Stem Cells Cure Paralyzed Rats

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article on Forbes as well as other sources, 'Scientists have used [embryonic] stem cells and a soup of nerve-friendly chemicals to not just bridge a damaged spinal cord but actually regrow the circuitry needed to move a muscle, helping partially paralyzed rats walk.'"

Comments

Reconnecting Nerves is like hand soldering

[LiquidCoooled]

a Surface mount chip.
Its always going to be messy and you will likely fuse the wrong things together.
But having some movement/sensation is good so Thumbs (and index finger) up to this research.

Re:Reconnecting Nerves is like hand soldering

[alohatiger]

I think remapping is more appropriate. It's like the experiment where you put on prism glasses that invert what you see. Initially everything is upside down. After a while you don't notice. At the end of the day when you take the glasses off, everything looks upside down for a while.

This is what we're talking about

[Cleon]

Really, this exemplifies the sort of research we've been talking about when it comes to stem cells. Unfortunately, the actual scientific possibilities were overshadowed by a bunch of political bullshit.

Stem cells, biology (evolution!), global warming...The subjection of science to political considerations has to stop.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[richpoore]

Did the article say if it was adult stemm cells or embryonic stem cells were used. It seems to me it doesn't need to be a political issue. Use adult stem cells. They've shown much promise in humans.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[CRCulver]

Unfortunately, the actual scientific possibilities were overshadowed by a bunch of political bullshit.

One could just as easily say "Ach, mein Fuerher, too bad the actual scientific possibilities of eugenics were overshadowed by a bunch of moral concerns." Part of subscribing to a moral code is realizing that its requirements are overriding. If embryos are considered human beings, which at least according to statistics of religious affiliation (add up the number of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and non-mainline Protestants) is a belief held by the vast majority of the Western world, then one simply cannot experiment on embryos no matter how much one desires to see the results.

It seems like a lot of Slashdot posters think that the best thing human beings could do is just junk whatever moral notions they have about the dignity of the human person, and just do a lot of crazy whizbang scientific experiments just because they are there.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[Alinabi]

Part of subscribing to a moral code is realizing that its requirements are overriding.

Here is the thing about moral codes: individuals subscribe to them according to their own beliefs. The government has no business legislating them. If christians of various flavors have a problem with stem cell research, they are free to refuse treatments based on it.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[CRCulver]

Here is the thing about moral codes: individuals subscribe to them according to their own beliefs. The government has no business legislating them. If christians of various flavors have a problem with stem cell research, they are free to refuse treatments based on it.

Many moral codes require that one do one's utmost to save innocent human life. One is not permitted to simply look over the taking of human life, as you suggest when you say that "they can just refuse treatment". Now, legislative power is a means to protect life in this case, therefore it is entirely sensible that it be used for such a purpose.

You obviously disagree with the viewpoint against the use of embryonic stem cells. Fine. But don't try to pretend that that viewpoint simply doesn't exist. It does exist, and those who hold it have certain responsibilities toward it. Surely in order to obtain a university degree you did the obligatory Ethics course.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[hasbeard]

Here is the thing about moral codes: individuals subscribe to them according to their own beliefs. The government has no business legislating them. If christians of various flavors have a problem with stem cell research, they are free to refuse treatments based on it.

Do you really believe "The government has no business legislating [moral codes]"? Does that mean that you won't care if someone kidnaps your children, hacks into your back accounts and empties them out, steals your car, and backs a moving van up to your home and empties it? Some people believe that the government's job is to help protect its people--all its people, including the unborn. Abortion and creating embryos (human lives) for the purpose of using their parts are morally wrong and the government would be remiss in not prohibiting them.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[MonsoonDawn]

Oh bullshit. Governments are made of people. All governments act according to a moral code. The best governments act according to a code dictated by the citizens. Bad governments operate on a code dictated by very few powerful people or in the worst cases one person.

This could be crucial to the stem cell debate

[99luftballon]

If they can get a similar process in place for humans it'll cut the legs out from under the luddites opposing stem cell research (no pun intended). It's amazing how many people will decide the ethics of stem cell research aren't that much of a problem when they have the chance to see loved ones walk again, or recover from illnesses like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

It is not a "judgement call"

[Freedom451]

to say a mass of undifferentiated cells are not a human being. It is a clear scientific demarcation. A bit of cells from my arm are not a human being, a cancer cell (which has unique DNA) is not a human being. Fertilized eggs have no potential unless implanted into a mother's womb.

They are routinely discarded by fertility clinics, this is an established practice with established laws surronding it.

Various things are opposed by all sorts of fringe groups. The only group of anti-stem cell research advocates that has any large membership and ability buy votes are the ones who believe the fertilized egg has a soul. If not for this group, the research would proceed apace.

The only real opposition is religious, not scientific. Medical scientists are the ones best positioned to judge whether research has medical potential, not religious groups. The NIH assembles teams of expert researchers to judege whether a proposed avenue of research is worth spending money on, only with stem cells this process is poluted with arbitrary limits, which are based on purely religious beliefs.

At least be honest about your motivations: you want to impose your beliefs on the time of soul creation on eveyone else, and you don't care a bit if valuable research is blocked due to your imposition, and people die or lead needlessly limited lives because of it (which Christian Fundamentalists* rationalize by believing that a short life of pain is followed by eternity of pleasure in paradies--for those who prove themselves worthy by imposing their beliefs on anyone they can't convert).