Skin Cells Turned Embryonic 261
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."
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: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 ^_^).
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:3, Interesting)
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:I knew it.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't as special as many think. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
When studied, it was discovered that very low level DC currents were measured throughout the body and at the wound area on tested salamander. Later tests determined that artificially stimulating the cells with DC current triggered the cells to de-differentiate.
Interesting!
Even more interesting, the cells of more complex organisms, (humans), also react to low level DC current, and in fact, naturally occurring DC current plays a role in the normal growth and healing cycles of cells. All manner of tests have been performed, leading to a variety of strange discoveries, such as the finding that human cancer cells increase their growth rate by several orders of magnitude when exposed to electrical fields.
Why has this never been studied in depth? Well, the multi-billion dollar cancer and stem cell research industry would be upset if new and simple knowledge were to come to light. Conspiracy theory? Who cares. Salamanders can re-grow arms and nobody in the main-stream scientific community seems to have bothered to look at this closely. Apparently, the scientific explanation for how Salamanders do this is slip-shod at best; the semi-official explanation is that Salamander cells don't really de-differentiate, but rather, somehow, new stem cells migrate through the blood to the region of the wound. (This by people who have not actually looked at the puzzle closely, but who would lose stem cell research grant money if it were accepted that Salamander cells can do the 'impossible' (de-differentiate). How's that for the grand and noble scientific community?
You can read all about this, and all manner of other fascinating elements of electromagnetics as they relate to biological life in Robert O. Becker's book [amazon.com] on the subject.
Incidentally, EM from cell phones and powerlines is covered in some depth, and several mechanisms by which low-power EM pollution can have a profound impact on living tissues, and the nervous system.
Typically, however, most people don't like to hear stuff like that as it means their cell phones and WiFi and other beloved toys are suddenly suspect. Awww.
-FL
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
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:1, Interesting)
I have a PhD, meaningful (as in to everyone, at least I hope) work, a lovely spouse, two college-age kids, and am caring for my terminally-ill mother who lives with us. Yep, I'm sure she wishes she'd had my brains sucked right out. Would have been so much better.
Nothing more or less than punishing the woman for having sex? Intentional denial of the fact of my humanity makes your argument foolish at best.
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:2, Interesting)
A fetus may be human, but it is not a person. I would argue that a baby shouldn't be considered to be a person until its behaviour differentiates itself from animals.
Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It's worthwhile pursuing other avenues of research in case this avenue doesn't pan out
2) It's worthwhile pursuing other avenues of research that use stem cells from normal sources until this method is more reliable in producing the raw materials for those complementary avenues of research. Those other avenues of research also add to our understanding of cell differentiation which might provide positive feedback into your favoured avenues of research.
3) The pharmaceutical industry is a lot more interested in producing treatments than cures. You can make a lot more money out of an ongoing treatment than from a one shot cure. Private industry generally also isn't interested in funding multi-decade long term research projects but want much shorter time frame ROI. Even in the pharmaceutical industry, where safety testing causes development times that can exceed a decade, the amount of research that remains before these approaches can be commercially viable are too long to attract the necessary investment.
4)...
5) Keep your religious and capitalist ideology to yourself and out of the way of scientist trying to further our understanding of whether it's possible to make this work. Once we start havign a reasonable understanding the fine grain mechanisms of cell differentiation and start looking at widespread clinical trials, then you can bring out your hobby horse.
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
Re:Just a second there, professor... (Score:2, Interesting)