Safe Stem Cells Produced From Adult Cells 207
hackingbear writes "Wired, citing a paper published in Science magazine, reports that Harvard scientists may have found a safer way of giving a flake of skin the biologically alchemical powers of embryonic stem cells by turning adult cells into versatile, embryonic-like cells without causing permanent damage. The technique involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA.' Four-month trials on mice demonstrated that the resulting stem cells are free from unpredictable cancer-inducing mutations. This is definitely a breakthrough in stem cell research."
Additional coverage is available at Yahoo, and Science hosts the research paper, although you'll need a subscription to see more than the abstract.
Re:Only on mice, for now (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead we're faced with the new controversy that every skin cell you shed can be considered an embryo that, with the correct application of medical science, can now become a child.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
Or, perhaps you're trying to create an evil clone army with all those cells?
There's plenty of material and interpretations for anyone who wants to find controversy.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who considers "humane killing" an oxymoron of the first degree, I'm fine with the idea. The person being killed probably doesn't care much whether he's injected with a lethal poison or shot in the head. The person needing a transplant, on the other hand, cares very much about living a normal life.
Similarly, the embryos are already being created and destroyed en masse by fertility clinics. (And yet, for some reason, pro-lifers never complain about that.) Does the embryo care whether it's grown into organ tissue or thrown in the trash? Does a person suffering from a degenerative disease care about a cure?
Re:Only on mice, for now (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead we're faced with the new controversy that every skin cell you shed can be considered an embryo that, with the correct application of medical science, can now become a child.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
I already kill half embryos that could become human children quite often, what's wrong with killing whole ones?
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a story of a man who was very attached to his dog, and brought the dog everywhere. One day he went into an east-asian restaurant- as he sat down he told the waiter to take care of his dog. The waiter asked if he wanted the special, and the man agreed. A while later, the man received and ate a dish he enjoyed more than anything he had ever eaten, and after he was finished, he asked the waiter about his dog. The waiter was confused, as the dog was the special the man just ate.
If the man was told what he was eating as he was served the meal, would it make sense for him to refuse to eat it? If you are offered treatment that involved destroying a human life, would it make sense to be opposed to the treatment? Obviously, since the man's best friend is already dead, the man may as well go ahead and eat and enjoy it guilt free...
The difference is the man knew the dog very well, but the embryo isn't something you can relate to very readily- somehow because the embryo doesn't look human, it becomes justifiable to ignore any meaning of its existence as a living being. I am sure there are children out there who were once embryos frozen in a facility somewhere and then adopted (those embryos are the ones that are used for stem cell lines)- if a heartless scientist killed one of those children in the name of science, then offered to restore your ability to walk by harvesting stem cells from the child, you should be disgusted at the proposition. Same goes for gaining from the destruction of an embryo.
Stem cells in teeth (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
> What do you think of the Chinese practice of executing prisoners with a bullet to the head, so that no vital organs are damaged, allowing them to be transplanted to faithful Party hacks, or people willing to pony up the money for them? Would you be cool with the US government doing the same thing? After all, the guy's going to be killed anyway; It's RECYCLING!!!111eleventy
I don't live in the US so I really don't care either way, but if a criminal who has been sentenced to death is willing to donate his organs, by all means kill him in a way that does not damage the organs. The problem is that when a criminal admits he is willing to donate organs, a jury might be more willing to say he's guilty, especially if they have friends or family who need a new organ... if you know a suspected murderers organs might save your sick child, your 'reasonable doubt' might be less than impressive.
Best avoid situations where people have something to gain by sentencing people to death.
Your body, you pay. (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, the right wing retort to this strawman assault would be to say
"Your body, you pay."
If you want to have the right to choose, then you ought to pay for your own medical care.
If it is your body, then you are reasonably responsible for your own sexual education and you don't need our tax money to pay for you to learn how to screw.
If you want the public to pay for your well being, then you are by definition a pet of the people at large, and conservatives have as much a right to your body at that point as you do.
Do remember that George Bush has done what he did by essentially using powers the left wing granted to itself in government for right wing ends. If you put the government in charge of health care, just imagine a future Bush deciding what the government should in fact pay for.
Re:Stem cells in teeth (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone with a spinal injury..... (Score:1, Interesting)
These 'breakthroughs' are interesting to read about. The predictable ethical debate is a bore.
My main question is when the hell is this actually going to help someone? I've heard of a lot of studies 'planning to go to human trial' but never any results, good or bad. Did it ever make it to human trial? We've made rats, mice, chickens and pigs regenerate nerves, walk again etc. Where are human trials? North American doctors and scientists are too coward to step up to the plate. Instead we argue that the idea is somehow invalid because it didn't get published in a medical journal. If it works, I don't give a shit if Dr. so-and-so doesn't think it will.
Here's my ethical debate: if a human (with cognitive function) knows the possible risk of experimental treatments and is willing to take that risk, who do these people think they are by disallowing it?
Re:Hopefully (Score:3, Interesting)
The obvious question, then, is whether or not the fetus is a human being.
More generally if it has rights that trump the mother's rights. Included in that is whether or not it's a human. The death penalty is also framed in that way.
The larger question than that though is if anyone has the authority to say if the fetus is a human being with rights. It's possible to have an opinion that the fetus does have rights, but the opinion that you, the government, and the church don't have the ability to dictate that.
They use an adenovirus, not a retrovirus. (Score:1, Interesting)
It's "safer" because they use an adenovirus [wikipedia.org] instead of a retrovirus [wikipedia.org], so the viral DNA doesn't mingle with the cell's DNA and any trace that it was there vanishes after a few cell divisions.
I actually did a bit of research and explained all of this in my submission (which gave credit to Konrad Hochedlinger and his team, too), but I guess the other guy got there first or something. Why do they only publish the submissions where I screw something up? *sigh* :)
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property [eff.org]
Sadly, it will probably not end it.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mainly, because there are too many want-a-be-stupid's out there who constantly decry the ban on stem cell research that doesn't exist.
The only ban is on Federal funding for fetal stem cell research. Which has mainly only succeeded in growing tumors.
Meanwhile, many in the field have said that they do not believe they need fetal tissue. Most successful stem cell treatments have all been derived from the more stable adult stem cells.
But hey, keep on being stupid, it let's you further your hate of Bush and keep chanting and ranting. Makes you feel better. Just know you're being stupid and mis-informed.