NationStates Jolt Archive

Making Embryonic Stem Cells The Easy Way ('http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070604/full/447618a.html')

Oh, and they match the patient perfectly!

I guess we won't have to pile fetuses into the liquifier anymore...

NOTE: I AM NOT AGAINST ABORTION IN ANY WAY - IN FACT, THE MORE, THE MERRIER.

Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells.

If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, and that are genetically matched to individual patients. There are limits to how useful and safe these would be for therapeutic use in the near term, but they should quickly prove a boon in the lab.

There was some doubt about the first round - the cells didn't pass all the requirements...

But...

This week, Yamanaka presents a second generation of iPS cells, which pass all these tests. In addition, a group led by Rudolf Jaenisch at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a collaborative effort between Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Kathrin Plath of the University of California, Los Angeles, used the same four factors and got strikingly similar results.

"It's a relief as some people questioned our results, especially after the Hwang scandal," says Yamanaka, referring to the irreproducible cloning work of Woo Suk Hwang, which turned out to be fraudulent. Schöler agrees: "Now we can be confident that this is something worth building on."

Well, at least the controversy is over.

Squishing and pureeing embryos is an end unto itself.

Well, at least the contraversy is over.

Not by a long shot.

First we need to get this process of getting embryonic cells from skin cells to work in humans.

Then we need to figure out if they are similar enough to embryonic cells to work.

If either of those fail or proof infeasible, the controversy will be far from over.

Well, at least the contraversy is over.

Right. And now for a new controversy...



Hydesland's spelling. Should he be given a free dictionary, or should he buy his own? These questions and more later on NS General.

Squishing and pureeing embryos is an end unto itself.

Yes, I have to have something to dip my nachos in....






Disclaimer: Tasteless joke...

No Need To Squish And Puree Embryos
Then how do you expect me to sip them through a straw?

Then how do you expect me to sip them through a straw?

You'll just have to mash them with a fork.

Hydesland's spelling. Should he be given a free dictionary, or should he buy his own? These questions and more later on NS General.

:p

It's not my fault, I have to type fast because i'm very busy preparing for my exams tommorow!

:p

It's not my fault, I have to type fast because i'm very busy preparing for my exams tommorow!

*forces a load of embryos down your throat*

And don't call me Tom Morow!

Then how do you expect me to sip them through a straw?

Blender...

*forces a load of embryos down your throat*

And don't call me Tom Morow!

Ahh crap!... errr i mean

I thought that was your name, yes thats right, I just assumed that was your name. I would also like to mention on an unrelated note that my exams are tomorrow!

Hm. This sounds interesting. Good luck to them...though I like scrambled eggs. :(

Hm. This sounds interesting. Good luck to them...though I like scrambled eggs. :(

I've always loved a sense of humor.

If you salt them really well and add butter they taste almost exactly like eggs, toss some cheese in and you have a pretty good breakfast in and of itself.

Reading through it, I kept getting caught up on the fact that they had transfected these cells with four different factors (and would likely need more/different ones in humans). The dangers (and differences) in that alone would make me hesitant to laud this as the answer to all research/therapies that might use ES cells.

Interestingly enough, getting to the bottom of the article, it would seem that the researcher agrees with me.

But the iPS cells aren't perfect, and could not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant in, for example, spinal-cord injuries. Yamanaka found that one of the factors seems to contribute to cancer in 20% of his chimaeric mice. He thinks this can be fixed, but the retroviruses used may themselves also cause mutations and cancer. "This is really dangerous. We would never transplant these into a patient," says Jaenisch. In his view, research into embryonic stem cells made by cloning remains "absolutely essential".

Ok, not to stop being so goofy and add osmething important...

I'm impressed. If this can work it could end the whole debate about stem cell research. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole abortion issue but I do admit that stem cell research is a good argument for abortions.

I haven't seen much to support the idea of stemcells being some kind of miracle cure-all. They may work in specific cases, and it's good that they might be harvested with less controversy, but from what I've read, it's not exactly a guarantee of 100-year lifespans - far from it. :p

Yes, I have to have something to dip my nachos in....






Disclaimer: Tasteless joke...

Is that you Fat Bastard?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/austin_powers_in_goldmember/mike_myers/goldmember5.jpg

"Mmmmm... Behbae Nachos..."

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/seal.gif


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/warning-sign-generator.gif

Is that you Fat Bastard?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/austin_powers_in_goldmember/mike_myers/goldmember5.jpg

"Mmmmm... Behbae Nachos..."

Ghet in ma belly!

A magnificent scientific breakthrough indeed.

Ok, not to stop being so goofy and add osmething important...

I'm impressed. If this can work it could end the whole debate about stem cell research. I'm not sure where I stand on the whole abortion issue but I do admit that stem cell research is a good argument for abortions.

How is stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) an argument for abortions? Embryonic stem cells are collected at the blastocyst stage. If fertilization were to have occurred within a woman, she still wouldn't even be pregnant (and thus could not have an abortion) at the point at which ES cells can be derived.

How is stem cell research (particularly embryonic stem cell research) an argument for abortions? Embryonic stem cells are collected at the blastocyst stage. If fertilization were to have occurred within a woman, she still wouldn't even be pregnant (and thus could not have an abortion) at the point at which ES cells can be derived.

I think abortions *can* be used to harvest stem cells, even if it isn't the only way. I think the larger argument involves the shift from thinking of life as valuable in itself to seeing it more as a means to an end, personal luxury or use, which is basically where we're headed.

I think abortions *can* be used to harvest stem cells, even if it isn't the only way.

Not embryonic stem cells. By the time it is possible to perform an abortion, the embryo/fetus is already way past the stage at which embryonic stem cells can be derived.

Once again, a woman would not even be pregnant yet at the point at which embryonic stem cells can be derived.

I think the larger argument involves the shift from thinking of life as valuable in itself to seeing it more as a means to an end, personal luxury or use, which is basically where we're headed.

Is it now? I don't see anything like that. To me embryonic stem cell research, as well as other types of medical research, are about preserving life and its value.

Reading through it, I kept getting caught up on the fact that they had transfected these cells with four different factors (and would likely need more/different ones in humans). The dangers (and differences) in that alone would make me hesitant to laud this as the answer to all research/therapies that might use ES cells.

Interestingly enough, getting to the bottom of the article, it would seem that the researcher agrees with me.

Well, that negates the premise of the thread, doesn't it? Actually makes the thread title and OP misleading.

Well, that negates the premise of the thread, doesn't it? Actually makes the thread title and OP misleading.

LOL. The thread title would be misleading even without the problems inherent in such research.

However, cells like this will be useful in a pure research setting. There will always be research for which we will need directly isolated cells and these cells (like most of our current ES cell lines) could not be used directly in a clinical setting. But it is a very interesting development nonetheless, and I"ll be watching closely to see where it leads.

Is it now? I don't see anything like that. To me embryonic stem cell research, as well as other types of medical research, are about preserving life and its value.

It complicates things when you have to destroy life to preserve it. That's exactly why the OP was at all significant - harvesting stem cells without destroying embryos would lessen some complications. ;) Destroying life to improve your quality of life is a common thread of the whole issue of abortion/stem cells, and other things, such as paying third-worlders to carry your kid to term, eugenics, euthanasia, etc. It's interrelated.

It complicates things when you have to destroy life to preserve it.

We pretty much always have to destroy life to preserve it. The cells I have in culture right now are alive, as are the mice we keep downstairs. I will have to kill both in order to further our research, contributing to progress in biology and medicine.

When you take antibiotics to get over an infection, you are destroying life. When you use anti-bacterial soap, you are destroying life. When you kill something to eat it, you are destroying life.

That's exactly why the OP was at all significant - harvesting stem cells without destroying embryos would lessen some complications.

Actually, from a medical point of view, the methods they use would add complications. They may do away with some of the ethical concerns that many have, but they add many more medical concerns. Hence the reason that such cells, while useful to us in determining the factors necessary for pluripotency, could never be used in clinical practice.

Destroying life to improve your quality of life is a common thread of the whole issue of abortion/stem cells, and other things, such as paying third-worlders to carry your kid to term, eugenics, euthanasia, etc. It's interrelated.

I don't see stem cell research as being related to abortion in the least. They are two very different issues. I definitely don't see stem cell research as being related to surrogate mothers, eugenics, or euthenasia.

We pretty much always have to destroy life to preserve it. The cells I have in culture right now are alive, as are the mice we keep downstairs. I will have to kill both in order to further our research, contributing to progress in biology and medicine.

When you take antibiotics to get over an infection, you are destroying life. When you use anti-bacterial soap, you are destroying life. When you kill something to eat it, you are destroying life.

Actually, from a medical point of view, the methods they use would add complications. They may do away with some of the ethical concerns that many have, but they add many more medical concerns. Hence the reason that such cells, while useful to us in determining the factors necessary for pluripotency, could never be used in clinical practice.

I don't see stem cell research as being related to abortion in the least. They are two very different issues. I definitely don't see stem cell research as being related to surrogate mothers, eugenics, or euthenasia.

What is this, World Pedantry Day? :p Really though, I kid. I've just come from the "assimilation" thread. ;)

Anyway, it's not at all related to surrogate mothers, eugenics or euthanasia if no life (sorry, *human* life) is destroyed in the process of harvesting - that's the good news, and is why the article this thread is based on is in any way significant from a public policy standpoint. No one mourns for the yeast that went into my toast this morning, which makes it less relevant to public policy by a good deal. :p

Anyway, it's not at all related to surrogate mothers, eugenics or euthanasia if no life (sorry, *human* life) is destroyed in the process of harvesting - that's the good news, and is why the article this thread is based on is in any way significant from a public policy standpoint. No one mourns for the yeast that went into my toast this morning, which makes it less relevant to public policy by a good deal. :p

Human life would be destroyed by this process. The transfection process is not very efficient. We have to select for the cells that have actually incorporated the retrovirus by killing off all of the other cells in the culture. If this were to be carried out in humans, those cells would be human. We would thus be "destroying human life" in much the same way such life is destroyed in embryonic stem cell research. Out of a culture with essentially two cell types, we select the cells we want and the rest die.

Well, at least the controversy is over.

I wasn't aware there was one. Oh, abroad...

Human life would be destroyed by this process. The transfection process is not very efficient. We have to select for the cells that have actually incorporated the retrovirus by killing off all of the other cells in the culture. If this were to be carried out in humans, those cells would be human. We would thus be "destroying human life" in much the same way such life is destroyed in embryonic stem cell research. Out of a culture with essentially two cell types, we select the cells we want and the rest die.

The difference is that an embryo becomes a human being, whereas the other type of cells are simply cells. I'm not an expert on that type of procedure, but this seems significant.

I wasn't aware there was one. Oh, abroad...

I'm sure there was at least a *little* controversy where you are. Scientists don't generally start recycling human material without asking basic ethical questions. ;)

No Need To Squish And Puree Embryos

Rather them than me... :D

Personally, anything that's too un-evolved to survive on its own outside its mother's body is free game for folk trying to find out cures for genetic diseases or stuff like broken spines and other regenerative stuff. :p

I'm sure there was at least a *little* controversy where you are.

Nope. I haven't seen anything in regular papers apart from reporting on the "controversy" in the USA. Here, abortion has been a settled issue for several decades and stem cell research simply doesn't seem to have ruffled all too many feathers at all.

Scientists don't generally start recycling human material without asking basic ethical questions. ;)

Oh, but those were dealt with mostly intraprofessionally and the government hasn't really had to get all that involved. Stem cell research has gone on. Religious aspects were never raised as an issue - that would have been ludicrous.

The difference is that an embryo becomes a human being,

Not necessarily. An embryo, if it implants in a uterus and develops properly, can become a human being. If it is never even placed in a uterus, it will never be a human being. If it is placed in a uterus, but does not implant and leaves the uterus with the next menstrual cycle, it will never be a human being.

Saying that an embryo becomes a human being is like saying that metal becomes a car. Sure, under the right circumstances, it could happen, but it definitely isn't a guarantee.

whereas the other type of cells are simply cells. I'm not an expert on that type of procedure, but this seems significant.

The "other type of cells", if they are truly pluripotent, could also become a human being, albeit one much more prone to cancer.

I'm sure there was at least a *little* controversy where you are. Scientists don't generally start recycling human material without asking basic ethical questions.

Indeed, and those ethical questions have to do with where and how the material is obtained, not with the material itself. (And it isn't exactly "recycling", but we'll let that one go.)

There is a clear informed consent process here, just as there is with any other type of tissue.