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

If only...

[Spad]

If only they put this much time and effort into finding cures for human conditions instead of wasting it all on rodents. Bloody mice get all the breaks.

Re:If only...

[oudzeeman]

Interesting that she is allowed to keep a rodent pet when she works in a laboratory, even though the rodent originally came from the lab...I work at a genetics research laboratory, and I'm not allowed to keep mice, rats, guinepigs, or hampsters as a pet at home, or keep any animal as a pet that eats any of the forementioned rodents as its normal food (cats are okay, even though they might occasionally catch mice).

The fear is that someone could introduce a parasite, virus, or bacterial infection into one of the mouse colonies, which would be devistating to our research (http://www.jax.org/research/research_areas.html), and our mouse business (http://jaxmice.jax.org/index.html). I don't handle the lab mice, or even come in close proximity of the mice on a regular basis since I'm a software engineer and this restriction still applies to me.

Re:If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at a genetics research laboratory, and I'm not allowed to keep mice, rats, guinepigs, or hampsters as a pet at home

If the lab you work in is part of Jackson Labs, that's a reasonably paranoid restriction. If a university lab has an infection problem, they're often small enough to treat the issue medically. If not, they can buy a fresh population from, say, Jackson Labs. Jackson needs to have the equivalent of "five-nines" reliability in their animals, where a univeristy vivarium is usually happy with two or thee nines.

Re:If only...

[I Like Pudding]

If only they put this much time and effort into finding cures for human conditions instead of wasting it all on rodents.

Please. Broken spine? Cured! Mysterious foot pain? Cured! Crippling halitosis? Cured!

For those

[celardore]

For those rats who did not regain use of their limbs after the experiment, little miniature wheelchairs and sticks were provided.

Let's just tell the animal rights protestors that anyway.

Re:For those

[MancunianMaskMan]

I am a rat, you insensitive clod (or so my friends say anyway).

Oh wait... I haven't got any.

Re:For those

[Idarubicin]

Let's just tell the animal rights protestors that anyway.

Please don't tell the animal rights people anything. Please! Tell them that we're working with nuclear weapons or lasers or something.

One of my coworkers worked in a Drosophilia (fruit fly) lab as a summer student some number of years ago. One Monday morning, he came in to the lab to wryly smiling colleagues. Apparently, animal rights activists had broken in to the lab over the weekend, and set all of the fruit flies 'free'. Unfortunately, this particular lab was working with curly-wing and wingless mutants, so the freed flies took a few tottering steps, then fell out of their open tubes and collected on the floor.

Re:For those

[celardore]

I know, I know... Animal protesters are ridiculous. They were protesting outside my workplace a while back. Reason? We deliver stuff to a research centre. Could be pencils & pens, who knows - but the animal activists wanted us to put a stop to it! Needless to say, we got a court injunction against them.

My boss wouldn't let me throw eggs (from battery hens) at them. Spoilsport.

Re:For those

[SargeantLobes]

Unfortunately, this particular lab was working with curly-wing and wingless mutants, so the freed flies took a few tottering steps, then fell out of their open tubes and collected on the floor.

Lab animals being set free often end up like that. They've been in labs for their entire lifespan (which is required, because all the variables need to be known and controllable), and they don't know how to fend for them selves. All those mice being set free usually just curl up somewhere and die. They don't really know how to look for food (they just nibble everything), and they don't know to run from predators.

Animal rights activists don't usually know anything about animals/nature. Animal rights acivists got egg collecting (from a rare species of bird, that lays it's eggs in fields) banned here last year. What they didn't know was, that when the colletors collected the first batch (which usually freezes to death) they put a flag near the nests so the farmer wouldn't drive over it. So all those years it was the egg collecting sustaining their existance (farmers don't go around putting flags near nests just for the heck of it, they've go 'better' things to do.

Re:For those

[Zaatxe]

A few weeks ago I saw in a newspaper that a company in England was selling bottled water in which the bottles are made of a special kind of plastic, made with corn flour. The nice thing is that this plastic can vanish in 70-90 days when exposed to the elements. The funny note was that Greenpeace didn't approve this plastic, because "it could be made with transgenic corn". The question is, is there a way to please environmentalists and animal rights activists?

This is amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

We must immediately ensure that this life-changing new medical technology is placed under a raft of arbitrary and politically motivated legal restrictions.

We must do this as quickly as possible. For science!

Re:This is amazing

[MillionthMonkey]

Oh wait, the president only said that federal funding wouldn't be available, he didn't actually ban anything (except human cloning), now did he? In fact, there aren't really a 'raft of restrictions' at all, just a short list of stem cell lines for which federal funding is available, and not for any others.

Oh wait, you have no idea how science gets funded in this country, and are parroting a talking point that someone prepared for your consumption. Most scientific research depends on federal funding. The stem cell lines on the "short list" are useless because there are so few of them and they are now contaminated with the cells from other animals that are used to keep the stem cells alive. The Bush ban isn't a matter of the government paying for all your lab costs except for particular stem cell lines which get crossed off as a line item. If any lab in any scientific research organization touches a non-Bush-approved stem cell line, it "poisons" the entire organization "GPL-style" and all federal funding gets cut off for all research that the organization might be doing whether it is related to stem cells at all or not. That will effectively shut it down.

If this is the universal panacea that it's being touted to be, then there should be no difficulty finding state, local, or private funding sources. You just can't feed out of the FEDERAL money-trough on this one.

The voters of the state of California approved Prop 71 which set up a bond for a stem-cell research in the state as a result of the federal funding restriction. The state would be getting a new non-federal research facility that would not be tainted by a single dollar of federal funding for equipment or office supplies or anything. Unfortunately, construction on the facility has now been held up for years now because of lawsuits from litigious wingnuts.

John Hopkins == NIHM!!

[bloodredsun]

Life imitates Art yet again.

...literally...

[OscarBlock]

From the article ""They did something that people have been trying to do for at least 30 years and literally hit a brick wall until now," said Dr. Naomi Keitman..."

Is this why they developed an interest in repairing spinal cord injuries? I think we should be told...

Got ya

[overbaud]

"bridge a damaged spinal cord" so if anyone is thinking of sticking their head in a life sized rat trap... good news!

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

[bsartist]

But having some movement/sensation is good

I think you've underestimated the level of improvement. I saw a before/after video of this on last night's network news. Before the treatment, the rat's back half was totally paralyzed. After, it was completely mobile, although it did look like one leg was a little stiff. So we're not talking about just being able to wiggle a few toes here, we're talking about getting up and walking around, albeit with a bit of a limp.

A better link for that video would be appreciated, btw - the above requires IE and MS Media Player.

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.

Question

[Francisco_G]

Who paralyzes the rats in the first place? Do the scientists step on 'em?

Re:Question

[ceeam]

You say "back breaker" and I imagine 300 pounds wrestler doing piledrivers and shit on poor mice.... Ooh.. Nice.

rats or mice

[illtron]

So are they rats or mice? Headline says mice, summary says rats. They're not the same thing. Think before you write!

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

[ElleyKitten]

There's a lot of Christians who don't believe that embryos are people. You can't just look religious affiliation stats and say that all of these people believe this, because they don't.

Also, we're not talking late-term fetuses that look like babies. We're not talking about fetuses like the ones you see on ultrasounds. We're talking about microscopic eggs that have been fertilized for a few days. If they were in a woman, she wouldn't know. If they failed to implant or miscarried, she'd never notice. However, they're not in a woman. Most embryos for stem cell research come from fertility clinics, extras created for backup and then unneeded, so they will never go in a woman and grow into a baby. If they weren't donated to science, they'd be thrown away. I for one, would rather they be used to help people, or even animals, rather than be thrown away.

Re:This is what we're talking about

[azuravian]

I agree it does seem like a waste. My brother-in-law (moderate republican) and I (left of center Libertarian) had a debate about this recently, and he made one good argument. The concern (coming from those who would seek to make abortion illegal) is this: We use the stem cells that we already have due to abortions being legal. Then years from now if a bill is on the table to make it illegal, we have setup a roadblock against it. What??? Illegalize abortion and lose all those great stem cells that have been doing so much for us.

Personally, I have realized that abortion for the forseeable future will remain legal, so I agree with you. Let's use what we've got.

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.

Miracle

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. Jesus cured those rats, and He would have cured even more of them if those godless scientists hadn't been mucking about with evil stem cells...

soup of nerve-friendly chemicals

[losec]

thats what i'm going to call long island ice tea from now on.

Actually

[Shivetya]

getting the government out of the way has opened more doors.

many don't realize the numbers of restrictions and amounts of red tape that come with government funding. So while the motive for limiting federal participation in stem cells may be political/religous/etc in basis it does also follow the theme of letting private industry take the risks and reap the rewards.

making people well is big business but along with that comes great cost and time. Innovations come from those who are not bound by restrictions and having the government looking over one's shoulder.

look at it this way, with private entities doing the work, competeing with each other, we will may end up with different cures for the same problems allowing a broader range of people to benefit. we also have multiple avenues to not being impacted in the future by the government agencies as the work was performed in the free market.

Geeze

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I wish I could be a rat, they can cure paralysis, aids, being overweight, being underweight, many types of cancer, mood disorders, aggression, lots of diseases and I even think baldness.

Groups like Peta think that rats are abused in laboratories, but they don't realize how easy a life they have it. Scientists are curing all sorts of problems in rats, making it easier for rats to survive. Billions of dollars are spent every year to cure rat problems.

I just wish that scientists would start curing stuff in humans, it would be nice if one of these days they started applying these discoveries on humans and maybe helping the human race out. If they could just take some of those billions spent on rat research and put it towards humans, what a wonderful world it would be.

So, hurray, scientists cure something else in some lab rat! Let me know when they start working on humans.

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.

University of Louisville method

[jbeaupre]

I like this approach better: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20060308/NEWS01/60308003

I've met these folks. They are getting great results with procedure that is easy to duplicate AND the method uses the patient's own cells. Not only does that avoid the pesky ethics issues, there's no tissue rejection issues.

What we are talking about is Cells!

[Freedom451]

Not people.

The religious rightists are killing real people with this "moral code" that blocks desperately needed medical research for cures for terrible diseases. It is not a secular moral code of any sort, it is simply a purely religious belief that a soul is created in the human egg cell when a human sperm cell enters it.

These cells are created and expired all the time in fertility clinics, the religious rightists would prefer that these cells be thrown in the trash rather be used to help cure disease.

There is no basis for the rightists assignation of human being status to these cells other than their particular religious belief in the timing of soul creation. Restricting federal funding based on this religious belief is the establishment of religion, anyone who has sworn to uphold the US Constitution should be dismissed for enforcing this religious belief in the United States.

The "innocent people" in the moral equation are the ones with diseases who are being denied cures due to the beliefs of the religious fundamentalists.

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).