Slashdot Mirror
Skin Cells Turned Embryonic
anik315 writes "Nature is reporting a major breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. A straightforward procedure using mouse fibroblasts harvested from the skin can be used to produce pluripotent stem cells that can potentially become any other cell in the body. Not only can Yamanaka's method use the most basic cells, it can be accomplished with simple lab techniques. Possible applications of this breakthrough are to check molecular changes in cells as certain conditions develop. Stem cells produced using this procedure, however, can not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant."
Just a few more years and it should be possible to cause fibroblasts to grow into embryos. IRC, it's more or less possible now but it involves mixing and matching parts of different cells (the nucleus from the fibroblast and the cytoplasm from a fertilized egg cell.
Anyway, that should throw the anti-abortion crowd for a loop: "Oh no, he's cut his skin. He's killing babies!" After all, the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human even before it develops into a human.
Why are they running these experiments on mouse cells? Why aren't they starting with human skin cells and developing their techniques there? It would avoid the secondary step of having to transfer the technique from mouse tissue to human tissue.
I always assumed that the reason that experiments are done on mice and other animals is that they are easier to obtain than human subjects and that we can do things to them that would be considered unethical when done to a human (leaving aside some people's feelings that they are unethical when done to animals too).
But with skin cell experiments, I don't see the reason to do the research on animals. Human skin cells ought to be readily available, ethical to obtain, and ethical to experiment on.
Why start with mice on this? Why not start with humans and cut one step out of the process?
I meant the argument doesn't get very far in the real world debate because the people you are debating with have these views against birth control as well, not that it is logically flawed in any way.
To answer your queries
1) It's worthwhile pursuing other avenues of research in case this avenue doesn't pan out
2) It's worthwhile pursuing other avenues of research that use stem cells from normal sources until this method is more reliable in producing the raw materials for those complementary avenues of research. Those other avenues of research also add to our understanding of cell differentiation which might provide positive feedback into your favoured avenues of research.
3) The pharmaceutical industry is a lot more interested in producing treatments than cures. You can make a lot more money out of an ongoing treatment than from a one shot cure. Private industry generally also isn't interested in funding multi-decade long term research projects but want much shorter time frame ROI. Even in the pharmaceutical industry, where safety testing causes development times that can exceed a decade, the amount of research that remains before these approaches can be commercially viable are too long to attract the necessary investment.
4)...
5) Keep your religious and capitalist ideology to yourself and out of the way of scientist trying to further our understanding of whether it's possible to make this work. Once we start havign a reasonable understanding the fine grain mechanisms of cell differentiation and start looking at widespread clinical trials, then you can bring out your hobby horse.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder?We hope this is so, but have absolutely no way of knowing.
Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all.First off, I'm not sure I buy your proclamation (where are the tens of millions fighting against in-vitro fertilization). Tens of millions also consider eating animals tantamount to murder...let's kill off the USDA. Tens of millions believe in creationism, let's stop geology/archeology/cosmology research. Tens of millions of people believe lots of crazy shit that should not be directing gov't policy, thats the way democracy works.
1. *That* you know of. Even the researchers don't really know how widely stem-cell therapy might or might not be used, that's why you research it. 2. So you are positing that only those lucky enough to have suffered from a communicable disease should be a concern of the gov't? Really? And what defines a public health concern? Cancer from industrial pollution? vCJD from mad-cows...that happens to be similar to parkinson's (and alzheimer's)? So people who had the unfortunate luck to be born with a disease are SOL, yet those with preventable sexually-transmitted diseases are the beneficiaries? What the hell kind of moral system did you pluck that from?
If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners?Right, so how about, say, abortion? Or euthanasia? Should the gov't butt out of those 'private spheres'? And if so, you've lost the support of those "tens of millions" who have an issue with stem-cell research.
In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.Well, public support for gov't funding of research is a pretty damn compelling reason. Again, democracy and all. If you can convince a majority to do away with basic research funding, then we can have a debate about the societal benefit of gov't support of research. Until then, we, as a society, have pretty clearly decided that it is in our interest to support research (of non-communicable diseases as well as stem-cell related technology).
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
You know, after the first read of your comment I agreed with you. But after I thought about it, if I had Parkisons, which isn't as treatable as diabetes, I just might consider this new treatment as an alternative. At least some forms of cancer are treatable, and with the prior knowledge of a 20% chance of occurance, it would seem that doctors would be able to get a jump on treatment of the cancer. Tough call.