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.

The horrible truth.

[grub]

It shouldn't be long before we can expect have a set of replacement parts ready when our own wear out.

Customer: I'd like a replacement arm, hand and penis, please.
Service Tech: Ah, you must be from Slashdot!

In other news

[hnile_jablko]

S Korea has been added to the watch list of terrorist states....

Re:In other news

[saider]

Stem cell research is not banned. Embryonic stem cell research is. The major political sticking point is that embryonic cells come mostly from abortions, which to the religious types is akin to profiting off of murder.

If these guys are smart, then they will describe an embryo as a fertilized egg. Since the harvested egg is never fertilized (they are just using the cell itself, not its nucleus) they might define this as a new category of material and get around the ban on embyotic stem cells.

Just my $0.02 USD.

This has gotta be a gag by some students..

[technos]

I mean, c'mon. Woo Suk Wang? Who would admit to that being their name voluntarily?!?

Well it's starting to become reality

[3.5 stripes]

I remember the huge debates of the stem cell issues, how Bush was saying the existing stem cell lines would be enough.

Obviously, as it was pointed out multiple times, that just wasn't true. 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.

Didn't think it would be quite that quick though..

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:Well it's starting to become reality

[stienman]

So you are saying that I shouldn't get to choose where my taxes go regarding morally ambiguous activities?

The federal funds that go into scientific research are always moderated by various groups that push and pull based on morals they feel are important, as well as those who push based on monetary objectives. Eventually, no doubt, stem cell research will be given more federal money.

Further, limited or restricted use federal funds does not mean lack of funds, nor does it make this research illegal. It does restrict it somewhat since the way most research institutions are set up they can't seperate their different monetary uses enough such that if any one of them are doing stem cell research outside of the federal funding it puts other research there at jepardy for more federal funding.

It is worthwhile to note that many, if not most, new areas of research do not get any federal funding until they've been proven using other funding or in other institutions/countries. The Gov't is very conservative at the beginning of new technologies, especially those which have such heavy ethical complications.

The fact that the government is only providing very limited funding is very much in line with what they've done in the past, and I hope what they do in the future. I suspect too much money, for instance, was sunk into fusion at the beginning - everyone wanted to 'win' that race.

Exactly. This could have been us...but now we get to play catch-up.

It's often cheaper (and more rewarding the long run) to wait and play catch up. And believe me, if there is a real breakthrough you know that we'll catch up and likely surpass the leaders - and just as likely it won't be due to or held back by federal funds in any way.

-Adam

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.

I don't get it

[RealProgrammer]

when our own wear out.

Customer: I'd like a replacement arm, hand and penis, please.

Why would those parts wear out all at ... oh .

You obviously suffer from poor technique.

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:pet peeve

[jdavidb]

Do you see any difference between somebody intentionally destroying an embryo and an event in nature resulting in that destruction?

Do you see any difference between me shooting a person and between a person dying in a hurricane?

I guess you'd say I'm "against hurricanes," but it'd be senseless to pass a law against them. In the same way your question doesn't prove anything to me. We pass laws against people killing people, and accept that we can't save every life.

I believe that an embryo is a human being and I accept all conclusions that follow from that fact.

And I do not believe that we can legislate that an embryo is not a human being simply because some people disagree than we can legislate that a black person is not a human being simply because some people believed so in the 1800's.

If you read the article!

[spineboy]

You would know that the scientist uses UNFERTILIZED eggs and then removes the nucleus! The scientists then introduce the intended tissue type cell into the egg and shock it it, at which point the cells reproduce. This is akin to multiplying gut/skin/white cells in a cell culture laboratory - which NO religion/poltical groups have problems with.

Please read the article before comenting next time.

Re:If you read the article!

[Orne]

But if people actually read the article, then they wouldn't be able to blindly bash the Bush Adminstration... There's nothing in the article that could not have been done by American companies and universities, if they hand't been spending all their time whining about federal funding.

This method is taking Unfertilized Embryo cells and replacing its nucleus with the chromosomes of the Adult Host. If the Embryo grows to maturity, it would be considered a Clone of the Adult (but it couldn't, because it isn't implanted into a womb). The Scientists culture the cells in the lab, take the developing Clone, chop it into its component Embryonic Stem Cells, and now the Embryonic Stem Cells can be used in other Adult Hosts to treat ailments...

Now, some may argue that destroying the blastocyst of the Clone (same genetic material as adult) is the same as destroying the blastocyst of a fetus (unique genetic material from adults). Personally, I'd rather use the method above, than have to resort to nastier methods (such as developing a [sub-]human species specifically for harvesting.... )

Re:But will the organs be on time?

[JudgeFurious]

Didn't you see "Star Trek: Nemesis"? Weren't you paying attention when Shinzon's cells were breaking down because the Romulans attempted to do EXACTLY what you are suggesting? One mistake and Shinzon was a dead man intent on taking the planet earth with him out of spite. Do you want that on your conscience?

Geez, don't people learn from Science Fiction anymore? Why do they even bother if we're not going to listen? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF PLAYING GOD!

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.

Yup

[paranode]

Only a Slashdotter would dream of using this technology to further masturbation instead of a way to have real sex.

Re:So is S Korea now part of the Axis of Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that simple.

If you have Organization A -- say, a university -- which does LOTS of things other than stem cell research. If they do that kind of research without using the cells that W approves, then they lose federal funding for the WHOLE UNIVERSITY. Not just the Stem Cell Dept.

So, yeah, it is a showstopper for many places.

But hey, I'm sure the US won't mind outsourcing it's health care to Asia in the future.

In Other News...

[entropy123]

...Dick Cheney and other senior White House officials with serious medical conditions were noted to have chartered Air Force One to S. Korea yesterday. Mr. Cheney, with a suitcase full of bills and his 'senate gold' health care plan, said that he was taking the trip to S. Korea to investigate the ethics of stem cell research...

The end of religion?

[KrackHouse]

If natural selection really works(and I think it does) then people with moral misgivings about this technology will refuse to accept medical help from stem cells and will have a higher mortality rate than godless heathens. Maybe they'll interpret their decline as the arrival armageddon. It could also mean a true separation of church and state.

Of course this all assumes that people will actually refuse treatment because of their religious/moral beliefs which I highly doubt, even diehard churchgoers don't believe that the sun revolves around the earth anymore.

Re:The end of religion?

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

You're assuming that:

• all people with religious beliefs are opposed to stem cell research
• all people who oppose stem cell research hold religious beliefs

I suggest you open your eyes and look around. Getting your perspective on religion from Slashdot is like asking the KKK for information on blacks.

Re:Luckily our government protects us from this

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't ask people who are firmly opposed to such research to help pay for it.

Why not? People who are firmly opposed to the war in Iraq have to pay for it. Do you think we have the luxury of only using our tax money for things we personally approve? There's quite a long list throughout history that shows that people are usually taxed to support things they may or may not support.

Stop Spreaing Misinformation!

[MarkPNeyer]

I'm sick of hearing that the US has a 'ban' on stem cell research. There is no ban! The bill signed into law placed a limit on funding of stem cell research. Scientists are perfectly free to pursue research all they want, so long as they pay for it with non governmental money. Stop claming that the goverment has made it illegal to engage in stem cell research. It's just not the case.

Re:Stop Spreaing Misinformation!

[be-fan]

While this is strictly true, it's also a bit misleading to those (most people) who don't understand how science works in the modern world.

Science has become an exceedingly expensive business. Effectively, scientists are *not* free to research whatever they want, because they are limited by funding. Most endeavors in science have become so expensive that there are only two types of entities that can fund them: governments, and large private corporations. The latter are far too risk-averse to actually do anything *big*, so its pretty much left up to governments. By cutting off government funding for a particular avenue of research, you have effectively dictated that scientists in your country are not to persue that research.

Now, that is perfectly within the rights of governments, to decide how their research money should be spent. But there is always the niggling question of "the rest of the world". If our government is unwilling to fund crucial research for certain moralistic reasons, other governments unfettered by such restrictions will do so, and will make advancements.

Americans in general seem rather oblivious to the very real "race" between nations that exists. The high standard of living in the United States is directly related to its position as an economic and military superpower. The military preeminance can exis only as long as the economic one does, for defense too has become an exceedingly expensive business. The ramifications of China or Europe making a crucial breakthrough in medicine due to stem cells would be enormous. As long as we were locked out of that technology, we would be beholden to them for any of the benefits that it would provide. The result would be billions of dollars leaving the United States for China or Europe, to purchase these services unavailable in the US. If the US bans such purchases, a black market will form, one that will be very expensive and time-consuming to combat. Either way, we risk our position as an economic superpower, and once we lose that position, we can say goodbye to the style of life to which we have become accustomed.

Re:traffic of organs

[ScentCone]

so what's the difference between getting some kid's organs and killing an embryo to harvest them?

Do you mean the organs of a child who has died in an accident? Nothing wrong there - you'd expect most parents to be proud that their kid's brief life might at least have continued to flourish in some indirect way.

Or do you mean, killing kids to get their organs? I'll be looking forward to your pointing that one out in the news when the time comes.

But killing an embryo? OK, so you've got a handful of cells dividing, at least for a little while, anyway, in a petri dish. No mom, no pregnancy, and no way they would ever amount to anything - let alone a person - without continual intervention from science, which is still beyond us anyway. So, that group of cells, completely unviable as they sit there, and without any means by which to be differentiated from a similarly complex group of paramecium (which is to say, there is no there there yet, no framework on which to hang the concept of person-hood - merely the eventual potential, which could also be said of the reproductive organs of a man and a women eyeing each other over a beer), what's wrong with using them to save lives? To shoot for getting the paralyzed to walk again? For that kid nearly does die in an accident to breath again off a respirator?

just to improve the quality of an old one - that possibly won't last much longer?

So, the son of a friend just had his spine severed in a road accident. He's done from the waist down, now. He's 22. Might as well write him off, huh? After all, he's so old, he's pretty much close to dead. Those dozen cells in the petri dish, though - set them next to his hospital bed, and they'll thrive! Why, they'll be a smiling, bubbly little baby in just a matter of months! No? No.

Whether you eat plants or meat or both, you kill billions of cells every day to improve the quality of your life. You eat them to survive, remember? There's as much of a human being in a dozen cells as there is in a stalk of asparagus. But if I could produce eggs (that would otherwise go to waste) that could be used to help restore my friend's son's mobility to him, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And, any dozen cells that divide along the way won't have it in them, under the circumstances (lacking, as they do, any sort of nervous system as a platform to have anything), to really weigh in on it. That's not an "all-new human life," it's a dozen cells. But a 22-year-old able to walk again: that would be an all-new human life. When we've made it that far, bio-tech-wise, and your child is lying there with a broken back, pretty much guaranteed never to have children as a result, would you begrudge her the same? Or, does God prefer a dozen unviable cells in a dish over paralyzed people or new mothers with degenerative neural diseases that will rob their children of a normal life? Getting that mom healthy is for her young children, though you're not set up to see that larger picture, it seems.

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:Soylent Green is people

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Before you can answer that question, you have to answer a few more basic questions.

First: At what point does a jumble of cells become life?

At this point, the defiinition in the U.S. legal system is at 27 weeks. When all the major organs have formed, and life and growth are possible outside the womb.

Second: Does stopping a potential life mean the same thing as killing?

You have to watch that one, because contreceptives are suddenly a no-no. As is taking a vow of celebacy.

Third: How is growing a cloned fetus of yourself any different than growing a culture of any other cells?

If there was an easy answer, we would have found it.

Re:traffic of organs

[Dirtside]

Or, does God prefer a dozen unviable cells in a dish over paralyzed people or new mothers with degenerative neural diseases that will rob their children of a normal life?

The best part is, the same people (namely, fundamentalist Christians) who claim that God is unknowable and all-powerful then go on to say that they know exactly which of these things God would prefer.

Here's a little lesson for you guys:

1. You claim God is all-powerful. Then he doesn't need your help, does he?

2. You claim God is unknowable. If you then claim that you know what God would want, or that something is God's will, you are a fucking moron.