Scientists Claim Organs Grown From Stem Cells

Llywelyn writes: "It appears that some scientists in the United States are claiming that they have been able to grow functional organs (kidneys) from cloned cow embryotic stem cells. They have not yet released details on how exactly they did this, nor have they yet provided evidence for their claims, but admit to being only in the `proof of concept' phase in research. I guess we'll see down the road if this is legit or the increasingly common `Science by Press Release.'"

Comments

My guess

[Em Emalb]

"I guess we'll see down the road if this is legit or the increasingly common `Science by Press Release."

After consulting the magic 8 ball, I have to say the latter is probably true.

I would guess that money got a little tight and this is a good way to get more cash for research...

Or, could be I am tired of hearing about companies that make claims with no proof.

ATC

[Vireo]

The news come from ATC, the same company that pretended having cloned a human in november. However, these claims were probably premature. We should be skeptical about this kidney thing... publishing fist in New Scientist is not exactly standard for serious scientific results.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:hmm

[dachshund]

This company is the same one that claimed to have cloned human embryos, so we're already aware of their preference of press releases to peer-reviewed journals.

Actually, they released their original results for that claim in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right about the same time as it hit the major news outlets. Few people actually bothered to look at the details.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. People have been working on growing organs on scaffolds for a while now. They've been working up from simple parts like ears to more complex things. At the same time, there've been demonstrations of stem cells "beating" like heart tissue. How functional these kidneys are is what we should all be asking.

Scientific Method always wins out

[Dark Paladin]

Back in the day, people believed in the 4 elements of earth, air, fire, and water. Why? Well, because somebody said so.

They believed that frogs came from mud, that life just arrived, that the sun went around the earth, and many other things.

Then the Scientific Method came along, and it was a simple idea:

1. Conduct an experiment with two groups, and only change 1 thing in each group.
2. Compare the results. If the majority of the groups with the different variable are truly different, you can possibly attribute that result to your variable.
3. Publish your results and show the world exactly what steps you took.
4. Other people recreate your experiment. If they get the same conclusions, then your theory may be correct.
5. If others find a different way to prove/disprove your theory, then eventually the Truth can be decided.

In the end, that's what science and the scientific method are all about. The search for the Truth. Is it the only method? Probably not - there are many truths in the universe we can't prove under the microscope.

But is it the best way that fallible humans can use to attain Truth? So far, yup. And as long as the real scientists don't forget that, we don't have to worry about "science by press release".

Re:What about rejection?

[uberdave]

Rejection is a non issue. You simply harvest the stem cells from the recipient, grow the organ and install the organ. Donor=Recipient therefore rejection=0.

Relax, you guys....

[thermowax]

According to The Washington Post coverage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A58 26 4-2002Jan29.html

They aren't disclosing exact methodology because they believe it will hurt their chances of journal publication- which, although it may not be the entire truth, is in fact a valid reason. Also, the Post article contains quite a bit more detail than the one from The New Scientist; it's worth checking out.

(And dammit, Slashcode keeps putting a space in the URL, I don't know why, it shouldn't be there)

Thermowax

press release vs. peer-reviewed publication

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be some confusion regarding press releases and actual scientific publication. As a scientist, I feel a slight obligation to try to clear this up a little for those that don't work in science. Press releases are made quickly and don't really require anything backing them up. Publishing in a scientific journal requires something to back up your claims, and it takes months, sometimes over a year, from the time the experiments are finished to the time anyone reads it. These people with the kidney are announcing their work to the press, but no one in the scientific community will take them seriously if they don't publish it somewhere real or somehow demonstrate their claims in a rigorous manner. There are reasons that a lab would choose to release their work to the press, such as wanting to stake their claim as the first group to get it working, maybe to hype their real results with investors, etc. But to say this is some big growing trend that's ruining science by replacing peer-reviewed publication with news releases is simple bullshit.