Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Developed From Skin Cells 175
juliangamble writes "Scientists reported Thursday they had developed a technique that can quickly create safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells, a major advance toward developing a less controversial approach for treating a host of medical problems. The researchers published a series of experiments showing they can use laboratory-made versions of naturally occurring biological signals to quickly convert ordinary skin cells into cells that appear virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the same strategy can then coax those cells to morph into specific tissues that would be a perfect match for transplantation into patients."
Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, they're basically trying to turn cells into a benevolent cancer, so research like this that helps us understand how the cells morph into different types is helpful no matter whether ESCs or ASCs win out in the end.
NB: I only know so much about this, so if you can explain better/correct me, feel free to post a +5 informative.
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:2)
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:3, Informative)
Embryonic stem cells: [wikipedia.org]
"Additionally, under defined conditions, embryonic stem cells are capable of propagating themselves indefinitely."
Adult stem cells: [wikipedia.org]
"Self-renewal which is the ability to go through numerous cycles of cell division while still maintaining its undifferentiated state." (emphasis mine)
So, it seems that while embryonic stem cells can reproduce indefinitely, adult stems cells can reproduce numerous times, but not indefinitely. Sure, maybe that number that numerous implies is very high, but that is still distinctly different than indefinitely. That's why I asked the question in the first place... Even one of the doctors in the article talks about how embryonic stem cells are still necessary for research purposes due to their unique traits (I am wagering one of those traits is their reproducibility).
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:2)
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:2)
Yes - that is the case with these new cells. They are made pluripotent - able to be reprogrammed into many other types of cells.
These advances from skin cells (& fat and a few others...) have the awesome benefit of matching the donor's DNA (not true with embryonic - thus it's likely to have rejection issues with something like new organs).
It also allows (in most cases) for us to avoid that sketchy issue of how many living human cells crosses the threshold into human life (inheriting inalienable human rights). (Or how many types interacting, or whether you need nerves, or brain stem, heartbeat, etc...)
Re:Can They Be Reproduced Indefinitely? (Score:2)
They are made pluripotent - able to be reprogrammed into many other types of cells.
You answered the wrong question. Embryonic stem cells have these properties:
* their pluripotency, and
* their ability to replicate indefinitely.
Citation [wikipedia.org].
So, again: do these cells have the *second* ability?
telomere tail? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder though, if they don't find a way to lengthen the telomere tail on the cell's dna, it's age won't be reset. You can't just take anyone's skin cells and make stem cells from them, if they're older generation cells the telomere tail will be short and the cell culture's lifespan will also be short.
Re:telomere tail? (Score:2)
Re:telomere tail? (Score:2)
Re:telomere tail? (Score:2)
Re:telomere tail? (Score:3, Informative)
or maybe not (Score:2)
Or maybe induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells which are reprogrammed, acquire more telomere transcripts which elongate the telomeres... Or maybe not... Who really knows for sure...
http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(09)00002-2 [cell.com]
Summary
Telomere shortening is associated with organismal aging. iPS cells have been recently derived from old patients; however, it is not known whether telomere chromatin acquires the same characteristics as in ES cells. We show here that telomeres are elongated in iPS cells compared to the parental differentiated cells both when using four (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, cMyc) or three (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4) reprogramming factors and both from young and aged individuals. We demonstrate genetically that, during reprogramming, telomere elongation is usually mediated by telomerase and that iPS telomeres acquire the epigenetic marks of ES cells, including a low density of trimethylated histones H3K9 and H4K20 and increased abundance of telomere transcripts. Finally, reprogramming efficiency of cells derived from increasing generations of telomerase-deficient mice shows a dramatic decrease in iPS cell efficiency, a defect that is restored by telomerase reintroduction. Together, these results highlight the importance of telomere biology for iPS cell generation and functionality.
Re:telomere tail? (Score:2)
Except of course, telomeres are shortened with each division, because as cells age and approach the so called "Hayflick limit" [wikipedia.org] of about 45 divisions, they stop producing the enzyme telomerase [wikipedia.org], which extends telomeres. Cancer cells produce telomerase in substantial quantities, and thus can divide ad infinitum.
The reprogramming done to produce stem cells is very high-up in the genetic control hierarchy, and likely also causes them to keep producing the telomerase. This is precisely why 1 fertilized zygote can actually reach a whole organism without banging against the Hayflick limit. In fact, telomerase production is one of the markers of being a "stem cell".
Victim of Language? (Score:5, Informative)
While, I welcome any and all advances in the field of stem cells, I often wonder if the controversy around embryonic stem cells is mostly a product of language. As I understand it, the names "embryonic" and "adult" refers to where in the life-cycle of the stem cell it is in. It does not describe the source of the cells. Notice that even babies can have adult stem cells.
In cloud physics, there is a concept of a embryonic cloud drop. It is merely a label for a cloud droplet at the beginning of its life cycle, before it grows or evaporates.
So, are many people having problems with embryonic stem cells because they believe that it comes from an embryo instead of a zygote? Would public opinion be different if people understood this distinction? Would they care?
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
I supposed blastocystic stem cells is too hard to say, otherwise you might be on to something.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
I supposed blastocystic stem cells is too hard to say, otherwise you might be on to something.
Same number of syllables. You could even abbreviate it to "blasto-stem cells" which would be popular with the video game crowd. If we could only come up with something that sounds litugical to make it popular with the fundos.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:4, Insightful)
(I'm just clarifying where the lines are commonly drawn, I'm not interested in yet another "lets flame at each other and get nowhere" "debate")
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
Yeah that poor embryo, you're destroying it in order to extract some stem cells. Pity it won't go on to live the long and fruitful life in a biohazard disposal bin that was originally planned for it.
Or did you think that we make embryos specifically to extract stem cells from them? They come entirely from fertility clinic leftovers that would otherwise be thrown away.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
It's not really true though. The ESCs are typically harvested from left-over fertilized eggs from fertility treatment. Normally those cells would be incinerated. Your claim makes it sound as if one is destroying an embryo which would otherwise become a human, which simply is not true. You may be true in some technical manner, depending on how you interpret your statement, but most people who don't already know what is going on will probably have quite a different reaction if they knew the details of the matter, rather than "destroy a potential life" line that you and others throw out there without much explanation of the actual circumstances.
Basically there would not be any fuss about this at all if people actually knew what was being done, and how.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that believe that a human life begins at conception, there is no moral difference between an embryo and a zygote.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
It's a product of neo-cons needing to fester rage.
Not only are the Zygote, there zygotes that would have otherwise been thrown away.
Re:Victim of Language? (Score:2)
The problem is that some people seem to think the embryos that give you embryonic stem cells are little babies when they're actually blobs of cells sitting in petrie dishes at fertility clinics that are going to be thrown in the incinerator anyway.
Lack of the correct emphasis (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't new, except for the part that says quickly.
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS cells) [wikipedia.org] have been around for at least 4 years now [eurekalert.org]
These guys are short-cutting the process of DNA makes RNA makes Protein, by directly providing the required mRNA, rather than inserting new required genes into adult somatic cells and then waiting for them to make the RNA and transform, as was done before.
I wonder... (Score:2)
if Bush had not limited the harvesting of embryonic stem cells if this would have been discovered. The whole lowest hanging fruit and all that...
Skin already has stem cells (Score:2)
Sounds like it could be profitable ... (Score:2)
Moreover, the same strategy can then coax those cells to morph into specific tissues that would be a perfect match for transplantation into patients.
I think he misspelled "patents".
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they are not identical. Several clinical hurdles ahve been passed, and it is clearly in improvement. But no, not identical.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:1, Insightful)
Either way, as I am no longer an embryo, these advances seem relevant for therapies using stem cells which may be developed by the time I'm old and need them.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, as I am no longer an embryo, these advances seem relevant for therapies using stem cells which may be developed by the time I'm old and need them.
Yes, this. And it never would have happened without all the uproar/dissent over the embryonic stem cells. People were hoping all along that it would be possible to continue this research without creating a market for human offspring, and it seems steps are being taken in that direction.
It's a good day for anyone but the pro-abortion crowd. (And yes, I mean pro-abortion vs merely pro-choice, as in the industry profiting by the practice and its allies.)
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
It's a good day for anyone but the pro-abortion crowd. (And yes, I mean pro-abortion vs merely pro-choice, as in the industry profiting by the practice and its allies.)
Of course pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same thing. Ya know, I just can't seem to hold myself back from committing abortion. I see pregnant women all the time and just hope and pray that they get abortions
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
I know you're being flippant, but the pro-abortion lobby does in fact exist. They're glommed on to women's rights pretty bad, but logic starts to fail when we consider that half of those fetuses they're hoping to kill are likewise female.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Like the Discovery Channel terrorist? He fits that camp.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:4, Insightful)
No there isn't. But hey a group of uneducated and ignorant people are telling you what to believe. feel fro to take what they say and swallow it with question.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
PPFA took in over $1 billion in revenues from all sources in the fiscal year running July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Over $300 million of it in Federal funds.
It's big business and if I've learned anything from the Slashdot crowd, big business is Baaaaad..
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Planned Parent Hood does comprehensive women's health... They even do pre-natal OB visits for poor women to help them have a healthy full term baby!!!
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that Planned Parent Hood is neither illegal nor does it make or use most of its money on Abortions.
Equating it to Hitler and Nazism is stupid.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Except that embryonic stem cell lines typically come from discarded in vitro embryos, not abortion. So really you're just going to see the tissue discarded instead of being used for medical research. Not that this is really any worse, but it isn't significantly better as you seem to believe.
Still, in my mind, the notion of true embryonic stem cell research always seemed... well, nuts, to put it mildly. You're talking about taking cells from one organism and trying to use them to repair/replace tissue in another organism. Yes, we've come a long way when it comes to anti-rejection drugs, but at some point you really have to step back and say to yourself, "There must be a more rational way to proceed."
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
And what will they do if they come up with a wildly successfully discovery? I suspect the supply of existing embryos will quickly be exhausted...then what?
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Being able to transplant whole organ, transfuse blood and bone marrow makes it not seem all that wild to me.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except embryo's are not human offspring and the majority never could be.
There are far more in cold storage than could ever possibly be brought to term. They are just collections of human genetic material with the potential for growth into human life IF they are implanted into a womb and are successfully brought to term. Even then once born then what? There are already too many orphans in this ever more crowded world.
If they are human offspring then what of sperm and egg? Where do you draw the line? Because they joined together?
Humans have rights not because of the genetic codes in our cells but because of our individual experience, potential and the investiture of others.
They may become people only under the right conditions and for the vast majority those conditions will never come.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Humans have rights not because of the genetic codes in our cells but because of our individual experience, potential and the investiture of others.
I see where you're going, logically, but legally speaking you're not correct. Intercourse with a human corpse is one example. Cannibalism is another. Abortion is yet a third, though to an agreeably less distinct sense.
Material from humans has a greater value than other flesh and bones normally would. That's a simple fact.
Reproductive material that might produce a viable human, even more so - and understandably so.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Legal, Ethical and Moral often end up in different places.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Material from humans has a greater value than other flesh and bones normally would. That's a simple fact.
Maybe to you. To rational people it is just so much meat.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
In some countries, cemetery plots are leased, not sold. [theworld.org]
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Reproductive material that might produce a viable human, even more so - and understandably so.
I'm afraid I don't understand.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
So even if I bought your argument, it would only stop me from abortion, as opposed to researching useful "trash"-in-potentia
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
There are no good guidelines. If there were better thinkers than us would have solved this problem long ago.
Ok so by some reasonable definitions an embryo can be considered alive and unique, but that still doesn't mean it has the same worth a human has; it has the potential to gain that worth but has not yet done so, and probably never will.
Acknowledging such a unique life does not change my argument that the embryo has sufficient intrinsic value to be worthy of what we generally call human rights, as I nor anyone cannot survive without quashing unique living things everyday.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
False.
Scientists have been looking to to this all the time. Using waste from in vitro fertilization is a costly and time consumer process. If Bush hadn't stop federal; funding, we problem would have gotten to this point years ago.
and abortion has nothing to do with this issue. The material they use is waste from the in vitro process. so if you don't like it, start and anti-in vitro fertilization group.
No industry profits from abortion.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
tell me specifically what you define as pro-abortion.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
There are some racists who believe all the contents of the wombs of women of certain races should be destroyed. There are some "environmentalists" who believe the same of all people (since they think humanity should be destroyed). There are some "eugenecists" who believe the same on a variety of criteria. There are some "feminists" (of the "all sex is rape" school of throught) who are pro-abortion.
Before you flame me, please note that all the above are qualified with the essential word "some". Not "all".
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
considering a eugenicist tried to weed out the undesirable genetics by breeding programs and killing of undesirable genetic carriers, I would say pro-choice (AKA the Libertarian position) is nothing like eugenics. I don't give a shit if you do or do not have an abortion, even if your child has some nasty genetic disease. I in fact do not think Abortion is right, but that is a personal choice and I have no fucking business telling someone else what choice to make.
Funny how a fascist opinion like the Anti-choice movement promotes is held by someone who then attacks a libertarian idea like pro-choice as being the same as a fascist idea like Eugenics.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Except it isn't a baby, it has no rights before the first trimester and after the first trimester its rights are very limited. Saying something is something that it isn't does not make it so.
So, admit that you are trying to couch your fascist religious ideals as some sort of freedom fight for tissue so you do not come off looking foolish.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea what Eugenics is.
1) Sterilize undesirables,
2)pair people who have "quality" genetic traits
3) force abortions on women who are pregnant with a fetus that is deformed or shown medically to carry undesirable traits.
Considering the pro-choice movement is about letting the woman decide to abort or not, Abortion rights has no more in common with Eugenics than genetic testing by choice. both are medical procedures that a Eugenics policy may use, but both have valid uses in respectable medicine.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
what makes me qualified? the fact that I am providing quantifiable facts about it and you are spewing hyperbole meant to enrage morons.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Interesting)
History likewise shows numerous examples of people dieing. This doesn't mean that tacos often kill.
That's a non sequitur.
Otherwise, we're just bandying about our opinions, aren't we?
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Perhaps. But both fertility treatments and abortions help to provide reproductive choice.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
But will you trust the science & therapies based on cells that "appear to be virtually like stem cells"?
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Virtually can be winnowed down quite a bit with further research, though naturally, embryonic stem cells will be an important component of this research.
Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:4, Interesting)
If we had Embryonic stem cells say from Cord blood or some other conflict free source.
Would the biological signals work the same on them to become muscle, nerve or organ replacement tissue?
Re:Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:2)
What's the distance between an embryonic stem cell and a zygote? If we can push the development back in time from skin cell -> stem cell, can we push it back from skin cell -> zygote? And if we can, what are the moral implications of destroying that zygote?
Re:Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:2)
Not any higher than the moral implications of your morning wackoff in the shower.
The question is if we can go from iPS Blastocyte (Score:2)
The distance between an embryonic stem cell and a zygote is basically a kick in the pants. Zygotes and blastocyst are developing and keep developing and are going through a series of changes that lead to individuals, but in theory a totopotent stem cell (which this process makes) can be put into a blastocyst and will develop into the organism (if you use a special type of flawed blastocyst that will not fully develop, you can even clone with this process now (though the previous inefficiencies and cancer inserting methods were highly problematic but hopefully that's yesterdays news). And it might well be possible to kick off the full development process within stem cells. In which case, what is the moral implications of destroying a skin cell?
Re:Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:2)
Re:Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:2)
Why don't we just scrape some eggs into a beaker and then spray them with semen? Why do we have to go through some roundabout route to get the exact same thing. Sure the pro-lifers will say "Oh, you just killed a baby!", but think about it... We are trying to make stem cells identical to these cells. If we do get there, wouldn't those created cells have the same potential for life as the cells in the egg/semen beaker, but with MUCH MUCH more expense? It seems a little crazy to me.
Consider this for a moment. At what point does a spider plant become two distinct organisms, vs. one organism with a shoot/node? Then think about this. What defines an organism? Is it the DNA? Is it the form? What is the difference between a cell within the human body with slightly damaged DNA vs. a zygote? What is the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst? An embryo? A fetus? A baby? At what point are identical twins two separate organisms? How are they different than taking a cell from a morula to perform genetic testing? How is a zygote containing DNA from an adult (AKA a "clone") different from pluripotent stem cells?
I'm not trying to advance any agenda. I'm just trying to get people to ask themselves these questions, because these are key to forming a scientifically based definition of human life, and by extension, one's opinion of stem cell research and abortion, without the murkiness of emotion.
Re:Do the commands work on Embryonic cells too? (Score:2)
I wonder if that's a potential possible conflict free source, as you say.
Yes, it would be conflict free. At that point it would be no different from you donating your wife's organs when she dies.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
The question isn't about whether they are identical but rather whether they are totipotent and able to make complete organisms. Early tests involved injecting iPSC into a developing blastcyst creating a chimera and demonstrating that the genetic material works. The gold standard however, is cloning with the iPS cells and a few teams managed that by using a blastocyst that would not fully develop and thus one could be confident that all the cells of the fully living breathing mouse were all iPS derived. And thus putting the question to rest.
Which means that they are identical to embryonic stem cells with the exception that they are older with regard to the telemeres.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here we describe a simple, nonintegrating strategy for reprogramming cell fate based on administration of synthetic mRNA modified to overcome innate antiviral responses. We show that this approach can reprogram multiple human cell types to pluripotency with efficiencies that greatly surpass established protocols.
I repeat, 'GREATLY SURPASS ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS.'
Better = Better
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're right about the former, but why does that matter now? Here we are with an alternative that's better in an absolute sense (even if not in a time relative sense) than embryonic stem cells. So why not go with that and continue to improve the technology? Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Also, I'm not wholly convinced that it is just a matter of state-of-the-art improvement where embryonic stem cell research had left off. I think the restriction certainly catapulted this type of research, but there are still over a dozen lines of embryonic stem cells (which can still be infinitely reproduced) that were being worked on, but they did not get to this point.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Embryos are "destroyed" all the time via miscarriages, in vitro fertilisation and abortion. The "think of the embryos" argument only makes sense if you have some kind of religious belief about these things, in which case you should be kept far away from any science-based decision making anyway.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Is there any evidence that stem cells have ever been harvested from an embryo which A) was created explicitly for the purpose of harvesting said stem cells or B) Stood any chance of every being implanted into a womb. I suspect that the answer to A is that the embryos were all the 'leftovers' from fertility treatments and the answer to B is that the fertility treatments were terminated (either because of success or giving up) and they would probably have been destroyed or at best remained frozen indefinitely. So... what are we all arguing about again? The embryos already existed and they were already destined to never become a human life.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
Burial and cremation services aren't just for soothing the family. They also dispose of the corpse.
Do you really think that unidentified "John Does" or identified bodies with no friends or family should just be piled up on the sidewalk to host disease?
You do realise there's an entire industry that deals with Cadavers, right? Fresh (and not so fresh) human corpses used for medical research, medical training, crash testing, and so on. Are they all wrong?
And the getus argument is stretching it, but you need to go further since you are really arguing that embryos are people.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
So you oppose IVT and other fertility treatments?
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:4, Informative)
Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Why keep repeating the myth that embryos are "destroyed"? Most of the embryos are frozen zygotes created by artificial insemination. They are frozen in case they are needed by a couple having trouble conceiving, then donated because they are no longer needed for whatever reason. No one is walking into a research center and saying "take this baby out of me and use it for science". The word "destroy" is used by anti-abortion types to falsely imply that people are aborting their children so some mad scientist can do experiments with mutant monkeys or whatever.
There is no evidence that fewer babies are born because of the use of embryonic stem cells. The cells would have been discarded without any purpose, so isn't that worse than putting them to some good use?
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:2)
I think you guys are mis-reading that (or I am). I took it to mean that this method of CONVERTING skin cells to be more like embryonic stem cells is more effective than previous methods of CONVERSION. I don't think they were saying that these new cells are more effective treatments than embryonic stem cells.
Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I would still have an immune reaction to them.
Face it, all the great things about embryonic stem cells are greatly hampered by the fact that the patient is probably going to have to take anti-rejection drugs. Adult stem cells from the patient won't have this problem.
Even if embryonic stem cells had been kept at state of the art, we would still have this problem, and this problem has been examined since transplants began.
We can turn them into embryonic cells, better. (Score:2)
In 2007, a method of inducing cells into being stem cells was developed out of Japan. It involved injecting 4 genes into a cell and resetting it to an embryonic state. So they basically found a reset switch to turn them into stem cells, but were hitting it with a sledge hammer. From there, other methods of changing the cell with less deadly inserts were invented, then without needing to insert anything by dusting them, but these methods make like one stem cell in hundreds of thousands of cells. It's crap and makes it really really hard to use. This method offers the prospect of efficiently and effectively hitting the reset switch.
That said, skin cells are better then embryonic cells. We don't just want tissue that are from some undeveloped embryo. We want tissue that is genetically identical to you. We want to take some skin cells, and turn them into beta pancreatic cells and cure your diabetes. That means we need methods of effectively taking cells, resetting them, and setting them down some specific developmental path to becoming what we want. We want those cells because you'll never reject them because they are genetically you.
The reason we needed to look at embryonic stem cells is to figure out how they work and how we could make them. This is better because it's genetically identical to you, but this isn't a sudden magical ad hoc new thing, it's the result of a lot of very good research much of which was in looking at how embryonic stem cells work, and then looking for how to get them to work.
This method is better because it works with a much higher success rate than the previous methods. We've been long since able to make stem cells from fully differentiated cells. And we're moving towards being able to do so very effectively, which many of the current methods lack. It's really hard to make a stem cell line if only one in a million converts, and it's really hard to make a useful stem cell line if it gives you cancer because you jackhammered genes randomly into a genome that already had them. This method gets passed that and makes the process much more streamlined. Making cancer-free stemcell lines.efficiently.
Re:Morph? (Score:3, Informative)
I get the feeling these guys have been playing waaaay too much Starcraft 2.
Actually, "morph" is a pretty common term when you're talking biology.
Side note: if they said "transform" would they have been watching too much Michael Bay?
Re:They still have to take living tissue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They still have to take living tissue (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless I'm mistaken (and I could very well be, if I am please correct me) there may be tissue rejection issues with embryonic stem cells, but if it's your own cells that are used, that is no longer a problem.
One thing I'm not mistaken about -- embryonic stem cells don't come from fetuses. They come from embryos.
Since it requires that the skin cells themselves be fresh and alive, the patient much undergo some pain while the cells are extracted.
You've never heard of local anesthetics?
I'm worried that these policies will become stricter come November when the Tea Party looks likely to make significant inroads in Congress.
Somehow I doubt they will.
Re:-1 Flamebait... (Score:2)
Re:They still have to take living tissue (Score:2)
I take exeption to both "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Both are disingenuous. If you are for capital punishment, as most "pro life" conservatives are, you're hardly "pro-life". It's simply a lie.
Likewise, most of the "pro-choice" people are for anti-drug laws. If it's a woman's right to remove a fetus, why isn't it her right to inject herself with heroin? Anyone truly pro-choice would be against all drug laws.
Personally, I'm both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I'm against abortion, but I believe it should be between the fetus' parents and doctors. And if you want to fuck your life up with heroin, that's none of my business.
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out?
Citation needed. You really think it will take a pound? Even allowing for hyperbole, it seems unlikely anything more than what's needed to remove a mole would be necessary.
These are not as good as stem cells from embryos.
Citation needed - as well as a definition of "better." There's no simple binary comparision to be made here. Many factors contribute, such as efficacy, cost, and complication rate. I'm sure there are some things embryonic stem cells will be "better" for, but there are likely many things derived stem cells will be better for. They don't have nearly as many issues with tissue rejection, for starters.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Really? Which ones object to this?
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:2)
If you're an alumni of anywhere you can get similar access.
I read ScienceDirect's help file, but I failed to figure out how Elsevier expects me to prove that I have graduated from Rose-Hulman.
Paywalls and people who live far from alma mater (Score:2)
go into your college/university library then. Use the terminals there.
Does this work even if the university close to where I currently live isn't the same university I graduated from?
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:2)
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:2)
read . the. actual. scientific. paper . on . which . this . is . based.
There's your answer. I did - on ScienceDirect. If you're an alumni of anywhere you can get similar access.
wow . extra . punctuation . makes . you . look . smarter. it . might. even . distract . people . from . the . fact . that . you . dodged . two . of . the . questions.
I can't get to the paper in anything like a reasonable amount of time, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the process described therein doesn't require a pound of flesh (even accounting for your use of hyperbole).
And I'd bet even more that the scientific paper doesn't identify the "the anti-science religious freaks" objecting to this technique.
It's a very long answer. [From a later post by the same person]
Yes, it is a very long answer. Which means your one word on the subject ("better") is oversimplistic. Which was my point.
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:2)
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Yes, but the freaks are freaks. They're beyond hope. But this whole abortion thing got people like aunt Bev, a life-long democrat, to vote for someone who had completely opposite views then her, other then this one issue.
If you can make stem cells without the abortion thing, then the majority of that social pressure will be removed.
Remember, society is a bell curve.
Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pro science. I think everyone should be doing nuclear experiments in their basement like the http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html [slashdot.org]"> Nuclear Boy Scout. After all, everyone trying to prevent him from experimenting is just plain anti science.
Or is it that all science needs boundaries and you just disagree with where that boundary has been set?
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are "anti science". Though throwing the whole "Anti" tag on things seems like common way to be dismissive without actually making any soft of point. Which makes you as bad as the Christian Fundies. Maybe worse, because at least they don't pretend to be logical.
Re:Number of trials (Score:2)
The 1900 to 1 ratio does not hold in countries where funding for embryonic stem cell research has been withheld and the very legality of it seriously questioned in some circles. If the government thinks that it is wrong enough to withhold funding it isn't a stretch to worry about whether or not it might someday become illegal alltogether. Withholding funding for flimsy ethical reasoning had a chilling effect on the research in general.
Re:Number of trials (Score:2)
Re:Now if only... (Score:2)