Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells Derived from Human Clones
catbutt writes "Wired News reports that South Korean scientists have made a dramatic breakthrough by deriving stem cells from cloned embryos of patients with spinal cord injuries. It shouldn't be long before we can expect have a set of replacement parts ready when our own wear out." From the article: "Researchers must test the cells in animals before they can try the therapy in humans. But embryonic stem-cell researchers were shocked and delighted by the advance, which many had referred to as a distant possibility until they saw this study by Woo Suk Hwang and his colleagues at Seoul National University, which appears in the May 20 issue of Science."
From TFA:
This is certainly good news, but human eggs are still needed, and from what I understand, harvesting them is still time-consuming, painful, and risky.
From Aurora Health Care:
Ouch.
A truly significant advance would be to use these stem cells to grow a human ovary in the lab, and harvest eggs from that. Such an advance would dramaatically decrease the need for additional female donors.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Professor Woo Suk Hwang and his colleagues also successfully cloned human embryos last year.
There was coverage of this on NPR this morning as well.
It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.
Scientists clone human stem cells from patients
... regardless of sex or age," Hwang told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Fri May 20, 2005 2:54 AM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - South Korean scientists who cloned the first human embryo to use for research said on Thursday they have used the same technology to create batches of embryonic stem cells from nine patients.
Their study fulfills one of the basic promises of using cloning technology in stem cell research -- that a piece of skin could be taken from a patient and used to grow the stem cells.
Researchers believe the cells could one day be trained to provide tailored tissue and organ transplants to cure juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease and even to repair severed spinal cords. Unlike so-called adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have the potential from the beginning to form any cell or tissue in the body.
Woo Suk Hwang and colleagues at Seoul National University report their process is much more efficient than they hoped, and yielded 11 stem cell batches, called lines, from six adults and three children with spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes and a rare immune disorder.
"This study shows that embryonic stem cells can be derived using nuclear transfer from patients with illness
"I am amazed at how much they have accomplished in just a year and the amount, the quality and the rigorousness of their evidence," Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, a stem cell expert who reviewed the study, said in a telephone interview.
While the patients whose cells were copied do not stand at this time to benefit, the researchers hope to study the cells to understand their conditions better.
They also say their method may be less controversial than other work with embryonic stem cells because, by their definition, a human embryo was never actually created.
The report, published in the journal Science, is certain to add to the growing U.S. political controversy over the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Opponents say all such work is unethical and should be banned because human life begins at conception and should not be destroyed.
NO HUMAN EMBRYO
Hwang said his method differs from that first used to derive human embryonic stem cells in 1998 and he proposes using a new term for the cloned embryos -- a "nuclear transfer construct."
"I think this construct is not an embryo," he said. "There is no fertilization in our process. We use nuclear transfer technology. I can say this result is not an embryo but a nuclear transfer construct." The sheep Dolly, the first adult mammal cloned, was made using nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus is removed from an egg cell, replaced with the nucleus of the animal or person to be cloned, and then fused. The egg begins dividing as if it had been fertilized and sometimes becomes an embryo.
Cattle, pigs, sheep, cats and other animals have been cloned using this method.
Schatten said when scientists first got stem cells from human embryos in 1998, they broke open the little days-old ball of cells called a blastocyst.
In the current study, he said, they simply laid down the blastocyst in a lab dish filled with human "feeder cells."
David Magnus and Mildred Cho of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics in California agreed.
"There is no reason ever to believe one of these things could ever become a human being," said Magnus, who with Cho wrote a commentary on the work.
"Even for people that believe that potentiality is the key to personhood, these things, whatever they are, they are not people. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is an ethically better way of producing stem cells than using excess IVF (in vitro fertilization or test-tube baby) embryos."
Schatten said the method could also eventually do away with the need for some animal experiments, which some people also find objectionable and which others say is not always a good way to predict human medical treatments.
Opponents of stem cell research had not had an opportunity to review the paper and could not immediately comment.
Well I don't agree with Bush's stance on this issue either, but it is important to note that there is nothing prohibiting stem cell research in the US at this time. You just don't get to do it on the taxpayer's dime (unless you live in California where they force you to).
cells in animals before they can try the therapy in humans.
I know it is a personal pet peeve of mine but it just makes my skin crawl when people separate humans and animals. Humans ARE animals!
On a slightly more ontopic note: This is the breaking point for future scientific study specifically biomedic/stemcell research in the United States. There are two bills in the house about to be voted on - The Cord Blood Stem Cell Act 2005 HR 596 and Stem Cell Research Act 2005 HR 810 in the house, which surprisingly has *bipartisan support* which even more surprisingly is more than likely to pass and most surprisingly (well...not so much for some of us) is very likely to be vetoed (first time ever for GWB) by the President. Unbelievable.
And the related science paper from last year.
I would like to point out that while you may disagree with the those who believe in creationism and those who oppose stem cell research, you should realize that neither stem cell research nor production of new stem cell lines has been banned in the US. The only restriction is that taxpayer funds cannot be used to support it. If you feel that new stem cell lines are necessary, you are more than welcome to gather support from others who feel the same and provide the necessary funding. But don't ask people who are firmly opposed to such research to help pay for it.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
how Bush was saying the existing stem cell lines would be enough.
Bush never said those lines would be enough. He simply said those lines had already been created through action objectionable to some (embryo destruction) and thus research on them could be funded without funding further objectionable action, and refused to fund research on lines created by embryo destruction in the future.
For the record, there was never any prohibition on private funding of embryonic stem cell research. And there was no federal funding before Bush chose to allow this limited funding.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Google cached version
Here's the BBC with their coverage of the same story.
The only restriction is that taxpayer funds cannot be used to support it.
Just wanted to add the clarification that it's not even all taxes, just federal - California is suppotring research via state taxes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only restriction is that [federal] taxpayer funds cannot be used to support it.
No, that is not the only restriction. There are two restrictions:
1. Federal money cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research.
2. Any facility performing embryonic stem cell research will not receive federal funding for any project regardless of subject.
Due to the amount of items that federal money is used for, this is about as close to a ban as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Luckily we have progressive states like New Jersey and California who are attempting to fight back against the conservative Federal government. As a resident of New Jersey, I fully support the efforts of Governors Codey and McGreevey to setup stem cell research in the State.
"Of course, as was predicted, the places that do allow that sort of research will move in leaps and bounds ahead of the US in these fields."
I'm sure you realize that stem cell research is fully legal in the united states. It may not be federally subsidized, but it's still perfectly legal.
My blog
Neoconservative refers primarily to somebody's position on foreign policy.
"Neoconservative" originally (back in the '70's) referred to market-oriented conservatives like Irving Kristol and the Chicago-school economists. They had very little to say about foreign policy, and a great deal to say about domestic policy, although when translated it mostly came out as "the market will take care of it."
They were called "neoconservatives" to distinguish them from old-style conservatives, who were still in favour of various kinds of paternalistic government intervention, and very much tied to religious causes. Old-style conservatives were anti-civil-rights, pro-big-military, pro-God and anti-abortion. Neocons were pro-civil-rights, anti-big-military, non-religious and pro-choice.
Other than a few policy advisory positions and Reagan's first budget chief, who didn't last long, the neo-conservatives never gained any significant degree of political power.
GWB is not a neo-conservative. He's an old-style conservative. Neo-conservatism was a practical failure in the United States. The major neoconservative policy initiatives--like reducing government spending--were never even tried.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Probably plenty. Don't look now, but the crotch-monkey right is already starting to mobilize:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050520/D8A70J0
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
well, not really.
for spinal cord injury (brown-sequard syndrome (hemisection) or whatsoever), I don't think embryonic stem cells are going to do any good in this field unless we have a very careful computer controlled 'neuron repair' or 'neuron association' process which automagically associate neurons with what they should associate.
Right, neurons do have their plasticity in brain and even if connection goes wrong it can still work. But then do anybody here know what regenerates fastest when stem cells are put into spinal cord hemisections? C-fibres! those unmyelinated fibres which confers PAIN and temperature sense in the spinothalamic tract.
depends on how you think human experiements has been done in china but most of the result is basically they get something back, like 3 moving muscle in arm (that's not a hell lot, come on) and they also get some really painful life and become dependent on analgesics. Depends on how you think they may or may not be a good thing.
ketamine-bp
Bush's response
0 .html
Bush Blasts Human Clone Research
Associated Press
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,67586,0
08:40 AM May. 20, 2005 PT
The White House on Friday condemned research in South Korea for producing human embryros through cloning and said President Bush would veto any legislation that loosens federal restrictions in the United States on embryonic stem cell research.
White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said the work in South Korea amounted to human cloning for the sole purpose of scientific research. "The president is opposed to that," Duffy said. "That represents exactly what we're opposed to."
Separately, he said the president would veto legislation to permit spending government money for stem cell research that would destroy human embryos. A measure by Reps. Mike Castle (R-Delaware) and Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) would lift Bush's 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using any new embryonic stem cell lines.
Bush, in his fifth year in office, has not yet exercised his first veto. The White House also promised a veto this week of a highway bill if it exceeded the administration's spending limits.
Bush began the day at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast where he was cheered for urging people to "pray that America uses the gift of freedom to build a culture of life."
The remark was a public reaffirmation of his position on sensitive issues such as abortion and stem cell research.
Bush recalled the legacy of the late Pope John Paul II and said, "The best way to honor this great champion of human freedom is to continue to build a culture of life where the strong protect the weak."
Bush won 52 percent of the Roman Catholic vote in last year's election and got the support of 56 percent of white Catholics, defeating the first Catholic presidential candidate from a major party since John F. Kennedy. In 2000, Bush narrowly lost the Catholic vote.
End of story
I think a little clarification is in order here. I do stem cell research on a daily basis at a University here in the US using exclusively government funding. What Bush prohibited (or actually crippled) was human embryonic stem cell research. Bone marrow and umbilical cord blood stem cell (my little pet) research has been going on quite strongly during this administration.