Slashdot Log In
Skin Cells Turned Embryonic
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jun 06, 2007 06:12 PM
from the awaiting-new-objections dept.
from the awaiting-new-objections dept.
anik315 writes "Nature is reporting a major breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. A straightforward procedure using mouse fibroblasts harvested from the skin can be used to produce pluripotent stem cells that can potentially become any other cell in the body. Not only can Yamanaka's method use the most basic cells, it can be accomplished with simple lab techniques. Possible applications of this breakthrough are to check molecular changes in cells as certain conditions develop. Stem cells produced using this procedure, however, can not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Next step: Embryos (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a few more years and it should be possible to cause fibroblasts to grow into embryos. IRC, it's more or less possible now but it involves mixing and matching parts of different cells (the nucleus from the fibroblast and the cytoplasm from a fertilized egg cell.
Anyway, that should throw the anti-abortion crowd for a loop: "Oh no, he's cut his skin. He's killing babies!" After all, the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human even before it develops into a human.
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:5, Funny)
and yet another demographic will hate emo kids.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I think the pro-lifers might have something to say about the human-intervention aspect. Namely, that something that could develop into a human being given nine months of waiting is fundamentally different than a cell used as an ingredient in a laboratory process to create embryos.
The Catholic church, for example, firmly opposes abortion but does not s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, a moderate approach would be to acknowledge that the issue is unclear, or unsolvable, and that it is probably best to error on the side of caution. Even better would be to fund the research of technologies and legislation which can make these issues less relevant.
For example, let's develop several pre-conception birth control methods which are highly effective. Then require their use in-order to have the privilege of having an abortion. --Like insurance for your car. Responsibility allows the privilege. Plus make this freely available and highly accessible to people of child baring age.
Advantages:
1. Reduces unwanted pregnancies.
2. Reduces abortions.
3. Re-frames the debate into a more moderate direction, so as to divide our country less.
4. Makes the whole issue less pressing.
Thank you for your feedback
Parent
Re:There's a third way. (Score:5, Insightful)
To keep it in the same terms, lets put it into perspective to keep the comparison real. But she doesn't have right to kill the trespasser without giving them enough time to leave. In almost any state, with the exception of Texas maybe, if you find a trespasser/intruder and they pose no direct harm to you or anyone there, you tell them to leave and then kill them because they didn't leave fast enough, you will be going to jail. But pregnancy isn't even a trespasser or intruder, it is a welcomed guest. You have to take certain actions to invite a fetus into your home(body). And in every state, if you invite someone into your house and then kill them, it is murder.
I know this is someone else's rationalizing. But we can often make judgments to justify something that other see as wacked. You cannot run over a kid playing ball in the street because thats where cars drive when you have plenty of time to stop. Saying the kid shouldn't be playing in the road is just an attempt to justify it to yourself but doesn't make it just. Leaving out the fact that the intruder is crippled and will take a certain amount of time to leave the property and killing them before they can do so because you ordered them out makes no sense either. And repeating this nonsense make even less sense.
Parent
Your positions don't matter... probably. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, your wailing about "encourag[ing] promiscuity" and how those damned sluts deserve to be punished with unwanted pregnancies because, well, they were asking for it, what with the having sex and all, leads me to believe that your motives may not be that different.
Parent
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, no.
The argument is that it can develop into a baby, and that it already is a human.
I.e., an oak acorn is not a tree, but it is an oak. An blastocyst/embryo is not a baby, but it is a human. A baby is not a toddler, but it is a human. A toddler is not a teenager, but it is a human. A teenager is not an adult, but it is a human (though barely, in come cases ^_^).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:4, Informative)
Technically it's not. Once a stem cell starts to differentiate, you see different patterns of epigenetic changes that alter which genes are actively expressed and which are silent. It's part of the reason why you don't have eyeball proteins expressed by your feet. In general, we've found that once you start initiating a cascade where a stem cell starts differentiating into something else, it's difficult to go backwards and "undo" the changes.
Parent
Man or mouse? (Score:3, Funny)
I think I found the source of the problem.
Papers (Score:5, Informative)
Nimet Maherali, Rupa Sridharan, Wei Xie, Jochen Utikal, Sarah Eminli, Katrin Arnold, Matthias Stadtfeld, Robin Yachechko, Jason Tchieu, Rudolf Jaenisch, Kathrin Plath, and Konrad Hochedlinger
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fullt
Keisuke Okita, Tomoko Ichisaka & Shinya Yamanaka
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
Marius Wernig, Alexander Meissner, Ruth Foreman, Tobias Brambrink, Manching Ku, Konrad Hochedlinger, Bradley E. Bernstein & Rudolf Jaenisch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
Why didn't they START with human cells? (Score:3, Interesting)
I always assumed that the reason that experiments are done on mice and other animals is that they are easier to obtain than human subjects and that we can do things to them that would be considered unethical when done to a human (leaving aside some people's feelings that they are unethical when done to animals too).
But with skin cell experiments, I don't see the reason to do the research on animals. Human skin cells ought to be readily available, ethical to obtain, and ethical to experiment on.
Why start with mice on this? Why not start with humans and cut one step out of the process?
Re:Why didn't they START with human cells? (Score:5, Informative)
Simplicity. Protocol. Reproducibility.
Labs that experiment on mice use specific inbred genetic lines that are widely available with limited genetic diversity. This limits the amount of experimental error that can be attributed to the variations in the traits of the animals. It also means that other labs attempting to reproduce the same results will have a greater chance of success because they'll be starting with an organism that genetically is nearly identical to the ones used elsewhere.
See Model Organism [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Yields are fairly low (Score:3, Informative)
As noted, the major problem is not just the inconsistency, but the locating of the modified cells.
However, unlike many other slashdot articles, this is is in a peer-reviewed journal, it is based on a technique which has been run for a while and altered based upon other followup work, and it might prove a useful addition for labs to do research, while of limited use in therapeutics.
But that also depends on cost. People forget that a successful research lab has got to get costs per experiment down - if it costs me $20 per sample and I have a plate of samples, I'll go broke trying to run any sizeable research of any note, especially that with significant data that can answer more than 2 basic questions of statistical significance.
Re:I knew it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I knew it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assholes don't invalidate the argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
the same people who are the biggest advocates against abortion also tend to be the ones that seek to limit access to birth control, so that argument doesn't get very far either.
Sure it does, if reasonable people can ignore the others. The problem is unwanted pregnancy and reasonable people can work together to reduce it and support the people who have the problem. The use of obnoxious and confused advocates is an underhanded way to kill off a proposal.
The counterexamples are communists, extreme femi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok, but (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or, I suppose, "FartWare".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I think we should do it just out of spite... for people who would spout the kind of self-important ignorant garbage that just evacuated itself from the barren environment of your skull.
Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods (Score:5, Insightful)
First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.
Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?
Thirdly, medical research=good for people. Democratic government=group that uses pooled funds for betterness of group. Are there spending issues? Duh. But still better than most systems. I want to put my money in a pool that can fund science. Hooray that there is an automatic way that this happens for me. I don't even need said science to produce economic results for me to be happy about it. But if it's going to, I won't turn that down.
And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos. Google news reports around last Nov's Missouri senate elections, & there were several stories about how while most Americans support it, it's a non-issue in the polls.
Parent
Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods (Score:4, Interesting)
We hope this is so, but have absolutely no way of knowing.
First off, I'm not sure I buy your proclamation (where are the tens of millions fighting against in-vitro fertilization). Tens of millions also consider eating animals tantamount to murder...let's kill off the USDA. Tens of millions believe in creationism, let's stop geology/archeology/cosmology research. Tens of millions of people believe lots of crazy shit that should not be directing gov't policy, thats the way democracy works.
1. *That* you know of. Even the researchers don't really know how widely stem-cell therapy might or might not be used, that's why you research it. 2. So you are positing that only those lucky enough to have suffered from a communicable disease should be a concern of the gov't? Really? And what defines a public health concern? Cancer from industrial pollution? vCJD from mad-cows...that happens to be similar to parkinson's (and alzheimer's)? So people who had the unfortunate luck to be born with a disease are SOL, yet those with preventable sexually-transmitted diseases are the beneficiaries? What the hell kind of moral system did you pluck that from?
Right, so how about, say, abortion? Or euthanasia? Should the gov't butt out of those 'private spheres'? And if so, you've lost the support of those "tens of millions" who have an issue with stem-cell research.
Well, public support for gov't funding of research is a pretty damn compelling reason. Again, democracy and all. If you can convince a majority to do away with basic research funding, then we can have a debate about the societal benefit of gov't support of research. Until then, we, as a society, have pretty clearly decided that it is in our interest to support research (of non-communicable diseases as well as stem-cell related technology).
-Ted
Parent