Functional Neurons Created From Adult Somatic Cells 147
mmmscience writes "Researchers at UCLA have accomplished a task that has long vexed stem cell researchers: They've created the first electronically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This is a great leap forward for stem cell researchers, who can apply these neurons to the study of neurodegenerative diseases."
Adult Stem Cells FTW ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you Adult Stem Cell Research! You're using your own cells, so you don't run those nasty tumor [wired.com] risks like that other stem cell technology...
How long was I in there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pro tip: Scientific research also occurs outside of 'MERICA.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only reason why the pro-abortionist are whining about lack of funding for embryonic stem cell funding is the fact industry isn't touching it. Industry isn't touching it because it's a bad investment, not because of ethical questions. Industry knows where the real benefits are for their R&D monies, adult stem cell research. They have to have a ROI on their investment, adult stem cell is most promising. Go look at where the billions they are spending are going to, that tells the tale.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Return On Investment... on their investment. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Be wary of those who say, "Be wary of the non-agnostic scientist, they have an agenda." for they make sweeping generalizations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not my problem if the elitist atheists think they are better scientists because of their skewed view --(THAT is a sweeping generalization).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Current science is only about pissing matches with ideologists especially those that are majority Christian"
Really, they're sure proving right on the stem cell issue. I think it's the ideologists who want discovery at any cost who are losing the argument. And refusing to face their failure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Retraction....misread your post.
Yes, science has somehow lost the beauty of discovery and become ideological and political.
Atheism != Science
Science is distinct from both Atheism and Religion. It is a tool, both may use...or both may ignore. And both do a lot of both!
Re: (Score:2)
"Current science is only about pissing matches with ideologists especially those that are majority Christian"
Really, they're sure proving right on the stem cell issue. I think it's the ideologists who want discovery at any cost who are losing the argument. And refusing to face their failure.
If it wasn't for embryonic stem cell, ESC, research how likely would it these "breakthroughs" in adult stem cells be? These breakthroughs were made possible by research on ESC. That's and it hasn't been shown yet that
Re:How long was I in there? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have missed the point entirely. The Point, not just a point. The zealots, as you call them, have just as much right as anyone to voice an opinion, and the average man on the street has the same right to believe it. Idealists from both ends of the spectrum exist, and while the overwhelming majority of Americans do not fall directly in line behind those of any ilk, we have all allowed the vocal minority to take over the conversation.
Today's secret phrase is Rational Discourse. Now we just have to figure out where Speaker Pelosi has hidden it...
Re: (Score:2)
You have glossed over the distinction the parent was making. Everyone is free to an opinion, and should be encouraged to espouse it whenever they feel the need. However, when these opinions start restricting other people's ability to function in society, they have crossed a line and need to be examined using a more rigorous test.
Your freedom of speech ends where it limits my freedoms. Tolerance should be encouraged, except for tolerance of intolerance.
The point was that scientists have lost their voice in t
Re: (Score:2)
The zealots, as you call them, have just as much right as anyone to voice an opinion, and the average man on the street has the same right to believe it.
I've met the "average man on the street." I'm opposed to him voicing his opinions as well, some of the things he says are terrifying. ;-P
Re: (Score:2)
there is a vast difference between one's right to voice one's opinion and the "right" to force one's beliefs on others.
So how do we decide what is legal and what is illegal? For example, suppose my son has severe dementia, and I think he has been a huge hurdle to my life. Suppose I also believe he has no right to live because, lacking human intelligence, he isn't really human. So I kill him. Has the government a right to arrest me?
If so, why? Because we think that mentally disabled people have human dignity and a right to live? But who can make such a decision? The people, through democracy? If so, then why can't the same p
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.
Especially, if there is no real reason present necessitating doing otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe they shouldn't have invented stupid things like antibiotics and vaccines because caution wins over dying of systemic infections and thousands of children crippled with polio just to name a few of those sacred life things you want them to respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially, if there is no real reason present necessitating doing otherwise.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If the necessity didn't exist, no one would be thinking about the invention.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.
Especially, if there is no real reason present necessitating doing otherwise.
Why is caution indicated?
Warning - that's a trick question, designed to bait the unwitting into citing some religious principle as an authoritative source of what may or may not be the best approach to a given problem. You weren't really going to fall into that trap, were you?
Also, your assertion that there is "no real reason" for (I assume that we're still talking about) stem cell research is flawed at it's base. There are innumerable reasons to pursue this and many other avenues of medical research.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.
And maybe religious zealots need to live and let live. When people need laws to support their religious beliefs they must not have much faith in the message of the belief.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, most scientists know as much about theology as many religious fanatics know about science so they just spin their wheels wasting everyone's time making points that are just as dumb as saying evolution is a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
The beginning of knowledge is the statement, "I don't know." Calling yourself an atheist versus calling yourself an agnostic is to choose the statement, "I know that God doesn't exist." over the statement, "I don't know whether God exists or not."
And yes, I have extensive training in both religion and science.
Re: (Score:2)
The terminology is vague though. I refer to myself as an atheist even though I might be agnostic in the strict sense. I no more believe in God than I do in unicorns, but I know I can't disprove the existence of either. Due to lack of evidence I am functionally atheist and referring to myself as agnostic implies that I wonder about the existence of God - I don't, any more than I wonder about the existence of unicorns.
Re:How long was I in there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
That depends on a strict definition of atheism, which is currently out of favour in the modern world.
Sorry if I'm retreading old ground for you, but I consider myself strictly agnostic but functionally atheist. I act in every was as if God does not exist, but I know His existence cannot be disproven an
Re: (Score:2)
I usually assume positive atheism, however I would say Atheists are acting on faith due to Pascal's Wager. Don't get me wrong I am not one of the individuals that believes atheists are a bunch of idiots up to malicious shenanigans because they cant stand to live under moral law. Rather I have found they are usually individuals that have found a reason to hate religion, usually Christianity. The atheists I know are good moral individuals, intelligent, however they mistrust Christianit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's interesting you should mention that. I've come across a few American atheists like that who seem to have become atheist by specifically rejecting Christianity. I'm more of a second generation atheist myself, my parents gave it up through apathy more or less and I was raised without religion in a society where religion is a private matter and isn't taught in schools or anything. Religion is very much a n
Re: (Score:2)
I nearly punched* him for it - it's like saying that someone is very well spoken for a black person.
Thanks for the good early morning laugh, almost had to clean coffee off of my keyboard.
I am pretty heavily involved in the church (LCMS), and I have found most people live according to their own moral code within the church. Not because they are malicious or anything but rather because the average churchgoer has failed to read their scripture or practice their faith. Atheists, as opposed to Agnostics, on
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I am of the mind that pretty much everything requires some level of faith since we are incapable of omniscience.
Re:How long was I in there? (Score:5, Informative)
Why aren't we Funding this?!
Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.
We ARE funding this. This is the type of research that was funded under our previous president. The only thing that was not funded was embryonic stem cell research from NEW lines. Stem cell research from then existing lines of embryonic stem cells was funded.
Unfortunately, your are not the only one who is not aware of this. Since it was so popular to bash Bush, the common thought was that Bush banned all stem cell research. This is absolutely NOT true. Bush banned nothing! What Bush did by executive order dealt with federal funding only, and even then the only restriction was that it not fund research based on NEW stem cell lines from "discarded" embryos.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/peter-on-family.html [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The existing lines that Bush approved were all contaminated, and thus mostly useless.
That said, this article is about *adult* stem cell research, which Bush never blocked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only problems with this type of research is the retards that don't understand the difference and just jump at the words "stem cells" (on both sides of the issue)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone read the article or even summary?
I don't think I understand the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't we Funding this?!
As a matter of fact, the USA was, out of necessity due to restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research in the US, funding so-called "adult stem cell" research almost exclusively, whereas in some other parts of the world the strategy was to "go for the low-hanging fruit" and concentrate on embryonic stem-cell research, to the point that funding for developing non-embryonic sources of pluripotent cells was actually quite neglected.
It has turned out to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it takes a lot of t
selling eggs (Score:2)
it isn't so convenient for female donors to supply large numbers of viable eggs (to say the least--in fact fertility treatments to trigger ovulation, followed by the procedure to harvest the eggs, is hard enough on patients to do it when trying to conceive--they aren't going to do it just to sell their eggs).
Ah but there are women who would sell some of their eggs if they could, it's currently illegal to sell eggs in the US. "Reason" magazine had an article on this, "The art of the deal in the gray market [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo... the next time a woman asks "what can a man do that a woman can't?" the proper reply (to replace "pee standing up without getting our legs wet") is now "long-term production of raw materials to refine into stem cells"?
But in all seriousness, thank you (and congratulations) for likely changing my mind in the stem cell debate. Your logic is excellent and insightful, and has given me sufficient reason to seriously rethink my position on embryonic stem cells.
Re:How long was I in there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.
The base knowledge for making the IPS cells, like which genes were necessary, came from... embryonic stem cell research. Had we not done that research, we never would have made IPS cells.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't "adult stem cells" technically, adult stem cells more specifically refer to natural cells in the body that are generally thought to make fewer types of cells than embryonic stem cells. These are specifically IPS cells, adult cells (as I understand it they don't seem to need to be adult STEM cells) that have been converted to a more primitive state.
The terminology is still being hammered out, but as of right now I don't think it's correct to call these adult stem cells, they're more similar to em
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Think again "oh so expert one". Tumorogenisis, or in the worst cases teratomas, are *not* a function of whether or not the cells are from "oneself" but are a question of (a) the level of mutation in the genome from which the stem cells are derived; and (b) whether or not the genetic program can properly adapt if it is used in environments which are inherently foreign which are never encountered during "normal" development. Using some pseudo-programming comparisons (a) "How long you would your program wor
Re: (Score:2)
Your kidding right? The tumor formation doesn't happen because the cells are from a different person. The tumors form because by definition stem cells can replicate in a unlimited fashion and sometimes that go out of control and becomes cancer. This is most certainly the case with adult somatic cells that are induced into pluripotent stem cells. You can even argue it is more likely for induced cells to cause tumors because the artificial steps we take to make them stem cells are not completely understood
Re: (Score:2)
What he said was iPS cells have the same risks as embryonic stem cells. The only difference is, in the last 6 months, (I don't remember exactly when) researchers have turned the stem cells green with fluorescent markers.
Previously, the stem cells caused nasty tumors because maybe 2% of the stem cells never differentiated and caused tumors once they entered the body. Now, with the green markers, researchers are able to pick out all the green cells at the end, because the differentiated cells are normal. The end product is 100% differentiated cells, with extremely minimal chance of causing a tumor.
To sum it up, the tumors could be caused by both embryonic stem and iPS cells, but it's the fluorescent markers that actually prevent the tumors now. Hope I helped you out in some way, my first time ever posting on slashdot, long time reader though.
There are ways of sorting fluorescently marked cells (called Fluorescence Assisted Cell Sorting FACS, for once a straightforward name) to where you'll be able to get only the differentiated cells, but it's very low yield and expensive. What they're probably going to do next is try to get differentiated cells to express genes that confer resistance to different drugs, so when you add the drug, the differentiated cells would live and all the others would die. That's much more efficient and is a common strat
Science will find a way... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure a century ago "neurologists" would have stated that the study of these diseases would have been impossible without cutting up a few people and performing experiments on them...
Re: (Score:2)
a) But did they do so AFTER the people were dead or while they were still alive? (Excluding Nazi's)
b) Did they kill people merely in order to have test subjects?
I do not think they were cutting up people for disease research while still alive, nor killing them for the sole purpose of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can't just exclude the Nazi's/Japanese and others who did such horrific acts. There was a group of people who said that we need to use live humans, and they did so.
It's called vivisection. (Score:2)
It's called vivisection [wikipedia.org]. They once did it to prisoners. In other words, you could be sentenced to death by vivisection (which was pretty horrible).
You can find several mentions of that here [wikipedia.org], in particular this part:
Re:Science will find a way... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in research with an animal model.
I get really tired of the "animals still matter" argument.
It IS a valid argument. But you have to understand the scope of what you're talking about. In the United States of America, animal research projects are not just started when the researcher wants. The rabbits you talk about: they weren't tested on until the people doing the tested justified both the need to find out if the "soap" hurt bunny's eyes, and why they had to use the bunny to a committee consisting of people who like animals, like science, or who have no opinion on either science or animals, but might represent the general community.
It is not true that they test the same formulation of dish soap in some poor animal's eyes over and over again. That would be pointless. But when they put in a new active ingredient, one that hes never been tested, they need to make sure that it won't kill your stupid kid when he drinks a gallon of it.
Case in point: I was reading an article in a laboratory animal trade magazine where they discussed these sorts of tests. The one they were talking about involved a product that had already been tested (a lotion I think) and found safe, which was getting an additional ingredient which had been tested in other products and worked out fine. The funny thing is, in this case, it turned out that the new formula caused all sorts of problems. The animals developed rashes and skin problems and had to be euthanized. The ethics issue they were considering wasn't whether or not they should have done the test, but whether or not they had looked adequately at the risk to the animals before they had agreed to let the research proceed.
A lot of lay people have a misconception about how this works.
And no matter how good the technology gets, some things simply cannot be researched in vitro. An animal model is sometimes necessary. When the chimps get smart and start breeding us for scientific research for the good of chimpanzees everywhere, I'll be the last to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
When the chimps get smart and start breeding us for scientific research for the good of chimpanzees everywhere, I'll be the last to complain.
Will you really?
I can believe it if you're just saying that in the huge rush to complain about the chimp take-over and human-breeding program, the few seconds you spend contemplating the irony of the situation would make it likely that once you got around to complaining you were in fact the last to do so.
Otherwise I have a hard time imagining you being led into the Aci
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.
I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be fighting to escape. But I wouldn't think that the chimps were inherently evil for trying to save their kids from death via shampoo. It was more the motivations behind it that I wouldn't complain about, rather than the actual application of acid to cratch.
Nor would I begrudge them an escape attempt or a monkey bite in their current situation, when I apply the acid to THEIR crotch.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not true that they test the same formulation of dish soap in some poor animal's eyes over and over again. That would be pointless. But when they put in a new active ingredient, one that hes never been tested, they need to make sure that it won't kill your stupid kid when he drinks a gallon of it.
And how does using other animals for tests show something is safe for humans? What's harmless to some animals may be harmful to humans and what's safe for humans may be harmful to certain other animals. Even
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not every animal react the same way to everything. But over time certain patterns can be established, such as the fact that in terms of skin surface reactions, almost all mammals react in extremely similar fashion. So you can try it on a few mice and save some people's lives from the few things that don't work out the way you expect. And just because it seems fine in mice doesn't mean you don't need to have those first cautiously applied human trials either. It's all about doing the least amou
Re: (Score:2)
I just disagree that experimentation requires suffering and torture-
Can you not find a more elegant experiment?
No. Sometimes you can't. If you can, you will be REQUIRED to do so. That is one of the first hurdles you have to pass on the road to actually experimenting on an animal: proving that there is no alternative.
Is there NO other way of testing the formula in a lab setting?
Or are they simply unwilling to spend large monies on such technologies
when they can simply jab a $10 bunny rabbit?
This is a problem already addressed by the current system. We put science into the capitalist realm, where in order to survive, like everyone else science must make economics a priority. Then we ask them to do what is "right" instead of what is cheap. For example, if you have the option between two
Re: (Score:2)
Animals do not have civilization. They exist in a predator-prey relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom in their habitat. Our rules don't apply to them. What logic are you using where it's okay for a rabbit to be consumed in the wild for food, but not to be used by us to preserve human life?
The apes you mention won't agree or disagree because they don't have the capacity to do so. They're animals. Anthropomorphism aside, there is no reason to mourn the loss of a rabbit in a laboratory any more
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Hindu perspective is that one should not cause harm to anything capable of suffering.
Electronically? (Score:5, Informative)
I know it's a direct quote from TFA, but, dear God, I hope they mean "electrically active". Unless UCLA is now working for Cyberdyne...
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's a direct quote from TFA, but, dear God, I hope they mean "electrically active". Unless UCLA is now working for Cyberdyne...
I guess you haven't been paying attention. The age of Cyberdyne is over, it's all about ZeiraCorp now.
Re: (Score:2)
The Cylons were created by man.....
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the original series...
Nerve stapling ahoy! (Score:3, Funny)
"The prisoners were not permanently* damaged."
*See Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody's been playing too much Alpha Centauri. Will you quit droning on about it now already?
Re: (Score:2)
*LAL*
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of all the nerve! I can't be nerve-stapled... I don't have any nerve.
The abstract and link to the paper... (Score:3, Informative)
"Directed differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells generates active motor neurons"
S Karumbayaram, BG Novitch, M Patterson, JA Umbach, L Richter, A Lindgren, AE Conway, AT Clark, SA Goldman, K Plath, M Wiedau-Pazos, HI Kornblum, WE Lowry
"The potential for directed differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to functional post-mitotic neuronal phenotypes is unknown. Following methods shown to be effective at generating motor neurons from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), we found that once specified to a neural lineage, human iPS cells could be differentiated to form motor neurons with a similar efficiency as hESCs. Human iPS-derived cells appeared to follow a normal developmental progression associated with motor neuron formation and possessed prototypical electrophysiological properties. This is the first demonstration that human iPS-derived cells are able to generate electrically active motor neurons. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of using iPS-derived motor neuron progenitors and motor neurons in regenerative medicine applications and in vitro modeling of motor neuron diseases."
Subscription to Wiley Interscience required for more...
Randy
Re: (Score:2)
Subscription to Wiley Interscience required for more...
So, what you're saying is, these functional neurons will allow us to make mega men?
In preparation for the inevitable comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty soon the people not in favor of using embryonic stem research will likely join this thread and start talking about how we can just use adult cells and how that means we should never do any research on embryonic stem cells. However, this research, like most research involving adult stem cells, relied on prior work with embryonic stem cells. This sort of research is only doable because of embryonic stem cell research.
Then it's a good thing President Bush funded such research. From HERE [nih.gov]:
Federal Policy
President Bush's Criteria
On August 9th, 2001, Former President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
* The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
NIH's Role
The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing Former President Bush's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.
Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet Former President Bush's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.
Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24conv.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 [nytimes.com]
Gosh, I sure am glad that he supported stem cell research.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24conv.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 [nytimes.com]
Gosh, I sure am glad that he supported stem cell research.
My first response is, "So?"
Next, you know they could actually pay for the research themselves. The research was not banned, just not funded with tax payer dollars. Maybe they could ask the German government for grant money. Maybe hit up the Saudi's for cash. Science is not dependent on government funding.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to point out that in capitalist systems, science is VERY dependent on government for funding. Unless a business stands to make a lot of money off your research (which is almost never the case for basic science) who is going to give you money to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
I have to point out that in capitalist systems, science is VERY dependent on government for funding. Unless a business stands to make a lot of money off your research (which is almost never the case for basic science) who is going to give you money to do it?
So, then, how is this unique to capitalist systems? Are you saying that in socialist or communist systems, the much smaller private sector does a lot of basic research?
You could try to make the argument that in a corporatist environment dominated by monopolies you might get some private sector basic research (ala Bell Labs), but somehow I don't get the impression that's the kind of system you're pining for.
Re: (Score:2)
I was implying that in a communist system, science would display the same amount of dependence on government as everything else, rather than MORE dependence, as in capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to point out that in capitalist systems, science is VERY dependent on government for funding. Unless a business stands to make a lot of money off your research (which is almost never the case for basic science) who is going to give you money to do it?
Yea, let taxpayers pay for research then let big businesses make hugh amounts of money off it. The NCI [wikipedia.org], part of the government's National Institutes of Health, spent $183 million [google.com] to develop and test the cancer drug Taxol [wikipedia.org]. Do the taxpayers own it? No,
Re: (Score:2)
And as much as it sucks, I'd rather have the wrong people make money off of a new cancer drug than not have the cancer drug.
Are you suggesting that the government should stop funding science in order to stop them from making a profit off of it? That seems like a crappy trade off.
Besides, the point stands: no one but the government funds research that they don't believe will make them rich. Sometimes the government also funds that research.
Re: (Score:2)
And as much as it sucks, I'd rather have the wrong people make money off of a new cancer drug than not have the cancer drug.
That's easy to solve. The NCI could have made all the data available to every company that wanted to manufacture Taxol. That would have have been better than allowing BMS exclusive rights. Each business could compeat with each other to lower costs.
Are you suggesting that the government should stop funding science in order to stop them from making a profit off of it? That seems like
Re: (Score:2)
To pay for the research perhaps require those companies to pay royalties in addition to an initial fee. Using Taxol as an example, each pharmaceutical would have paid say 1 or 5 million dollars then 1% on sells.
Now see, that sounds like a perfectly valid solution to me. But it still involves the government funding in the first place. However you did claim that:
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money.
This is really the part I take issue with. I would like to see how much funding all Taxol projects received since the 60's adjusted to current inflation and adjusted for commercial instead of government costs. And just because not all of your research turns out to be valuable doesn't mean that the reason you got funded wasn't because some corporate execu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money. If government does pay for any research that research should be open sourced, taxpayers paid for it and should benefit from it.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that it is open source. Technically.
If you do research with federal money, you are required to make your findings available. And not just by publishing in some arcane paper journal. You have to have a full text article available online. If you publish in a journal that doesn't offer this service, the government will give you server space to host it.
Now, it's possible that some component of your research is or becomes patented. Then you either had to have permission to use it in the first pl
open source (Score:2)
I would say that it is open source. Technically.
If you do research with federal money, you are required to make your findings available.
It may be open source in the since that anyone could see it but just because it government funded doesn't mean anyone can use the info. I've posted before about how the cancer drug Taxol [wikipedia.org] was funded and developed by the National Cancer Institute [wikipedia.org], NCI. The NCI is a government office and it spent $183 million to develop Taxol. Bristol-Myers Squibb [wikipedia.org] then "bought" the exclusiv
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that you can't use it. But it isn't because they are hiding it. It's that someone thought that they should be able to exclusively use or sell something they created, and we as a society think that's true. It isn't an unreasonable idea. It just gets a little bizarre when you start doing things like patenting DNA sequences. I'm not intimately familiar with the Taxol thing in specific, but I would guess that the majority of the rights BMS owns have to do with the sequences of plasmids used to pr
Re: (Score:2)
It's that someone thought that they should be able to exclusively use or sell something they created, and we as a society think that's true.
They, BMS, didn't create it nor did they pay for it, taxpayers did.
I'm not intimately familiar with the Taxol thing in specific, but I would guess that the majority of the rights BMS owns have to do with the sequences of plasmids used to produce the drug and the techniques used to develop and insert them.
BMS owns the rights taxpayers paid for.
I don't know what your seco
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between working for the government and the government basically giving away taxpayer paid for research.
This is the disconnect. The government did nothing of the sort. The government does not own something you patent even if they were paying you to work on that project. The RESEARCHERS sold something that THEY owned. The government funded the research that developed it, but has no rights to the intellectual property the work produces. That's the way the deal works. You feel justified in complaining about it because someone else made money off of it later, but that was the bargain that was entered into:
This is the disconnect. (Score:2)
The government did nothing of the sort. The government does not own something you patent even if they were paying you to work on that project.
Yeap, this is your disconnect. The NCI, a government agency, developed and paid for Taxol. It then gave BMS exclusive rights to the data for Taxol. The General Accounting Office, a congressional office, in 2003 which concluded that the NIH, of which the NCI is part, had failed to ensure value for money. All BMS did was, once they got those rights, was reduce the c
Re: (Score:2)
Since you insist on this one example I read up on it.
If you look closely at the history and development of this drug, you'll find that BMS was given exclusive rights for marketing only. Neither the government nor BMS owned ANY data, since Taxol cannot be patented at all. The NCI did this to accomplish exactly what you said: reduce the production costs. That is important. This is why you buy aspirin from Bayer instead of making it yourself. If you don't like the drugs being cheaper because the wrong peo
BMS and Taxol (Score:2)
you'll find that BMS was given exclusive rights for marketing only.
No, BMS was give more than that, from wiki [wikipedia.org] the NCI offered "its current stock and supply from current bark stocks, together with proprietary access to the data so far collected".
Neither the government nor BMS owned ANY data
The NCI owned the date it acquired in testing Taxol. Now they may of, should have, released that data so anyone could use it but instead they gave BMS exclusive rights to use the data.
The NCI did this to accomplish exact
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that BMS tried to stop generic Taxol is why they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. It isn't the government's fault that BMS tried to do something shady. LOTS of drugs are researched through basic science funded by government funding and developed for production by a pharmaceutical company. If you don't like the fact that pharmaceutical companies charge too much, I wholeheartedly agree. But not funding the basic science because of one example where the deal didn't work out well is a very
Re: (Score:2)
Citing Bush's funding of embryonic stem cells is like being happy you have a poisoned well.
Yea, you can get water out of the well, but you can't do anything with it.
Um... read the article. It proves that you are wrong. The whole point is that something WAS done. Looks to me like they were able to get water from the well, drink it, and they found it refreshing, healthy and not poisoned at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"people not in favor of using embryonic stem research"
I'm pretty sure he doesn't read Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn how to drive a car before driving an 18-wheeler.
Learn how to work with adult stem cells before (and if there is even a need) to work on fetal stem cells.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
True, and that's a ends justifies means arguments. Many understandings about physiology were derived from brutal experiments conducted by the Nazi's on Jewish slaves.
In fact, there were probably a number of Germans who benefited from such discoveries. Does such justify the torture and scientific experimentation done to the Jews?
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, there were probably a number of Germans who benefited from such discoveries. Does such justify the torture and scientific experimentation done to the Jews?
The NAZIs didn't just use Jews. The Sinti and Roma [holocaust-trc.org] gypsies were also used for medical experiments.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Simple Breakdown of Adult and Embryonic Considerat (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What? (Score:2)
Another adult stem cell success? What...no need to use fetal stem cells?
Who'd have thought such a thing???
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-30-troll.jpg [huffingtonpost.com]
And I'd rather be a troll...if that means BOTH disagreeing with the mass of sheep and being right!
Replacing motor neurons ain't so easy... (Score:2)
I don't really get this. They keep talking about, for example, replacing motor neurons in people with spinal injuries. This seems VERY pie in the sky to me, and here's why: A single motor neuron may be over a meter in length, running form your spine to an extremity. First of all, you need to get that new neuron to synapse with an existing neuron that's mapped to the location where you're going to run the neuron. I suppose there's probably some way to induce the synapsing, but I imagine it's a very hit or mi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If it's a pipe dream, then why do so many researchers and physicians regard iPSCs as a holy grail? Probably it's because stem cell therapy has *already* repaired damaged tissue and restored function to a variety of tissues in mammals and humans, including the spinal cord.
In case your tragic state of perplexity becomes too much to live with:
Stem Cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell [wikipedia.org]
Stem Cell Basics
http://dels.nas.edu/bls/stemcells/booklet.shtml [nas.edu]
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I [wikipedia.org]