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:5, Funny)
and yet another demographic will hate emo kids.
Re: (Score:2)
really? I thought most of the disagreement was over when an embryo/foetus can be considered human.
(yes there are a few extremists who provide a convenient straw-man)
I'm pro-choice, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
To date, even in a test tube they are creating life by conception (introducing sperm into an egg for fertilization). If they skipped that part, I think is would be considered synthetic similar to how soy-burgers are supposed to be non meat hamburgers or nylon compared to silk.
I think the real problem is going to be when the scientist create a conscious life out of skin cells. Or at least attempts to. And there is probably goin
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me you haven't been paying a great deal of attention to the debate, then. In your references to those left-over embryos, you seem to be entirely unaware of the term snowflake children [wikipedia.org] and the accompanying dimension of the discussion--one that makes your accusation of straw-man argumentation rather empty.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the pro-lifers might have something to say about the human-intervention aspect. Namely, that something that could develop into a human being given nine months of waiting is fundamentally different than a cell used as an ingredient in a laboratory process to create embryos.
The Catholic church, for example, firmly opposes abortion but does not s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, mr Good Troll, how do you propose to verify that those coming in for an abortion have used the technique? What if there are false negatives to the test you apply? Even one case would cause mayhem. Who's to monitor all this? What about abortions for medical reasons, like oh, I dunno, for those pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother or for those which are known to produce children with grave genetic defects?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this approach is that you're punishing the children. You're rewarding being responsible by allowing responsible people to have children, and punishing the being irresponsible by forcing them to go through with their pregnancies --- in other words, y
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work. (Score:2)
How do you prevent people who are not eligible to have abortions because they wern't 'responsible' from having abortions anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these birth control methods require a doctor to "install." So there is a record of it available. As for your second objection: Require the same proof that the welfare office does. A record from your doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I'm not one of those people who are against abortion because of religious reasons. I just find it extremely offensive that abortion is birth control and the idea behind pushing it is because the parents are idiots. It won't be my decision if an abortion happens, so I cannot really s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be a moderate approach.
an
This is not a moderate approach. If caution is 'towards killing babies', this is a pro-life approach. If caution is 'towards government invasion of a woman's control of her own body', then it's a pro-choice approach.
Either way, it's the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
5. Creates a registry of not only who's having sex, but who is using birth control. No privacy concerns there.
6. Still requires the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Sorry, try again. I, for one, would certainly not consider your proposal moderate. Drastically reducing the amount of freedom women have right now in order to placate a relatively small percentage of the population does not strike me as moderate. "A Modest Proposal" maybe, but definitely not moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
But this would not satisfy everybody. The Catholic Church believes that anything that disrupts the natural method of conception is wrong. Hence, anything but abstaining or the rhythm method is morally wrong. Even a vasectomy is wrong in the eyes of the Church and many others.
That said, I seem to know a lot of church-going Catholic men (guys who contribute a lot to the church and parochial school, vote pro-l
Re: (Score:2)
Of course to be fair, the men should have to wear chastity belts too...
Re: (Score:2)
I am not religious. I play devils advocate and usually pick the side getting pounded the worst. BUT I am against abortion as a form of birth control. This means I am against more then 90% of all abortions performed every year. It doesn't mean I am against birth control though.
And the problem with teaching birth control is
Your positions don't matter... probably. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, your wailing about "encourag[ing] promiscuity" and how those damned sluts deserve to be punished with unwanted pregnancies because, well, they were asking for it, what with the having sex and all, leads me to believe that your motives may not be that different.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also like to note that you are not taking rape into account. (Check http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html [rainn.org] for stats.)
Now, I don't feel like getting into an argument since this all boils down to moral
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this approach is that the record for the youngest baby to survive through use of an incubator was delivered at twenty-some-odd weeks (can't remember the exact number). And plenty of babies delivered pre-term are unable to survive even in an incubator. Now, figure out a reliable way to _transplant_ a mid-term developing fetus (including placenta) into a woman who is willing to carry the pregnancy, and I think you may have something.
Re:There's a third way. (Score:5, Insightful)
To keep it in the same terms, lets put it into perspective to keep the comparison real. But she doesn't have right to kill the trespasser without giving them enough time to leave. In almost any state, with the exception of Texas maybe, if you find a trespasser/intruder and they pose no direct harm to you or anyone there, you tell them to leave and then kill them because they didn't leave fast enough, you will be going to jail. But pregnancy isn't even a trespasser or intruder, it is a welcomed guest. You have to take certain actions to invite a fetus into your home(body). And in every state, if you invite someone into your house and then kill them, it is murder.
I know this is someone else's rationalizing. But we can often make judgments to justify something that other see as wacked. You cannot run over a kid playing ball in the street because thats where cars drive when you have plenty of time to stop. Saying the kid shouldn't be playing in the road is just an attempt to justify it to yourself but doesn't make it just. Leaving out the fact that the intruder is crippled and will take a certain amount of time to leave the property and killing them before they can do so because you ordered them out makes no sense either. And repeating this nonsense make even less sense.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ^_^).
Are you sure? (Score:2)
it can develop into a baby, and that it already is a human
I thought it was a cat. No?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
A fetus has all the DNA of a homo-sapien and therefore given time to develop, will become a homo-sapien. It's DNA is what differentiates it from an animal, not an environmentally su
Re: (Score:2)
Morals, religions, education, etc. are the only things that truly sets humanity
Re: (Score:2)
We all shed millions of skin cells every day that have homo-sapiens (not a plural) DNA in them. According to your view, those skin cells are people. Do you regard it as a crime to vacuum them up?
I have a Ph.D. and a genius-level IQ. My ability to think rationally is not limited; perhaps yours is. A
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you go down the route of Peter Singer. (Well, that aspect of his views, anyway.)
While I think your view is as repugnant and vile as every historical denial of any group of human beings' personhood, I would say that it's a more rationally-defensible position than saying that personhood starts at birth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, that's a frequent characterization of the argument by people who themselves believe that an entity does not become human until it emerges from the womb and who fail to understand that not everyone shares that belief, and who therefore create a rationalization for their opponents arguments based on a premise that those opponents reject, and pret
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. You don't see 'the anti-abortion crowd' arguing that sperm or unfertilized egg cells should be considered to be a human, either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At present, they use retroviruses to get the four factors that cause the transformation into the cells. The retroviruses mess up the DNA. There may be other methods though besides retroviruses to get the factors into the cells.
Of course, the factors themselves may also increase the risk that the cells become cancerous - which could turn out to be a harder problem, or not, it's
Re:Next step: Embryos (Score:4, Informative)
Technically it's not. Once a stem cell starts to differentiate, you see different patterns of epigenetic changes that alter which genes are actively expressed and which are silent. It's part of the reason why you don't have eyeball proteins expressed by your feet. In general, we've found that once you start initiating a cascade where a stem cell starts differentiating into something else, it's difficult to go backwards and "undo" the changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man or mouse? (Score:3, Funny)
I think I found the source of the problem.
Papers (Score:5, Informative)
Nimet Maherali, Rupa Sridharan, Wei Xie, Jochen Utikal, Sarah Eminli, Katrin Arnold, Matthias Stadtfeld, Robin Yachechko, Jason Tchieu, Rudolf Jaenisch, Kathrin Plath, and Konrad Hochedlinger
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fullt
Keisuke Okita, Tomoko Ichisaka & Shinya Yamanaka
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
Marius Wernig, Alexander Meissner, Ruth Foreman, Tobias Brambrink, Manching Ku, Konrad Hochedlinger, Bradley E. Bernstein & Rudolf Jaenisch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
Skin Cells Turned Bionic... (Score:2)
I'll believe this... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which means once you've done an experiment on your mice, you can call up another lab five states over and tell them what you did, and they'll be able to reproduce it.
Humans are a bit more variable.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientist: Can we 'ave your skin, then?
Subject: Sod off you plonker!
Mice don't tend to respond that way. Well they do, but we don't have to listen to mice.
there are just too many things that could go wrong (Score:2)
Why not start with human cells, thus saving the effort of transferring the techniques later?
A bit like saying why deploy changes onto a test system instead of straight onto the live system - after all, you'll only have to migrate to live later?
There are too many things that could go wrong - I'm not a molecular biologist, but I guess it's possible that if cells are persuaded to change their pattern of development (by switching on/off certain areas of the DNA, in a process that is not fully understood)
Re:Why didn't they START with human cells? (Score:5, Informative)
Simplicity. Protocol. Reproducibility.
Labs that experiment on mice use specific inbred genetic lines that are widely available with limited genetic diversity. This limits the amount of experimental error that can be attributed to the variations in the traits of the animals. It also means that other labs attempting to reproduce the same results will have a greater chance of success because they'll be starting with an organism that genetically is nearly identical to the ones used elsewhere.
See Model Organism [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yields are fairly low (Score:3, Informative)
As noted, the major problem is not just the inconsistency, but the locating of the modified cells.
However, unlike many other slashdot articles, this is is in a peer-reviewed journal, it is based on a technique which has been run for a while and altered based upon other followup work, and it might prove a useful addition for labs to do research, while of limited use in therapeutics.
But that also depends on cost. People forget that a successful research lab has got to get costs per experiment down - if it costs me $20 per sample and I have a plate of samples, I'll go broke trying to run any sizeable research of any note, especially that with significant data that can answer more than 2 basic questions of statistical significance.
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 rol
Sepultura (Score:2)
Great.....Just Great..... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe I'll even get to use the "Stem cells are people MY ASS!" line, and actually be correct on BOTH sides of the issue at the same time!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hardly a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
The poster makes a serious ethical point.
However emotively he put it, surely it's quite different to take tissue from a consenting human donor than from a subject whose life has just been ended - however "potential" its (his? her?) humanity may be.
Don't all but the most extreme "it's the woman's body till it's born" zealots regard the abortion of a foetus (with its potential to grow into a human adult) as a necessary evil, rather than a simple lifestyle choice?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup.
But remember that it's only a fetus after a couple of weeks. Before that, it's an embryo. Bare naming issues aside, you have to draw a line somewhere between a couple of cells and a human being.
Getting rid of a couple of cells is only a big issue if the morality aspects get blown way ou
Re: (Score:2)
So since this technology can't be used in the way that has the most benefit, it's useful exactly how? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious...
The obvious need is to regrow replacement organs like the heart, kidney, an arm, nerves, 12" pecker, etc. How can this new technology be used if it can't be used for organ replacement?
Re:I knew it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with this technology or research, but then I also t
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, if you go
Re:I knew it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assholes don't invalidate the argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
the same people who are the biggest advocates against abortion also tend to be the ones that seek to limit access to birth control, so that argument doesn't get very far either.
Sure it does, if reasonable people can ignore the others. The problem is unwanted pregnancy and reasonable people can work together to reduce it and support the people who have the problem. The use of obnoxious and confused advocates is an underhanded way to kill off a proposal.
The counterexamples are communists, extreme femi
Like your argument. Stem Cell Research is OK! (Score:2)
In almost all cases, an egg will die before becoming fertilized.
In almost all cases, sperm will die before fertilizing an egg.
In almost all cases, if no one does anything to an egg that has been fertilized outside of a woman, that egg will die.
Therefore, killing an embryo is OK, as if you left it sitting there it was going to die anyway, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a life to terminate is ghoulish to say the least, but it can be justified. Fertility treatments and research are both justification, as long as the practitioner is competent. As you point out, there's no practical way to keep all of the results alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the fetus will naturally miscarry a significant percentage of the time, with that percentage getting fairly high depending on various factors. Is a 45 year old women who gets pregnant guilty of reckless endangerment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalenc e [wikipedia.org]
Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have f
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the fetus will naturally miscarry a significant percentage of the time ...
100% of the time, human life ends in death. Life is hard, that does not justify killing.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me curious to know what portion of the people who oppose abortion are non-religious.
Re: (Score:2)
Unwanted pregnancies could also be solved by in vitro adoption and artificial incubation. I think most anti-abortion advocates would probably consider that a resonable compromise. At least the ones who honestly want to save the life of the child would. The relatively small (but vocal) minority of anti-abortion advocates who are just using it for political posturing, etc. won't, but at least they won't have that weapon in their political arsenal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok, but (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or, I suppose, "FartWare".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I think we should do it just out of spite... for people who would spout the kind of self-important ignorant garbage that just evacuated itself from the barren environment of your skull.
Name-calling will surely win you arguments (Score:2, Informative)
Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods (Score:5, Insightful)
First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.
Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?
Thirdly, medical research=good for people. Democratic government=group that uses pooled funds for betterness of group. Are there spending issues? Duh. But still better than most systems. I want to put my money in a pool that can fund science. Hooray that there is an automatic way that this happens for me. I don't even need said science to produce economic results for me to be happy about it. But if it's going to, I won't turn that down.
And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos. Google news reports around last Nov's Missouri senate elections, & there were several stories about how while most Americans support it, it's a non-issue in the polls.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly misundestood my entire line of reasoning.
Re: (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
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: (Score:2)
With so many ways a vegetarian can get proper nutrition, is there any reason why we should publicly fund a practice that millions of people consider murder? All publications from the FDA should be rewritten to exclude meat as a potential source of food. All meat certifications and health inspections should cease. After all, the government has no business funding meat research at all... and even less so, given its controversy.
Still want to change your government's policy to pander to an irrational minority
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)