Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found

Posted by michael on from the key-to-the-universe dept.

nexex writes "From the Washington Post, 'Scientists yesterday said they have discovered a long-sought "master gene" in embryonic stem cells that is largely responsible for giving those cells their unique regenerative and therapeutic potential.' The report summarizes an article in the newest issue of the scientific journal, Cell."

14 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Potential by Limburgher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells? Hopefully this kills off any remaining debate over cloning/killing babies and paves the way for real, theraputic research.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Potential by Turing+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They still need to learn how to turn it on.

      As I understand it (and I'm not even an amateur in this field, so take this for what it's worth) that's one of the major problems facing genetic scientists. There are many, many cases where they know which gene is responsible for something, but they don't yet know how how that gene is switched on (or off).

      I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-)

    2. Re:Potential by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, more like knowing the account is named 'root' but not having the password.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  2. Is this patentable? by dtolton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
    information? I would hope that since this is being done at a
    University that won't happen. Although with all the recent patent
    craziness, I wouldn't be completely suprised if they granted a patent
    on it.

    It still concerns and dismays me greatly that there is any discussion
    of patenting things like the human genome. As many have said, they
    are a discovery rather than an invention. Let's hope this research
    follows that philosophy.

    Sadly, the fact that stem cells have great potential application to
    ease human suffering is seen by many people as a great way to make a
    buck. It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our
    tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high
    per item cost to help defray research costs. ::sigh::

    --

    Doug Tolton

    "The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
    1. Re:Is this patentable? by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      The human genome has already been patented. Patent number 00000001 is owned by God, and was issued a few million years ago. But, I don't think he's capable of enforcing it as there are no lawyers in heaven.

    2. Re:Is this patentable? by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would hope that since this is being done at a
      University that won't happen.

      So would I, but bitter experience has proved that this expectation is unreasonable. A number of the existing stem cell lines that have been annointed as available to federally-funded researchers are in fact patented by the University of Wisconsin, if memory serves. However, perhaps the fact that this latest discovery was made in Scotland and Japan will change things.

      It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high per item cost to help defray research costs.

      I hear this a lot on Slashdot, but it misses half of the point. The problem is with patents on basic research, which do not represent a marketable product. A gene patent is commercially useless without extensive further research, e.g. traditional drug development. In contrast, many patents held by academic groups are for inventions that have immediate commercial potential. For instance, the automatic DNA sequencer was invented at Caltech, presumably with federal grant money, then patented. It was immediately commercialized, enabling a high-quality product to get to market quickly. (It was also truly revolutionary at the time.) Gene patents, on the other hand, are usually just used to stifle further research by competitors who might actually be capable of realizing its medical and economic potential.

      (This is distinct from junk patents that hardly meet any of the other standards such as novelty and non-obviousness. I've also seen a fair number of those applied for by academic groups. I think this reflects the sad fact that competition has become so much more intense that scientific ethics have increasingly disappeared - this is not limited to patents. Since I'd prefer to keep my job, I can't go into as much details as I'd like.)

  3. Does this mean no more embrionic research? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can anyone familiar with the details say if this will end the need to do research on embryos? This seems to be a controversial aspect of stem cell research and eliminating this need may help win public acceptance.

    1. Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? by nfk · · Score: 5, Informative

      They answer that in the article:

      "THE DISCOVERY of the gene brings scientists closer to a holy grail of biology: the ability to turn ordinary cells into those that possess all the biomedical potency of human embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need to destroy embryos to get them.

      Researchers cautioned that the new work (...) will not bring a quick end to the political controversy over human embryo research."

      They even say that it might intensify research on embryos, for now.

  4. Unacceptable research? by stoborrobots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they have found the controller for the unlimited reproduction abilities of these cells, then we may be well on the way to curing many of these harmful diseases... True cures for Alzheimers and Parkinsons???

    maybe even eliminate costly transplants...

    Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)

    Hopefully the people in charge realise that this is more than an attempt "to transcend embryo research ... [because] it's wrong".

    --
    "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
  5. This is also on Newscientist.com by azav · · Score: 5, Informative

    And was posted on May 30 Link follows: Here

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  6. Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? by Baumi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stem cells don't automatically grow into babies - if that were the case, this'd be the Easy Route to human cloning.

    An in-depth look into what stem cells are, can be found here.

  7. Foreskin restoration!? by Martin+Marvinski · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can finally get my foreskin back after 43 years without it!

  8. Re:Can we get a libertarian country first? by dbrutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, even a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) society will have to deal with the question of who or what is a rights bearing being. Artificial intelligences, embryos, the retarded, catatonic, and other border conditions have to be addressed in any society that's as advanced as we are.

  9. Master Gene? No! Mistress Gene! by screwthemoderators · · Score: 5, Funny

    A gene that tells all others what to do should definitely be feminine-

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc