Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bone Marrow Cells Repair Heart

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the heavy-hearted dept.

Science Daily is reporting that Toronto researchers have discovered a method to utilize bone marrow cells in the repair of a damaged heart after a heart attack. From the article: "While it has long been known that bone marrow cells have the ability to clear the dead tissue after a heart attack, what has not been known until now is the critically important role of bone marrow adult stem cells in repairing a damaged heart, restoring its function and enhancing the growth of new blood vessels."

116 comments

  1. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brazilians have been doing this centuries ago

    1. Re:Cool by chunky+shit+salsa · · Score: 0

      They weren't as much doing his mom, as having her new york-style taco. With some spicy salsa. AND ALL THE FIXINS.

  2. It can fix a damaged heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But can it fix a broken one? CAN IT, TACO!

    Until then, you're not off the hook!

    1. Re:It can fix a damaged heart by mammmon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the lesson is that a good bone can fix a broken heart.... Heyo! I am here all week, tip your wait staff!

  3. Way to go Canada by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    3 cheers for Canada, but this is only research involving mice. Let's see how it works for humans before our hopes get to far up.

    And not to start a religious flame war, I noticed that despite their research revolving exclusively around adult (stem) cells, they mention "One treatment resulting from this discovery was to inject cells genetically modified to release large amounts of stem cell factor into the region of the heart injured by the heart attack."

    Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Way to go Canada by Trigun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

      Only until their own mortality comes into question. At least, for most of them.

    2. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

      Every medical advance is a problem for the religious types who fret over it. The next generation will adapt their religion to accomodate practicality and then they can enjoy the benefits along with the rest of us. No harm done. It worked for transplants.

    3. Re:Way to go Canada by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      research revolving exclusively around adult (stem) cells

            I had the opportunity to sit into a session of the cardiology department at a large hospital here in Costa Rica, where the attendings were planning to do this kind of research in humans. Since I was only rotating through for a month as an intern, I never found out if they actually got the project started or not. Probably not. This was about 2 years ago and I haven't seen anything published.

            Still it was interesting stuff, the haematologist who was visiting us went into a lot of detail. One of the problems they've had with the mice, apparently, is that these stem cells regenerate TOO MUCH myocardium (heart muscle). Apparently there were instances where heart muscle would colonize the injection sites and start growing outside the heart, in the thoracic cavity - tumour style.

            One thing I will remember forever from this meeting was the department head, when she expressed surprise at the fact that yes, the patients DO have to be told what we're trying to do to them and yes, they DO have to give permission FIRST.

            Anyway this research is promising but it's a long way from being used in humans routinely, so it's still a good idea to quit smoking...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Way to go Canada by barzok · · Score: 3, Informative
      Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

      Only until their own mortality comes into question. At least, for most of them.
      Then they aren't terribly serious about their religion in the first place.

      My wife worked in a hospital (children's ICU to be specific) for about 18 months and routinely had cases where she had to tell the parents "if you refuse blood products for your child, his/her chances for survival are less than half what they are if you accept them." And many, many times, the parents still refused for religious reasons.

      These are the people who will still say "no" even when it's their own mortality in question.
    5. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

      Will it be a problem for the environmentalists who want to ban GMOs?

    6. Re:Way to go Canada by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      "if you refuse blood products for your child, his/her chances for survival are less than half what they are if you accept them." And many, many times, the parents still refused for religious reasons.

      I ALWAYS say that!

      ** I'm not actually religious, but it serves the noisy little bastard right.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      These are the people who will still say "no" even when it's their own mortality in question.

      Personally I find this strange too, but on the other hand.

      If you have to make a choice between:

      (a) possibly leaving this world sooner or (b) eternal damnation

      and one does take ones religious reasons serious enough... I can actually imagine people preferring the second option.

      My opinion is simply: 'if you do not hurt or risk the lives of other people you can choose whatever you want'... but when children enter the situation, this can become a very complicated issue.

    8. Re:Way to go Canada by morcego · · Score: 1

      First, I'm not questioning how much they love their children.
      But it is still not their own lives.
      Do you have numbers on how many refuse it for themselves, and not their children ?
      I'm pretty sure the numbers will be much more different.

      --
      morcego
    9. Re:Way to go Canada by grub · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      And many, many times, the parents still refused for religious reasons.

      If the kids died (many probably did) then the parents should be charged with willful negligence causing death. Damn I wish I was a judge sometimes, I've have jails full of superstitious idiots where they can't reproduce more kids into their cults of fear.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    10. Re:Way to go Canada by ehrichweiss · · Score: 4, Informative
      Dunno where you live but here(I'm in KY), the moment you say you refuse to allow treatment for the child in a life threatening situation, for whatever reason, the child becomes a ward of the state and all of your parental rights are suspended. They simply file claiming child abuse and then go about their own way regardless of your religious affiliation. Refusal to comply beyond that jeopardizes custody of any other children you might have. I've seen this in action at least 4 times in the past 10 years and my friend in social services says it's entirely legitimate.

      You can refuse immunization, etc. but if it's a life threatening situation the game changes entirely. Many states have this, AFAIK.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    11. Re:Way to go Canada by mfaras · · Score: 2, Insightful
      3 cheers for Canada
      This scientists, as do all, are elaborating over previous research, I think there's no place for nationalism in science (or in any other area, but especially in science, where knowledege should be public property. I mean, that's the spirit of the Open Source movement, and we don't think of open source production as a nation-related issue.
      To back my words there is another report form 2003 published in slashdot a couple of months ago: Stem Cells in the Heart?
      It says
      in 2003, researchers at Piero Anversa's laboratory at New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York, US, discovered stem cells in the hearts of mice, and subsequently humans. However, they still did not know whether these stem cells actually resided in the heart or had merely migrated there from another tissue, such as bone marrow."
    12. Re:Way to go Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      "Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?"

      Won't it just depend on the ratio of their religiosity to closeness to death?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Way to go Canada by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect that some of those parents refused transfusions because they believed what the Bible said (in their eyes) was more likely to be right than the doctor. Not right morally but scientifically: The AIDS cases caused by transfusions were a powerful reinforcement of biblical infallibility in medical matters for those who already believed transfusions were prohibited. The fact that the number of these transmissions was statistically small at the time (except for hemophiliacs) and now almost zero does not matter; they think the risk of that and other similar unknown dangers are too high to risk.

      It's not hard to find examples where doctors have been wrong about the safety of treatments in the past, so we know they are not infallible. The Bible on the other hand...

      Silly as it seems, I have known people who held these views and tried to convince me of them. When you realize that many of the same people believe the Earth is under 10,000 years old and that there is no such thing as "macro evolution", you can understand how hopeless it can be to try to convince them their medical ideas are wrong.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    14. Re:Way to go Canada by Carthag · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that, it makes me happy. I remember watching this godawful made for tv movie about a rowdy bunch of christian scientists who let their son die because prayers work better than medicine. I'm glad it doesn't really take place that way.

    15. Re:Way to go Canada by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should be a very simple issue.

      If the child can't make his own decision, you tell the parents "tough shit" and you proceed with treatment.

      Religion != good enough reason to injure someone else.

    16. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any religious concerns about it, but releasing large amounts of any growth factor can possibly lead to a very serious side effect: cancer. In fact, there's more and more evidence that seems to show that many malignancies are caused not by abornormal somatic cells, but by their creators, the stem and progenitor cells. If these babies have their cellular machinery ruined, the negative impact will be far greater than mutating some cell that was going to die in a few days anyway.

    17. Re:Way to go Canada by xnixman · · Score: 1

      It's not fundementalists that have a problem with genetically modified stuff, it's Europeans. :-)

    18. Re:Way to go Canada by wathiant · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you choose not to accept treatment (for whatever reasons) and die of the illness, you have made the population smarter and stronger by removing your defective genes from the gene-pool. Darwin had something to say about this, but religious fanatics (which includes the American government) don't like this and either ignore or try to ban this line of thinking. Fortunately, as the fanatics slowly die because of their ignorance, the theory of evolution will eventually prove itself true even to these people.

    19. Re:Way to go Canada by bky1701 · · Score: 1
      but when children enter the situation, this can become a very complicated issue.
      Why? It's not complicated at all; if the parent doesn't like it, too bad. Not allowing it is nothing short of murder on religious grounds. Too many people die because of zealots every day.
      --
      Great Intellect...
    20. Re:Way to go Canada by bky1701 · · Score: 1
      they think the risk of that and other similar unknown dangers are too high to risk.
      Fearing the unknown without rhyme or reason... yeah, sounds like religion to me.
      When you realize that many of the same people believe the Earth is under 10,000 years old and that there is no such thing as "macro evolution", you can understand how hopeless it can be to try to convince them their medical ideas are wrong.
      Exactly. And these people shouldn't have children to start with, let alone allow them to make life and death decisions about them.
      --
      Great Intellect...
    21. Re:Way to go Canada by frickendevil · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to find examples where doctors have been wrong about the safety of treatments in the past, so we know they are not infallible. The Bible on the other hand...
      Back in my day blood letting used to be the real cure all. Migrain, no worries, let some blood flow out, Chicken pox, flush it out of the system with a bit of blood letting.

      It worked....sometimes, but AT THE TIME that was the best thing to do. How i see it is that if you want to follow the bible, then you are taking a step 2000 years back. The medicine we know is here and now, or current enough to still be the best thing to do.

    22. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not giving medical treatment is not murder unless you are directly resposible for causing the injury/illness which requires the treatment.

      I am of the opinion that there is far too much medical intevention going on already from the perspective of what is best for the human race, by allowing people who would not otherwise be fit enough to carry on living you are increasing the chance that they will be passing on defective genetic material. Of course this may only be an issue until we are capable enough at genetic engineering to routinely fix these problems ourselves.

      Personally though, I wouldn't refuse treatment unless I wouldn't have a good quality of life after it.

    23. Re:Way to go Canada by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      Exactly. From their point of view, refusing medical treatment is a rational choice.

      The question is whether people should be given the choice. If the doctors are actually sure the children's chances of survival drop considerably, I'd permit them (by law) to disregard whatever the parents say. I do wonder why they don't do that already.

    24. Re:Way to go Canada by radtea · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to find examples where doctors have been wrong about the safety of treatments in the past, so we know they are not infallible. The Bible on the other hand... ...is known to be false in almost every particular. I'm sure a few folks will jump in with minor claims from the Bible that are demonstrably true, although none comes to mind offhand. The lilies of the field do indeed toil, for example--they are working as hard to maintain their lives as any organism, respiring and fighting off disease and reproducing.

      The psychology of faith is fascinating--humans who are infected by it will defend to the death (often someone else's death) propositions that are known to be false in the ordinary sense of the word. It is something that we all do to some extent, and the difference between good people and evil people is that good people struggle against this universal tendency toward faith and evil people embrace it.

      One could almost say that faith is the secular humanist's equivalent of orginal sin: something that we have been bequeathed by our (evolutionary) forebearers that we have to struggle to overcome imperfectly every day of our lives.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    25. Re:Way to go Canada by iNezy13 · · Score: 1

      Canada's finally getting in the big time scientific loop, eh?!?
      I say, more power to 'em. They're not involved in any wars or anything like we (in the US) are which is smart, because we spend trillions of dollars on equipment and recruiting and engineering and still we can't do much for Iraq except blow it up. What did that acomplish? Oil anyone?
      Viva la Canada!

      --

      "C'est la vie. Get your own."
    26. Re:Way to go Canada by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Is the [stem-cell issue] going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

      Only until their own mortality comes into question.


      There was a widely-copied Dooonesbury strip on this topic a while back.

      This has always seemed like a good idea to me. Similarly the suggestion that people with racist ideologies should be denied the medical results of research done by members of the groups that they don't like. It could be a bit difficult to actually implement these in any formal manner, though. How do you get people to talk honestly about their moral/social ideas when they know that their medical treatment may depend on their answers?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    27. Re:Way to go Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. From their point of view, refusing medical treatment is a rational choice.

      They're also mentally ill, just not certifyable. They hold blind faith in self-contradictory things to begin with; and logically, literally *anything* follows from a contradiction. Literally, *any* point of view can be declared "rational" on religious grounds, so once you decide believe in the Green Faeries That Control All Things, what you believe is "rational" no longer matters much, except to other loonies who believe in the Green Faeries, too. If the Green Faeries say it is better to let your child die rather than be exposed to the Evil Colour Red during a blood transfusion, well, you can claim the belief is "rational" on the basis of "faith", but I'll just call you stark raving nuts.

      The question is whether people should be given the choice.
      No. Not when it kills a child. Murder, by faith or by deed, is still wrong, and they still have a duty of care to the child.

      If the doctors are actually sure the children's chances of survival drop considerably, I'd permit them (by law) to disregard whatever the parents say. I do wonder why they don't do that already.

      Doctors can help more people outside of jail than inside, so they don't want to risk being in jail for breaking an unjust law, unless they have no other option. It's the principle of triage: doctors themselves are a rare resource, and have to be rationed in a way that does the most good for the greatest number. We voters need to fix this one ourselves.

    28. Re:Way to go Canada by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

      I have little doubt that what you say is true; but if so, why bother asking for consent in the first place? To see who will fall for it? I wonder if parental rights can be restored with a legal challenge?

      --
      More music, fewer hits
    29. Re:Way to go Canada by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      If I understand it correctly, the doctors make a recommendation that X amount of blood(or whatever) is needed and it's around that time that the parents start objecting, etc. so it's less of asking for consent and more of watching for those responses to the suggested medical procedures. I don't know though, I'm neither a doctor nor a social worker.

      I'm sure that parental rights could be restored but not before the medical procedure was performed. You'd need incredible amounts of power in the government to get a response THAT fast.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  4. Adult Stem Cells by deanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet again, adult stem cells are proven to work. That's where more of the research should be.

    1. Re:Adult Stem Cells by G-funk · · Score: 1

      You're right. And while we're at it, since the umbrella works so well, we should stop doing research into the automobile.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  5. Weird title by Eternauta3k · · Score: 0

    This competes with "rain drops signal cell phones" :P

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  6. More Stem Cell Work, PERIOD. by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why differentiate between Adult and Fetal Stem Cells except to whip the Fundies into a frenzy?

    1. Re:More Stem Cell Work, PERIOD. by cnettel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Fetal cells can't come from yourself, unless you do therapeutic cloning. Extracting bone marrow cells is nowadays a rather common procedure. (That is: not groundbreaking in connection to cancer treatment.) Using your own adult cells would avoid the problem of rejection. Fetal cells are (generally) easier to grow in a medium, as they are overall more flexible. If I continue on this tangent, it's also possible that fetal cells, if not rejected, would be slightly more likely to develop into a tumor, unless properly regulated; especially as many treatments will also contain some kind of growth stimulation at some stage.

      So, they are not alike. There are some clear differences. The main issue about adult cells is of course their potency, can one get to a cell that will differentiate to the desired tissue, and longevity -- is the telomeres already quite shortened. Research in both fields is a good thing, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are not pros and cons both ways.

  7. Health care of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the future, as cash-strapped governments are no longer able to provide universal health care, miraculous life-prolonging technologies like this will be available only to the rich. Society will become stratified into two groups, the very wealthy, who live for centuries in luxury, and everyone else, who live nasty, brutish, short lives.

    This depressing scenario can be eliminated with a simple solution: a 100% inheritance tax. If this solution is not implemented, we will see the return of a dynastic ruling class like the pharaohs of ancient egypt.

    Since any government is far too stupid to spend tax revenues in any sort of efficient manner, the money collected through 100% inheritance tax would be divided up and distributed in a lottery form, at random, to various individuals who could then use the money to start businesses. While it is true that many of these people would simply squander the cash, it is equally true that there are many people in society who could start productive businesses if they only had the money.

    People also need more arms. Many benefits would stem from people having three or four arms. Some smart researchers need to work on this.

    1. Re:Health care of the future by headkase · · Score: 1

      You know though, when I'm about 70 I'll just morgage the health cost across another 75 years to keep me going until I'm about 150. Then I'll just keep working and paying as I go.

      You sound like there's only so much to go around whereas I believe in increasing returns where there will be enough for everyone.

      --
      Shh.
    2. Re:Health care of the future by cnettel · · Score: 1

      If I had a fortune, I would be far more likely to do whatever in my power to use it to prolong my life, if I knew that I couldn't even influence what would happen with it when I was gone......

    3. Re:Health care of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then I'll just keep working and paying as I go.

      I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be able to do much when I'm over 80, let alone 100+ - definately incapable of paying off medical debt!. Besides, I don't want to live that long. There's a time when your quality of life sucks so badly that it's better to be dead.

    4. Re:Health care of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's steal from orphans. For the good of society!

    5. Re:Health care of the future by headkase · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that along with longevity treatments will also rejuvinate you.

      --
      Shh.
  8. Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This kind of breakthrough is exactly why we need decreased regulations on stem cell research in the United States, as that too could aid in areas such like this. We also need increased government funding - people talk about how many lives are lost in Iraq, but few mention how many could be saved with the same resources. Heck, if the US developed a cure for cancer or AIDS and shared it with the world, maybe they would hate us less and stop killing our civilians.

    1. Re:Call to action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the donation of fetal cells is left to the parents of the donor fetus, and no one in any way stands to make major monetary profits from fetal stem cells, have at it.

      I'm not a fundie anti-abortionist by any stretch, but we cannot allow research that can lead to creating human (or proto-human, whatever your opinion is, I believe my point applies) life for the purpose of profit, especially in our current corporate "greed is good" culture.

      The sanctity of human life needs to count for something, or we lose one of the nobler things that actually makes us human.

    2. Re:Call to action by praksys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This kind of stem cell research is no more regulated than any other sort of medical research. I think you have it confused with *embryonic* stem cell research (which is subject to a ban on federal funding).

      In any case, the US has provided cures or vaccines for lots of diseases which have plagued the world. The USMC eradicated malaria in Cuba for example. Fat lot of good that did in terms of good will. It has never changed attitudes and never will because the people who hate the US typically couldn't give a flying fuck about their own people dying from disease, or any other cause.

      Do you think the terrorists, who blow up civillians in their own country every day, will be impressed if the US cures AIDS? Most of them think that AIDS was cooked up by the Jews, or the Americans, or both.

    3. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, since this research used adult stem cells, it would be totally legit in the United States. So, the real question is how many lives or cures are lost chasing the holy grail of fetal stem cell cures when to date all of the research, world-wide, points to adult stem cells holding the best promise.

      The debate in the U.S. isn't even about fetal vs adult stem cells. It's about who pays for it. The U.S. government hasn't banned fetal stem cell research. It just won't pay for it. If the promise is so good, where are the venture capitalists? They aren't to be found, which is why the fetal stem cell researchers want government funding. The reason the venture capitalists aren't to be found is because they are pouring money into adult stem cell research, not for moral reasons, but because the science shows it has the highest chance of success and therefore the lowest financial risk.

      This Canadian finding is just one more confirmation of what the business people already know. The real question is why doesn't the main stream media in the U.S. run with this story?

    4. Re:Call to action by mfaras · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that US are not helpful... that's why they had so much power, 'cos they helped nations. The issue is that US' help comes with great cost, with dependency issues, if not, with militar strikes, derrocations, and every single kind of interferrence with the foreign peoples will and government.
      CIA fomenting corruption, sedition and generally "lobbying" for US' companies/initiatives to be accepted in those countries you say the US "help".
      Now you know what we hate US for.
      --
      There's no place for nationalism in science.

    5. Re:Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      No, I knew this was not embroyonic stem cells. I'm just saying that stem cells work, and embryonic stem cells seem to have even more promise, so it's getting harder to argue against making them available for research. Even my fundamentalist Christian sister came to that conclusion after researching the project.

    6. Re:Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm against abortion however I think stem cells from aborted fetuses give that genetic entity (I'll let the reader decide if they are a person or not) a chance to continue on, maybe even saving others lives. I think that is the least we can do for those we deny life.

    7. Re:Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the private sector (I refuse to use the term "free market" - the US market is anything but unregulated!) is an adequate institution for making these kinds of decisions, and producing adequate research, then why do we even have any government funding of any kind?

      The answer is that long ago people realized that the market tends to be rather risk averse, and often thinks in the short term. Also, no corporation in the US can match the amount of money the government throws around - what would be a staggering loss for a medium sized research company is very little for the government as a whole, allowing it to pursue very risky (but potentially beneficial) courses of research. Also, lack of shareholder pressure and legal liability allows the government to fund pure science that may never be "useful" (astrophysics, esoteric mathematics, etc).

      Because tax money is being diverted from the private sector to the public sector to fund these things, the private sector has less to invest in potentially risky things as well, it is a self-perpetuating situation (which seems to be better than the alternative) and it is unlikely that we will see VCs stepping forward to work on embryonic stem cells in the US, especially if they must compete with government-funded research in the EU.

    8. Re:Call to action by cr0sh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The debate in the U.S. isn't even about fetal vs adult stem cells. It's about who pays for it. The U.S. government hasn't banned fetal stem cell research. It just won't pay for it.


      I won't argue the point of fetal vs. adult stem cells - it seems to me, as a layman, that most of the stories and successful research has happenned around adult stem cells. Whether this is because they are more easily available or because fetal stem cell research has been effectively halted in the United States, I don't know. Likely, it is former, as well as there being issues using fetal stem cell lines of any type for treatments - after all, if they were viable in any shape, we should be hearing more from overseas research. So far, not much has been heard, at least to my limited knowledge.

      What I will argue about is regarding the reasoning for banning funding to researchers. It is one thing if a researcher wants money for such research and is denied. It is another thing if they want to do the research, but aren't allowed because they (or their lab/research facilities) currently do government funded research in a completely unrelated (to stem cells) area. Since they take government funds in some manner, for some research, they have the choice of losing all government funding to all research, to research fetal stem cells, or to not research fetal stem cell lines at all and keep what funding they have.

      So, if you are a university (where a lot of research occurs), you are (nearly by default) receiving some form of government funding. Ergo, you cannot do fetal stem cell research (outside of the contaminated lines which were grandfathered in), without losing your government funding for your robotics lab (along with a bunch of other areas). It is either be completely self or privately funded for all areas of research, and be able to research fetal stem cell lines - or keep your government funding for your other research, and forget any fetal stem cell research. Some choice. No wonder private funding isn't available - because once your institution tried to do it, you would also need funding for all of your other research activities, which isn't going to happen, of course.

      I guess we should all hope and pray that fetal stem cell lines continue to be fruitless pursuits, and that somebody outside of America doesn't make that primary discovery that proves to make adult stem cell research obsolete or worthless. Somehow, I think we as country are going to eat our shorts on that one, all because of ignorant, petty and baseless religious objections.

      Religion will be humanity's downfall, and the fundamentalists will be leading the charge...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    9. Re:Call to action by Sathias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck, if the US developed a cure for cancer or AIDS and shared it with the world, maybe they would hate us less and stop killing our civilians.

      More likely it would be used to sell people their own bone marrow for a profit.

      --
      Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
    10. Re:Call to action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps if the ban weren't simply a political tool... maybe you'd impress people. I guess the US expects gratification for every benevolent act... what's in it for me?

    11. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are partially correct in the government funding pure science, such as astrophysics, mathematics, etc. However, medical research is not really pure science. Yes, there is government funding, but most research grants come from industry. Why? Because, the grantor who pays for the research has claims to the patents. Let's say there is some great breakthrough in stem cells that can save millions of lives. What happens when the company wants to charge exhorbantant prices for the cure and it is found out that tax payer dollars paid for the research? Most government funded medical research has strings attached. The universities like it because it a) pays for staff and overhead and b) it attracts private research dollars. However, to turn that research into an actual cure takes business involvement and venture capital (if you are a small firm) or big bankroll if you are somebody like Merck. The government still subsidizes the process but through tax incentives, not grants.

      That is why the universities are the ones who are complaining about the ban on federal funding of fetal stem cell research. There is nothing, however, to stop the Christopher Reeves Foundation, or the Bill Gates or anybody else to fund it, just not the federal government. The problem is that it is too speculative.

      Proponents will say it is too speculative because we don't put enough research money into it. However, that is a bogus argument. The rest of the world does not share in the U.S. ban, and pours billions into it and still the science isn't there. All of the promise is with adult stem cells. Even the use of fetal stem cells is to get the undifferentiated cells to become differentiated, which by definition would be adult stem cells. The purpose of using fetal cells is the misconception that they would be easier to obtain (and for research they would but not for actual use).

      What researchers need is a pure consistent strain of cells. Therefore if they can harvest the fetus for its stem cells and get them to multiply and differentiate into the cells they need, then they have a virtually unlimited supply of cells to test with. However, before they could turn anything into a cure, they have to deal with rejection and a slew of other problems. For this, the easiest thing is to use adult cells from the actual patient.

      That is the beuaty of the Canadian procedure (if it works on humans). The could extract your bone marrow and use it to repair your heart. Since it is your cells produced by your body, there is no problem with typing and rejection that any other source would have.

      To get this to work with fetal cells, they would first have to get the fetal cells to differentiate into stem cells that could repair the heart. That would prove the heart could be repaired (although Canada already proved that). Then they would have to figure out what stem cell they produced and whether they could harvest it from the patient. If so, great, if not, they'd have to try another type. Canada skipped all of the what if and went right to the likely candidate bone marrow.

      It's this simplified research approach that has the VC drooling. Not only have there been over 100 "cures" and treatments already produced from adult stem cells, they are cheaper on the research side and cheaper on the treatment side (because of the rejection issues). For the VC, it's a win-win which fetal stem cells can't compete against.

      As for the private sector's investment potential, one only needs to look at the profits of the pharmaceutical industry to see how lucrative it really is. If you have $100M to give as a grant to something that has a 30% chance of success (adult stem cell) or 3% (fetal stem cell) what would you invest in? The fact that they choose the adult stem cell research is why there is such a cry for federal funding. But shouldn't the government be putting it's (our) money where it has the greatest bang for the buck, too?

      In the end, the debate is not about anything but money, big, big money. It's o

    12. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I stated in a previous post, this isn't a religious argument. Religion is only being used as a smoke screen to keep the discussion from focussing on the facts. The facts are, as you alluded to, fetal stem cells aren't working. Even with the limited research in the U.S., the rest of the world is doing research at a far greater pace than we would be doing even without the ban.

      The real difference between fetal and adult stem cells in lay terms is that fetal stem cells are undifferentiated (they can turn into anything), adult stem cells are differentiated and depending on where they are from limits what they can turn into. The irony, is that to use fetal stem cells, they first have to become differentiated, so they must be made into the equivelant of adult stem cells (are bodies don't like undifferntiated cells growing in them. we call them cancer). So, for fetal stem cells to work, means that adult stem cells have to work, too.

      As for funding issues and loosing funding, I'm not sure you have that correct. In it's simplest form, I guess it is, but in practice, must universities could simply set up a seperate life-sciences foundation to do the stem cell research which wouldn't then jeapordize their other grants. I'm pretty sure that UCLA and other colleges and universities in California are still getting federal grants even though the state is funding fetal stem cell research.

      Again, the media and others want the public to think that funding is cut off. However, prior to Bush releasing the limited stem cell lines, there was no federal research allowed. So, in effect, he allowed an increase in funding (I am not a Bush fan, by the way, just trying to set the record straight). With the limited lines he released, you can do any kind of research you want. As it turns out, though the lines aren't as useful as first thought.

      There is also no ban on fetal stem cell research with non-human species. Almost every other area of medical research always began with animals. Even adult stem cell research uses animals, first. However, with fetal stem cells, the researchers insist on using stem cells from a human fetus as their first course. One can only assume that since animal fetal stem cells would be less controversial, less costly and more readily available, they would be a no-brainer and yet only a handful of labs in the U.S. use them.

      The rest try to convince the public that the religious right or the Catholic Church or some other group is trying to keep cures from the public. When in reality, that is untrue. The Catholic Church, for instance is supportive of adult stem cell research, just not the destruction of the fetus to obtain fetal stem cells (which seems consistent with their stand on abortion, etc.). But why would the researchers and the media as their pawn use such a tactic? Well first, there is big money involved, billions in grant money, even more in the selling of cures. Second, the science shows that it is adult stem cells that hold the potential. By keeping people focussed on the bogus religious argument, they hope people won't realize the shaky science used to support their position (remember, to use fetal stem cells, you first have to differentiate them or make them adult stem cells). Third, it is the religious types, whether fundamentalist or Catholic or whatever that are trying to get some facts out -- if they are portrayed as the villian in all of this, then their arguments will be dismissed.

      One last thing, you make the statement that it is no wonder that private funding isn't available. However, there is plenty of private funding available. It's just that the majority of it is going to adult stem cell research because of it's proven track record. Venture capitalists aren't stupid. They don't usually get wrapped up in the emotional and moral side of the argument but look simply at the return on their investment. Which course has the best chance of providing a return on their investment? Adult stem cells.

    13. Re:Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      That's a very interesting/insightful comment... is there anywhere I can read more about this? Are there any studies that show that adult stem cells are better suited?

    14. Re:Call to action by M0b1u5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Examined scientifically, human life begins when you travel down the birth canal, pop-out, grab your first breath and become conscious for the first time.

      Prior to that event (or something similar in a Ceasarian) a human body isn't a human being, and does not deserve the rights of a human being. Here in New Zealand, where we are nothing if not pragmatic, we understand that until a baby is born, it is not a person. It is therefore legal in New Zealand to perform an abortion on a baby which is at 8 months of a 9 month term. Legal - but not practical I must add, no doctor would perform such a surgery, as the risk to the mother would be far greater than delivering the baby.

      If you think I'm being overly "abortionistic" (as Dubya might call it) then you need to do some research: much has been done to examine the brain activity of foetuses prior to birth, and there is very strong evidence that human brain waves/thoughts and patterns we recognise as human do not begin until a baby becomes conscious AFTER BEING DELIVERED.

      Of course, fundies will crack an absolute shitfit at this suggestion. But recall here - I am only a messenger - I didn't do the research.

      Personally, I am not so sure about all this, and I would tend towards defining a feotus only as a baby and a child (human) when a baby could be born and survive without assistance (other than warmth and feeding). I don't know at what general period in a pregnancy that is, but it is relatively late I think.

      It concernes me greatly when people start talking about "human life" as it exists when n egg has been fertilised. That is nonsense - pure and simple. A fertilised egg is nothing more than the POTENTIAL for a human life.

      You see, a female human body "auto-aborts" about 75% of all fertilised eggs in any normal situation. So, only 25% of pregnancies actually end up with a blastocyte (or is it a zygote at that stage?) emplanting itself in the uterine wall and forming a placenta.

      Given that the human body does this - it is simply not logical to attempt to impart upon a collection of cells the attributes (or rights!) of a human being.

      Where the line is, I can't say - but it is not in the first 4 months, and it is no tin the last month. It is somewhere in between - and people need to be armed with information before they can make a decision.

      --
      How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    15. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will try and get back and post some research links. Otherwise try googling about on stem cells. Almost all of the "breakthroughs" are with adult stem cells. Even bone marrow transplants are adult stem cells and have been done for years. The problem is you have to wade through all of the hype about what was called embryonic and now more correctly fetal stem cells vs adult stem cells. To date, though, adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat diabetes, spinal,nerve and brain injuries, parkinsons, heart and kidney disease and a host of other things (83 or so approved or pending treatments last time I checked, probably more by now). To date, fetal stem cells have yet to produce 1.

      It seems that the problem with fetal stem cells is getting them to quit differentiating. For instance, turning on the gene to turn them into heart muscle cells works, but a few of them also turn into bone cells. These continue to grow as bone once injected into the damaged heart. As you can imagine, it's not good to have bones growing in one's heart. The other problem is that they tend to grow out of control and produce cancerous tumors. Again, not a desirable feature. Adult stem cells are already differentiated, so the first problem doesn't occur and since they don't have to be stimulated to grow, unlike fetal stem cells, uncontrolled growth is highly unlikely.

      Again, the information is available. However, the mainstream media doesn't pick it up. Most is in medical journals, etc. Another source of information that is in plain English, although many would consider "tainted" is from United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Regardless of what one thinks about the Catholic Church, their info on stem cell research seems pretty up to date and main stream. Even if you dismiss their oppostion to fetal stem cell based on their life begins at conception and abortion fews, their data on adult stem cells is accurate and is prepared by medical professionals and not theologians. A lot of the pro-life groups may have info, too.

      I would not use the Catholic Church or pro-life groups as the final answer, but more as a starting point of gathering information. Besides the occasional media article, such as the Canadian one, most of the info will be in medical journals, etc.

    16. Re:Call to action by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      I would not use the Catholic Church or pro-life groups as the final answer, but more as a starting point of gathering information. Besides the occasional media article, such as the Canadian one, most of the info will be in medical journals, etc.

      Yes, I take the same approach as wikipedia. There's always dangers in tainting your original viewpoint that way, but they probably do have a lot of good references (even if they are slightly "selective" in favor of their viewpoint).

    17. Re:Call to action by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Name a few countries in which this has happened, and explain why and how this has happened.

      --
      SRSLY.
    18. Re:Call to action by devonbowen · · Score: 1

      The book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" contains plenty of examples.

      Devon

    19. Re:Call to action by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Examined scientifically, human life begins when you travel down the birth canal, pop-out, grab your first breath and become conscious for the first time.

      Actually, a better characterization of the scientific answer to the question of when "life" begins is that it doesn't. Many school texts even go into the research in the 18th and 19th centuries, in which flasks of sterile nutrients were watched closely, and nothing living ever appeared. After much research, scientists concluded that, however life may have arisen from non-living matter in the past, it apparently no longer does so on our Earth. Rather, life only appears as the offspring of earlier life. At no point in the process does life appear from non-living material.

      In the human case, a scientist would simply observe that our ova and sperm are living, metabolizing, and "human" according to any sensible definition of life. Granted, without the obvious fusion taking place, they won't live for long, but that's also true on a somewhat larger scale for an adult human.

      Thus "When does human life begin?" isn't a scientific question at all, it's a religious and legal question. Theologians and lawyers can and do define "human life" in ways that there is a starting point such as conception, "quickening", day 40, birth, or whenever. These may well be meaningful and useful definitions for religious or legal purposes. But scientifically, none of these are the start of life, since the precursor was also alive and was human (as can be verified now with a DNA test).

      So if you want to determine when a human life begins, you shouldn't ask scientists. If they think about it, they'll probably just tell you "It doesn't; there's no point in the cycle where the earlier stage wasn't alive and human but the next stage is. Spontaneous generation was tested and rejected several centuries ago."

      (There's also an old Jewish joke to the effect that a human life begins when the fetus gets its law or medical degree. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    20. Re:Call to action by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      You make good points, but I do wonder about what you are saying regarding adult stem cells vs. fetal stem cells - that is, differentiation?


      While not a problem in the short term, I would think that an adult stem cell would be inferior to a differentiated fetal stem cell, mainly in regards to apparent age (shortened telemeres, for example?). In other words, wouldn't a differentiated fetal stem cell be younger than an (obviously differentiated) adult stem cell?

      If so (and I am not a biologist or geneticist, so for all I know, it could be false), then tissue grown from differentiated fetal stem cells would ultimately be younger and last longer (from an aging standpoint) than the same tissue grown from adult stem cells, would it not?

      Like I said, I could be wrong - I probably am - but you seem to have a better handle on this than I do, so I am asking. Also, I realize that researcher are looking into how to extend telemeres and such in an effort to slow or reverse aging, thus maybe such research could be applied to adult stem cells, make my argument (even if it is correct) moot...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    21. Re:Call to action by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Of course, since this research used adult stem cells, it would be totally legit in the United States. So, the real question is how many lives or cures are lost chasing the holy grail of fetal stem cell cures when to date all of the research, world-wide, points to adult stem cells holding the best promise.

      And your proof of that postulate is?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    22. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      What proof are you asking for? To date, world wide, there has not been one cure or treatment from fetal stem cells and yet billions of dollars are being poured into it. There are even scientists who believe there are too many obstacles for fetal stem cells to ever produce treatments. However, adult stem cells have produced numerous cures and treatments and have been used for years. Bone marrow transplants are in fact an application of an adult stem cell treatment that has been around longer than use of the popular phrase "stem cell" in the media.

      I don't need to prove anything. The research and the data is widely available in the medical journals and internet sources. It just isn't reported widely in the U.S. media. I'll leave the speculation as to why up to others.

    23. Re:Call to action by Snaller · · Score: 1

      What proof are you asking for?

      Proof as in proof. Since all scientists in the media i've ever heard says fetal are better.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    24. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Since the media tends to only report the fetal side of stem cell research, that would explain why you are only hearing the scientist with an interest in it. However, if you try and look at sources outside of the U.S. or look at the medical journals and research grants themself, you will find that it is the adult stem cell research that has all of the break throughs.

      I would surmise that the media reporting is due to it's distaste with anything about the Bush administration. And while the adult stem cell research is not related to it, only reporting on the fetal side makes the administration look bad because of the perceived restriction on fetal stem cell research (Bush was the first US president to allow any federal money to be used for fetal stem cell research, much to the disdain of the pro-life lobbyists).

      Anyway, most of the major news media in the U.S. are not very reliable sources for obtaining scientific news. They tend to be politically biased or try and simplify it so much that everything sounds like a miracle cure. Good sources are the various medical research journals dealing specifically with the topic. These are based on the actual research and studies. However, they are a lot more difficult to digest as the general public is not the intended audience. (The reason these tend to be such good sources is because people's professional reputations are at stake, so there aren't any wild-ass claims being made, just solid verifialbe research).

      Anyway, if you remove the public media, you will find that the majority of researchers don't claim that either is better. Fetal stem cells are good for producing test lines for research because the can remove variables that might cause variations in results (much like the genetically pure laboratory rats are used for testing). However, the same researchers also point out that outside of general research, it is the body's own stem cells that produce the best hope of providing specific cures for an individual. This is mainly because of the rejection problems associated with foreign cells that would be absent in using your own cells.

      In short, what the research has found is that the human body has the capability to pretty much heal itself if they can turn the right switches on in the right (adult) stem cells. Fetal stem cell research is about figuring out how to get generic non-differentiated stem cell to turn into the right kind of adult stem cell. Adult stem cell research is about finding the right stem cell already being produced in the body. Neither one will produce the miracle cures that are hyped about in the media.

      As of last fall, world wide, there have been 83 approved treatments using adult stem cells, with zero from fetal stem cells. It's certainly not from a lack of funding or from a lack of trying. It's because after the initial excitement of fetal stem cell research had worn off and research started to deal with the real obstacles, they focussed instead on the adult stem cells because they have a greater chance of success.

      This the norm for medical research. When there are limited research dollars (whether public or private), and there are always limited research dollars, the research will gravitate to that which has the greatest potential to produce results at a minimal risk.

    25. Re:Call to action by Snaller · · Score: 1

      So when the the BBC writes Scientists believe the most useful stem cells come from the tissue of embyros. they are just lying bastards?

      I'll believe them.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    26. Re:Call to action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      So when the the BBC writes Scientists believe the most useful stem cells come from the tissue of embyros. they are just lying bastards?

      I'll believe them.

      No, but then on the other hand, since the BBC is writing for probably a sixth grade level they do have to simplify things. The article does say that Scientists believe the most useful stem cells come from the tissue of embryos, however, it makes no mention of what scientists. The next few paragraphs gives a hint, though when they talk about scientists believing that "it should be possible..." and again "Theorecically, it should be possible..." In otherwords, they are referring to research scientists, because they are the ones who mainly deal in the realms of theory and hypothesis.

      However, if you read further into the article, you will see where the BBC points out that adult stem cells are produced by the body's major organs to repair the organs. So, instead of coaxing an embryonic stem cell to turn into a liver cell, you could just use an already existing liver stem cell.

      The article further explains the benefit of this by pointing out as it says the "huge" benefit of adult stem cell therapies and that is in the rejection problem (or lack thereof) from using adult stem cells from one's own body.

      The last three paragraphs spell out, minimistically the concerns of real researchers using embryonic stem cells. Since they are in fact manipulating the human genes to get these cells to differntiate, there is great concern that they may introduce some new kind of virus or disease that the body will not be able to fight off. Second, since there is also great concern over introducing some cross virus between the animal products used to clone the human embryos to produce embryonic stem cells. Like the first concern, this could be devestating to the patient and if it were communicable, it could be a pandemic. The third issue it points out, is that so far, anyway, they can't control the growth of embryonic stem cells and they quickly turn into cancer cells in the body (along with other tissue type besides the desired type).

      So, by all means, believe the BBC, I do. However, just don't read more into their articles than what is really there.

    27. Re:Call to action by Snaller · · Score: 1

      However, if you read further into the article, you will see where the BBC points out that adult stem cells are produced by the body's major organs to repair the organs. So, instead of coaxing an embryonic stem cell to turn into a liver cell, you could just use an already existing liver stem cell.

      No, you are twisting their words. Scientists say adults cells are not as good as embryonic.
      The article further explains the benefit of this by pointing out as it says the "huge" benefit of adult stem cell therapies and that is in the rejection problem (or lack thereof) from using adult stem cells from one's own body.

      Outright lie on your part, they don't say adults stem cells have huge benefit - their headline says stemcells in general have huge benefit.

      The third issue it points out, is that so far, anyway, they can't control the growth of embryonic stem cells and they quickly turn into cancer cells in the body

      No, they mention that some people belive that it might happen. Funny how you accept theories when they suit you and belittem them when they don't.

      I don't know if you are a religious freak or just a general idiot - but your line just ran out with me. Plonk.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  9. Old news and already in clinical trials. by Necromancyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is actually old news, and companies already have clinical trials going utilizing adult bone marrow stem cells in this capacity. Look into any big, bone marrow stem cell company and you can find information on whats going on.

    1. Re:Old news and already in clinical trials. by TheRequiem13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know of any big, bone marrow stem cell companies. :( I feel left out.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Old news and already in clinical trials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is definitely old news.

      Try searching pubmed for "stem cell" and "heart" - enough to last you for hours...

  10. Because.... by krell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because one involves butchering children. One does not have to be a "fundy" to recognize that an individual human being is an individual human being. In fact, it is all a matter of biology. Souls and God don't have anything to do with it.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Butchering children". Better watch out Suzie, the bad, evil scientist man might come around and BUTCHER you!

      It's fine if you don't like abortion, but just say it. Saying you oppose fetal stem cell research becuase it involves "butchering children" doesn't add to the discussion at all.

    2. Re:Because.... by krell · · Score: 0

      It adds more to point out the real, factual differences between these types of stem cell research (as I have done) than it does to say "I don't like abortion". In fact, I did not get around to saying whether or not I liked what had been described in a factual manner.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:Because.... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you specifically impregnate a woman, bring her to near term then terminate the foetus solely to harvest stem cells, then it's not butchering children. In fact, given the images that the phrase is calculated to produce, even if you *do* do that it's not accurate to describe it that way.

      I'm all for reasoned debate and hearing both sides of an argument, but the key word there is reasoned. If you have a moral objection to using foetal stem cells, then (as another poster more or less said) say so. Spouting hyperbole can do nothing but whip up people into unreasoning, knee-jerk reactions (on *both* sides) and kill debate.

      My own personal view is that as long as women are going to terminate healthy pregnancies, we might as well learn something from it. At least it's not a total waste then.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    4. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butchering children? No. They're unthinking, undeveloped blobs of meat. Free legal abortions never hurt anyone. It's all a matter of biology.

    5. Re:Because.... by krell · · Score: 0

      Butchering children? Certainly. There's no such thing as a safe abortion: a person always dies. This is certainly a matter of biology. Also, anyone can be called a "blob of meat". Perhaps you are also an unthinking one: you seem to be ignorant on this matter. You seem to be as biologically informed as any of those "intellectuals" who calls for genocide because their victims are "inferior", not human.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    6. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that everyone's being dishonest. Nobody uses "fetal" stem cells, by the time the embryo becomes the shape we call a fetus its too late, the cells are already on their way to being skin, brain, heart, etc. In humans, the stem cells are not harvested from an aborted fetus, they are (well, were, since they're not allowed to take any new collections) taken from embryos from in vitro fertilization attempts, where lots of sperm meets lots of eggs in a dish, and eventually one embryo will be implanted to the mother, and currently the rest are "waste".

      But hey, nothing gets votes like a rousing debate over utter bullshit. So one side will continue to lie through their teeth while the other side debates the lie while ignoring the falsehood, because it's good for both sides.

      See also the NY Times' rush to leap onto the spikes of martyrdom while republicans cry foul over their old news that the government knew where all our money is. Hell, you know its old news when slashdot beats you to it. And lets not mention that Bush himself leaked his exact plans in various stump speeches after 9/11.

    7. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're still using the word butchering I'll assume you're trolling. Informed as someone who calls for genocide? Please. I'm worse than that: I'm pro-abortion!

  11. Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by Quirk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we tend to produce less bone stem cells as we age? Are stem cells from older people less viable for repairs? Should we be freezing our stem cells when we're young?

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      My guess is that adult stem cells do age. Dolly the sheep was cloned using "old" mitochondrial DNA, if I remember the history correctly, and showed premature aging. Provided I've got that right, it would imply that the age of the mitochondria would be very significant. So, older adult stem cells would (by inference) be less effective than younger adult stem cells. It would follow that using younger adult stem cells - OR older adult stem cells with younger/repaired mitochondria - would be more effective.


      What about other adult stem cells? Well, the skin is constantly regenerated by adult stem cells, and unquestionably ages. How much of that is due to the adult stem cells wearing out and how much is due to the chemistry of the skin changing over time I'll leave to experts. (There are experts on Slashdot? :) What amazes me is how rapidly the skin can replace itself, yet keeping features (moles, birthmarks, scars, etc) unchanged. I presume that is precisely because stem cells aren't specialized and therefore acquire the characteristics of what is there. The skin is important to understand in this precisely because it is necessarily very rapidly generating and using those stem cells - my guess would be that it's much faster than any of the other stem cell factories in the body. If I'm right in that, then by comparing adult stem cells of different kinds at different ages would seem to be the way to understand how stem cells (and probably mitochondria) age. It might also give some ideas on how to control the speed of adult stem cell duplication, which might be a valuable tool in treating damage to such factories.


      Getting back to the heart of the matter (argh! :), if the bone marrow stem cells can clear away damaged tissue, you only have half the equation. You still need to repair the damage. The heart repairs, but only so fast. I wonder if it would be possible to use a mixed solution - the bone marrow stem cells with some modified juvenile stem cells (ie: with your DNA present) - the first to clear the damage as described, the latter to rapidly fill in the now-cleared section. Relying on the heart to do all the repair work might not be so good, as the heart cells will be old, which may produce a weaker repair.


      I wonder where else the bone marrow stem cells can remove damage. It would seem that many diseases leave residual damage that the body cannot ordinarily remove and repair. If a general solution existed for removing the damage, even if no solution existed for fixing it, it would seem you can't really lose and (if it stimulates the body's own mechanisms) you would likely gain.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by Carthag · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention Dolly, she was born 10 years ago today (european time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep

    3. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by Doctor+Beavis · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are exactly right that aging can have a profound effect on stem cells. There is a wealth of data that suggests decrements in function and plasticity with increased age and comorbid conditions such as alcohol use, diabetes, or renal failure in the donor (see Dimmeler in JACC, 2002 and Rauscher in Circulation, 2003 for more details). A Chinese group studied the biological characteristics of human bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells from donors of different ages and found that the expansion ability and cytokine production of cells was lowest in cells from donors over the age of 40 (sorry, don't have the reference handy). Multiple other groups have also demonstrated decreased proliferation in cells derived from older donors and proliferation capacity appears to be inversely correlated with telomere length. Differentiation capacity of mesenchymal stem cells from older donors has been shown to be decreased in multiple studies, with some reports measuring a decrement as soon as 40 years of age.

      A lot of people who would stand to benefit the most from "stem cells" (older, more medical problems) therefore are also disproportionately likely to have fewer cells with less regenerative capacity. One potential solution is to get cells from other people. A key problem with most adult cells (received from other adults) is the risk of immunologic rejection. This is likely to be much less of a problem with embryonic-derived cells, which don't express as many immunologically pertinent proteins. We just don't know what the best cell type will be - yet another reason to study both cell types in parallel.

    4. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by cnettel · · Score: 2, Informative
      Dolly was a clone based only on nuclear DNA. The mitochondria came from the original egg donor, and were pristine. What has been discussed is the telomeres, but they are maintained during fetal development. One possible other reason for the issues could be invalid genetic imprinting ("epigenetical factors"), which means that all cells in Dolly in a slight way were still "tagged" with a trace from the original mammary cell.

      Regarding other stem cells, bone marrow stem cells are in fact quite active through all of life, as you have this thing called blood. The most rapid cell production is in the small intestine, rather than the skin. I would also say that most of the evident aging of skin is due to the underlying structures, but I guess there are differences as well.

      The simplest way to "adapt" a stem cell to your DNA would be attempting a nuclear transfer, but then you would just get the possible issues with Dolly all over again. I think that a rather natural repair should be enough -- a mechanical implant could assist the heart during the period needed. We should also not keep any illusions that fetal development is "fast". Consider the size of your heart versus the size of the heart of a newborn, or the size of the complete child, for that matter. And if we would have to wait for months for a fatal injury to be repaired, some mechanical assistance would obviously be needed anyway during that period. Alternatively, some artificial stimulation, in addition to the bone marrow cleanup, would be needed, but then the natural rates of repair are not that relevant anyway.

    5. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by cnettel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe I'm stupid, but is there any reason to believe that the embryonic-derived cells won't start expressing relevant surface proteins when they divide and differentiate to replace damaged tissue?

    6. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by Doctor+Beavis · · Score: 1

      That's not a stupid question - it's a very good one. I don't confidently know the answer to that, as I haven't studied embryonic stem cells. My understanding is that it has something to do with the fact that by maturing in the new host, the host is tolerant of them. But I really don't know.

    7. Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? by jd · · Score: 1
      I stand corrected. (Yeah, I'm one of the less common posters who admits to being human! :) Oh, I absolutely agree that foetal development isn't fast - I guess I've tended to assume that actual damage that can't readily repair itself will tend to be a very small part of the problem, that by clearing out such damage will enable the rest to repair itself, leaving only a very small region that actually needs major intervention. I've also tended to assume that there would, of course, be some sort of temporary "patch" whilst everything got back to normal.


      (An obvious exception to this would be Alzeimers. If I understand it correctly, large quantities of tau protein is formed, squishing brain cells in the process. There, most of the damage is quite definitely major. You'd really want to remove both the tau protein producers and the grey cell smoothie, then replace the lot. However, here we have a slight advantage - it doesn't matter if the repairs don't happen overnight. You want to accelerate it, if possible, sure, but things don't need to be perfect immediately.)


      Heart damage - yeah, you really can't do without the heart being fully operational. Filling in where a scar was extracted with stem cells won't solve the problem - biology doesn't work like construction work, you can't just use stem cells as an organic plaster of paris and hope it holds up. You'd presumably want some kind of patch that can pull the damaged sections together and prevent spillage. It would only need to last long enough for the stem cells to become heart cells and to bond to what was already there. Depending on what sort of patch is possible, I guess you might even want to piggyback a mechanical heart, so as to reduce the forces imposed on and by the organic heart, just until the repair was complere.


      Would that seem a reasonable approach?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  12. Injecting stem cells is a sham by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have tried injecting rose, tulip and daffodil stem cells and my health has not improved one iota. I do smell a lot better though as a result.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Injecting stem cells is a sham by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      I have tried injecting rose, tulip and daffodil stem cells and my health has not improved one iota

      No, but you began to grow roots, specially when your mother's basement is full of moisture :D

  13. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No killing (not fully developed) humans involved - no problems.

  14. Where to get them? by caluml · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see that totipotent stem cells (the best kind) are produced from the fusion of an egg and a sperm. It's a shame it requires an egg too - otherwise, I think I know how we at Slashdot could provide the world with an un-interuptable supply.

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  15. Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what if you're "bad to the bone"? Will this make your heart bad, or give you cancer or a heart attack?

    1. Re:Evil? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      no you will just end up as bad as House MD

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  16. ESCs work in mice, too by Freedom451 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Dr. Li's team used genetically-engineered mice in which bone marrow cells were modified to carry a green fluorescent marker allowing researchers to easily track them.

    From AFA (from last year:

    Embryonic stem cells from mice can patch up damaged heart muscle in sheep.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8006

    Moreover, if you read the original article carefully, you will see that the ASCs are merely signaling the heart to rebuild itself more rapidly, not directly rebuilding the heart. So this therapy might work (if it worked in humans) to help people with basically healthy hearts who had a heart attack (cocaine abusers?), but how much will it help older, sicker, folks who's heart is more worn out?

    This is the population where ESCs show more promise, as they appear to actually grow into new heart cells themselves.

    There is no scientific reason not to be pursuing ESC work as aggressively as ASC work, just religious ones. In fact, since ESC is more likely to help older people (who are more likely to have heart problems), if treating disease were the priority, ESC makes even more sense, esp. for treating older people who tend to have more heart problems and also tend to have less ability for their own cells to regenerate.

    --
    When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
  17. Well, what do we find in Ref(A)? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
    Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    So, as long as we're OK with proof-texting, I wouldn't say the Bible directly sets bounds on what can be done biochemically.

    Of course, flip over a chapter...


    2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    I daresay humanity has significant, basic challenges in following Ref(A), before even getting to the more advanced bioethical ones.
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  18. Some trials underway in Sydney by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    More here.

    These apparently use a new method of separating out and multiplying the needed stemcells, and so far seem to making good progress - the patient is already experiencing improved quality of life.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  19. Saying NO to treatments due to religious beliefs by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1
    "These are the people who will still say "no" even when it's their own mortality in question."

    Heh. That's evolution in action: I like to see these genes get weeded out - but it's a concern when these fools have already bred. Hopefully they die before their children can be indoctrinated into the religious claptrap the parents fell for.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  20. bone marrow and heart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    guys, i have a bad feeling about this.
    but i'm no doc, just a regular human and
    something tells me this is not a good idea.
    hope i'm wrong tho ...

    maybe naturally it's a good thing but once they start
    artificially injecting this stuff into the heart
    it becomes a bad thing ... dunno, just a hunch.

  21. The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that using "adult" stem cells to solve a problem is more like using a high level programming language that already has a well-developed library of useful functions and procedures already written for it... versus writing a whole app in machine code (embryonic stem cells) without even the benefit of yet having an assembler for it.

  22. Adult stem cells no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christians and Jews only object to making babies and cutting them up, killing them, to get stem cells, they have no objection whatsoever for the use of adult stem cells, which so far have been the only kind that has provided cures.

    1. Re:Adult stem cells no problem by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Christians and Jews only object to making babies and cutting them up

      Wait, I thought for Jews circumcision is mandatory?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  23. Re:Saying NO to treatments due to religious belief by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    Evolution doesn't seem to work in this world anymore... just look at the state of things. Morons in control, from sea to shitty sea...

    --
    Great Intellect...
  24. register as a donor! by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    Now's as good as a time as ever to register as a marrow donor, and very likely save a life in the process.

    After being presented with this opportunity, I was unable to formulate any argument in my mind not to do this. Marrow donations require a very specific genetic match, and chances are that if someone requires a marrow donation, their life depends on it.

    Seriously folks, if you're eligible to do so, please register to be a marrow donor, and donate blood as often as you can. What goes around comes around.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  25. Way to go Kentucky!!! (n/t) by Yonzie · · Score: 1

    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

  26. Re:Why fucking bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally agree with you, let natural selection take its course. Here's what you can do about.

    Whay you can do is simple, you can go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere, then take your entire fucktarded family. Have all of them jump off to their death, then after that jump to yours. Simple as that, natural selection once again takes its course by taking the fucktards out of the gene pool.

  27. Is Immortality Coming? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 0

    Does this discovery mean that we can hope for immortality? Though I am at my young ages sometimes I get completely stuck due to the fear of death which immobilizes me.

  28. w00t Canada! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    This is a kick ass week! First I hear someone in Canada has found a way to regenerate teeth. Now those whooozers have figured out how to fix heart problems. Heck. If it wernt fer Canada I'd have to stop smoking and brush my tooth. Anyone hear anything about them doing research on livers?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  29. Re:Fallibility by jc42 · · Score: 1

    It's not hard to find examples where doctors have been wrong about the safety of treatments in the past, so we know they are not infallible. The Bible on the other hand...

    One of the main reason that doctors and others in the scientific branch of medicine have more credibility is that so many of them are open and factual about their limits and failures. Granted, a lot of practicing doctors do pretend to be gods, but the medical field as a whole is fairly open about their failures.

    Religious people, OTOH, tend to be perfect and never admit that their belief system can fail.

    It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to understand why you should trust one of these groups more than the other.

    Of course, we also have some factual history: For thousands of years, the religious folks claimed that their god/prophet/saint/whoever could heal diseases, but all those diseases were still with us and killing us. Nearly every generation had a plague that wiped them out in huge numbers. Then the scientists came along, and in a mere few centuries, some diseases have been eradicated, others will be as soon as a few religious strongholds are treated, and others have been greatly reduced. No religious healers have even accomplished anything like that.

    Scientific medicine's open reporting and discussion of results (good and bad) have a lot to do with this. In particular, honesty about failures, with followup studies, have led to a great many successes.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.