Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech News

Stem Cells to Treat Brain Injury in Children 222

Posted by samzenpus from the grow-a-better-brain dept.
BigDukeSix writes "The first stem cell trial with widespread public health implications is set to begin in Houston. From the article: "Trauma is far and away the main cause of death and disability among children, and the main reason children die from trauma is brain injury...The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stem Cells to Treat Brain Injury in Children More

Stem Cells to Treat Brain Injury in Children

Comments Filter:

  • More Information: (Score:5, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:07AM (#14316652)

    Some more information on using stem cells from bone marrow to grow neurons can be found here [bbc.co.uk].

    As you can see from the date of the above referenced article, the idea of using stem cells derived from bone marrow to treat brain injury has been around for a while, but now that we've finally progressed to human trials, this field is going to get very exciting very fast. This has the potential to completely rewrite the textbooks on brain & nerve trauma...it's a real pity that Christopher Reeve [chrisreevehomepage.com] had to leave us before we made these advances.

    • Re:More Information: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:46AM (#14316832) Journal
      "...it's a real pity that Christopher Reeve [chrisreevehomepage.com] had to leave us before we made these advances."

      Why? What makes an actor who played a comic book hero worthy of mention (other than the fact that he championed the cause), instead of the thousands of children who were and are never able to realize their potential?

      • Re:More Information: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Slightly Askew ( 638918 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:12AM (#14316970) Journal

        (other than the fact that he championed the cause)

        That is exactly the reason. Do you realize how much money would have poured in for this research if they could have made Superman walk again using stem cells? It's not about the person, it's about their publicity and their power to help the cause. Remember Ryan White? I went to school with the kid and, frankly, he was an ass. However, his celebrity status did more for AIDS research and education than the deaths of 50 unknown kids with AIDS.

        • Sure. But Christopher Reeve had already accomplished almost everything he was going to accomplish in his life. He wasn't a champion of any cause prior to his injury, he was just a fading pop culture icon.

          In terms of who we should be sorry wasn't saved, I'd trade one child for Christopher Reeve any day.
          • In terms of who we should be sorry wasn't saved, I'd trade one child for Christopher Reeve any day.


            From what I've read of the man, I think he would have agreed with you. That still doesn't take away the fact that he was a prime mover in getting publicity for the cause.

            It was a shame he didn't get to live to see it reach this stage. If you can't see why we should, then I can only feel sorrow for you.
            • I appreciate everything he did for the cause, but I think the link to his webpage was gratuitous link-pimping on the part of TMM, and we could have been better served by links to unsung heroes/victims of the cause.

              I can appreciate the man, and yes, I wish he could have seen what his efforts have helped come about. But I think that by focusing so much on him, people lose sight of all the other people (particularly children, who are the most easily helped by therapies like that of the trials in TFA) who ha

          • I'm not so sure. I still say he had a lot to offer with his celebrity. If his education and fund-raising efforts could someday result in the saving of 10,000 kids, wouldn't that make his life more important than the one random child?

            I realize we have gone off on an ethical tangent, but I fail to understand people who place the unequivocally place a higher value on the life of a child than the life of an adult. I know there are people who would fight harder to save the life of an inner city crack baby wh

            • For me, it's about potential. In my OP, I was careful to make the distinction that I wanted to know what reasons other than CR's championing of the cause justified more attention to him than to the thousands of people out of the public eye.

              If anything, it's the other people who need to be publicized -- people need to be reminded that it's not just victims of polo accidents who would like a cure to paralysis.

              Re: saving a child vs. saving an adult (if faced with the choice), it's mostly about potential t

            • Re:More Information: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by bsmoor01 ( 150458 )
              Genes.

              It seems to me that genes that place the young above the old (to at least some degree) would be selected by evolution. If we didn't have the trait to very strongly protect our children, then we wouldn't last very long as a species.

              Now, logically, saving an experenced doctor over a crack baby may be better for the human race. The doctor is a known quantity, and has a higher probability of contributing something to society. Overcoming animal instincts to make such cold, calculated decisions is diffic
        • Just wanted to add, that I specifically pointed out that I was lookng for other reasons in my OP. I'm fully aware of how that validates interest in him.
      • I agree. The probelm we, in the USofA, face is with our legaslative body. We need to step forward and convince our representitives that embryonic stem cell research is for everyone's over-all good. Before the flames start flying I'd like to say that I'm not a big fan of abortion and the like. HOWEVER, if a life was going to be ended anyhow why not put it towards further good? How about legeslating towards making dead fetuses fair game for the rest of us, but making it illegal to kill embryo for the purpos o
        • In this case the embryonic controversy does not apply. According TFA, they are using stem cells derived from the patient's own bone marrow.

        • Re:More Information: (Score:5, Informative)

          by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @11:26AM (#14317649) Homepage
          PLEASE....educate yourself on this issue. You are extremely misinformed!

          Try reading the article for starters, here is a quote:

          The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.

          A bit more about stem cell research:

          1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.

          2. All successful or promising stem cell development has been achieved using adult & umbilical stem cells. In fact, many experts in the field believe that there is no need what-so-ever to use fetal stem cells. a) that all goals can be achieved from non-fetal stem cells given a bit more time and study b) said additional study will likely take less time than the study necessary to learn how to control and utilize fetal stem cells.

          3. Fetal stem cell research has to date had very little success. The most common end result is "tumors". The fetal stem cells are too reactive and uncontrolled. Of the few dozen articles on stem cell success I have read not a single one has been due to fetal stem cells.

          4. When people keep ignorantly making statements above they merely show themselves to be poorly misinformed at best and quite a bit more at worse.

          - Saj
          • 1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.

            And before we start hearing the clamor from those claiming private funds are insufficient, the state of California approved $3 Billion for embryonic stem cell research. It's put up or shut up time for embryonic stem cell
        • There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research.

          There is a partial ban on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

          I can't imagine how it can be controversial to say that we aren't going to confiscate money from people and spend it research that they believe to be immoral.

          -Peter

          • Actually... (Score:3, Informative)

            by cr0sh ( 43134 )
            There is a partial ban on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

            The truth is closer to:

            There is a ban on performing embryonic stem cell research (outside of the few established stem cell lines, most of which are contaminated or otherwise unviable) in a research facility which uses federal funds for any research.

            That is where the problem lies. There are plenty of research facilities in the United States, both public and private, willing to do embryonic stem cell research using non-public (i

        • if a life was going to be ended anyhow why not put it towards further good?

          A sentiment shared by Nazis and WWII era Japanese scientists. The difference is morality. The ends can not be used to justify the means.

          If one dead foetus can save 10-20 (or even 2) lives, isn't it already worth it?

          No. If killing people to save others is your idea of a good and moral trade, I got two words for ya.... YOU FIRST.

          • If the ends shouldn't justify the means, then what the hell is there to justify anything? The "ends" is everything, so long as you understand that that includes all of the consequences of what you do, from start to finish. What better choice is there than the one which, to the best of our understanding, offers the best end result all around?
          • Oh, and on a related note, can you say "troll"? Either "killing people to save others" is a pitiful strawman, or you just have no understanding of what you're talking about.
      • Let's not forget that his injury occured while engaging in a dangerous sport reserved for the rich and stupid.
  • Then maybe we can grow a new web page and read the article.

  • Not embryionic? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:34AM (#14316774) Homepage
    Well, that's good news. No ethical dilemma.

    It would have been nice if the media stressed the promise of non-embrionic stem cells to the public more (there has been some stories), but it is nice to see it now.

    • Re:Not embryionic? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thatoneguy_jm ( 917104 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:40AM (#14316800)
      This is exactly what we need, at this point - if it can be shown just how helpful stem stell research can be, then perhaps people will start to view it not as a thing to be feared, but a thing to be looked into and studied. And, as noted, by not using embryonic cells controversy is avoided. It's a win-win-win situation: the kids get treated, the research is given a better name, and the ultra-conservatives shouldn't be upset about it.

      • Re:Not embryionic? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Columcille ( 88542 )
        Actually this is quite helpful, it shows all the good that can be done without the use of embryonic stem cells. Despite the whining from ESC researchers that only embryonic stem cells will do the magic, we've already heard several cases where non-embryonic stem cells have been used to work magic. Here we have another one. Why the continued push for ESC research? Here is a case where we don't have to destroy life in order to save life.
        • Despite the whining from ESC researchers that only embryonic stem cells will do the magic, we've already heard several cases where non-embryonic stem cells have been used to work magic. Here we have another one. Why the continued push for ESC research? Here is a case where we don't have to destroy life in order to save life.

          Well, do you really believe that stem-cell researchers would be courting controversy like this if it could be so easily avoided? Even if they don't accept the premise of the pro-lifers,

          • Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cells (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SeanDuggan ( 732224 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:27AM (#14317083) Homepage Journal
            I don't know this area particularly well, but I am sure that if the use of adult stem cells was in every way a replacement for the use of embryonic cells, then researchers would simply want to use those.

            But they do want access to embryonic stem cells, which suggests to me that embryonic stem cells have some useful property that adult stems cells don't.
            They have a higher potential benefit in that they may be more able to develop into a larger numbers of types of tissue. Basically, it was initially thought that stem cells from marrow could only be used to generate red blood cells whereas it seemed perfectly evident that infant stem cells could turn into all kinds of tissue given they're what the body starts from. Since then, we've found that adult stem cells can transform into a number of different kinds of tissues. *wry grin* Not that most of these experiments try to actually transdifferentiate the stem cells. If you read into the details of these experiments, most come down to "we inject a bunch of stem cells into part of the body and see if anything happens."

            Basically, the whole thing is over potential. The proponents of infant stem cells say that those stem cells may work better and the adult stem cell people are finding ways to use stem cell therapy without the requiring the sacrifice of another human life for a potential benefit.

            • Basically, the whole thing is over potential. The proponents of infant stem cells say that those stem cells may work better and the adult stem cell people are finding ways to use stem cell therapy without the requiring the sacrifice of another human life for a potential benefit.

              Mod up my friend SeanDuggan. The ill-informed (*cough* Slashdot) crowd is very willing to always jump on the latest scientific bandwagon as long as it somehow conflicts with the views of anyone who dares say "life" in regards to a

              • The ill-informed (*cough* Slashdot) crowd is very willing to always jump on the latest scientific bandwagon as long as it somehow conflicts with the views of anyone who dares say "life" in regards to abortion, stem cell research, etc.

                Actually, one of the arguments for embryonic stem cell research is that it could save human life. It's just not the type of human life that certain political groups care about.

                Do we know that embrionic stem cells will work better? No, it's a theory.

                This begs the ques
                • Actually, one of the arguments for embryonic stem cell research is that it could save human life. It's just not the type of human life that certain political groups care about.
                  They're all for saving lives, but they want it done without cost to innocent lives. Why do you think so many of these groups are behind research on adult stem cells?

                  This begs the question. How will we know whether they're better if we don't study them? You can't use ignorance as an argument against inquiry.
                  Actually, unless you'

            • In the sphere of scientific ethics, you almost always face a trade off of certain constraints against the promise of a particular methodology or technology. I don't really doubt that there is good reason the believe that embryonic stem cells are more likely to have promise and produce faster results with less research time. What is at stake is how they are obtained, as we all know.

              The battle is fairly important, because there are many things we can do to make scientific progress much faster, IF we are wil
          • Well, do you really believe that stem-cell researchers would be courting controversy like this if it could be so easily avoided? Even if they don't accept the premise of the pro-lifers, it would still be easier for them to avoid controversy if they could.

            I don't know about you, but I haven't personally heard from any legitimate stem-cell reearchers. I've only heard from political hacks. And why a political hack would court avoidable controversy is an easy question to answer. Now, put a real scientist in
      • i can't claim any medical knoledge other than "i payed attention in school and read a lot on many subjects"... my question to those in the know:

        do embryonic stem cells present any greater clinical bennefit versus non-embryonic ones? my gut feeling is "yes, because they are less developed and therefore more malleable", but that's coming straight out of my ass

        anyone who knows, please share; thanks

    • What dilemma is that? If you were the parent of a child who could only be saved by the use of embryonic stem cells, I suspect your outlook might be quite a bit different.
      • Kill a child - save a child?

        However, the fact of the matter is that fetal stem cell research has essentially resulted in very little success. In fact, because of their heightened mutation qualities the end result of almost all fetal research has been the same, the creation of a tumor and nothing more.

        Where as adult stem cell research has had a few dozen potential successes. All without the taking of life. In fact, the advocates of adult stem cell only research have proved quite right in their hypothesis tha
    • From a press release from the Aplastic Anemia & MDS Foundation:

      "The President yesterday signed into law a bill to authorize $79 million to establish a new national registry of 150,000 umbilical cord blood units. The "Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act" was approved by the Senate on December 16 and had already passed the House of Representatives last May."
    • The reason exciting stories like these don't make news -- and don't garner tons of comments on /. -- is because there's no money in them. The child has the necessary cells in his bone marrow, and embryonic lines with the right genetic recipe don't have to be manufactured and sold at astronomical premiums. Baby human embryos are spared the garbage disposal, and the liberal media dare not admit that funding embryonic stem cell research is (1) an empty investment, (2) completely unnecessary, and (3) beneath

  • Blood-brain barrier? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's only a Phase I trial. Phase I trials are very early trials predominantly concerned with establishing safe levels of the parameters. It won't show effectiveness.
    I find it a little curious to see that the bone marrow stem cells would be injected intravenously since the blood-brain barrier could limit the stem cells from reaching their destination. I presume that they figure that with trauma, blood would easily get to the damaged area. I think it is extremely hopeful to expect that enough stem cells would
    • Actually, it seems that at least some stem cells do penetrate the blood-brain barrier quite regularly. I first saw this in last month's Scientific American (Charles Q. Choi. Baby to Brain. Scientific American 11/2005, p. 22-24.), but, since I can't hastily find a link to it, here's a New Scientist article [newscientist.com] talking about the same thing.

      Apparently, fetal stem cells normally migrate throughout the mother's body -- including to her brain -- during pregnancy. They've found this in mice, and, I suspect, will find

  • As someone... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Veneratio ( 935302 )
    As someone who has seen a newborn die from braininjuries from up close(my little niece*), i salute the effort in this line of research. Since TFA mentions that this treatment does not use the embryotic (sp?) stemcells, i fail to see why this would become one of those ethical debates. Like with C. Reeves, i just wish they had developed this sooner :(


    * = a common spelling mistake [wsu.edu]

  • Texas children vs India poor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:40AM (#14316804)
    A couple of days ago people were freaking because experimental drugs were being used on India's poor. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 9/1838223&tid=191&tid=219 [slashdot.org] So how come nobody's up in arms about this experimental procedure being used on children in Texas? Presumably the Indian subjects were in need of treatment too.
    • There's lots of good answers that I'm sure people will provide, but I'd just like you to explain how this is at all similar.
    • Testing on people in third world countries is potentially unethical since it skirts the tougher legislation found in Western countries and people who are more desperate and less educated will be more likely to consent to riskier tests. I'm not sure the indian test subjects stand to gain much from the drugs they test

      OTOH, brain damaged children have a lot less to lose and a lot more to gain that it would be likely to could find test subjects who wouldn't even expect compensation. This is much like drugs for
    • "drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced...more and more drug companies are conducting clinical trials in developing countries where government oversight is more lax."

      If any of that applied to Texas we might be just as upset about it as we are about India. Clear enough?
    • So how come nobody's up in arms about this experimental procedure being used on children in Texas? Presumably the Indian subjects were in need of treatment too.

      The difference lies in the fact that the primary purpose of the drug testing in India (and more often now on college students in the US) is that the drugs are not being given to treat any condition in the test subject, but to study the safety and metabolism of the drug itself. The trials involving the Texas children are an actual attempt to treat

  • One of the advantages children have may also be the weakness in this study is that they show extreme plasticity. That is, their neurons are already growing and filling in gaps. Cases such as the "Boy with half a brain" [bbc.co.uk] demonstrate such extreme plasticity.

    So, I'm somewhat hesitant that this procedure may be of great value to the population they picked. Instead, it may be issues like scarring that cause the most problems. Perhaps doing things like adding nerve growth factor (NGF) [brynmawr.edu], reducing inflammation
  • is cancerous growth of stem cells. Granted, these are not embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but this being the first human trial for somatic stem cells (SSCs) I hope nothing goes wrong. We really don't know every single signal pathway affecting stem cell differentiation, this kind of treatment is really simple, but blind. For example, what will the effect of all those extraction, culturing and IV injection procuders will be on the human SSCs? Some can argue that the current situation of stem cell field is prematu

  • This study is bogus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LenE ( 29922 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @10:13AM (#14316980) Homepage
    Stem cells might be a neat buzzword to get funding, but as a parent of a child with serious brain damage, I can tell you that this is more likely a politically motivated stunt to grease the slippery slope of stem cell research, than something that will generate measurable results. After all, nobody wants to hurt brain damaged children.

    The reason I'm so cynical is that babies are very resilient, and for the most part they are like stem cell factories on their own. As they grow, they produce new brain and nerve material, which adults cannot do. It is adult disease and injury (and greed) that fuels the stem cell craze, since our adult bodies cannot heal like young children can.

    My daughter had a stroke two months before she was born. This stroke wiped out 85% of the left hemisphere of her brain, replacing it with a fluid filled cyst. When she was three months old, she had an operation to add a drainage passage to this cyst, as it was filling with cerebral spinal fluid and had expanded to fill the entire left half of her cranium cavity. This operation cut through parts of her brain, leaving her completely blind.

    At nine months of age, the drainage passage had collapsed, and the cyst had enlarged to block all drainage of cerebral spinal fluid from her brain. Her head swelled with a condition know as hydrocephalus, and she almost died. That night, the CAT scans showed that 75% of the volume that should have been occupied by her brain was filled with fluid. She had an emergency operation to install an artificial drainage valve (a shunt). This event was catastrophic, and was like having her "reset" switch activated, she had to re-learn everything.

    Now, the good news. She is eighteen months old now, and has recovered remarkably. Her last CAT scan showed that the original cyst had been reduced to only 25% of the left half of her brain, and the right half is completely restored. The original passage that was cut, that caused her blindness, has healed shut. Her vision is steadily improving and she shows signs that she may be functional without the use of a cane someday. Sure, she's a little behind developmentally, but she is showing lots of promise. All of her healing was without the use of any stem cell treatment, because babies are stem cell factories. Her same injuries would have killed an adult, several times over.

    -- Len
    • How do you know that a stem cell therapy treatment wouldn't have improved your child's recovery process?

      The body isn't perfect.

      What if the therapy can give back to your child what has been lost?

      You have a very sad story but you shouldn't discount a potential good because it makes you hope again and leaves you vulnerable to serious disappointment if your child can not be helped by that good. Buck up buddy and thank whatever divinity you believe in that the rest of us haven't given up. 20 years ago the very p
      • You miss the point, and I don't have a sad story. My story is happy and full of hope. It is a miracle that my daughter is alive today, and her body has been healing itself, as all children will do. We don't view her circumstance as a major hinderance and although I wish that she never had any of these problems, I know I can't turn back the clock and fix anything better than her body has done. She has stem cells at work right now, without intervention. You don't try to fix what isn't broken.

        The problem
        • I think you didn't read the article carefully because you already had your mind made up. In this study, the stem cells are taken from the bone marrow in the child's own hip, cultured and separated, and put back into the childs bloodstream.

          I can't see any downside here except that I've heard that taking the marrow out is quite painfull.
    • (((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))))

      I don't know where your views lie, but my prayers are that things will continue to improve in most wonderful ways.

      Your sharing reminds me of Glenn Beck's sharing regarding his daughter, who was likewise damaged. I remember him recounting when the doctor told him that black spots are dead areas. And showed a normal brain. Then put up his daughter's brain and it was almost completely black. And yet, she's graduated high school. The girl who was unlikely to live more
    • The article says that the children in this study will be between 5 and 14 of age. Your child was injured before birth, so the two may vary in the amount of recovery strength.

  • Successful Stem Cell Usage (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Almost every real advance that has been made using stem cells has been made with either adult stem cells or cord blood.

  • More Proof (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dbucowboy ( 891058 )
    Just another batch of evidence to show the need to research non-embryonic stem cells... embryonic stem cells have yet to yeild anything extra-ordinary.
  • Well there are a couple of rabbit trails I could go down with this one.
    To my understanding, embryonic stems cells come from leftover fertilized eggs from invitro etc not from aborted pregnancies but it could include both, I am not sure. One of the future treatments, for curing nongenetic problems(ie spinal cord, organ damage) is to create and an embyro(then stem cells) with your own DNA(clone). I don't think that would work with probems such as alzheimer's unless the embyro's DNA is changed to remove t

  • Too many stupid comments about embreyonic stem cells and aborted foetuses. Let me spell it out for you.

    You cannot get embreyonic stem cells from a foetus.

    Typically an aborted foetus is developed; after about 24 hours IIRC the fertilized cell has passed from being a single cell to a clump of cells to a blastocyst (ball of cells) to an embreyo, at which point the cells start to diversify into multipotent adult stem cells. An abortion usually happens after this point, which means no embreyonic cells

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close