Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Embryonic Stem Cells Emit Healing Molecules

Posted by timothy on from the not-many-babies-have-cancer dept.

gim_alelen writes "The Associated Press (found here on Salon.com) is reporting that a new study finds that embryonic stem cells, even if they may not grow new limbs and organs may have other healing properties. The study reports that embryonic stem cells emitted molecules that reversed a lethal birth defect in mice."

58 comments

  1. Would this work on humans? by mind21_98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mice and humans are different. Would this be easily extended to human embryonic stem cells? And could they emit other molecules to reverse other diseases? If so, this is a great step in the right direction.

    --
    US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
    1. Re:Would this work on humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'd be stunned if the answer to any of your questions is anything other than "it's way too early to tell." That's not meant to slam anyone -- just that it's really early days for this stuff yet.

    2. Re:Would this work on humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a manager who doesn't know anything about the topic at hand, yet feels the need to say something anyway. Baby steps man, baby steps.

    3. Re:Would this work on humans? by clonan · · Score: 1

      The entier reason researcher use mice is because they so closely resemble humans. While we could not take the mouse cells and expect them to work, nor could we treat human cells exactly the same as the mouse cells and hope they will work, if we take human cells and treat them in a SIMILAR way, they will probably realease a SIMILAR molecule that help trigger wound healing.

      This is a proof of principal experminet NOT a clinical trial.

      This is coming from someone who does cardio-pulmonary research on mice.

  2. Not that surprising by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many cells express extracellular factors involved in regulation, growth, etc. These can be cytokines (protein-based molecules) or chemokines (small non-proteic molecules). So this discovery is not that surprising, but cool nonetheless. The 'article' (4 lines?) don't give much details, and Science magazine is subscription only... I wonder if they identified the said molecule. Would be interesting to see if it's something we already knew but involved in a process we didn't suspect, or something new altogether. Will have to go to my University library to get details I guess :(

    --
    Eureka Science News - automatically updated
    1. Re:Not that surprising by Rikurzhen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They did find the molecules involved. They are IGF-1 and WNT5a. The interesting twist was that the ES cells partially corrected the defect even if they were injected into the mother during pregnancy. The cells don't cross the placenta, rather it is the IGF-1 that does.

    2. Re:Not that surprising by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Informative
      It should be noted that the mice used in this experiment were knockouts for the Id1, Id2, and Id3 genes, which causes underproliferation of myocardial cells- the walls of the heart are too thin, and the mice generally die about 13.5 days into gestation (mentioned in the Science article, but not the Salon writeup). IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1) and WNT5a (wingless-type, a carryover from Drosophila studies) are both relatively small proteins that act as signaling molecules which act to spur cells to grow and proliferate. As the Science article notes, it would be interesting to know how much "rescue" of tissues comes from the stem cells themselves, and how much from the potent growth and proliferation factors they secrete. This is especially important in light of "the potential of ES cells to induce the formation of teratomas (fetal tissue tumors)." Which, by the way, are among the most awful things you could ever see.

      Could IGF-1 and/or WNT5a be used in human therapies? Perhaps- after all they are already produced by healthy humans- and IGF-1 is already in use to treat some kinds of dwarfism- and by athletes, illegally, for its anabolic effects which are similar to growth hormone. IGF-1 does have the drawback of being structually similar to insulin (duh), so an overabundance can cause glucose intolerance, and since both are regulators of cell proliferation, both may increase the risks of certain cancers themselves.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:Not that surprising by magefile · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an active member of the dwarf community, I don't think IGF-1 deficient people are considered dwarfs - partially because they are all "cured" very early, and partially because they aren't as severely affected as the rest of us.

    4. Re:Not that surprising by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      My apologies on the comment then- something half-remembered from an endocrinology textbook- a mention of "Laron pituitary dwarfism" being treated with recombinant IGF-1. Very sorry if I got something wrong though, and thanks for setting the record straight.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    5. Re:Not that surprising by magefile · · Score: 1

      No prob, though there are a few of us ('us' being dwarfs or the disabled community in general) with a chip on the shoulder, that's the exception.

      The distinction is basically that medically they are dwarfs (short statured if not treated), but since they have few/no symptoms when treated, they aren't really part of the community.

  3. Adult Stemcells work just as fine by genrader · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we could allowocate all the money going to embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells, bam, problem solved and no ethic problems with lots of people.

    They found out you can extract adult stemcells from fat recently, and god knows we have plenty of that in America.

    --
    the Political Inquirer
    1. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      If that's true, then I oughta be practically immortal!

      Seriously, this science is clearly in its infancy. It will be great when (if) cures are developed from it, but I suspect it will be a while before any concrete applications start showing up.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by genrader · · Score: 1

      Here is plenty of information for anyone who wants it.

      http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

      --
      the Political Inquirer
    3. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "If we could allowocate all the money going to embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells"

      That's unpossible!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

      Look at you try and slip in that propogandist website. "Oh, hopefully nobody will notice if I sneak this in real quiet like".

      At least have the decency to let people know that the site sponsors are against embryonic stem-cell research.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    5. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      If we could allowocate all the money going to embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells, bam, problem solved and no ethic problems with lots of people.

      Hey, that would be great, but if you redirect all money from embryonic stem cell research to adult stem cell research, you might miss many opportunities for cures.

      Embryonic stem cells may be able to do things which adult stem cells cannot. I don't see adult stem cells spawning new life, for example.

      The field is so new that it is quite impossibile to know if adult stem cells are as capable as embryonic stem cells.

      Either way, the embryonic stem cell vs adult stem cell debate is a judgement that should be made by the scientific community, not by you or me or the president or anybody else who wishes to impose their morals on me.

      If then we know that
      THEN we can make the moral decision to redirect funding.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    6. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by genrader · · Score: 1

      You know, when I see obvious liberal biased things I don't scream OMG ITS LIBERAL BIASED FINE I AM NOT READING IT. I turn on the TV and watch liberal news, sucking 95.5% of the population of the US into their retarded slant.

      --
      the Political Inquirer
    7. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      I turn on the TV and watch liberal news...

      Oh? Which of the large media corporations are liberal? Are the folks at Disney (ABC) or GE (NBC) a bunch of socialists?

      The notion of a liberal media bias is certainly one of the right's greatest propaganda triumphs - indeed, the right's very success in spreading this meme through the media, argues against the meme's truth.

      In fact, journalists themseves tend to center-right.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by clonan · · Score: 1

      Not really. Adult stem cells are MUCH more limited than embryonic. No matter what you do, adult stem cells will never be able to do as much. But with adult stem cells you don't have problems with rejection like you can by taking another persons stem cells.

      Actually I am going to grad school to study stem cells. My thesis is going to be directed at turning adult stem cells INTO embryonic stem cells.

      Unfortunetly we need a LOT more information on both adult and embryonic stem cells. But when we can do this we will be able to generate embryonic stem cells from the person that will not be rejected AND without the moral implications!

    9. Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      If the media was truely biased towards the left, then why don't leftist like me believe the media?

      Perhaps the world isn't as simple as you imply?

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
  4. more info by v1x · · Score: 3, Informative

    NewScientist has some more info on this.

    1. Re:more info by v1x · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, that was on Scientific American, NOT on New Scientist (too many tabs open in FireFox to keep track)

  5. Health Packs by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 4, Funny

    In wars of the future soldiers will have to wander around the battlefield picking up increasingly more devastating weapons and ammo left lying around and collecting packs of emryonic cells to bring their life back up to 100.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:Health Packs by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1

      Do you also get to respawn ?


      Real life becomes more like a fps!?!?

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
  6. How Handy... by CodeWanker · · Score: 1

    But this doesn't answer the fundamental question associated with embryonic stem cell research: does a human life have intrinsic value? Is that intrinsic value higher or lower than the value of the stem cells that result when an embryo is destroyed?

    Yes, yes. I know that some high proportion (10%? 50%? pick the study that best supports your point of view) of embryos do not implant in the womb and are lost. Does that mean we can treat embryos as analogous to acorns?

    Yes, yes. There are hundreds of thousands of embryos in cryogenic storage that are going to be discarded anyway. But at what point does it cease to be disposable parts of my wife and me and start being a separate human?

    If you're an atheist (as I am) how can you defend any view other than "as soon as it's a zygote (a DNA pattern separate from the mother's and the father's) it's a person"? If you're the final arbiter of morality (as an atheist is to himself) how can you fudge this one?

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
    1. Re:How Handy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I refuse to accept that life exists until it can carry on a conversation. No, really, we should go a bit further: life doesn't exist until it learns to drive. Of course, that would include teenagers and THEY certainly shouldn't count as life. No, I think we should define life to include moving out of the house, graduating college, and getting a job. Well, even then, I know some grad students who shouldn't count...

    2. Re:How Handy... by Gorath99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you're an atheist (as I am) how can you defend any view other than "as soon as it's a zygote (a DNA pattern separate from the mother's and the father's) it's a person"? If you're the final arbiter of morality (as an atheist is to himself) how can you fudge this one?

      I'm an atheist (well, agnostic to be precise, but the end effect is pretty much the same) and a zygote is not a person to me. In fact, DNA really doesn't figure into my definition of a person. (What about clones? They have the same DNA as someone else, but they are persons in their own right.)

      To me, a person at the very least needs to be capable of independent cognitive processing of some sort. Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes independent cognitive processing is something that I don't have a clear answer on yet, but it's something that a zygote, being only a single cell, isn't yet capable of, while an advanced foetus is.
    3. Re:How Handy... by Xybot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not leave it up to the individual to decide? According to your argument any cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being is designated as a seperate life. How do you differentiate this from lost blood from a cut finger, I'm sure that each of these cells could be used to create a new life (albeit a cloned life). Why does the DNA Sequence necessarily have to be different in order to qualify a cell as a seperate life?

      This whole area elicits so much controversy, I really doubt it will ever be possible to find a a solution that will keep everyone happy.

      Personally I feel that as an adult and a responsible individual the choices I make regarding my bio-chemistry should be mine and mine alone. It should be my decision as to what I do with my Biology and the Biology of any potentially autonomous lifeforms I may be responsible for, and when there is a decision concerning a second person, then a consensus should be reached with this person.

      The key to this type of decision making for individuals lies in education and rationalism. These are the types of choices that need to be taught in schools. If people want to make a moral choice for themselves based on these viewpoints, that's fine. But their ideas should not be forced upon others.

      --
      God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
    4. Re:How Handy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a great idea, there is a problem with that logic. Much research is publicly funded; if there are people in the taxpayer base who are opposed to the research, then those people are having another moral viewpoint imposed on them (by having their tax dollars spent on the projects)

    5. Re:How Handy... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      But at what point does it cease to be disposable parts of my wife and me and start being a separate human?

      When it could be born, and live. Sounds pretty simple and reasonable to me, but then again I'm not a religious nut, as it seems so many in the US are.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    6. Re:How Handy... by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not leave it up to the individual to decide? According to your argument any cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being is designated as a seperate life. How do you differentiate this from lost blood from a cut finger, I'm sure that each of these cells could be used to create a new life (albeit a cloned life). Why does the DNA Sequence necessarily have to be different in order to qualify a cell as a seperate life?

      Actually, a blood cell cannot grow into an autonomous human - it is already differentiated, it can't grow into anything apart from a blood cell. It is possible, however, that scientists could take that cell, extract its DNA, stick it into an undifferentiated cell, and grow a genetically identical human being - but that hardly qualifies as a "cell capable of growing into an autonomous human being" does it?

      The DNA sequence doesn't have to be different in order for it to be a distinct human life - I don't think you could find many people who would claim identical twins are really one entity.

      It's a distinct consciousness that diferentiates two entities, but unfortunately, we haven't found a way to measure the soul yet (Feel free to insert scientific nomenclature - "locus of awareness" maybe - if you don't like soul).

      Personally I feel that as an adult and a responsible individual the choices I make regarding my bio-chemistry should be mine and mine alone. It should be my decision as to what I do with my Biology and the Biology of any potentially autonomous lifeforms I may be responsible for, and when there is a decision concerning a second person, then a consensus should be reached with this person.

      You say you can make decisions for the biology of any potential autonomous lifeforms you are responsible for. But when does "potential" become "actual"? That's what the whole debate hinges on. Many people believe that a foetus *is* an actual lifeform, not merely one in potential. And, as there is little evidence on either side, it is a perfectly valid belief.

      It's not really a choice for the individual, any more than the decision on the morality of murder is. The morality of the situation is contingent upon one question - "Is a foetus a human being?" If the answer is yes, then it is morally equivelant to murder. If the answer is no, then it is not. So far, rationalism has yet to provide an answer to that question, which is why debate still rages.

      The key to this type of decision making for individuals lies in education and rationalism. These are the types of choices that need to be taught in schools. If people want to make a moral choice for themselves based on these viewpoints, that's fine. But their ideas should not be forced upon others.

      Sorry, but that's just wrong. It's fine for individuals to make decisions regarding actions which directly affect only them. But if an action would harm another, that's when law intervenes and forces its morals upon the individual. And that's as it should be.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:How Handy... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      But at what point does it cease to be disposable parts of my wife and me and start being a separate human?

      Certainly there's no meaningful human prior to there being a functioning human brain - brainwaves start in the third trimester, IIRC, right about when the fetus is viable.

      Probably there's not a meaningful human until some point after the brain has started to receive and correlate input, that is some point well after birth.

      "as soon as it's a zygote (a DNA pattern separate from the mother's and the father's) it's a person"?

      DNA has nothing to do with it. Are identical twins, or clones, not separate people? Hell, a tumor caused by a genetic mutation has a distinct DNA pattern.

      It's all about the brain. A complex nervous system (human or non-human) means a sentient being worthy of rights.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:How Handy... by quetzalc0atl · · Score: 1

      consider the following argument: when it is deemed time to "pull the plug" on an incapacitated patient, what is the criteria? the answer is that there must be no possible way for the nervous system of that person to operate. whether the person is missing limbs, organs or tissues does not matter. what matters is if the nervous system is non-functioning or non-existent. the same should be applied when trying to define the point at which something that is living becomes an actual "life". and that point should be when the nervous system of the fetus begins to develop. clearly once a cell divides to the stage of a blastocyst (from which ES cells are harvested), there are no cells that have yet differentiated. since there are no differentiated cells, there are no nervous cells. hence there is no nervous system, and the living cell mass is not a "human life". it is interesting that this same arguement would imply that abortion is definately murder, since that would involve an actual embryo that has some nervous system developed already (> 1 week).

    9. Re:How Handy... by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      Then people born without brains are not sentient? :)
      http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

    10. Re:How Handy... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      does a human life have intrinsic value?

      I think it is pure hubris to be debating this question as we continue as a species to murder each other over resources and/or political gain. By continuing such struggles, we have implicitly decided that human life has no value. Until we move past this as a species and a society, how can we be arrogant enough to decide otherwise?

      Yeah, son, we could have aborted you as a fetus, but we didn't because we value life. Now, go kill those brown-skinned people over there for your country and President...

      Hypocrisy at its finest...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    11. Re:How Handy... by magefile · · Score: 1

      I assume you're against in vitro, then? 'Cuz if not, I'd say, as soon as you're done impregnating your wife, at the point where (currently) the doctor will flush them down the drain, that's when they're fair game for this kind of research.

    12. Re:How Handy... by magefile · · Score: 1

      To back you up, I'd point out that the question "where's the line" is almost impossible to answer exactly - but we can see vaguely where it is. It's like saying, "when did modern man arise" - we don't have a single year, but a range of several thousand years.

      And are you actually agnostic, or a weak atheist? Look at Wikipedia's article on atheists if you're not sure.

    13. Re:How Handy... by magefile · · Score: 1

      Actually, fetuses do sense sound, feeling, warmth, etc., in the womb. I'm pro-choice, though ... mostly 'cuz I think it's not government's job to legislate morality.

    14. Re:How Handy... by Gorath99 · · Score: 1

      Good point and interesting question. I was not aware of the distinction between weak and strong atheism. I suppose that at the moment I am actually a weak atheist, having over the years gone from christian to agnostic to now a weak atheist.

      Thank you for clearing that up, even though it means I may have lost an interesting conversation hook :-)

  7. Embryonic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Note how they perpetuate the myth that there is something special about "embryonic stem cells" as opposed to just stem cells. There are more and more sources of stem cells besides embryonic discovered every day. Articles like these are explicitly written to try and distort the issue against President Bush.

    1. Re:Embryonic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this a troll? A stem cell is a stem cell is a stem cell.

    2. Re:Embryonic? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Do you have scientific proof of this? Or are you just repeating George Bush's rhetoric?

      Embryonic stem cells (along with other pieces) has the capability to grow into a new life.

      My bone marrow stem cells cannot do that.

      So obviously there is a difference.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    3. Re:Embryonic? by VenTatsu · · Score: 2, Informative
      Embryonic stem cells (along with other pieces) has the capability to grow into a new life.

      "Do you have scientific proof of this? Or are you just repeating [insert political figure in the news] rhetoric?"

      Last I heard you could not make a clone or a twin just by sticking an Embryonic stem cell in a womb.

      Embryonic stem cell != Embryo

      The research isn't being done on sticking a fetus in another person, so it's a bit untruthful to try to include that with a parenthetical comment.

      Each time I see a vague article on embryonic stem cells I can't help but think it sounds a lot like 'free energy' (a.k.a. perpetual motion) announcements.

    4. Re:Embryonic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Your bone marrow stem cells can create any tissue just like an embryonic stem cell. Even your baby teeth contain stem cells to grow any organ.

    5. Re:Embryonic? by clonan · · Score: 1

      Actually....you can, almost.

      The new egg/sperm cell is unipotent....it can form abolutly any tissue you will ever need. This includes all body tissues as well as placental tissues.

      After it divides a few times the cells differentiate...some turn into embryonic stem cells and the rest turn into placental stem cells.

      Embryonic stem cells are capable of maing any BODY tissue, but not a placenta. If you try and implant it it will just die...but if you complex it with placental stem cells it will grow up just fine.

      The reason cloning fails so much is that it is a lot harder to revert DNA to the egg/sperm level than it is to embryonic stem cell level. So most cloned cells don't implant correctly and die.

    6. Re:Embryonic? by clonan · · Score: 1

      Not true...

      The reason you have to say marrow stem cell or baby teeth stem cell or neural stem cell or embryoinc stem cell is that there ARE MATERIAL differences.

      bone marrow stem cells are possibly the most plastic of adult stem cells....they can differentiate into the half dozen blood cells, liver and sattaliet cells for muscle. They CANNOT turn into neurons.

      neural stem cells are almost as good, they can turn into all types of neurons as well as all the supporting cells in the brain.

      Baby teeth stem cells can ONLY turn into teeth and make enamel...that is it.

      While almost every cell (blood and immune cells are the major exceptions) DO contain all your DNA, your comment that "Even your baby teeth contain stem cells to grow any organ." is not more accurate than saying a mature skin cell can grow any organ....it just isn't correct.

      Embryonic stem cells can turn into all the adult stem cells then turn into all the mature tissues...unlike adult stem cells.

    7. Re:Embryonic? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Last I heard you could not make a clone or a twin just by sticking an Embryonic stem cell in a womb.

      And no where did I say that this was possible. I quite clearly said "along with other pieces". Embryonic stem cells seem to be a major component in the development of the embryo.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
  8. Hmm? by barrettlight50 · · Score: 1

    Weird - I was just reading this when the news anchor woman on telly said Christopher Reeve had died. Is this true?

  9. New Spam this week: by tod_miller · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before that - I feel that all those less plausible parts of sci-fi where the rich swap bodies and stay young, are getting more and more plausible each day.

    The spam:

    Subject: geet yoor Heal1ng Molecu1es 50 % off mad s4le bucket chimney monkey

    You have read about healing molecules, and now we offer them at an amazing d3al price!

    Buy any pack of amazing healing molecules, and we send you:

    1 million verified sucker email addresses
    How to make money on 411 scams - your guide
    Make money raping ebay auctions
    How to hack google and win chicks
    5 Free Penorized viagra supplements! Tested on mice!

    Don't delay - make you order today!

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  10. When does it hit the local drug store ? by Mr+Europe · · Score: 1

    Cannot wait 'til I can buy that "Healium" at the local drug store. Ultima players may buy it in blue glass bottles. Doom-fans prefer boxes with a large red cross on top.

  11. PARENT=FLAMEBAIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see subject

  12. Yes, looks like it is by ag0ny · · Score: 1

    Routers article here

    --
    My site
    1. Re:Yes, looks like it is by warrantyVoidIfRemove · · Score: 1
      Routers article here

      There is absolutely no relevant information in the linked site. For a much better routers article, go here

      --
      Guns don't kill people - people kill people. And monkeys with guns kill people.
  13. Idea by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Well maybe it would be ok to use stem cells harvested(i.e. 7 of 8) if someone grown from the remaining stem cells (genetic twin) and alive gave permission to use them ?

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  14. Exciting news. Embryonic Stem Cells used to ..... by Tye_Informer · · Score: 1

    grow cancer tumors.

    That has been the closest that scientists have gotten in fulfilling their previous promises. I am not an embryonic stem cell researcher so I don't even pretend to know. But I do know that we have put more government money into embryonic stem cell research than adult stem cell research. Now the medical companies that want to make money off of these discoveries are concentrating on adult stem cell research. I wonder why that is. My guess, they have decided there is a greater chance of a breakthrough with adult stem cells. Why not equalize the funding?

    I have the answer to that. Politics. George Bush has banned ALL embryonic stem cell research done anywhere in the solar system. You must now travel to a whole new star system to even discuss embryonic stem cell research. Actually there is no such ban (as I hope anyone reading this realizes). There is not even a ban on research in the USA. There is a concentration of government funding for embryonic stem cells to the existing "lines" that are already established and being researched. We (the people) are no longer wasting money to research how to create new "lines" and now spending our money on researching actual uses of the existing lines. That seems rational to me. Let's remove the "stem cell" emotional component and talk about it in another way. Imagine scientists had this great new idea. They thought we could use hydrogen to produce energy in a usable form. They would call it a "fuel cell". They ask for some government funding and get it. They start to work and come up with a few different sources for hydrogen. Years later all they have successfully done is blow up stuff and create over 160 different sources of hydrogen, but they still haven't actually done anything useful. All of the "breakthrough" research has been in the harvesting of additional hydrogen and using that process to create more hydrogen. I would hope that we would wise up and demand that they spend all of the money on researching cures/uses. Use the existing supply and concentrate your time/resources on an actual use!

  15. Re:Exciting news. Embryonic Stem Cells used to ... by Rikurzhen · · Score: 1

    But I do know that we have put more government money into embryonic stem cell research than adult stem cell research.

    Not true. Current NIH funding for ES cell research is very small as compared to adult stem cell research. Both of which are very small as compared to other research fields.

    We (the people) are no longer wasting money to research how to create new "lines" and now spending our money on researching actual uses of the existing lines.

    Unfortunately, the existing lines are not sufficient for the kind of research needed to quickly advance ES cell technologies. They are without question not sufficent for the development of ES cell-based therapies.

  16. Thats stupid by baadfood · · Score: 1

    DNA has got nothing to do with it. Whats at issue here is the human mind. Unfortunately athiests have no clue how a human mind comes about, and religeous people leave it in the hands of their god (presumably). Which leaves us in a sticky situation. I know that I am a self aware entity. Presumably other adult humans are too. We can all remember being self aware as children, so they must be too. Starting from the other end of the scale, it seems rather unlikley that a single cell is self aware. Or even two cells. But the moment at which awareness kicks in, the moment at which a blob of cells turns from being, well, a smelly mix of chemicals, and becomes an individual, that is very unclear. Given that we dont currently have a fucking clue when and how that happens, well I for one prefer to err on the side of caution. Religeous or athiest your body will die...opinions what happens to your soul may vary, but, one way or the other, i'd prefer to die with a clean consience.