Slashdot Mirror


Paralyzed Woman Walks Again

mgv writes "It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."

22 of 1,196 comments (clear)

  1. Adult stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cord blood stem cells are considered to be adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Just wanted to get that out before all the Bush bashing starts.

    1. Re:Adult stem cells by bombadillo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, embryonic stem cells are the cells which hold the real promise for research. This modern debate on embryonic stem cells is similar to the ban on using corpses for medical training and analysis in 16th century Europe. Sure you could learn some things by cutting open a dog. However, the real learning and advancement began once Human corpses were allowed for Medical research. History will view the ban on stem cells the same way. Think of all the good medicine we would not have today if some brave people did not push the issue of using corpses for medical research. Let the Bush Bashing resume.

    2. Re:Adult stem cells by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it really surprising that most of the advancement has come from research that hasn't been effectively banned?

      That's like saying there hasn't been any advance in the theraputic use of cocaine or heroin.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Adult stem cells by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about this then: they're not dead yet, but they will be.

      The problem is that you can make that argument about any human. Someone's in a coma, they're never going to come out, why not do some experiments on them? They're going to die anyway, why let a perfectly good body go to waste?

      Or even a newborn that's not wanted. A newborn isn't sentient (that takes another few months); if the parents don't want it, why not allow post-birth abortions?

      Now, I recognize that a lot of embryos are going to be "flushed down the drain", and that it's not quite the same as the above, but that doesn't mean there aren't ethical considerations. If embryos are OK, what about two cells? 1024 cells? One week gestation? One month? Eight months, when the mother wants a late-term abortion?

      I'm uncomfortable with drawing arbitrary lines on this. It just seems intrinsically wrong to experiment on a living cell with human potential.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Adult stem cells by Orne · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's funny, because every scientifically minded religious person such as myself always points out that it is only the "embryonic" stem cells that have the moral qualms surrounding them. It has been known for some time that (1) stem cells can be cultured from adult hosts through hormonal treatments, (2) they have none of the rejection issues that embryonic stem cells do (recall, you will be implanting cells from another individual with different genetic makeup; your body will reject the new cells just like any other organ donation) and (3) you avoid all of the discussion over whether you are destroying a life or not.

      In my experience, it is that secular mass media often assumes that the religious want to ban all stem cells, because they fail to differentiate between cellular sources.

      Simple google search shows the "major" media outlets routinely leave off the word embryonic when discussing the topic. Drawing a distinction between the two would better inform the public.

      Catholic news letters define the difference, and promote more research into adult stem cells as the intelligent alternative.

    5. Re:Adult stem cells by Liselle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I will worry about playing God as soon as you can prove scientifically that there is a god. At no point should scientific research be affected by any religious beliefs and surely not the religious beliefs of one particular religion.
      Alright, that's completely unfair to the OP. I am not a religious person, I understand what "playing God" means, and it has nothing to with a all-powerful diety. If you don't like that cliché because it sounds religious, here's another one for you: too often scientists will ask themselves "can I do this", instead of "should I do this?"

      Unless you beleive that all non-religious people are morally bankrupt anarchists, I think you can grant that scientists are bound by ethics that have nothing to do with a god of any kind.
      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    6. Re:Adult stem cells by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd argue an embryo becomes a human when a recognizable brain forms, and detectable brain activity occurs. Prior to that point, the embryo is a clump of cells indistinguishable from any other mamal's embryo. Humans are still animals- the only thing separating us is brain functionality/capability. It's alright to kill off frogs, or sheep, or cattle at any point to disect and use for research, so what is the difference from a human embryo, provided it hasn't developed a brain yet?

      The big issue is not whether killing a fetus is morally right or wrong (I myself am pro-choice, but only up to a certain point of development. I do think killing off a fetus is wrong, but ejecting an embryo is fine), but at what point the embryos become a Human fetus. I've heard every argument from conception, to the development of a heart, to the development of a brain/brain activity. The later makes the most sense to me.

    7. Re:Adult stem cells by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But,the thing I look at is this. An egg that is fertilized outside the womb is nothing more than potential life. Unless it is implanted, it is only potential life, at this point in science, there is not way on earth it will live and develop into a functioning human being.

      So, at this point, we are banning research on things that 'potentially' under the correct circumstances become life? If that's they case...we could take it to ridiculous length. Why not ban male masturbation? Potentially, this lost sperm ("every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..") under the correct circumstances, could be come human life. Obviously, gay people are really withholding their contribution to potential life...etc. Ridiculous stretch there grant it, but, just to illustrate my point. Embryos that are created outside the body...unless implated are not life...they will not live without scientific intervention. So, I have a hard time calling it destruction of a human life for science.

      I consider myself to have fairly deep religious feelings and beliefs, but, embryonic stem cell research doesn't bother me...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Adult stem cells by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My wife and I have 8 embryos in cryogenic storage, left over from when we did IVF (our twins are now 2.5, and it was worth every penny that's still on our charge cards). We pay a yearly fee to maintain that storage, but after a period of time, once we're sure we don't want to have any more kids, we'd love to donate those embryos for research rather than have them destroyed.

      There are indeed ethical considerations, but I think those are on the part of the parents involved and are a private matter.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  2. Walking is nice and all.... by gunmenrock · · Score: 5, Funny

    But can they use stem cells to make my wife put out again?

    Mundus vult decipi decipiatur ergo.
    -Xaviera Hollander

  3. Re:There's a much simpler cure for that... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I tried that, but after all that work I was tired and went to bed with a headache.

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  4. Hold on by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A press conference is not a peer reviewed journal. A woman walking in from of a camera does not mean a single stem cell helped her. Wait for journal publication, review, and commentary from experts before going around talking about how great this is.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  5. Umbillical Cord Use Actually WORSE by syntap · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because now you have to grow the fetus into an embryo, kill it, and harvest the cord to get the cells. How is this better ?!?

    Why can't we just get the stem cells from plants? Stems are abundant with them!

  6. Yes, the gov't should fund it, and here's why... by Arkhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I'll bite on the last part, at least.

    Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.

    Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.

    Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!

    "Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.

    So yes, the government should fund it.

  7. Re:Cord blood vs. embryonic? by MagicM · · Score: 5, Informative

    From here:

    So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.

  8. Re:Lets get this out of the way by SunPin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ask who should be in charge of developing medicine - the government or industry?


    Be real for a second and review industry's track record. Drugs for phantom depression. Drugs for sex enhancement. Drugs for obesity. None of these result from real societal problems and the greatest tragedy is that they aren't funding smaller problems with the major profits. They are just inventing more problems.


    Perhaps a better question is "who do you want to define research priorities--government or industry?"


    A government of the people should

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  9. Healthy skepticism is warranted by euthman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In lieu of any detailed description of this case in peer-reviewed scientific literature, this news item should be taken under advisement with appropriate skepticism.

    The spinal cord is an enormously complex structure, the exact neural connections of which are formed in early embryonic life. That you could simply inject multipotential cells into a damaged cord and expect them to differentiate and grow into mature neurons, complete with appropriate connections, is asking an awful lot. In addition, in this patient, "paralyzed" for two decades, you have the issue of muscles, bones, and joints that haven't been in use all that time.


    It would be wonderful if this account is true, but I'm not getting my hopes up until I see more of the fine print.

    --
    Ed Uthman, MD
    Pathologist, Houston/Richmond, TX, USA
  10. Re:Lets get this out of the way by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's true, but make no mistake that Bush's policies have done more to hinder progress than accelerate it.

    For starters, it's a bureaucratic nightmare for labs--if so much as a single "bad" sample makes its way into an experiment, they can lose all government funding in a heartbeat. Labs end up having to spend a surprising and frustrating amount of time and money simply to meet the ever-growing list of compliance demands for federal funding. Angling for private funding is all well and good, but there's a severe lack of funding for pure science; corporate sponsors are far more interested in applied science. Applied science is important, but pure science is equally important and would suffer badly if it weren't for federal funding.

    Second, the stem cells in question are coming from discarded embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics which are already slated for destruction. To ban these stem cells from research is hypocritical, at root--if the issue at hand is the destruction of a human life, they should be fighting just as hard to outlaw the practice of freezing embryos in the first place. That they're attacking the scientific link in this chain suggests that they're more against using these wasted embryos for scientific study (which, for various banal reasons, is seen as the arch-enemy of religion by many,) than they are upset about the wasting of embryos in the first place.

    It's a shame that the debate such that the scientific community is being made out to be the villian here. The real villian is the IVF industry; science is simply stepping in and trying to conduct incredibly promising research with something that'd otherwise be flushed down the drain without so much as a second thought.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  11. Get the facts straight by nwbvt · · Score: 5, Informative
    Embryonic stem cell research was not banned. Federal funding was given for embryonic stem cell research but limited to pre-existing lines.

    There is a huge difference between the two.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Get the facts straight by magefile · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pre-existing lines that are contaminated with pathogens and mouse cells, many of which have reached the end of their useful lifespans. It's effectively a ban on federal funding, period.

  12. The responses so far by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 5, Funny
    - "Hah! Take that redneck Bushies! Nyah nyah nyah neener neener neener" --- 25%

    - "Uh, this is the sort of stem cells the Bush Administration supports, you ignorant dumbass." --- 25%

    - "Well, yeah, but, Dumbya cut funding! And this is you: duh doo duh doo duh doo" --- 25%

    - "Uh, Bush was the first to federally fund ANY stem cell research. And this is you: bibblebibblebibble pppbbbffffttttt!" --- 25%

    And then the same people wonder why nothing works right anymore.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  13. Re:Nonsense!!!! by stanmann · · Score: 5, Informative
    Q: In 1 Ki 7:23 and 2 Chr 4:2-5, does the Bible say the value of pi is 3? A: No. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.328 claims, "The explanation is, of course, that the Biblical writers were not mathematicians or even interested in mathematics and were merely giving approximate figures. Still, to those who are obsessed with the notion that every word in the Bible is infallible (and who know a little mathematics) it is bound to come as a shock to be told that the Bible says that the value of pi is 3." Asimov had a Ph.D. in chemistry, so he should have known better. There are three different possibilities. Rounding with significant digits: Assume the circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits. Since they only gave the dimensions in whole numbers, which number would Asimov have them use? A perfectly round basin with no rim would give a value of 9.55, and that is closer to 10 than to any other number. A rim: Assume either the inner circumference was exactly 30.0 cubits, or that the thickness of the basin made the inner and outer circumference almost the same. A diameter that included a rim of 4 inces (0.22535 cubits) would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1. A flare: Nothing says the walls of the basin were perfectly vertical. If the basin had a very slight flare of 0.75% at the top, then the outer circumference at the narrow part and the outer or inner diameter at the top would give a ratio of exactly 3 to 1.


    11/10/03 "Sir-In the News story about scientists' response to creationists, the scientists `comment that the Bible says that PI is 3, not 3.14' (Nature 398, 453; 1999). The biblical verse quoted (1 Kings 7:23) reads in part: `...measuring 10 cubits from rim to rim... It took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it". Indeed, 30/10 equals 3, but further on in verse 26 it says: `It was a handbreadth in thickness...' Assuming that a cubit measured 18 inches and a hand breadth 3 inches, the inner diameter of the bowl would be 174 inches (10 x 18 - 2 x 3), and the inner circumference would be 540 inches (30 x 18). This yields a value for PI of 540/174 or 3.10. This is about a 1 per cent error from the typical value for PI of 3.14. Although we do not know the exact length of a cubit or a handbreadth, this result is very close to the actual value of PI." (Peil K., "Biblical answer to cooking up pi," Nature, Vol 399, 10 June 1999, p.522)
    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed