This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Stem Cell Breakthrough: Look Ma', No Embryo! — Brooklynian

Stem Cell Breakthrough: Look Ma', No Embryo!

sevenoneeighty
sevenoneeighty
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff

Subject: Stem Cell Breakthrough: Look Ma', No Embryo!

This is good news, no!?
Win-win for everyone!?

If this breakthrough is correct, the religious/ moral/ ethical arguments against further stem cell research pretty much get squashed, right?
I mean if you think organ transplant or a blood transfusion is medically acceptable and does not lead to moral or ethical dilemmas outright, how can one argue with this stem cell breakthrough - assuming it works?

At the end of the Day, couldn't conservatives/ Bush claim a 'victory' for forcing research on alternative methods for stem cell research? That could be a way to move forward and get to funding this promising technique.

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2007/11/will_noembryo_stem_cells_still.html
Will no-embryo stem cells still the science-vs.-religion debate?

Wednesday, November 21 at 7:21 AM

Now that scientists have made human skin cells that can morph into tissues of the heart, nerves and brains, will the religion-vs-science debate over embryonic stem cells subside?

Research teams in the United States and Japan showed that a simple lab technique can rival the complex and highly controversial idea of extracting stem cells from cloned embryos.

It was a landmark achievement on all fronts, defusing one of the most divisive debates in modern medicine and religion. It was lauded by scientists, ethicists and religious groups.

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone - the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, whose company, Advanced Cell Technology, has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

"It redefines the ethical terrain," said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University.

"It's a win-win for everyone involved," said the Rev. Thomas Berg of the Westchester Institute, a Roman Catholic think tank. "We have a way to move forward which ... brings the kind of painful national debate over this controversial research to very much a peaceful and promising resolution."

At the White House, President Bush, who vetoed two bills to allow federal funding for stem-cell research, was described as "very pleased."
One hitch in the breakthrough:

At this point, the technique disrupts the DNA of the skin cells, and that creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for transplanting into a patient.

But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.

Rep. Diana DeGette, who has championed stem-cell legislation in Congress, says she will continue to push for embryonic research.

"None of this feels like it should be one vs. the other," said DeGette. "That's the politicization of science." Supporters of the bill to lift Bush's rules say they intend to continue to try to turn that bill into law, if not in this administration then in the next one.

Research on cells derived from adults is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research, DeGette said Tuesday. "The argument that we need to have all types of ethical research is the argument that sways voters."

Comments

  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    Oh yeah. Morphing into cancer cells is only a "minor" issue.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    The only people winning at the moment are those lucky scientists that get grants or VC funding. We're talking about potential therapies that might be discovered one day, and a technique that might be handy in that regard if it ever comes to mass roll-out. In the meantime, this is just research on cells. The ethical debate is very very silly.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    lilbangladesh wrote: Oh yeah. Morphing into cancer cells is only a "minor" issue.
    At this point, the technique disrupts the DNA of the skin cells, and that creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for transplanting into a patient.

    But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.
    Cancer= abnormal growth of cells

    I'm not an expert, but since they are growing cells, it would seem like this would be a case in other type of medically induced, artificial cell growth...but they seem to think they can control it... we can only see. But I wouldn't know how...these scientists still seem to think it's worth the research.

    Regarding the ethical debate, it has been a hot button issue without question. Sidenote: I remember feeling a little strange about the" exhibit that was here in NYC because the "bodies" were from China and there was some "speculation" that the exhibits were the bodies of political dissidents/opposition...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BODIES..._The_Exhibition

    IMO: All new medical techniques should go through some ethical/ moral scrutiny at some point. If this information leads to something, now or in the near future, then so be it. I tend to get excited when scientist actually get excited about something, but that's just me.
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    apparently the adult stem cell craze is on sale for less than $60

    this is snake oil. Do nTt hAz!
    StemEnhance™ One bottle of 60 capsules: $59.95 USD Plus Shipping and Handling.

    link supplied for informational purposes only
    http://www.myadultstemcell.org/site/index.asp?DL=136323&page=102741

    NEXT UP: St Ides. beer with a sprinkle of stem cells!
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    Hey the Germans are on board:
    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXo22sAjDT-yVzXxFDgDZ1sorY7Q
    Germany to double funding for stem cell research: minister

    1 day ago

    BERLIN (AFP) — The German government will double its funding for stem cell research, the research minister announced Saturday.

    Berlin is to increase the current allocation of five million euros (7.4 million dollars) to just under 10 million euros, Annette Schavan told the weekly Focus magazine in an interview to be published Monday.

    "From now on we are going to double the annual funding total for adult cell recoding techniques, in order to push forward advances in this area," she said.

    "Over the next few years Germany must be a motor in adult stem cell research so that we can expand on the results already obtained," she added.

    The German announcement came after scientists in Japan and the United States said earlier this week they had generated stem cells from human skin. The breakthrough could help in the fight against major diseases and sidestep the battle over using embryonic cells.

    Schavan said the success would not have been possible without "the knowledge gained from research on embryonic stem cells."


  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    quijibo wrote: apparently the adult stem cell craze is on sale for less than $60

    this is snake oil. Do nTt hAz!
    StemEnhance™ One bottle of 60 capsules: $59.95 USD Plus Shipping and Handling.

    link supplied for informational purposes only
    http://www.myadultstemcell.org/site/index.asp?DL=136323&page=102741

    NEXT UP: St Ides. beer with a sprinkle of stem cells!
    Looking at that link, the product doesn't claim to contain stem cells, but to "encourage the release of adult stem cells".

    Still kinda iffy to me. Pass the snake oil.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    SevenOneEighty wrote: I tend to get excited when scientist actually get excited about something, but that's just me.
    As a scientist, I can tell you that when a scientist appears to get excited about something, if you hear about it, it's probably because the scientist is well-connected, is in a field that's in vogue, and wants more money. If I see a scientist get excited about something, I might be excited if it's my field and I know it's something big or promising, and can see how it could impact my work. Otherwise, best to wait a few years and see whether it turns into something useful, as 99% of science turns out to be crud.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    doctorj wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]I tend to get excited when scientist actually get excited about something, but that's just me.
    As a scientist, I can tell you that when a scientist appears to get excited about something, if you hear about it, it's probably because the scientist is well-connected, is in a field that's in vogue, and wants more money. If I see a scientist get excited about something, I might be excited if it's my field and I know it's something big or promising, and can see how it could impact my work. Otherwise, best to wait a few years and see whether it turns into something useful, as 99% of science turns out to be crud.


    daaaaamn. dr j!
    I thought I was cynical!! LOL!

    I am willing to wait, I'm just trying to stay hopeful that there can be some breakthrough in the near future...
  • jackson
    jackson
    doctorj wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]I tend to get excited when scientist actually get excited about something, but that's just me.
    As a scientist, I can tell you that when a scientist appears to get excited about something, if you hear about it, it's probably because the scientist is well-connected, is in a field that's in vogue, and wants more money. If I see a scientist get excited about something, I might be excited if it's my field and I know it's something big or promising, and can see how it could impact my work. Otherwise, best to wait a few years and see whether it turns into something useful, as 99% of science turns out to be crud.

    damn dude, time to rethink science.
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    What? The politicization of science is news to you? :shock:
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    SevenOneEighty wrote:
    I am willing to wait, I'm just trying to stay hopeful that there can be some breakthrough in the near future...
    And another thing: the "breakthrough". It's an invention of the media, an attempt to turn something that is inherently un-newsworthy because of its incremental and accretive nature into a timely news story. Science journalists and media-savvy scientists on the make have a shared interest in manufacturing a breakthrough; there are even media people at most institutions whose job it is to facilitate such stories. But real discoveries are typically years in the making, and often only visible in hindsight. Basically no one ever goes into the lab one day and makes a breakthrough.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    Looks like the guys at Motley Fool agree with you:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/11/28/stem-your-expectations-of-stem-cell-discoveries.aspx
    Stem Your Expectations of Stem-Cell Discoveries
    By Brian Orelli November 28, 2007

    After last week's fanfare about scientists turning skin cells into cells that resemble embryonic stem cells, you'd think that scientists had invented an immortality potion or something. Alas, I'm here to tell you that we're no closer to having stem-cell therapeutics than we were before the announcement.

    That's not because I don't think stem cells have promise -- I certainly do. It's just that the recent discovery has a long way to go before it can catch up to the research currently being done with stem cells.

    While the creation of pluripotent cells -- those that can become any of the hundreds of human cell types -- from a source other than an embryo certainly skirts around the ethical dilemma, they're far from being ready to go into humans.

    The pluripotent cells were created by using a retrovirus to inject certain genes into the cells' DNA. Unfortunately, this could cause mutations as the injected DNA gets incorporated into the cells' chromosomes. Those mutations could cause the cells to grow uncontrollably, potentially leading to the formation of a tumor. An earlier study where this technique was used with mouse cells resulted in tumors in about 20% of the mice derived from the mouse pluripotent cells. Needless to say, a treatment that will cure a spinal injury while causing the patient to develop cancer isn't going to fly with the FDA.

    Scientists will need to find another way to activate the pluripotent abilities that apparently lie within cells. Until then, companies such as Geron (Nasdaq: GERN), which is developing embryonic stem cell therapies, and StemCells (Nasdaq: STEM) or Cytori Therapeutics (Nasdaq: CYTX), which are using other types of stem cells, will have a head start and likely will be filing marketing applications with the FDA before any therapy arises from using pluripotent-modified skin cells.

    The real winners

    While the new discovery shouldn't hurt the near-term prospects for stem-cell companies, there's potential for the method to actually help pharmaceutical companies such as Merck (NYSE: MRK) or GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK). While the cells can't be used as therapies in humans yet, they could be used in laboratory research. A virtually endless supply of stem cells will almost certainly help advance drug discovery.

    The stem-cell nirvana for scientists gets even better because they can theoretically create stem cells from any patient. That means scientists from Elan (NYSE: ELN), for example, could take cells from a patient with Alzheimer's disease, make them pluripotent, and then differentiate them into nerve cells (something that's already been done) to try to figure out more about the disease. While most of the scientific discoveries about diseases will probably be made in basic-science laboratories at universities, pharmaceutical companies -- big and small -- will surely use the published results to develop new disease-fighting drugs.

    The other major advantage for drug developers is that they can use the cells to learn about toxicity of drugs before they hit the clinic. Having an endless supply of cells that could be made into liver or heart cells -- the two most common places for toxicity -- might have saved Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) hundreds of millions of dollars in developing Bextra.

    Currently, there are no good models for determining whether a drug will be toxic in humans. Companies on both sides of the Atlantic have set up consortiums to try and develop better toxicity models, and these new cells could give them a head start in developing systems for detecting toxicity of drugs before they're tested in humans.

    Final Foolish thoughts
    While the discovery is certainly newsworthy and maybe even Nobel-worthy, it's not something that should cause investors to jump on or off the stem-cell bus. Any drug discoveries -- stem cell-based or not -- from this newly discovered technique are still many years away. Even for the most long-term investor, that's a long time to wait for a payoff.
    tricky bastards.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories