Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Stem Cells Treat Spinal Injuries and Brain Tumors 47

Posted by michael from the weapons-of-mass-healing dept.
Neil Halelamien writes "At the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting this past weekend, some very exciting results (from experiments on rats and mice) were discussed regarding the potential for human embryonic stem cells to treat injured spinal cords, brain tumors, and Parkinson's. Besides the possible health benefits, this adds fuel to the discussions leading up to the US election and the US's current attempts to have the UN ban therapeutic cloning worldwide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stem Cells Treat Spinal Injuries and Brain Tumors More

Stem Cells Treat Spinal Injuries and Brain Tumors

Comments Filter:

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29, 2004 @06:09PM (#10668063)
    Most of one of the articles focused on the USA's attempt to make human cloning illegal world-wide, regardless of it's purpose. Now why can't Bush and his chronies simply focus on America? Stop bullying around the rest of the world and fix your own problems and legislate your own people.
    • Ah, but that would mean that we couldn't go out and do what we do best: build nations, interfere with other people's governments, ignore international attempts to save the world from global warming, etc., etc....

      If we just paid attention to the US, we would have no fun at all!

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
      If the rest of the world wants to affect our election, don't complain when we start attaching strings to our dollars.

      LK

      • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BerntB ( 584621 )

        If the rest of the world wants to affect our election ...

        The rest of the world cares about the US election because it will have an influence on us. Because of the political standpoints .

        I have all the respect for the US. Arguably, with France and Great Britain, the inventor of the modern democracy. It's a tradition to be proud of.

        But it took hundreds of years for western Europe to get rid of the heavy opression of religion. (The Middle East countries haven't even pulled the teeth of their religion

        • Well put. Would you by chance have an links or references to books that would give a good historical view of Europe's fight with oppressive religion? I'd love to read up on it. Thanks
      • Normally I'm all for multilateralism, but this guy has a point. The U.S. gives out so much money that other nations start to take it for granted, and actually get real pissed off when the money stops, for any reason. I think that's a bit stupid and dumb. I mean, the U.S. won't be the richest nation in the world for that long, why should we be giving money to 3rd world nations that have long histories of poor government, embezzlement, and absolutely zero population control?

  • Stem cell debate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by adachan ( 543372 ) on Friday October 29, 2004 @06:33PM (#10668304)
    Ok here it is. I hope this can influence some voters in the coming election. The debate over human stem cell usage is not a debate over stem cells, it is a debate over where the stem cells are derived from. This is the debate. Here is what is being argued. President bush says that adult derived stem cells can be used in place of embryonic stem cells. Senator Kerry says that this is not the case and embryonic stem cells have greater potential. Here is a bit of research i have done from reading papers found on medline. Noone to date has shown that adult derived stem cells are capable of producing neurons in an injured spinal cord. It has been shown that embroyonic derived stem cells can however. This is the problem. I have very much oversimplfied this as I am not sure that most of you want to read the details, but the fact is that if you listen to President Bush, you might think that adult cells can be used to cure spinal injury. There is no current evidence for this. There is evidence that embryonic cells can be used to do it. President Bush is not telling the public the whole truth. I do not know the ins and outs of war and I do not want to pretend to be an expert on the subject of war so I do not know how much he is lying to us or not, but I do know that he has not told us the truth on this subject (I am currently doing some of these studies in rats) and I find myself having quite a bit of distrust for anything he says becasue of it and the way he presents himself. Please, if you are American and want to further advance science, do not let him get re-elected. He is hindering the advance of a field and many people may benefit from the research if it can be conducted. Go and vote!!!

    • Re:Stem cell debate (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tanktalus ( 794810 )

      Actually, this is the first thing I've seen reports that embryonic stem cells can do something that adult stem cells cannot. In fact, it's the first report that I've seen where we've manage to coax embryonic stem cells to do things - up to now, all successful stem cell research I've been able to find has been from adult stem cells [slashdot.org].

    • Maybe your research is not as good as it should have been. A simple google search pulled up the this article [stanfordhospital.com] with information about new research on using a cell type found in human fat.
      The reason there is no evidence is because nobody has fully researched the various adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are being focused on in an attempt to blur the moral issues with abortion. If you don't think the two issues are related, then think again. Do you have any problems with the harvesting of the va
      • This is not a peer reviewed article. I am hesitant to believe anything unless it is from a peer reviewed source. You should be too. To elaborate from my statement above. There is no evidence that adult derived stem cells have the ability to form neurons in an injured spinal cord. Embryonic cells have been shown previously to form neurons in an injured cord. The important thing here is the injured cord. Adult derived cells CAN form neurons in an uninjured cord. There are factors present in the injure
        • Peer reviewed is a joke if all the reviewers think the same anyways. It simply means that everybody is running towards the same cliff claiming there is no cliff. I trust wiki sources even less.
          • "...if all the reviewers think the same"

            Yes, this is one weakness in the peer review process... when you come with a discovery or method that goes in the face of most of what is believed you will face some HUGE inertia, and your work might never get public in this sort of review.

            Which forces you to be precise, concise, bring proofs and a methodology that can be reproduced by someone else...

            Otherwise, you get Microsoft'like reviews saying "We are the Best, don't even look at alternatives", ie I say whatev
      • Okay everyone's already thinking it, but the moral gauge of a murderous liar was never something I found reliable. It might work for Bin Laden and Bush but it was never my sort of standard.

        If the fact that humans give birth to humans is supposed to support the movement to keep everyone in the dark ages, then I'm very far from convinced. Also if the scientists around the world had cowered in fear from making nuclear bombs, the other scientists would have blown them all to oblivion by now. Holding tightly
      • Embryonic stem cells are being focused on in an attempt to blur the moral issues with abortion. If you don't think the two issues are related, then think again.

        You think again. In fertility treatments produce countless fertilized embryos every year. Those fertilized embryos are generally stored in freezers for a while, and the unused ones are simply thrown in the garbage. Thousands of embryos trashed every year.

        If you have some problem with thousands of human embryos thrown in the garbage every year - wh
    • I definitely support the use of stem cells in research, I believe it has enormous potential to treat and reverse many terminal illnesses. While the derivation of the stem cells is a very hot topic these days, what many have overlooked is the fact that stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cords of newborn babies. Also, the blood from the umbilical cords contains blood stem cells that can be used to treat lukemia and other blood diseases. I don't know how widespread the information about this is righ
    • The debate over human stem cell usage is not a debate over stem cells, it is a debate over where the stem cells are derived from. This is the debate.

      I agree completely with the first point. It seems that "epmbryonic stem cells" has been shortened to just plain "stem cells" by the media, and people in general. Where on purpose or it just happened. Also, Bush et al has NOT banned embryonic research, he/they have just withdrawn federal funds for it.

      There is evidence that embryonic cells can be used to

      • Re:Stem cell debate (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Mr. Dogi,
        Someone did not die as you previously said. The are using an undifferentiated group of cells that in no way represents human life. On the other hand these undifferentiated cells that were going to be thrown out from a fertilization bank may have the ability to save millions of REAL human lives. It is unbelievable how people get hung up on the moral issue.
      • You should look into how much research done by private companies is actually funded in some part by the NIH.

  • Adult stem cell research (non-destructive) better (Score:5, Informative)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Saturday October 30, 2004 @02:12AM (#10670610) Homepage Journal
    Links here:

    Olfactory Bulb Stem Cells And Lou Gehrig's Disease [sciencedaily.com]

    Jefferson Scientists Find New Way To Convert Adult Human Stem Cells To Dopamine Neurons [sciencedaily.com]

    These are studies published in the last two weeks that successfully demonstrate that adult stem cells can be used for treatment of diseases such as Lou Gehrig's and Parkinsons. What is significant is that they are non-destructive techniques that do not require the destruction of the host provider... AND they will not be rejected by the person being treated or require the extensive anti-rejection treatments that using foreign stem cells to treat an individual would require.

    In fact the study using mice can be directly compared to a similar study using embryonic stem cells:

    Human Spinal Cord Cells Help Rats With Lou Gehrig's Disease [sciencedaily.com]

    The embryonic stem cell study only allowed the mice to survive an additional 11 days... while the adult stem cell study allowed the mice to live an additional two months! In mouse years that is a huge difference... 11 days or 60 days? which treatment was more successful?

    The real point is that valid and successful research is being carried out that does not require the destruction of embryos... this is not to say that there isn't something to be learned from embryonic stem cell research, there is BUT and this is a big BUT... IT SIMPLY ISN'T THE ONLY VALID RESEARCH OPTION AVAILABLE.

    That point made, you can no longer claim that stopping federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is giving up on treatment or cures for said degenerative diseases.. in fact IMHO without the ban some of these approaches may not have been considered due to the perceived superiority of using embryonic stem cells.

    'nuff said.

    • These techniques have already been used to try to treat SCI. There has been limited success. However, the fact remains that it is unknown if adult derived proginetor cells can produce functional recovery in an adult chronic SCI patient. I am talking spinal cord injury here, not brain disorders. There are major differences between the brain and the spinal cord that are mostly not understood at the current state. On another note, there are certain drugs that are thought to have the ability to drive hippo
    • "The embryonic stem cell study only allowed the mice to survive an additional 11 days... while the adult stem cell study allowed the mice to live an additional two months! In mouse years that is a huge difference... 11 days or 60 days? which treatment was more successful?"

      Well I'm not a biologist but it strikes me as not terribly surprising given that the former study involved transplanting human stem cells into the mice whereas the latter involved the presumably more compatible transplantation of murine

      • This brings the question of 'why were they using human stem cells' to study mice? Who's bright idea was it to say, "Hey, lets harvest some controversial human embryonic stem cells and use them in a study involving mice!"

        Hmmm I'm thinking maybe they just wanted to say => "Look at us, look at us, we're just in time for some conference with research that shows human embryonic stem cells can be use to some effect (well not much really, but some..) in treating mice which have been grown to include an extreme

  • Stem Cell Research (Score:3, Informative)

    by hackus ( 159037 ) on Sunday October 31, 2004 @05:54PM (#10680976) Homepage
    I would love stem cell research!

    Just as long as I am not/was not the fetus, or mass of cells whatever you destroy to extract them.

    I came pretty close to being that fetus/clump of cells, as my mom was 40 when she had me and she almost decided she just couldn't handle a kid at 40 years old.

    Now I am a clump of cells that went to college, and employ people with family supporting jobs.

    My other problem with this has to do with the ever so slippery slope of eugenics, and human experimentation, and why we are doing it. (i.e. CASH)

    It reminds me of a favorite Bablyon 5 episode. A brilliant scientist discovers a way to allow humans to live forever, from the extract of the brain fluids in another human being. The procedure kills the person, but it allows immortality.

    This scientist was an outcast because she would not accept ANY limits to where or how her research would proceed. In the end, when she was caught and judged to be executed for her crimes. She proclaimed: "My ultimate triumph will be after I die. You will all kill each other to live forever and that will be my revenge."

    After verifying the results of her experiments, the government authority sent a ship to pick up the research. Unfortunately, the Vorlons sent a ship to destroy the vessel before the research could be sent back to earth.

    When asked why the Vorlon said: "Humanity is not ready for immortality..."

    As it is, we cannot agree if the fetus is a clump of cells or something more...

    It USE to be that everyone argued is was just a clump of cells. After all it was very tiny, and we couldn't do much about it.

    But now, now as we advance, this definition, if there is one keeps changing. As we advance our perception of what it means to be ultimately human continues to get smaller, and smaller.

    We are now fast approaching an understanding of genetics and biology that is leading us to conclude that DNA sequences are actually what define us to be human.

    Even now, we can take steps before the fetus or clump of cells is born, to do corrective surgery, or genetic therapy.

    Yet, it still can be aborted on demand.

    Now, if a life is worth saving at this stage to be considered a human being which we can perform huma medical techniques on, is that what the definition of a human being is at the moment?

    I am all for advancement of medical research, but we need to seriously think about what it means to be a human being.

    I don't know what it means to be stuck in a chair, or paralyzed. But, I am not willing to trade my humanity for government approved breeding programs in factories for spare parts taken from human or not human potential that will never be, or whatever we decide at the moment to rationalize or justify what we do.

    How far are we willing to go to correct our own personal hells?

    I think what I am getting at is who is going to ultimately play God when this research allows us to grow hearts, organs...etc? Who gets a new heart and who doesn't?

    If you have a great answer to this, I would like to here at what point does a clump of cells become a human being with rights.

    The other problem I have with this is, health care in general.

    I use to work in a Biotech company. If you would here some of the pretty frank discussions in private, leather covered board rooms about drugs and research directives, I think many here would be shocked and awed.

    Some of the directives I have heard around a pretty popular drug was, "We do not want or are interested in a cure for heart disease, it would kill our market. We need a ball and chain a person needs to take on a daily basis or else they die to correct disease. Lets keep focused people."

    We now have lipitor as a direct result of this sort of research directive.

    I hope everyone here doesn't think this (CURES for diseases or ailments vs TREATMENTS) will be widely applied to anybody but the very rich and powerful.

    Medical

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close