Paralyzed Woman Walks Again 1196
mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."
Adult stem cells (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Get the facts straight (Score:5, Informative)
There is a huge difference between the two.
Re:Get the facts straight (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get the facts straight (Score:5, Informative)
Reference below. It was not until 1999/2000 that scientists proved that these cells could be forced to differentiate into things like nerve cells that were previously thought to be impossible to regenerate.
http://www.laskerfoundation.org/news
Re:Get the facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Bush prevented work from being funded for embryonic cells (with usual caveats)
Whether or not this is "halting work" is purely a matter of sematics.
The ideas were NOT around much prior to the Bush Administration: it was not until 1998 that embryonic cloning was possible and 1999/2000 that the first breakthroughs in differentiation were made. Please see the link, which has an obvious slashcode-inserted space.
Re:Get the facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet in practice there isn't. A lot of these lines have been ruined by mouse DNA and other issues. The best stem cell research, predictically, isnt from these lines but from others and most notably from foreign nations.
Bush could have left the Clinton-era laws alone, but chose to give this as a handout to his religious right base. Its dirty politics any way you slice it. The moral issue is as manufactured as the PC you're using to browse this site.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Embryonic cells are growing too fast, and are too unstable. They end up growing into a mess, since they can't be told what to grow into.
Adult cells are by definition those that are stable, having already grown into whatever their "children" will be. Embryonic cells (found in embryos with 1024 or fewer cells) can still grow into any type of cell, which we can't yet control.
It's true that embryonic cells hold "promise", but it comes at a cost. While we're trying to figure out (through the research you want) how to keep a group of embryonic stem cells from growing into an amorphous blob of cells for a discordant mixture body parts, how much effort and money are we spending on it that could be better spent on adult cell research, or even more efficiently by developing a cholesterol-enhancing french fry?
There's only so much money to go around. It's a balance between the far-off possibility of taming the embryonic cells versus the reality of using adult cells to fix broken bodies today.
See:http://www.stemcellresearch.org/stemcellreport [stemcellresearch.org]
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying there hasn't been any advance in the theraputic use of cocaine or heroin.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is the big deal about it. Why not let the states fund it - California is doing so already and other states may soon follow.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this then: they're not dead yet, but they will be.
The problem is that you can make that argument about any human. Someone's in a coma, they're never going to come out, why not do some experiments on them? They're going to die anyway, why let a perfectly good body go to waste?
Or even a newborn that's not wanted. A newborn isn't sentient (that takes another few months); if the parents don't want it, why not allow post-birth abortions?
Now, I recognize that a lot of embryos are going to be "flushed down the drain", and that it's not quite the same as the above, but that doesn't mean there aren't ethical considerations. If embryos are OK, what about two cells? 1024 cells? One week gestation? One month? Eight months, when the mother wants a late-term abortion?
I'm uncomfortable with drawing arbitrary lines on this. It just seems intrinsically wrong to experiment on a living cell with human potential.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
The big issue is not whether killing a fetus is morally right or wrong (I myself am pro-choice, but only up to a certain point of development. I do think killing off a fetus is wrong, but ejecting an embryo is fine), but at what point the embryos become a Human fetus. I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity. The later makes the most sense to me.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
I am kinda pro-life/pro-choice. I've had the issue of abortion very close to me. If my mother wasn't so dead against it, she would probably have taken the doctors recommendation to abort me.
Although, I've learnt to admit that what a woman does with her body is ultimately her decision, even if it includes murder. No sarcasm intended. When it comes to your body, you have the only choice.
Anyway, let's get back on topic. The way that the church works is that they believe that God created things a certain way. So if God made things a certain way, then that must be holy. The Church is against gay marrige, because they think that a man and a man can not procreate, so it goes against God. Abortion stops Gods miricale of birth right in it's tracks.
This is where I totally disagree with the Church, and I think that it should take a back seat to logic. If it is proven that people are born homosexual, then the church should be FORCED to accept them, because that's how God created them.
As for medicine, the church believes it's ok, because God gave us the gift of our minds, and the ability to defend ourselves to live longer. This is argueable to, because God also creates death.
Anyway, I think I'm finally getting to my point. With embryonic stem cells there is no sperm involved. So the "natural" course of life has been diverted. So this is not something that is naturally happening. Also what you are left with is a bunch of cells, that don't make up life. They may have the potential for life, but there is none. So as long as we don't let those cells turn into life, I don't see a problem at all. I also don't see how the Church and Chrstian extremists can possibly have a problem.
I for sure have no problem with any form of stem cell research, as long as the cells in the petri dish are not allowed to mature into life.
-Derek
What is holy (Score:5, Informative)
1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)
People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.
Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.
Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.
The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.
As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!
2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Have you read it yourself? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?
While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.
The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.
We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)
To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.
In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.
God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.
This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.
WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site [nap.edu] states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.
Re:Selfish Gene Propagation (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, you would think that if there were a "gay gene" that it would have been removed from natural selection.
I've heard of studies saying that homosexuality can simply be the result of to much of the wrong hormone at the wrong time.
One of the interesting things about this was that if you look a man's hand. The ring finger, is longer then the pointer finger. If you look at a women's hand, then those two fingers are almost the same length. Yet if you look at gay men's hands (apparently some of them), will have those two fingers closer to the same length. Which is more like a women's. Interesting stuff.
I'm not saying that there is a "gay gene" or not. I really don't know. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is something in us that causes us to have gay children. I really don't know.
What I do know is that, I'm not going to tell someone how they can run there life. I'm also deffinately not going to do it because some man man behind a podium simply says so.
-Derek
A wart is a human! (Score:4, Insightful)
What about your appendix and tonsils? Are they not alive? Are they not human?
What about that nasty tumor growing in your brain? Don't get it removed or you'll be killing a human.
You can still cut your hair and nails.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
So, at this point, we are banning research on things that 'potentially' under the correct circumstances become life? If that's they case...we could take it to ridiculous length. Why not ban male masturbation? Potentially, this lost sperm ("every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..") under the correct circumstances, could be come human life. Obviously, gay people are really withholding their contribution to potential life...etc. Ridiculous stretch there grant it, but, just to illustrate my point. Embryos that are created outside the body...unless implated are not life...they will not live without scientific intervention. So, I have a hard time calling it destruction of a human life for science.
I consider myself to have fairly deep religious feelings and beliefs, but, embryonic stem cell research doesn't bother me...
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
There are indeed ethical considerations, but I think those are on the part of the parents involved and are a private matter.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this then: they're not dead yet, but they will be
Should medical experiments also be performed on condemmed prisoners? They will be killed shortly too? For that matter, the above statement applies to all of us. Both you and I will somday be dead, so should we be medical test subjects? There are better arguments for allowing experiments on human embryos (or for that matter killing them outright). I think there are two good routes to this. One is to claim that embryos in an early stage of d
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Insightful)
I sometimes think that were ruining countless gerenerations of evolution and mucking it all up.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:4, Insightful)
Since we do, it is my opinion (based on my religious beliefs) that we should bring it to term, not destroy it.
You point out that your opinion is based on your religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, but our society compromises many religions (including the absense thereof), and our country believes in a separation of church and state. Therefore, deciding right and wrong for the whole society is very different. We cannot transfer the morals of one religion on to our society as a whole.
Are you accepting of the fact that it's legal to do invitro fertillization. I understand that you don't think it's ethical, but do you think it should be banned? If you don't think it should be banned, then what do you think about embryonic stem cells? Either way, embryos are being created and later destroyed.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, an embryo can continue growing, a corpse can't.
Are either of them anything more than a collection of cells that cannot think or feel?
A newborn can't think (its brain is still undeveloped). It can sort-of feel, but can't really process what it means to feel anything.
Is an embryo more alive because you consider it to have some mythical soul or because under the right conditions it may become alive?
Religion is irrelevent
Molecules cannot metabolize, grow, reproduce, or r (Score:3, Insightful)
What it RNA, and What is DNA what are amino acids.
They can grow, reproduce, and react with their environment.
I should imagine that if you had a diamond and some carbon vapour you could make the diamond grow and not turn into graphite, nono-tubes grow and react.
Don't forget that you've got a lot of viruses and bacteria living off of a corpse too.
You could even argue that the frabirc of the universe is a living system. (well were part of is I suppose!)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this assumes that there's a god (or gods) in the first place. Which, as someone already said, there is no scientifically provable evidence for.
Isnt it true that there is so much medical science today that is ethically questionable?
Well, leading from your "playing god" mention...Are people objecting to some of these things because it really conflicts with their personal ethics, or because it conflicts with what their religion mandates and t
Nonsense!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
1 Kings 7:23
Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.
Re:Nonsense!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nonsense!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had a dime for every time I've heard a Christian say "I only read the King James version of the Bible because it's a word for word interpretation" I'd have a pretty big handful of dimes. You and I know that the KJ bible has a history that rejects literal interpretation on translation grounds alone, but what about other literary techniques like alegory, simily and metaphor? Are Christians so blind to the capabilities of the written word?
Please, If you believe in what the Bible says then I urge you to be a thinking person and believe God gave the gift of literature to the writers of the Bible. Please believe that there is the capability that things don't mean exactly what they say. Heck I've heard all kinds of fun interpretations of the meaning of Revelations, why must you fail to believe the same possibilities of the rest of the book?
I think a Slashdot quote is pretty appropriate when it comes to literally interpreteed Bible math: "If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane."
TW
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you beleive that all non-religious people are morally bankrupt anarchists, I think you can grant that scientists are bound by ethics that have nothing to do with a god of any kind.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, religious != ethical. Inclusions between the two sides are left as an exercise.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, it is that secular mass media often assumes that the religious want to ban all stem cells, because they fail to differentiate between cellular sources.
Simple google search [google.com] shows the "major" media outlets routinely leave off the word embryonic when discussing the topic. Drawing a distinction between the two would better inform the public.
Catholic [catholicweekly.com.au] news letters define the difference, and promote more research into adult stem cells as the intelligent alternative.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Informative)
This is why abortion and embryonic stem cell research are such touchy issues. The issue at hand is not "is murder wrong" it is instead "is this considered a person? and therefore ceasing it's existance is considered murder??"
Statements such as:
"Justification with something so simple as "my morals happen to be correct" isn't acceptable. The government either needs to stop making moral issues legal issues. Doing so would have the potential to save thousands of lives."
are childish, in that they completely ignore that law is entirely based on moral issues. We define what constitutes life, liberty and property entirely based on morals. Law simply codifies our societal morals.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:4, Interesting)
What type of hormonal treatments? Would these treatments harm the host? Are they as viable as the cord cells or even the controversial stem cells? Do you have a link that I can read regarding your claims?
(2) they have none of the rejection issues that embryonic stem cells do (recall, you will be implanting cells from another individual with different genetic makeup; your body will reject the new cells just like any other organ donation)
Correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe the South Korean woman was treated by a stem cell from an umbilical cord. This cell was not from her body. So I do not think I can agree with your rejection hypothesis.
I really don't see anything informative or citing of research in your post. The only thing I can agree with you on is your 3rd point.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great that cord blood cells work here. However, I'm still left with two questions:
(1) are cord blood cells capable of doing everything that embryonic stem cells can do?
(2) if not, then haven't we sort of sidestepped the issue of whether ethical objections to destroying small clumps of human cells (which could potentially, but will not, produce babies) trump the research benefits of embryonic stem cell research.
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the problem isn't whether those clumps of cells can potentially produce babies, but whether those clumps of cells are in fact already babies. This is a very heated area of dispute.
If embryos are human beings, then it is immoral to manipulate or destroy them for personal benefit. It would clearly be wrong to kill a one-month old (that is, one month after birth) even if the tissue you harvested from them could save 100 people. Now we're debating over where the line gets drawn. Is it OK to kill a fetus just before it is born in order to harvest tissue to benefit those same 100 people? Is it OK to do it one month after conception? A week?
It really isn't as simple an issue as the rhetoric would have you believe...
Re:Adult stem cells (Score:5, Insightful)
But would it be immoral? I mean we regularly execute people for killing one person (or not even killing someone but being an accomplice) in the hopes that this will convince others not to commit murder (best case-in reality it is closer to revenge...) I mean if it is moral to kill a murderer, something that will not save anybody's life, why would the death of a baby (or fetus) that could save 100 people be considered immoral?
We place a value on human life all the time (aka cost benefit analyis)-is this immoral? Government/ private enterprise/people regularly make decisions that cost peoples lives for the sake of money, yet we don't hear the same outcry? Why exactly? These apparent contradictions have always interested me.
"It really isn't as simple an issue as the rhetoric would have you believe..."
You certainly got that right!
Walking is nice and all.... (Score:5, Funny)
Mundus vult decipi decipiatur ergo.
-Xaviera Hollander
Re:Walking is nice and all.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why you NEVER ever marry them. When they get to the point to where they don't want to put out...you can put them to the curb, and upgrade to a newer model that does....without losing half your stuff.
There's plenty of them out there dude...
What is the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get it. I have no problem getting your wife to put out. All my friends say she is insatiable in bed.
Re:There's a much simpler cure for that... (Score:5, Funny)
Yay! Cord blood! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Karen, you can get stem cells without harvesting embryos. No, really!
--
Every six seconds, another American hates Milkman Dan.
Re:Yay! Cord blood! (Score:3, Insightful)
This news just gives more fuel for anti-embryonic stem cell groups to point at and say:
"Chalk up another victory for adult stem cell research... what is that now 79 to 0? Why are we studying embryonic stem cells?"
I tend to agree with that sentiment.. seems like the embryonic research is turning into a big waste of money... but then again it has about 10 years of work to catch up on so it may yet prove i
Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Informative)
Even after that before you start bashing, ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - the government or industry?
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference between Republican presidents and a hypothetical liberal president (we haven't had a liberal president in many many years) is that the Republicans would give companies research money ("corporate welfare") and then allow the companies to patent their discoveries for the purpose of making the most profit from every person who needs that medicine. At some level, there's going to be someone who is too poor to get cured.
The hypothetical liberal president would also fund research, but publicly funded research would belong to the people who paid for it: the taxpayers. Everyone would have access to the new medicines, and even the poorest would be treated with them.
Of course, you're thinking "that's not fair to the companies, and they'll go out of business". Note that I never said that. If companies want to make money, they can fund their own research with their own money, and sell their drugs themselves. Liberals aren't opposed to business and people getting rich. Liberals are just opposed to them getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers, or in an unfair/unethical manner.
Yes, the gov't should fund it, and here's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.
Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.
Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
"Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.
So yes, the government should fund it.
Re:Yes, the gov't should fund it, and here's why.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College. The school was on break for two years as a result of disease sweeping the area, and having little else to do, he spent his idle time thinking very productively.
There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry. He invented it out of curiosity, not because he was paid to do so.
Re:Bravo... (Score:4, Insightful)
They put out a food pyramid with such things on it as a 2 ounce muffin as a serving..,
and joe sixpack buys the 10 ounce 'mega-muffin' to eat as his serving.
They put out a 3 ounce burger as a serving on their food chart...,
and joe sixpack buys the 12 ounce triple-burger with the super-duper-size fries.
Americans are getting fatter because they eat HUGE portions of bad things, and don't excercise enough. The food pyramid works fine if you eat the reasonably sized portions they suggest. It also might help if folks would get off the damn couch too.
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Be real for a second and review industry's track record. Drugs for phantom depression. Drugs for sex enhancement. Drugs for obesity. None of these result from real societal problems and the greatest tragedy is that they aren't funding smaller problems with the major profits. They are just inventing more problems.
Perhaps a better question is "who do you want to define research priorities--government or industry?"
A government of the people should
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Insightful)
Drugs for obesity. None of these result from real societal problems...
My wife talks to diabetics all day on the phone as her job. Most of them are 200+ pounds, many in the 400+ range.
Obesity is one of the biggest problems facing our society today. People lose their eye site, limbs, mobility, and quality of life. All for a cheeseburger.
This problem isn't invented by the pharmaceutical industry, it's invented by gluttons.
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, it's a bureaucratic nightmare for labs--if so much as a single "bad" sample makes its way into an experiment, they can lose all government funding in a heartbeat. Labs end up having to spend a surprising and frustrating amount of time and money simply to meet the ever-growing list of compliance demands for federal funding. Angling for private funding is all well and good, but there's a severe lack of funding for pure science; corporate sponsors are far more interested in applied science. Applied science is important, but pure science is equally important and would suffer badly if it weren't for federal funding.
Second, the stem cells in question are coming from discarded embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics which are already slated for destruction. To ban these stem cells from research is hypocritical, at root--if the issue at hand is the destruction of a human life, they should be fighting just as hard to outlaw the practice of freezing embryos in the first place. That they're attacking the scientific link in this chain suggests that they're more against using these wasted embryos for scientific study (which, for various banal reasons, is seen as the arch-enemy of religion by many,) than they are upset about the wasting of embryos in the first place.
It's a shame that the debate such that the scientific community is being made out to be the villian here. The real villian is the IVF industry; science is simply stepping in and trying to conduct incredibly promising research with something that'd otherwise be flushed down the drain without so much as a second thought.
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Insightful)
If the argument against using these embryos in research is an ethical one, it strikes me that the target should be the people who are actually responsible for killing the embryos, not the people who want to use these doomed embryos to try and improve humankind's lot.
I don't see the ethics of
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Insightful)
He said Iraq was dangerous, and harborred terrorists. Sure enough, we attack them and they start bombing us! Yeehaw!
Re:Lets get this out of the way (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no funding for creating new lines. Why haven't all the old lines that were created come up with any results? If there are such miracle cures available, why aren't the drug companies funding the research so they can get rich? There is a huge profit potential.
Other Links (Score:5, Informative)
Waiting for Verification (Score:3, Insightful)
This is absolutely exciting, stem cell research potentially producing real results. And even better, by use of umbilical cord stem cells. Results without the ethical issues.
I just can't wait to see this research be verified. Seems like too many scientific research teams release their results early and without complete verification, hoping to get more funding from the buzz created.
In the end, this is really exciting. Can't wait to see how this develops.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
Re:Waiting for Verification (Score:3, Interesting)
And this South Korean group has a track record of making at least as much noise as progress. (Check for the previous articles linked here about them.)
It would be fantastic if it works, and Chosun University isn't a fly-by-night institution but I'm having trouble working up much optimism. We'll see.
BT
Good Science (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like good work to me.
Cord blood vs. embryonic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cord blood vs. embryonic? (Score:5, Informative)
So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.
Enough Stem Cells for Adult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hold on (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a friend who broke his neck from a fall, so I've researched the topic a little bit. It is possible, in a very small number of cases, that people will spontaneously regrow the damaged nerves. This could be one of those cases.
One isolated incident does not make for a medical breakthrough. They need to demonstrate that this is repeatable.
Re:Hold on (Score:4, Insightful)
The guys at Scaled Composites collected $10,000,000 without a peer reviewed journal of their scientific achievement.
Umbillical Cord Use Actually WORSE (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't we just get the stem cells from plants? Stems are abundant with them!
Re:Umbillical Cord Use Actually WORSE (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Umbillical Cord Use Actually WORSE -ot (Score:3, Funny)
Great if true (Score:3, Insightful)
Journal Publication? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really, really hope that what's being reported is true, but I'd really like to see it in a peer reviewed journal and have the findings reproduced before getting too excited. Because things like cold fusion have been announced via press release before, with no journal paper forthcoming. Without it being reproducable it's just another faith healing.
That said, please, please be good, reproducable research.
Healthy skepticism is warranted (Score:5, Insightful)
The spinal cord is an enormously complex structure, the exact neural connections of which are formed in early embryonic life. That you could simply inject multipotential cells into a damaged cord and expect them to differentiate and grow into mature neurons, complete with appropriate connections, is asking an awful lot. In addition, in this patient, "paralyzed" for two decades, you have the issue of muscles, bones, and joints that haven't been in use all that time.
It would be wonderful if this account is true, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see more of the fine print.
Re:Healthy skepticism is warranted (Score:5, Interesting)
All over the world (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of weeks ago, a brazilian woman who had recently had a stroke was helped by a stem cell transplant.
Although doctors claim the healing could have happened naturally, they also report that "there is biological activity (in the area affected by the stroke)... "
Interesting, let's hope all these stories help build a united front.
The link here http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=
The responses so far (Score:5, Funny)
- "Uh, this is the sort of stem cells the Bush Administration supports, you ignorant dumbass." --- 25%
- "Well, yeah, but, Dumbya cut funding! And this is you: duh doo duh doo duh doo" --- 25%
- "Uh, Bush was the first to federally fund ANY stem cell research. And this is you: bibblebibblebibble pppbbbffffttttt!" --- 25%
And then the same people wonder why nothing works right anymore.
The debate rages on (Score:3, Insightful)
But as one article [rednova.com] discusses, the whole point of using embryonic stem cells is that they are undifferentiated. The use of the cells used in the treatment of paralysis were supposedly cord stem cells and are more limited in which ways the body can put them to use. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, can in theory, be used to create ANY cell type in the human body. That is a tremendous difference.
Ethical debates will persist from now until whenever but the moment people outgrow their need to believe in mythology, we'll make some better progress. I'm hopeful that there should be an ethically acceptable method for collecting embryonic stem cells so that we can make the real medical miracles happen.
Re:The debate rages on (Score:3, Insightful)
In a different subject, I think that the problem with embryonic stem cell research is its potential to undermine human dignity. What would the world look like if we knowingly bred people just to harvest their organs/cells/meat(?) out?
I'll be the first to acknowledge that this seems
Original Korea Times Article (in English) (Score:4, Informative)
WWLBSN? (Score:3, Insightful)
reference link [usatoday.com]
Re:Not for the US (Score:5, Informative)
This was done by using umbilical cord stem cells. This has far fewer ethical problems and George Bush said on many occassions he fully supports the use of umbilical cord stem cells.
This is a huge advance, getting results without the ethical issues that many people struggle with.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
Re:Not for the US (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed.
From the Korea Times: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm [hankooki.com]
Let's
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for political will to change??? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it does nothing of the sort. Cord cells do not have the same capabilites as embryonic cells. Unless we research them, we won't know what else can be accomplished with embryonic cells.
Also, while your point #1 is correct, a federal ban on FUNDING is essentially a ban. Someone earlier stated that you could put a $1000 tax on a pack of cigarettes, and while
Re:Time for political will to change??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even that Bush is against embryonic stem cells. His policy is that he doesn't think it's appropriate for government funding should go to harvesting new stem cell lines. So, the material that they already have, they can continue to do research with. Privately funded studies can still develop new lines. It's really not as radical a stance as people make it out to be.
Re:Time for political will to change??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like as good of a reason as any to firmly establish what adult stem cells can do before entering the moral/ethical quagmire that is embryonic stem cell studying. Look at it this way: If adult stem cells can do everything, then no one can complain. If there are specific diseases that cannot be helped by adult stem cells, then we can have the whole moral/ethical debate specifically about those. But, it will be a much better educated debate because we'll have a better understanding about the limitations of adult stem cells - and isn't a well-educated moral debate better than a knee-jerk moral debate?
Re:They already do (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesser members of the human race had coathanger abortions in alleys, or just had kids. All Roe v. Wade really did was to allow poorer people the same access to abortion as the wealthy.
.
Re:Take that, Bushies! (Score:5, Informative)
At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
This ball was never in Bush's court to begin with (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it that when some people hear the term "stem cells" the same sort of knee jerk reaction happens just like when some people hear the term "nuclear power"?
Re:Poor Chrisopher Reeve (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rise, and WALK! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the president of the United States influence what medical research is carried out in South Korea?
Re:Rise, and WALK! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, not only fixing paralysis but raising the dead too? Will the wonders of modern science never cease! Then again, I have seen enough zombie movies to know this can't turn out good in the end...
Re:But as far as the Right is concerned... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey fundies: mod me troll if you want, but with karma like mine it doesn't much matter. You can try to piss me off, but I'll probably laugh at you.
Re:i only hope... (Score:3, Informative)
Talk of curing diabetese with this has also floated around; and over a hundred diseases have already been treated successfully.
Re:Adult Stem Cells :) (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really feel that your argument is so weak that it is necessary to lie? If you go to PubMed [nih.gov] and type in "embryonic stem cells," you will see a long list of laboratory studies supporting their value.
In what way did they regulate the research? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, stem cells that are not derived from fetal tissues are being worked with every day to develop new therapies. For example, they were used to help a paralyzed woman walk in South Korea - which you would know if you had read the article.
As for all the promises from all those researchers - sorry, but researchers promise lots of things that never come true. Even the New York Times is reporting that California's $3 billion is looking more like a science slush fund [nytimes.com] than real science.