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."

Comments

Still need those eggs...

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

Another striking aspect of the study, researchers said, is that Hwang was able to significantly increase the efficiency of his technique. Last year, when Hwang derived the first human stem-cell line from a cloned embryo, he failed more than 200 times before he succeeded -- meaning he had to use more than 200 eggs donated from women to create embryos. In his latest study, he brought the average number of tries down to just 20. That means in most cases one woman taking super-ovulating drugs in one menstrual cycle could donate enough eggs to create a stem-cell therapy for one patient.

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:

Egg harvesting: Doctors commonly use an ultrasound-guided technique to harvest eggs. A laparoscopic method, which involves inserting a long, thin instrument with a light and lens through the abdomen, may be used if a diagnostic assessment of the pelvic organs is needed. However, ultrasound is faster, easier on the patient and as effective as laparoscopic retrieval.

The doctor inserts the ultrasound probe with an attached needle into the vagina. Using the needle, the doctor punctures egg follicles and removes the fluid. The fluid is inspected and immediately placed in a sterile, nutritive culture material kept in an incubator.

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.

Re:Still need those eggs...

[GreyPoopon]

There are millions of eggs in freezers already that will never be used. Instead of throwing them in the trash, maybe they could be used for one of the most important advances in human history. Just a thought.

In the article, you'll see that one of the reasons why the technique was so successful is because they avoided using the frozen eggs. Freshly harvested eggs are better.

pet peeve

[mattmentecky]

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.

Re:Luckily our government protects us from this

[GreyPoopon]

This is a good example of how really vital research is happening in other parts of the world, and we're off on the sidelines. Our kids will be able to explain how evolution is wrong, and creatiomism explains everything. Their kids will be able to cure spinal cord injuries.

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.

Re:Well it's starting to become reality

[jdavidb]

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.

Re:Luckily our government protects us from this

[Politburo]

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.

Re:Well it's starting to become reality

[radtea]

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.