Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the hooked-on-a-feeling dept.

Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"

11 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. Benefit of the doubt by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, given this potential, I am surprised this work was not published in one of the bigger journals like Science or Nature? Perhaps it was submitted? I cannot get this particular journal with our institutional subscription, so I cannot examine the article first hand.

    However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place. A good number of scientific teams formerly here in the US have had to leave the country to continue their work and others are having to modify their protocols to use one of the "acceptable" lines of stem cells the Bush administration in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to approve for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work.

    It should be noted that it is not just patients who have been paralyzed that can potentially benefit from this work. Other potential therapies to come out of stem cell work include treatments for heart disease, retinal vision loss disorders, Parkinson's disease, Cystic Fibrosis and many others.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Benefit of the doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If she gets up and walks, I don't think you need a peer reviewed journal to prove that the therapy works!

    2. Re:Benefit of the doubt by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the one millionth time. The Bush Administration is just being strict on federal funding for embryonic stem cells researcg.

      Erm, this is a perfect example of why it is people like you that keep us from moving ahead. You had a knee jerk reaction and did not actually read what I wrote. Specifically, I wrote "for scientists that want to continue to receive federal funding for their work. So, what you fail to understand is how much research is funded by the federal government. If you are unable to acquire NIH funding, that severely limits the type and extent of research that can be accomplished given the current academic infrastructure.

      Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.

      True, but those funds are very very small compared to the types of funding that the federal government delivers. Also, Universities prefer to receive federal funding because of the indirect costs. In fact, in some situations, it is difficult to maintain a position at a University in biomedical research without federal funding.

      If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?

      I love this country and I have a passion for science. What I want is for us to continue to succeed instead of being hamstrung by political agendas.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  2. Well... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is too bad the field of stem cell research in the US has been badly damaged by policies the current Whitehouse administration have put into place.

    It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.

    (BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Well... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful
      (BTW, there are ethics involved in research of all kinds, in engineering, in law, in business, etc. You simply do not agree with the idea that ethics should be a part of stem cell research.)

      I hope you don't get modded down here, because it's a good point. I might respect the position of someone who, after much deliberation, believes that embryonic stem cells should be used. However, anyone who thinks that using embryonic stem cells is a no-brainer either doesn't understand the ethical considerations at stake, or simply doesn't believe in ethical considerations at all. Ethics is tricky business, and neither "the ends justify the means" nor "all's well that ends well" are sufficient ethical justifications.

      And yes, also the research here was done with umbilical cells, and the US government has absolutely no problem funding research using umbilical cells. The federal government simply put restrictions on the funding of gathering fetal cells, which is a long way from outlawing stem-cell research.

    2. Re:Well... by Hentai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you familiar with the concept of "out of sight, out of mind"? Basically, fertility clinics are good because they let barren women conceive (insert happy face and thumbs up). They also require that SEVERAL embryos be created, many of which are destroyed (insert frowny face and shaking finger). This is bad, but in order to acknowledge that it is bad, we'd have to stop letting rich white women have the precious little babies they so desperately want (back to happy face and thumbs up). Therefore, we simply choose to pretend that the frowny-face thing we regrettably mentioned earlier isn't actually happening. Unfortunately, if we start actually deriving uses from said frowny-face, we have to actually own up to the reality of its occurance - which noone wants to do. So we avoid doing a good thing because to do so would involve acknowledging that another good thing we're already doing has a side-effect that many people would call bad.

      It's called "doublethink".

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    3. Re:Well... by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs. At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?

      THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.

      That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins. By definition, the choice to end a human life, especially one which has viable potential, is...shall we say...controversial.

      Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother. That's an over-simplification, true.

      Rhetorical point: When does a baby truly become a person? When does a minor truly become an adult?

      Can you see it from the perspective I just described?

      --

      On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.

      "No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people.

      I've not been there myself and really don't know what would be involved. This is just an idea that came to me after watching friends struggle to have children.

      --

      Watch, 5 will get you 10 the bulk of replies to this will be flamefests.

    4. Re:Well... by pnuema · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

      Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted. You can't reverse an execution.

      What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.

      Amendment VIII

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      Next question?

    5. Re:Well... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What is the ethical problem with executing all the people in jail for life terms? They are otherwise going to die in jail anyways.

      Non sequitor. The zygote or morula is going to be destroyed at time T, whether the method of destruction is research or the incinerator, whereas you are considering killing now a person who would not otherwise die until some unknown time in the future.

      A closer example would be, what is the ethical problem with using the bodies of condemned criminals for research after they are dead? (Punting the ethical issues surrounding state homicide for the moment.) Provided that the victim of execution agrees (since we generally recognize an ethical right of people to have their corpse disposed of in a matter that they approve of), I don't think there are any, and thanks to one such person we have the Visible Man project.

      We might consider that the parents have a proprietary interest in the cells in question, and that disposal should be according to their wishes; but assuming that is addressed, if the cells are about to be destroyed anyway, research seems ethically superior to the trash can.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  3. Re:Extremely sceptical by jupiter909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm confused. You say nerver cells grow at 1mm per year. What about when a kid grows up but a few inches in that year. How does that work then, magic?

  4. Re:Here come the Stem Cell tirades by beforewisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.
    I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to kill people in Iraq. I personally don't care for a war of convenience for the idea of distracting the public from a bad economy or to gain oil resources, simply for the gain of others. ( no offense, I am not saying that you think either way, I am just trying to make an off topic point )