their backs. So there will only be smaller organazations that will complain about it somehow.
    • <sarcasm>
      I can't believe you could be so callous and un-feeling. Why does nobody think of the poor, unborn red blood cells that bone marrow could have become? I think we should all write the government and have them withdraw funding for what is essentially murder.
      </sarcasm>

  • Damn! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:40PM (#4930174)
    There goes my business plan for foetal farming. I guess I'll have to abort the whole crop.

  • More links... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SealBeater ( 143912 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:40PM (#4930177) Homepage
    More info here [sciencedaily.com]
    and
    here [upi.com]

    SealBeater

  • Leukemia (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jmertic ( 544942 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:41PM (#4930182) Homepage Journal

    I've heard about something like this with Leukemia patients. Basically, they can get you in remission, extract some stem cells from you, then use those stem cells for a bone marrow transplant for you later on. Someone elaborate on this if you know more, as I'm not a doctor and could be speaking out of my ass on this one.

    • Re:Leukemia (Score:5, Interesting)

      by _TheDoc_ ( 57819 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:53PM (#4930300)
      You are correct, and this is currently being used to treat a variety of patients with "bone marrow failure" from illnesses not necessarily limited to leukemias. The big jump here is that they're hoping they can trick the bone marrow stem cells into thinking they can become neural cells, something not in the original game plan. Of course even if that is possible, whether or not we can actually harness this power to treat disease is left to be discovered. Given the possibilities, however, it's something I'd keep my fingers crossed on.

      • Re:Leukemia (Score:2, Interesting)

        by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 )
        well now wait.....if they can perform a bonemarrow transplant from your own bone marrow stem cells, would that not be a uesfull technique for organ transplants? a year or so ago, a girl recived a kidney in NYC. she also got a bonemarrow transplant afterward. now the kidney is not identified as alien since the new marrow reset her factors or what have you.

        would the same not hold true for a self doner transplant/replant?

    • Re:Leukemia (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have a co-worker that is undegoing treatment for cancer of the spinal cord. He had a series of radiation and chemo earlier this year. A couple months ago he had some marrow extracted and stem cells cultivated. Earlier this month, he underwent a massive dose of chemo with the intent of killing off all his remaining bone marrow. A few days later, he was injected with his own stem cells. From the early results, it looks like his treatment is working. He's being treated at the University of Wisconsin. His type of cancer is rare, but nearly always fatal, so hopefully this experimental treatment will work for him.

    • Re:Leukemia (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zzendpad ( 84506 )
      It's called an autologous bone marrow transplant (as opposed to an allogence transplant, from another donor). They basically take some of your bone marrow. Then they whack you with the strongest chemo they've got. It's used for multiple myeloma, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, ovarian, and testicular cancer. The chemotherapies for these conditions affect your bone marrow greatly. So, they take some, whack you with the chemo, which hoses your bone marrow. Then they give you some of your old marrow back.

      I was an Adriamynic, Bleomycin, Dicarbazine and Vinblastine for Hodgkin's lymphoma, this is a very common chemo for them to do an ABMT. I was spared this, though, because my bone marrow was already shot when they began treatment.

  • Reuters on yahoo... (Score:5, Informative)

    by daoine ( 123140 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `3101hdaurom'> on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:42PM (#4930192)
    With a little more detail here. [yahoo.com]

    It doesn't focus much on the technology used, but the point that adults have stem cells within them, and scientist can now obtain them without going the politically icky embryo route.

    • Re:Reuters on yahoo... (Score:2, Informative)

      by CptNerd ( 455084 )
      Not to mention eliminating the need for post-operative immunosupressive drugs.

    • Based on the contents of the Yahoo article in growing brains cells in lab environments, I'm surprised there aren't a whole lot of Pinky and The Brain jokes around here.

  • You can pry my marrow.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:42PM (#4930193) Homepage Journal

    .. from my cold, dead hands!

  • Check an article with actual details (Score:5, Informative)

    by chupar ( 632295 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:42PM (#4930198)
    At MIT Tech Review [technologyreview.com]

    Enjoy.

  • Is this news? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Enzondio ( 110173 ) <jelmore@@@lexile...com> on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:43PM (#4930202) Homepage
    I understood that this had been known to be an option for some time now. The issue at hand as I understand it is that these cells are potentially not as useful as embryonic stem cells. I assume beacuse they have already differentiated to a certain degree.

    Not to say that this research is not of value but I don't know that it's safe to say that it solves the whole embryonic stem cell issue.

    Am I remembering incorrectly?

    • Re:Is this news? (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by mathi ( 539622 )
      It has been on slashdot before: here [slashdot.org]
  • I know that it was meant to reference the stem cell debate, but what are the journalistics ethis of posting a article, admitting that it contains no details, and then asking for the readers to find more info for you? Seems a bit irresponsible to me.

  • I find this doubtful (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:45PM (#4930232)
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006850 F-381C-1CDC-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catI D=2

    The existence of adult stem cells, while highly promising if they exist and are as functional as embryonic ones, is still in doubt.

    • Re:I find this doubtful (Score:2, Informative)

      by kargis ( 468280 )
      Um. Although that Sciam article accurately discusses the doubts of some, there are an impressive number of experiments that have shown that stem cells can be pulled from marrow, and can and will replace tissues from other organs.

      Cell, Vol. 105, 369-377, May 4, 2001

      Kargis Strong, MD

  • Great news for Health (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zerbey ( 15536 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:45PM (#4930233) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately, the article goes into very little details such as:

    Is extracting stem cells for bone marrow just as good as from fetuses? Can it be taken for a living patient? I have a big ethical problem with taking stem cells from an unborn baby, simply because a baby does not have the ability to consent to such a procedure.

    I will be one of the first in line to donate bone marrow but will probably get rejected. Unfortunately, since I've lived in two countries no bloodbank will take my donation, even though I have no health problems. Hopefully, the law will be changed one day.

    • Re:Great news for Health (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:49PM (#4930270)
      Embryonic stem cells are not taken from unborn babies, they are taken from embryos, preferably while still undifferentiated. This is because what is wanted is the cells *before* they start taking on roles. The cells are then cultured. And as in the SciAm article [sciam.com] I linked to before, it is far from certain adult stem cells even exist and work.

      Note, the whole point of embryonic, is so one can clone a patient and while the cloned cells are still in undifferentiated stage, use them for treatment to avoid rejection. This is far different from your implication of somehow extracting them from a baby.
      • Embryonic stem cells are not taken from unborn babies, they are taken from embryos, preferably while still undifferentiated.

        [snip]

        Note, the whole point of embryonic, is so one can clone a patient and while the cloned cells are still in undifferentiated stage, use them for treatment to avoid rejection. This is far different from your implication of somehow extracting them from a baby.

        It is important to note that one of the major victories of the pro-life faction (at least in the U.S.) is that everything that's not still "sperm" or "egg" is commonly referred to as a "baby". That includes embryos, blastocytes, and fetuses, whether they are in a womb, or test-tube, or elsewhere.

        This common tendancy is useful when discussing issues related to abortion. As you pointed out, "stem cells harvested from a baby" is not the same as "stem cells harvseted from an embryo". People have a clear image of what a baby is (a "goo goo"-ing little person in a pink or blue fuzzy outfit) which is evoked every time a discussion relating to abortion comes up, whether or not it is actually applicable. In this case, it most certainly is not applicable. Like you said, you can only get embryonic stem cells from an embryo. But, even though it makes no sense to talk about "babies" in this contex, sure enough, someone brought them up. It's a clever use of the power of imagery to obscure the real issue.
    • Oh, look I started a debate :)

      To answer the e-mails/replies I've gotten:

      1. Abortion: I am not going to touch this with a 40ft pole apart from to say I respect everyone elses opinions on the matter.

      2. Religion: See 1, but with a bigger pole.

      3. I personally believe a baby (fetus, ugh, embryo, double ugh) becomes a living person the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. So, taking cells from an unborn baby is against my beliefs. That's my personal opinion, and everyone is welcome to either agree or disagree with me.

      4. I am not allowed to give blood because I used to live in England but have since moved to the USA. The law states that if you have spent so much time in another country you are unable to give blood because of the risk of infection. If I had any infections severe enough to harm someone else, I'd either be dead already or vey very sick.

      Interesting discussion so far, more flames/comments on my posts are welcomed. :)

      • If I had any infections severe enough to harm someone else, I'd either be dead already or vey very sick.

        Not necessarily. I'm also not allowed to donate blood, but in my case the restriction makes sense: A little over 10 years ago I had typhus (worst two weeks of my life) and there's a high probability that I will forever carry enough typhus virii that I could be dangerous to someone. Remember Typhoid Mary? I'm not like that, I'm not generally contagious, but someone who's already in bad shape who got a mild dose of typhus from my blood could end up much worse off than before.

        Given that there are plenty of donors around who don't had any clear risk factors that would make them potential disease carriers, it's very sensible to refuse any that are questionable.

        That said, I've never hear that simply living in a foreign country for a while would disqualify you: My wife lived in Italy for 18 months and she donates blood. I lived in Mexico for two years and if I hadn't contracted typhus I would still be permitted to donate. It must be that you lived in a particular region during a particular period.

    • Is extracting stem cells for bone marrow just as good as from fetuses? Can it be taken for a living patient? I have a big ethical problem with taking stem cells from an unborn baby, simply because a baby does not have the ability to consent to such a procedure.

      My father went through this procedure recently, as part of an experimental cancer treatment (in his case, mantle-cell lymphoma). After three sessions of chemotherapy, they extracted stem cells from him to be cultured, then his bone marrow was killed, after which the cultured stem cells were returned.

      The short-term results look good; he's recovered most of his appetite, and his immune system came back up nicely (unlike the chemotherapy treatments, where he was severely debilitated and immunocompromised for some time after the treatment). Whether the treatment succeeded in destroying the cancer is something that we're going to have to watch for the foreseeable future.
  • ...I've heard about this article quite a while ago, back when 'Dubya' cut government support for fetal stem cell research. At the time it was the general consensus that fetal stem cell research was still necessary because (adult) bone marrow stem cell development was still too unreliable. There were many appeals to keep funding the fetal stem cells until the bone marrow stem cell techniques were improved to the degree that they could supplement/replace fetal stem cells in research.

    The only thing I am confused about is why this article is on /. now, when this isn't breaking news, by any measure.

  • Pretty well known in pro-life circles (Score:5, Informative)

    by MPolo ( 129811 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:48PM (#4930259)
    I've been hearing about this sort of result for some time in prolife circles, but it seems to be silenced by the mainstream media. I still don't know how much ideology is involved, though.

    Essentially, the embryonic stem cells have failed to produce very promising results because of rejection or tumor formation (in many cases). Adult stem cells, which are pluripotential (not totipotential), have no rejection problems because they are autologously donated. Searching Google on "bone marrow stem cells" produces a variety of results, like this plea for funding from a Russian biologist: Why cloning? [narod.ru] or this from Science Daily [sciencedaily.com] or Bone Marrow Stem Cells can become almost anything [unisci.com].

  • CSMC (Score:5, Informative)

    by hether ( 101201 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:48PM (#4930261)
    Cedars-Sinai is pretty involved in stem cell research on a variety of levels. Do a search for stem cells on their site [csmc.edu] and you'll come up with tons of stuff.

    They offer Stem Cell/Bone Marrow Transplantation [csmc.edu] as a part of their other transplantation services. Here is their FAQ about the process. http://www.csmc.edu/bloodmarrow/859.asp [csmc.edu]

    Not exactly what the article is talking about though.

  • Now we know why (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    G*d took the rib from Adam.

  • THIS is why RESEARCH is important (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gosand ( 234100 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:52PM (#4930283)
    I am going off the assumption that this story is true, but the fact remains that things like this have happened in other areas of science as well. RESEARCH allows scientists to innovate and come up with new techniques/treatments/solutions. Imagine that stem cell research had been stopped in the beginning because of "ethical" objections.

    I think the same scenario can be applied to the tech world - if you stifle research, you stifle innovation. You stop someone from investigating digital security (DMCA) and you prevent security from progressing.

    • Re:THIS is why RESEARCH is important (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:12PM (#4930453) Journal
      What's moral and ethical in 'research' constantly evolves.

      Back in university, I did a pretty thorough study and report on Frederick Banting and how he discovered insulin. I took a little field trip down to the University of Toronto and thumbed through some of his actual research logs.

      Quick backstory:

      He expirimented on dogs, basically trying to figure out what the (at the time unknown) internal secretion of the pancreas was, what it did, and how to extract it. His expiriments were to basically remove a big chunk of the pancreas, leaving only the cells that produce the digestive juices, and see what happened. The dogs got diabetic. He figured a way to extract the juice (insulin) from the pancreas, gave it to the now diabetic dogs, and they lived.

      Anyhow. His logs are full of really shaky, obvious stuff. He was either an amazing scientist, or he was cooking the books. One test animal starts off as a cocker spaniel, and is later a german shepherd, for instance.

      It's pretty much known that he and some assistants would scour the streets at night, abducting stray animals for their expiriments.

      Now, back on topic. His behaviours were highly unethical in many ways by todays standards. I don't see any university letting you dognap animals to test out theories on them, let alone replacing a test animal because another died in surgery and not making any sort of note of that.

      But, he discovered insulin. If we could go back and stop his unethical research, perhaps millions would still be dying of what is now a managable disease because of his work. Do the ends justify the means?
      • But, he discovered insulin. If we could go back and stop his unethical research, perhaps millions would still be dying of what is now a managable disease because of his work. Do the ends justify the means?

        Do the ends justify the means? No.

        Did the ends justify the means in this case? Yes.

        I don't think the ends always justify the means, but you cannot deny that it was worth the sacrifice of these few animals in order to discover insulin. However, if his research had gone for naught, then it would have been a waste. The problem is, you just never have the luxury of knowing 100% what will happen. But this is a great example of why research should be allowed to happen. Of course, things should be monitored, and recorded, and regulated - but I think it has to happen. What you don't see right away is all of the research that happened because of the discovery of insulin. That could eventually lead to a cure for diabetes.

        Fascinating story by the way, I had never heard about the discovery of insulin.

        • The real question is, do the POTENTIAL ends justify the means. Absolutely. monitored, only for supplimenting recording. Recorded, absolutely otherwise what is the point? Regulated, only in the sense that an experiment must be regulated in terms of controled conditions to provide useful and conclusive results. If you mean regulation in terms of laws and bodies who yammer about ethical and moral issues, certainly not.
    • I am going off the assumption that this story is true, but the fact remains that things like this have happened in other areas of science as well. RESEARCH allows scientists to innovate and come up with new techniques/treatments/solutions. Imagine that stem cell research had been stopped in the beginning because of "ethical" objections.

      I don't know why you feel the need to use scare quotes around the word "ethical". There are of course ethical issues that must be considered in any medical research. We may not agree on exactly what limits are correct, but, not living in a technocratic dictatorship, those decisions are not always ours to make.

      OTOH, if fetal stem-cell research had been allowed to continue with no restrictions whatsoever, the potential of this bone marrow technique may not have been discovered until much later. Necessity is the mother of invention.

      I think the same scenario can be applied to the tech world - if you stifle research, you stifle innovation. You stop someone from investigating digital security (DMCA) and you prevent security from progressing.

      A flawed analogy. The objections were never to stem-cell research in general, only the source of those particular stem-cells. There's a big difference.

  • Don't forget the other source of stem cells (Score:5, Informative)

    by lobsterGun ( 415085 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:53PM (#4930299)
    Fetal umbillical cord blood is rich in stem cells. If you're having a child it's worth looking into( Cord Blood Registry [cordblood.com] is a good source of information). One interesting thing to note is that stem cells harvested from cord blood can not only be used in the baby that produced them, but sometimes can be used in parents and siblings as well. This may be the case with other stem cells too, but I'm not sure.
  • Personally, it looks to me like there are 2 very different sides of the story to this.

    On one hand you have the "Pro-Life" advocates saying that you can't justify the research since it might play a part in the death of an unborn embryo. You can read a few of those types of articles here [stemcellresearch.org] and here [cbhd.org] to get a feel for that side of the story.

    On the flip side the AAAS has a very compelling document here [aaas.org] in PDF format. Also CAMR has a nice little diddy about their stance here [camradvocacy.org].

    Bush and the Senate seem to have made their stance [whitehouse.gov] on the matter known as well...so enjoy!

    There is alot of discussion, and alot remains to be seen, but I thought I'd toss out some links to help everyone form their own opinion on the matter.
  • No thanks, I don't need one... if that's all right with you.

  • Might work, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ToddScheetz ( 96 )
    Everything I've read indicates that every source of adult stem cells are at least partially differentiated. This means that they could be useful for a subset of the tissues within the body. Think of it in terms of a tree (in the computational sense). Embryonic stem cells are the root of the tree. They are pleuripotent, meaning that any cell type can be generated from them. At successively lower levels of the tree, more differentiation has taken place.

    So, these adult stem cells from marrow could be useful for generating a subset of tissues. Most likely these are bone and marrow related. As an earlier poster pointed out, this could be VERY beneficial for leukemia. But the differentiation process does not appear to be reversible. At least yet!

    -Todd

  • Cord Blood (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lameland ( 23851 ) <[epierce] [at] [usf.edu]> on Friday December 20, 2002 @12:57PM (#4930334)
    There is already a replacement to the embryonic stem cells: stem cells from the blood in Umbilical (Sp?) cords. If the goverment or a group of hospitals came together and saved the blood from the umbilical cords of all babies born, there wouldn't be a need form embryonic stem cell research. There are a couple of companies already storing cord blood, one of them is cryo-cell [cryo-cell.com]
  • post anything else you can find below.

    I'm pretty sure you don't want me to post what I found under my bed yesterday when I was cleaning...

  • Deja vu (Score:5, Informative)

    by hiero ( 75335 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:00PM (#4930360) Homepage
    There was an article [startribune.com] in the Mpls Star Tribune [startribune.com] 2 weeks ago about the University of Minnesota licensing the rights to technology for creating stem cells from human bone marrow to a biotech firm called Athersys. The U of M researchers published a paper about this procedure in the July 4th issue of Nature. Here [nature.com] is a link to an article (not abstract) [nature.com].

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Necromancyr ( 602950 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:10PM (#4930429)
    This has been known for a LONG time. The problem is the cells are no where near as effective as fetal cells because of their inability to diferentiate as well (meaning they can't become as many 'body parts' and when they can, they are normally inferior because of the way in which stem cells in the body are retained during aging).

    Also, other countries are already advancing with fetal stem cells. Take a look at annoucements from all over the world - countries that we're decades behind us are already passing us because of the religiously based rules imposed upon science by the 'Moral' politicians/lobbying groups. The cloning issues are progressing the same way. China and India are already advancing past us - and some of the most valuable scientists in the field are LEAVING the Unites States because of the limits that are being put on their research.

    All I know is people are going to have abortions - be it medically or with a coat hanger - whether I, you, the president, god, etc., agree with it. They always have, they always will. We might as well use them towards some good. Unfortunately, some people feel it's better that we say "No, its bad. I won't listen." and let the already doomed fetuses be simply thrown away. At least, until their loved one dies and they realize they could have been saved with methods derived from stem cells.

    The fact of the matter is this is the equivalent of saying "Well, we have diamons...but, take a look at this cubic zirconium...we shined it up real nice and it might be as good as a diamond." Except its NOT. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to make 'fake diamonds' (clone/in vitro fertilize) because that would be wrong too.

    (And, apologies for spelling errors...I tried to look it over, but I know I must have made a few...maybe...)

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by operagost ( 62405 )
      China and India- great bastions of morality if I ever saw one.

      The decision was made by the US federal government in 2001 not to fund embryonic stem cell research. The research itself is not illegal. There are many, many corporations with deep pockets who could fund this research. Funding could have been denied for this research just as readily for a myriad of other reasons, as I imagine many are.

      The fear is that funding the research will result in some sort of "abortion banks". Maybe women will be even offered money to abort their babies, similar to how men crank out a batch at sperm banks every day for a few bucks.

      The rest of your "argument" is merely a distraction. Abortion and in vitro fertilization are legal.

      I refuse to ever compromise my moral beliefs just because morally bankrupt and spiritually dead people seem to be pulling ahead.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Arcaeris ( 311424 )
        I refuse to ever compromise my moral beliefs just because morally bankrupt and spiritually dead people seem to be pulling ahead.

        That's totally great, but that does that mean that I have to follow yours?

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ChrisWong ( 17493 )
      On the other hand, I think ideology may be at work also on the part of embryonic stem cells. The promised cures are just promises: vaporware. There are serious difficulties involved in manupilating embryonic stem cells that aren't discussed much, as this article describes [firstthings.com]. The situation now is:
      To date there is
      no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results.

      So why does embryonic stem cell research -- unproven, dangerous, morally questionable and possibly unworkable -- get so much press? Adult stem cell research gets far less coverage, which is why old news like this sounds like big stuff. Instead the medical equivalent of cold fusion continues to hog the limelight.

  • Problem Solved? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by v2002 ( 551621 )
    Problem Solved? Ya, maybe you could outline the rest for us. But in my opinion the problem is far from solved, unless you are just concerned with with topical debate at your bioethics forum. The problem for people who are dying from unrelenting degenerative disease is not ethics. And as far as the debate goes, ethics takes up valuable time students can better spend elsewhere, perhaps actually doing something to help people, or posting more interesting comments.
  • It was proven in the 70s you can create stem cells out of normal adult cells using proper electrical stimuli..

    One of the guys names was Becker. It was legit science that got dismissed over time as crackpot due to some of the things he was doing..

    Nothing like re-inventing the wheel time and time again.

  • Spinal Cord? Maybe. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gropo ( 445879 ) <groopo@yah o o .com> on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:21PM (#4930534) Homepage Journal
    New spinal column, anyone?
    A far more common use for stem cells would be to replace teeth! Current dental replacement involves stainless steel anchors and permanent dentures. Screw that! Give me the living, nerve-intact teeth of a 16 year-old!

    Something tells me that my grandchildren won't ever have to endure looking at my teeth in a glass on the bathroom sink when they come to visit ;D

  • Cures or bandaids? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:24PM (#4930551)
    My fear from this type of technology is that it will be used as a means to fix poor lifestyle choices. Like McDonalds? Clone yourself a new heart. Drink too much? Try on a new liver.

    I am all for saving lives. I am not all for amending poor choices again and again.
  • The ability to extract stem cells from an adult body is old news, but the question is does this new source of cells have the polymorphic qualities of the their fetal bretheren?

    • There is a certain danger in having too much flexibility. If you stick stem cells into yourself that can replicate indefinitely and transform into anything, then you run the risk of them transforming into everything.

      There is a serious quality control problem here: suppose you want to convert totally undifferentiated stem cells into brain tissue to repair an injury. You might mostly succeed, but QA at the cellular level is tricky. Did you differentiate every one of them? Suppose you missed a couple. Being stem cells, those can continue to replicate and morph uncontrollably. You can end up with a messy clump of hair, intestine and toe nail cells growing uncontrollably in your head. We have a name for this problem: it's called cancer.

      Adult stem cells have value precisely because they are differentiated. It's safer, because they are easier to control.
  • I noticed that, apparently, they are using this technique to treat Parkinson's, which is a result of lack of Dopamine. I wonder if this could not also be used (many years from now) to treat ADHD, which results from a Serotonin Dopamine imbalance. Anyone good with bio want to comment?

  • as for reinventing the wheel... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:29PM (#4930604)
    besides some other mention of previous methods of extracting and producing stem cells go, this method in the article is really not new at all. In fact it is accurate to say that when all the debate raged full of its emotional drive and personal attacks from people's desire to further their own personal agenda... this method was mentioned many times but fell upon as deaf ears as could be found when trying to give a solution to a problem that has caused two gangs to start a blood bath. Their lust for death and destruction has overtaken all semblance of humanity, much less logic and reason and the result is that you must shout to be heard by either of them.

    The lesson here is to not put that much support into these so called scientists that become so emotional and arrogant with matters such as this. Most likely, many of the scientists arguing so fervently for embryonic stem cell research had forgotten the original point of concern and thus debate and regressed into an animalistic pattern of "My team is better than yours and you suck" in which their stubborness restricted them from seeing clearly. Their point of debate should have been about finding a solution that does not harm others (the ethical portion). This could be solved by either A) finding another solution or B) proving to all that there is actually no harm done. Instead, like all liberals they chose to act as enraged monkeys throwing poop and slapping the ground. This can be evidenced by their arrogant statements and obvious content for anyone who dares to question them or the results of their actions. All attrocities happen in this circumstance and they win no real support from anyone who employs logic and reason.

    Much like the actual debate of abortion, the real issue is avoided and actually hidden by a wall made of emotional sound bites. Liberals have their chants about "get your laws off my body" and "my body, my choice" yet ignore that their refusal to address the actual issue at hand only shows their own internal reluctance to debate the issue amongst themselves much less satisfactorily come up with a conclusion that debases the issue pressed agains them. The rest is buried in a sea of hypocricy and a very selective and ironic application of who qualifies for that "CHOICE." The ONLY argument here that is valid is: "What defines 'human' during gestation" or worded differently, "When is that growing lifeform a human?"
    Avoiding that issue and pandering to the ID of self important and narcissistic people is the tactic of rapists and murderers (not to mention Tyrants throughout history). I have seen this argument many times by wife/child beaters/molesters, murderers, thieves and other people who instead of internally accepting their own choices instead make excuses and try to alter the perspective of reality to a point that they can live with their choices. There is ALWAYS a reason for the murder, rape, etc.

  • Abbot and Costello (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 ) on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:33PM (#4930629) Homepage Journal
    Abbot: What's the name of the the doctor?
    Costello: Yu.
    Abbot: Me?
    Costello: No, Mei works in Oncology.
    Abbot: You do?
    Costello: No, no, no. Yu works on stem cells, Mei works in Oncology.
    Abbot: Well, you're certainly not in the English department.

    Etc...

  • "Standard & Contemporary" Myeloma Treatment (Score:3, Informative)

    by rawdot ( 68408 ) <raw@raw.com> on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:41PM (#4930701) Homepage

    According to this [multiplemyeloma.org] stem cell transplant from the patient themselves is "standard and contemporary treatment" (in contrast to an "emerging therapy") for multiple myeloma (described here [multiplemyeloma.org]).

    I believe this is a more refined form of what used to be called a "bone marrow transplant", but someone else probably can explain that in excurciating detail. :-)

    I have friend who had this done and she is well on her way to recovery.

    Cheers,
    Richard

  • Slashdot: where you do our work for us (Score:5, Funny)

    by revery ( 456516 ) <charles@NoSpam.cac2.net> on Friday December 20, 2002 @01:41PM (#4930708) Homepage
    'Course the story has no details - post anything else you can find below.

    Translation: This sounds neat. It might be another hoax, but then we do have a reputation to keep up. I holpe the readers come through and make this an interesting article, cause right now, we got crap...
  • Medical scientists have known about adult stem cells for quite some time now. However, they are not the answer to the debate about stem cell research. As I recall, scientists have been able to do certain research with embryonic stem cells that they have not been able to reproduce with adult stem cells.

    then again... I'm a web developer, so what they heck do I know about stem cell research. All of my medical knowledge comes from the discovery channel and TLC ;).

  • "for treatment of brain cancers, Alzheimers and other neurological disorders. Problem solved! Yipee! New spinal column, anyone?"

    Yeah, as if the world isn't populated enough already, let cure every fucking disease in the world.
  • This article reminds me of a case:

    Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (CA Supreme Ct. 1990). (I know, bluebook format not followed)

    This involved a guy who had some cells removed. He gave consent, but the doctors did not reveal to him their interest in the cells. Turns out that after research with his cells, they developed products worth millions, IIRC. The CA Supreme found for the university despite the doctors having violated a disclosure law.

  • Problem solved! Yipee!
    1. Harvest stem cells from bone marrow..
    2. ???
    3. Problem Solved!
  • A few years back, there was a small study done that showed a different source of pluripotent stem cells - the nose. It seems that stem cells in the nasal cavity are already adept at becoming nerve cells.

    I don't recall hearing of any follow-up to this, though it seemed very promising. I try to follow these things, as they offer a good chance of reversing the damage done to me by (secondary progressive) multiple sclerosis.

    I've been hoping that such research might offer a way of reversing the damage done, in time that my skill set as a software engineer (microcontrollers and device drivers) would still be useful as anything but a curiosity, but *sigh* things don't look good. If I'm extremely lucky, it'll be only about 15 years till the technology is there, and by then, who'd want to hire a 60-year-old engineer who's been out of circulation foir the past two decades? Grrrr.
  • I really don't, but...duh! Bone marrow is a great source for stem cells! Did someone finally just now figure this out? Or am I really missing something here?

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close