Stem Cells Generated From Adult Cells

DrJay writes "Scientist report that introducing only four genes to adult cells is sufficient to convert them to something that looks and acts remarkably like an embryonic stem cell. Although some of the details need to be worked out, if this technique is generally applicable, it may allow the production of an essentially unlimited supply of stem cells. There is a subscription-only report, and Ars Technica's science journal describes the results in some detail for those without subscriptions."

Comments

Cool.

[daeg]

This will help kill some of the controversy if it actually works, but many in America still have an irrational fear of sciences that they do not, and can not, understand. People can understand that taking a pill makes you better even if they do not understand the "how" of the pill. They can understand that cutting into your leg to repair a bone with metal rods makes sense. Very few people, however, understand how stem cells may help medical science. Without helping them understand (politicians included), we still have a long way to go before the public openly accepts stem cell research and is comfortable in pumping large amounts of tax money into the research system.

Re:Cool.

[RyanFenton]

Exactly - there were never any scientists with a burning need to tear apart embryos just because they seemed like nice spare parts to use. Embryos have unique properties as far as the way their cells can morph into other cells that just don't occur in adult stem cells. If these same properties can be reproduced otherwise, then embryonic research isn't an issue - but until that happens, banning the study of embryos is an important obstacle to scientific progress.

The irony in all this is that if more embryos that were eventually destroyed without being studied, were instead studied, then these same properties that are important to medical research may have been discovered, allowing us to save more children from more horrible diseases.

To me, the bans that are in place are the equivalent to old laws banning the study of dead bodies, because doing so reduces the sanctity of life.

Ryan Fenton (I am not a lab scientist, just a computer guy who loves following science news)

Human being

[Tracer_Bullet82]

but.. but.. but.. that cell can turn into a living breathing human being.

Re:Human being

[GundamFan]

If that is true... then this is human cloning... and that is even more of a no no.

Gattaca

[LilGuy]

See you can't even READ about it unless you've got money... so it starts...

Removes the moral problem with stem cells

[Parallax Blue]

The main problem with stem cell research (in the US, mostly) is the moral dimension. This method removes that, and may allow stem cell research to move ahead in the US, although it may be too late. Other countries are less concerned with the moral implications of embryonic stem cells (I believe The Economist had an article about stem cell research in Singapore recently) and are ahead of the US as a result. Can the US catch up fast enough using this method?

There is also the possibility that any stem cell research will be very limited in the US for some time to come, regardless of the method. This is due to the current administration's attitude towards stem cell research, although the attitude may shift with a new administration in '08.

Re:now that we've solved that problem

[Bryansix]

Slow down there. Did you read the link? I am not telling any woman what to do. The website promotes adoption of embryos as a way for infertile couples to still have a child that the woman gave birth to. I agree that there are babies that are already born that need adoption. This is not meant to take the place of that. This is for couples who only wish to have a baby if they can give birth to it themselves.

This is a GOOD THING!

[neatfoote]

I find it amazing that many of the comments here are relatively negative in tone-- that people are still more interested in grousing about the religious right and their ridiculous ethics than they are in celebrating (however cautiously) an advance that may make it possible to reap the benefits of stem-cell research without compromising morals or sacrificing what some consider to be human lives.
 
  This development might offer a way for both sides to win. Should we really be feeling disheartened about that, like "Ugh, what if embryonic stem cells really aren't necessary, and they turn out to have been right all along?"? My impression was that supporting stem cell research was about being pro-science, not anti-religion.