Team Use Stem Cells to Restore Mobility in Paralyzed Monkey

interval1066 writes "From the article: 'Japanese researchers said Wednesday they had used stem cells to restore partial mobility in a small monkey that had been paralysed from the neck down by a spinal injury.' This is huge news in the world of stem cell research; restoring some muscular control to a simian is a huge step. This means that stem cell therapy is a demonstrably viable path to restoring motility for millions of accident victims, palsy and ms sufferers, the list just goes on."

Induced pluripotent stem

[makubesu]

So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.

Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[sonnejw0]

There's only a handful of reasons why you'd hear about this first from a newspaper called "The Inquirer" as opposed to Nature Neuroscience ... I'll leave it to you to figure out what those reasons are.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I was just going to point out that the article trolls about embryonic stem cell usage in the final two paragraphs:

"Scientists say the use of human embryonic stem cells as a treatment for cancer and other diseases holds great promise, but the process has drawn fire from religious conservatives and others who oppose it.

Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain the cells capable of developing into almost every tissue of the body."

The cells used in this treatment were derived from adult skin cells. No controversy here. Everyone wins. The article barely alludes to the fact that adult skin cells were used (not even a complete sentence is devoted to this critical fact), and they devote their closing 2 paragraphs to trying to gin up controversy over the embryonic stem cell issue without pointing out how this treatment bypasses that issue. I find it very disingenuous, and the Slashdot editors should have caught it and addressed it in the summary.