Stem Cells Mend Spinal Injuries 331
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "New research shows that rats that had their spinal columns severed were able to regain use of their hind legs through the use of stem cells from embryonic rats." From the Wired article: "Spinal cord injuries can be caused by accidents or infections and affect 250,000 people a year in the United States alone, costing $4 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders. Whittemore's team took specific cells from rat embryos called glial restricted precursor cells -- a kind of stem cell or master cell that gives rise to nerve cells."
ok, but it's still a long way from being useful (Score:5, Informative)
I've had a lamenectomy. It's a procedure where tissue has to be removed from between discs in the spine. In my case, I herniated the tissue during heavy squats (word to the wise from a lifetime power lifter, don't do squats, they're too dangerous.) In my case, the tissue was pushed through the fibrous outer sheath that holds the spinal column together. The only possible way to "heal" this would have been to somehow take all the pressure off that part of the body (prevent all muscle movement and stretch the body on a rack), push the tissue back inside then seal the fibrous outer sheath.
Would I pay for such an option? Yes. Is it possible? No. Would some form of simple application of stem cells allow my body to rebuild the missing tissue? Probably not. Not only is a human spinal column far more complex than that of a rat, so are human brains. The human body also lives far longer and the human body is more articulate.
This is nice news but it's just the start of what would have to be a long, long, long process. There's no way to have perfect regeneration of plant tissue yet. Thinking human tissue would be able to regenerate any time soon is silly.
Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful (Score:3, Informative)
stem cells (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We're not persuing this as fast as we can becau (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful (Score:5, Informative)
while the cited article in this posting is a little light on details, this research is potentially novel for the reason that these researchers appear to have recovered function in an animal with a complete spinal cord transection. incomplete spinal cord injury (aka "crush") injuries are a different beast. for some time now, some degree of functional rehabilitation has been possible. the hope is that in humans, we will be able to culture the appropriate stem cell, provide the correct growth factors and achieve connection between the motor/sensory cortex and the peripheral nerve(s).
the problem is that until this point, we have not had very much success getting neurons in the central nervous system to grow across scar tissue and make appropriate connections to regain function.
in anticipation of a heated debate in this forum regarding stem cells etc, it's worth noting that the cells used in this study probably fall into the category of "adult stem cells" and not embryonic stem cells (the more contriversial of the two).
Re:Spinal vs. Embryonic stem cells? (Score:3, Informative)
That is not 100% true. There is a ban on using government to fund research using new embryonic cells. When Bush signed the original law, he was trying to make a compromise between his constituents and scientific advisors. His constituents, mostly republican and religious people, are against abortions and using embryos which came from aboritions. They believe they have a right to express how their tax dollars are spent, and they don't want to support abortion. Scientists, of course, want to use these embryos. Bush came up with a pretty good compromise. Those embryos that were availabe before he signed the legislation would continue to recieve government funding for research. Bush was told there are enough embryos right now to continue research at almost all universities without loosing any governemnt funding. Perhaps in 5 years there will be a shortage, but by then there will be a new administration in the white house. I have not heard of one single instance of any professor at a major university who has said they don't have access to an embryo to do research.
About the first part of what you wrote, yes, it does seem like every other year there is a big story about an advance in growing of nueral tissue. I remember when Superman was alive (I think it was christophere reeves), he said he was close to finding a cure to his paralysis. But he eventually died. All the funding he provided and the spotlight he focused on spinal cord injures was not able to save his life. And he had a good 10 years or more of trying to find a cure.
The nervous system is too complex. I doubt we will ever have anything more than some motorized limbs. I doubt we will ever fully understand neurons. Not only is there the electrical component, but there is the chemical component at the synapse too. There is the question of thresholds and how a nueron remembers. Is it possible that even if we can replace a non-functioning neuron with a stem cell that will become a nueron, that this new neuron will not "fit in" with the surrounding neurons? Or are neurons like a heart cell, that you can have two cells that beat at different paces, but as soon as they touch, they beat at the same pace. Can a new neuron learn from an older one?
I think the REAL breakthroughs the next 20 years will be through genetic engineering. Instead of trying to replace a cell, I believe the true cure will be injecting healthy DNA in the correct cells nucleus and fixing the problem at the cause.
Re:We're not persuing this as fast as we can becau (Score:3, Informative)
You're on crack. Seriously, it takes absolutely no effort to find people who are 100% pro-choice.
Re:Spinal vs. Embryonic stem cells? (Score:3, Informative)
See relevant web pages from the UK Medical Research Council [mrc.ac.uk], the UK Department of Health [doh.gov.uk], the NIBSC [nibsc.ac.uk] and Cambridge University's Stem Cell Institute [cam.ac.uk].
Research in this area is also being conducted by the UK universities of Bath and Liverpool, in collaboration with the Wellcome Trust and Smith & Nephew.
Re:We're not persuing this as fast as we can becau (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Anwser to flaimbait. No $$ for abortions... (Score:5, Informative)
You might be able to tell me at what speed an object falls to the earth, but can you tell me why it falls? Something as simple as gravity? Science is observing events and trying to predict what will happen. Science does not purport to understand why something happens.
Um, science _does_ attempt to explain to the best of our ability why things happen. Is "gravity" not a perfectly valid answer to your question? If you want to recursively ask "Why?" to every explanation, then I challenge you to explain your faith and allow me to extend the same courtesy. I guarantee you will run out of productive statements long before I will.
The fact that you refeer to soul and "some such shit" in the same sentance leads me to believe you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that you should be the one who decides where my tax dollars are spent.
Blah, blah, blah. Vica versa. Ad nausem.
All that Bush did was listen to his constituents, who said they don't want their tax dollars being spent on embryos that came from abortions.
Woah, Woah! Hold it right there. This is where you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Embryos that came from abortions? From the wikipedia...
Embryonic stem cells are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a blastocyst, an early stage embryo consisting of 50-150 cells. They are pluripotent, meaning they are able to grow into any of the 200 cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a cloned blastocyst, created by fusing a denucleated egg cell with a patient's cell. The blastocyst produced is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are obtained from a clone, they are genetically compatible with the patient.
200 cells is not a fetus by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is a blastocyst a fetus. These is very much a lab created process and trying to apply your morality via rubber stamp doesn't exactly line up.
Re:We're not persuing this as fast as we can becau (Score:2, Informative)
This is a false dichotomy. The reason that humans are considered different from other animals is that we are sentient. That is the distinction. So it is completely reasonable that the law considers a human embryo, which is not sentient, to be property while a baby is not. And it's important to note that this is already the position that the law takes. Embryos are considered the property of the people who produced them. Many (if not all) of the embryos that are currently used for this research are ones that were about to be destroyed.
If we define a woman's body to include anything that grows within it, regardless of how that growth is initiated, then it is clear that until a fetus is removed from her body it is her property.
But that isn't how a woman's body is defined. This is a non sequitur.
Re:To be or not to be...born? (Score:5, Informative)
No, we're not. This is the thing that "Human-at-conception" camp, which refers to itself as "pro-life" constantly ignores, no matter how many times it's brought up. All human cells do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Embryonic stem cells are not individuals for a variety of reasons.
Those who want to assert that life begins at conception frequently fall back on logic that flies in the face of longstanding legal precedent. They say embryos are human, for example, because they represent a unique set of human DNA. But if this definition of what is human were true, it would be okay to kill a twin as long as the other twin remained. It's not. A human is more than simply a set of cells with unique DNA. And we've recognized that for thousands of years. The set of cells must also pass a certain stage of development. Otherwise, any stem cell which could potentially be cloned through somatic cell transfer would be human.
While many socieites differed radicially from ours in terms of their legal code, and assigned rights to a patriarch, a family, or a nation, our society assigns rights primarily to individual human beings.
Cells don't have rights until they become individuals. An individual is one person, and one person only. Never two or three or possibly four people. An individual is only one person. An embryonic stem cell is one or two or possibly three people, or none at all if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall.
Likewise, the often repeated canard of 'what if you were aborted doesn't support those who say people are humans at conception unless you also don't believe in contraception, or any other act which would prevent the birth of a person. After all, if my parents had gone to the movies instead of making me, I wouldn't be here either. But what kind of logic is that? This is a case of assuming what you're trying to prove. People who don't believe than individuality starts at conception will never be persuaded by this argument, because they don't believe that they were 'them' at conception. They believe they were still a 'pre-individual.'
Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you. Strange how the "human" dividing line moves so.
Moving? Are you claiming that he's applying one standard to himself, and another standard to other people. If so, I really don't think you understand his argument. But if you're saying that there are a lot of people who disagree with you and hold different moral standards which they apply to all people then yes, you're absolutely right.
Re:This brings up way too many political issues. (Score:3, Informative)
Second, everyone says that Bush is against stem cell research.
Okay.
He is only against federal funding to embryonic stem cell research.
Because that's the only thing he has control over?
That doesn't mean he wants to ban it, well he does, but that is besides the point.
So he wants to ban it, but he isn't against it? That makes perfect sense...
Bush doesn't believe in stem-cell research. He is trying to limit the research that goes on. Politically, there are only a couple of ways he can do that. He can push congress to pass a law saying stem cell research is banned. As you rightly point out, this is what he wants to do. But Congress won't do that, and Bush can't make them do that. So he does what he can --- he issues a directive that the federal government won't fund stem cell research, with the hopes that the research will wither away without federal dollars.
Re:To be or not to be...born? (Score:2, Informative)