Stem-Cell-Like-Cells Made Using Only Blood?

Adair writes "Newscientist.com is reporting that a UK biotech firm, TriStem has developed a technique to 'turn ordinary blood into cells capable of regenerating damaged or diseased tissues.' Their method transforms anyone's white blood cells into 'stem-cell-like-cells' which can then be coaxed into one of a myriad of healthy cells such as heart, nerve, or brain. Having made these claims for years, TriStem has recently provided proof to their claims, which some scientists who witnessed called 'stunning."' They have some more proving to do, but if the initial results pan out, the applications could be fantastic -- and without the stigma of traditional stem-cell research."

Comments

Re:Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Dreadlord]

TriStem claims in the article that the technique can be used to regenerate many kinds of cells, including smooth muscle cells, on the other hand, I wonder if regenerating cells is all what the body needs to recover lost parts, because randomly generating cells isn't going to recreate the same organ after all, so there should be another technique to control how cells are regenerated.

Next step in longevity treatments?

[Smidge204]

Since we have some people looking into how sea urchins are practically immortal, I'm curious if there will be some way to mix and cross-reference the two veins of research to come up with a longevity treatment...

=Smidge=

Re:Wow

[Callan]

Only for a bit. Patents don't last forever (just longer than some would like).

Now, if they left it a 'trade secret', then it'd be different ;)

Re:Luddite opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason God let mankind have intelligence.

So we can use it.

Ever see a Christian go to the doctor? Then your whole point is invalidated. If we were so picky about things "un-natch-er-ull", we would just pray. And die, as a result of being stupid. And then there would be no more Christians.

Maybe you need to start using your God-given intelligence.

Re:Wow

[Jesrad]

It cannot be kept a trade secret if it is hard to believe technology. There's the same problem with "free energy" devices and antigravity devices, they require repeated reproduced experiments to be taken seriously, which can't happen if they won't tell you how to do it.

Peer review?

[jdiggans]

Wait until they publish a controlled study in a peer-reviewed journal. Until then, this is all science-by-press-release and not worth the paper on which it's printed.

That said, I hope they're successful and manage to strike a healthy balance between profit and humanity.
-j

Re:Wow

[vidnet]

If you invent something like this, you have every right to exploit it and indeed you should. They've spent a conciderable amount of money, and the patent ensures they can make that money back plus hefty bonuses if the idea is good (which this certainly seems to be).

If there were no patents, you'd either have to keep it hidden from everyone forever (bad for science), or let everyone know and likely undercut you in selling it since they don't have the huge debt of research behind them (bad for innovation).

There's nothing wrong with getting filthy rich when you've worked for it.

Re:glass half full

[sjames]

This is a perfect example of why patents should last for a length of time that varys with the field. As a medical application, it will likely take 10 years or more just to get it on the market. If it were software it would have come out in 1997 and be obsolete by now.

This is a lot less trivial and obvious than the patents most of /. hates as well. It sure took a lot more hard work and insight than one click shopping!

So I don't begrudge them their patent, and hope it helps them to fund further research. At the same time, I hope they apply moderation in their pricing so that people can afford to benefit from this.