Embryonic Stem Cells Emit Healing Molecules

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."

Comments

Not that surprising

[FiReaNGeL]

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 :(

Re:Not that surprising

[Rikurzhen]

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.

Health Packs

[St. Arbirix]

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.

Re:How Handy...

[Gorath99]

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.

Re:How Handy...

[Xybot]

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.

Re:Adult Stemcells work just as fine

[NanoGator]

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

That's unpossible!