Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells to Treat Brain Injury in Children
BigDukeSix writes "The first stem cell trial with widespread public health implications is set to begin in Houston. From the article: "Trauma is far and away the main cause of death and disability among children, and the main reason children die from trauma is brain injury...The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.""
Man shouldn't have that power!
So... should we Ban All Doctors?
Bring it on and let Darwinism Rule.
A couple of days ago people were freaking because experimental drugs were being used on India's poor. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/1 9/1838223&tid=191&tid=219
So how come nobody's up in arms about this experimental procedure being used on children in Texas? Presumably the Indian subjects were in need of treatment too.
One of the advantages children have may also be the weakness in this study is that they show extreme plasticity. That is, their neurons are already growing and filling in gaps. Cases such as the "Boy with half a brain" demonstrate such extreme plasticity.
So, I'm somewhat hesitant that this procedure may be of great value to the population they picked. Instead, it may be issues like scarring that cause the most problems. Perhaps doing things like adding nerve growth factor (NGF), reducing inflammation, and keeping trauma victims cold would help more.
is cancerous growth of stem cells. Granted, these are not embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but this being the first human trial for somatic stem cells (SSCs) I hope nothing goes wrong. We really don't know every single signal pathway affecting stem cell differentiation, this kind of treatment is really simple, but blind. For example, what will the effect of all those extraction, culturing and IV injection procuders will be on the human SSCs? Some can argue that the current situation of stem cell field is premature for this kind of experiment.
Stem cells might be a neat buzzword to get funding, but as a parent of a child with serious brain damage, I can tell you that this is more likely a politically motivated stunt to grease the slippery slope of stem cell research, than something that will generate measurable results. After all, nobody wants to hurt brain damaged children.
The reason I'm so cynical is that babies are very resilient, and for the most part they are like stem cell factories on their own. As they grow, they produce new brain and nerve material, which adults cannot do. It is adult disease and injury (and greed) that fuels the stem cell craze, since our adult bodies cannot heal like young children can.
My daughter had a stroke two months before she was born. This stroke wiped out 85% of the left hemisphere of her brain, replacing it with a fluid filled cyst. When she was three months old, she had an operation to add a drainage passage to this cyst, as it was filling with cerebral spinal fluid and had expanded to fill the entire left half of her cranium cavity. This operation cut through parts of her brain, leaving her completely blind.
At nine months of age, the drainage passage had collapsed, and the cyst had enlarged to block all drainage of cerebral spinal fluid from her brain. Her head swelled with a condition know as hydrocephalus, and she almost died. That night, the CAT scans showed that 75% of the volume that should have been occupied by her brain was filled with fluid. She had an emergency operation to install an artificial drainage valve (a shunt). This event was catastrophic, and was like having her "reset" switch activated, she had to re-learn everything.
Now, the good news. She is eighteen months old now, and has recovered remarkably. Her last CAT scan showed that the original cyst had been reduced to only 25% of the left half of her brain, and the right half is completely restored. The original passage that was cut, that caused her blindness, has healed shut. Her vision is steadily improving and she shows signs that she may be functional without the use of a cane someday. Sure, she's a little behind developmentally, but she is showing lots of promise. All of her healing was without the use of any stem cell treatment, because babies are stem cell factories. Her same injuries would have killed an adult, several times over.
-- Len
Hate to argue against Segan, but those "wasteful wars" are part of what got us to where we are today. Without the V2 would we have space exploration? Without the typhus and cholera of world war I would there have been as much pressure for antibiotics and insecticides? Without constant warfare would we have had any reason to move from copper to bronze to iron to steel? Without britain stripping her forests for the navy would she have needed to move to coal power? Ok, so wars destroy, and for that I condemn them, but you can't say "if we held hands and sang ku-bah-yah for 20 centuries we would have flying cars now". War is part of the history which brought us here, and part of what drove our progress.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Well there are a couple of rabbit trails I could go down with this one.
To my understanding, embryonic stems cells come from leftover fertilized eggs from invitro etc not from aborted pregnancies but it could include both, I am not sure. One of the future treatments, for curing nongenetic problems(ie spinal cord, organ damage) is to create and an embyro(then stem cells) with your own DNA(clone). I don't think that would work with probems such as alzheimer's unless the embyro's DNA is changed to remove that problem. I think that is going to be an even bigger argument than the current one, but is technically no different that the current one.
To make a statement about the flushing of embryos down the drain. Most leftover embryos are kept in cryo for future pregnancies but I am not sure how long. My mom is the state director of an adoption agency(make of that what you want). She said that they have started to do embryo adoptions for couples who can't get pregnant because of fertility, not incubation problems. So know that some embryos are not getting flush down the drain and to ME that is a good thing.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
[...]If you were the parent of a child who could only be saved by the use of embryonic stem cells, I suspect your outlook might be quite a bit different.
I AM a parent, and I am OPPOSED to embryonic stem cell (ab)use. This hits close to home for me-- I have a son with a malignant brain tumor. Treatment effects (if survived), can cause serious neurological issues. Some advocate the use of embyonic stem cells to "cure" such diseases and sequelae... I WILL NOT advocate sacrificing another innocent child for my own.
HOWEVER, I am a BIG supporter of other types of stem cells that do not have the nasty effect of killing the donor. For example, we saved the cord blood at the birth of our youngest child in the hopes it may help save our old child's life if the cancer recurs. We have acquaintences who have used stem cell rescues during treatment-- those stem cells are autologous (again not killing the donor).