Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells Mend Spinal Injuries
Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "New research shows that rats that had their spinal columns severed were able to regain use of their hind legs through the use of stem cells from embryonic rats." From the Wired article: "Spinal cord injuries can be caused by accidents or infections and affect 250,000 people a year in the United States alone, costing $4 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders. Whittemore's team took specific cells from rat embryos called glial restricted precursor cells -- a kind of stem cell or master cell that gives rise to nerve cells."
You're not alone.
the current german government has forbidden stem cell research.
the funny thing here is that the conservative christian party wants to allow it
Every other week or so there is some big success story regarding the regrowth of neural tissue using spinal stem cells, but hardly a word about embryonic stem cells. I understand that there is a ban on using government funds to pursue embryonic stem cell research, however I would like to know whether such research is taking place anywhere. And if it is, why aren't the dramatic results we see with spinal stem cells also being trumpeted by embryonic stem cell researchers?
There are many people who could ultimately benefit from this research, and it certainly shows much promise. I know several people personally who could stand to regain some quality of life if doctors could regrow nerve tissues in humans.
Are spinal stem cells better than embryonic stem cells at growing this type of tissue, or is it simply a case of too little money going into embryonic stem cell research?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Ronnie were still alive, and say 30 years old so he could put George W. into a headlock until he submits and supports stem cell research. I'm republican, but bush's stance on this issues makes me fucking angry. Ignorant fuck. I think before someone can even be allowed to be against federal funding of stem cell research, they should have to care for someone with Alzheimer's for a week. As it stands I hope everyone who is against (even a little bit) stem cell research doesn't get Alzheimer's, but I hope every single person they care about does, and they have to watch the carnage.
It is great news as it also may have implications for the large number of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients.
As you may already know MS is a chronic automimmune disorder where your body attacks the protective sheath around nerve cells causing them to degrade slowly over time. It is not yet curable. This type of damage is smaller than if your spinal cord was ripped apart in an accident and thus it may be easier to repair.
If this therapy proves to be useful in MS it will help a large number of people and save billions for countries.
Standards Schmandards
"We want the paraplegic to walk again" to "we will kill humans to allow others to walk again"
I don't think this will always be the case. Maybe initially, because this field of study is relatively new. It might get to the point where we won't even need embryonic stem cells to do stuff like this.
However, the field needs to first be given the opportunity to get to that point. I hate to use such an obvious cliche, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs (no pun intended). I'm not 100% comfortable with the idea of preventing a life from being born, and I seriously doubt you'll find a great many who are, but eventually you have to ask yourself what's more important: life for the sake of living, or the quality of the life being lead?
To quote a famous Jaffa master:
"Life for the sake of life means nothing."
Why is this flamebait? As my foggy memory recalls it was due to the direct intervention of Bush that the stem cell research was banned in the USA. In some of the recent National Geographic issues the main topic was stem cell research.
According to them, there are 155 stem cell lines in the world atm, 78 out of them can have federal support in funds, and 22 out of them is usable for research AND can have federal support for them, thats mostly because most of the stem cell cultivations are just too old already and were created with old technology. In the UK for example researchers are experimenting with a new method to get rid of the current method of handling those stem cells. Currently it's very resource intensive and costy to maintain the existing lines, but since the law doesn't allow for new stem cells to be harvested and to get federal funds for them, it means they need to deal with the old ones.
A five day old impregnated zygote is smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence.
It has no unique features and there is not even a trace of nervous system. Clearly, people opposing stem cell research should first familiarize themselves first with the "baby" and "murder" they are talking about.
NG quotes some Marie Dooley, who offered her surplus embryos after artificial, in vitro, fertilisation to stem cell research. She said something like that "If they would have a heartbeat, the whole situation would be completely different, but those embryos are only groups of cells and they would have landed in the sewer if not offered for research." or something of that effect. the NG review is very long, it details the issue through 23 pages of informative description from all viewpoints. I'd recommend it for everyone.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
> Wonderful, said organism is frozen and 99% likely never to see
> any functional life.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of kids born every year from frozen embryos. You would shoot them in the head now because they 99% shouldn't live? No? Why would you kill them as embryos then? What gives you the right to decide that?
Answer that. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE.
How complicated is stem cell treatment?
Every time I read about it, I get the impression that the subjects are simply injected with stem cells and they magically get cured. Is it really that simple, or are there additional invonveniences, like unwanted tissue types, or surgery or drugs needed?
Well, let's see, there IS the question of when life begins. You can't have seen any discussion of embryonic stem cell research without encountered that aspect.
The Bush government is pro in-vitro fertilization, a practice which by design produces large amounts of unwanted embryos, blastocysts really, which are frozen down and eventually thrown away, since they can only survive for so long in a frozen state.
If your position is that human life begins at conception then I fail to understand how this practice is morally sound whilst abortion is not.
It's better to put these cells to good use methinks.
A witty
And we're going to use the frozen embryos that will never get a chance to be born to do this research on. These embryos are going to be thrown away, they will not be born. They are going in the trash, their owners no longer want them.
Do you want to adopt an embryo? Maybe you can get married and your wife can be a mother to as many embryos as she possibly can. If you aren't saving and adopting these embryos, YOU, are killing them. You could save those potential children, if only you would adopt them all and save the lives.
Of course we only have a few dozen embryos at least for every in-vitro fertilization procedure, so if you and your cohorts get started now on turning your wives into baby farms I think we can save those potential lives from the horror of not-living.
From what I've seen stem cells are amazing, and could probably heal discs too. /any/ kind of damage and they just do their thing.
Basically all you do is culture some stem cells and crudely put them around
I think the problem with back injuries is that most surgeons want to put steel pins and other contraptions in you and you delay the procedure for as long as possible ebcause of potential injury to the spinal cord, however, with stem cells you don't have to cut somebody that much to introduce them. You would still have to be in bed for a week or so.
I mean, what about the guy that had a new jaw grown in his back:
"
A German who had his lower jaw cut out because of cancer has enjoyed his first meal in nine years -- a bratwurst sandwich -- after surgeons grew a new jaw bone in his back muscle and transplanted it to his mouth in what experts call an "ambitious" experiment.
According to this week's issue of The Lancet medical journal, the German doctors used a mesh cage, a growth chemical and the patient's own bone marrow, containing stem cells, to create a new jaw bone that fit exactly into the gap left by the cancer surgery.
"
Snippings from this article:
... The announcement by Frist, a transplant surgeon who is considered a likely contender for president in 2008, contradicted recent signals that he would oppose the legislation, and word of his decision Thursday night caught his Senate colleagues and the White House by surprise. It also was an unambiguous sign that politics had tilted in favor of research advocates and against Bush and the social conservatives who are the core of his political base.
... Catholic League President William Donahue called Frist "a hypocrite." In a written statement, Donahue said: "His change of heart has nothing to do with any scientific breakthrough.... What's changed is that Dr. Duplicity wants to be president."
... One Republican ally of both Frist and the White House said Friday that Bush's position had proved impossible to sustain. The ally, who requested anonymity because of increasingly "raw" feelings in the party, said the president's position was not held by rank-and-file Republican voters. ... In Congress, Republican supporters of stem cell research said they were optimistic that Frist's support would persuade other Republicans to switch their position.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) announced that he would support legislation allowing the federal government to finance research using a broader range of embryonic stem cells. His decision substantially raised the odds that the bill would win approval in Congress and face a presidential veto, which White House strategists had hoped to avoid.
Frist said he would back legislation allowing the government to fund research using embryonic stem cells no matter when they were created.
Frist's stance appeared to put him closer to the mainstream of public opinion. In a May survey for CBS News, 58% of respondents said they favored embryonic stem cell research; 31% said they opposed it.
Commentary
I can't help but what what the political and scientific ramifications of Frist's recent actions. I wonder if Frist is really being confrontational with the White House and GOP, or could this be part of a plan to broaden Republican appeal...
Personally, I suspect the latter. The embryonic stem cell stance is one of the most-often criticized things used to criticize Republicans in general, and this could be a way of putting a damper on that criticism.
I think this will hurt Frist's chance of getting the GOP nomination, but if he gets that, it'll increase his chances for the actual 2008 election, assuming he can get people to forget about his silly remarks during the Schiavo case. I still doubt I'd vote for him myself, but I know many people would.
Now, of course, if you really want to get into a sticky situation, imagine if some well intentioned doctors developed a technique for reembedding miscarriages. I'm sure it would be considered a modern miracle for women who are having trouble getting pregnant. If this technique became well known and successful I'm sure we'd see some people claiming that women who fail to get the procedure are negligent. Now not only would some states being telling women they can't abort a pregnancy willingly, they'd also be saying that they can't abort a pregnancy naturally. Knowing this is likely, is it ethical for a researcher who develops a technique for reembedding miscarriages to suppress that research?
Scary stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There are two types of stem cell research currently being conducted. Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. The only most people hear about is embryonic, which, as I'm sure most of you know, kills the embryo. This type of stem cell research seems to just now be taking off.....in rats, not real people. HOWEVER, adult stem cell research has had quite a bit of success over the past few years. Real human people have benefitted from this research. Stem cells are taken out of the adult who has an injury (for example from the spinal cord) and are reinjected into the host and, many times, regain the ability of whatever it was that was lost. Embryonic stem cells are usually rejected by the recipient due to different types of whatever, I don't know exactly, I'm not a scientist. Adult stem cells are never rejected because they come from the person. Adult stem cell research does NOT kill anyone or anything. If only the government would support adult stem cell research and not embryonic I believe we would have seen many more advances in this area.
There is a product called Ambertose that has helped me greatly. I had a ruptured disk in my neck that damaged the nerve root controlling muscle on the top and back of the right shoulder and the bicep. It took 6 months to be able to raise my hand over my head. Since taking this product I have reained about 70% use of my shoulder.
This product seems to stimulate stem cell production in adults. Go to mannatech.com and check out the reasearch. It works for me and might help you, I'm not trying to sell anything.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I've got advanced multiple sclerosis, and the ONLY hope I have for sutvival, let alone being able to walk again, lies with stem cells (plus some way to remove the scars already on my nercous system). Most people assume this means embrionic cells, but there are other ways. For example,in nasal cavity tissue, there are stem cells that can, and do, differentiate into neurons. This would help not only myself, but many others, with MS, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, ALS, and possibly even Alzheimer's and BSE.
I realize that these won't cure verything, but why is this research being ignored in favor of embrionic stem cells? There are no moral issues here, no politically-demanded guidelines to be followed, only a chance to help lots of people before they wither away and die. Yet, from what I've been able to see, this avenue is being soundly ignored by researchers.
'I am truly baffled.
Lemon curry?