Grow Your Own Heart Valves

jcr writes "Medical researchers in Britain have succeeded in growing a heart valve from adult stem cells taken from bone marrow. The research is being reported in the journal of the Royal Society today. Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue."

Comments

Whole heart next?

[crow]

So how far does this leave us from growing a whole heart? Or other organs?

At some point, transplants from donors will be for emergencies only, and the shortages and wait lists will be a thing of the past.

Re:Whole heart next?

[devC]

It is amazing that they did this with adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells. I wonder why the big push for embryonic stem cells?

Re:Whole heart next?

[jimstapleton]

embryonic are omni-potential, instead of just pluripotential.

Until the last two or three years (if I remember correctly, the time frame may be off), with adult stem cells, they can grow a limited set of tissues only. Even now it takes work to make adult stem cells able to differentiate into any other cells. Embryonic stemm cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option.

I can't remember if they can now make adult stem cells omni-potential, or just increase their potential to add just a few more cell types.

Re:Whole heart next?

[devC]

That clears it up some. Thanks. This is a very big topic obviously, and it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Dausha]

"Embryonic stemm (sic) cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option."

However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human. You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery? We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.

The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?

Re:Whole heart next?

[PresidentEnder]

What's to stop harvesting stem cells from a fetus which is then returned to the womb and carried to term? Nobody could get upset about benefiting from the use of one's own stem cells.

Re:Whole heart next?

[locokamil]

Why the devil has parent been modded flamebait? Just because he doesn't agree with the groupthink doesn't mean that it's a null/void opinion!

Re:Whole heart next?

[crow]

If you want to save your child's stem cells for their own use later, don't you preserve the umbilical cord?

Yup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord (warning: some not-so-pretty pictures)

Check out the section on cord blood.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Erasmus]

How the devil does equating using a single cell to clone an organ to slavery NOT count as trolling?

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

first, that war was about economics - slavery was just a face one side used to make themselves look good.

two, I wasn't saying it was good or bad, I was just saying that at the time, it was the only way to get things done.

Three, if the child was going to die anyway (ie abortion, or the embry developed in a petri dish), there are mindsets that say such a thing shouldn't go to waste (former), or it never would have attained conciousness anyway (latter) - left on its own in the open air, I gurantee it wouldn't become a fully functional human.

Finally the embryos have to be obtained before it can be determined which cells will actually develop into a brian, let alone a brain actually forming - at this state not only can it not think, but it never would if it were left to it's own devices anyway.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even now it takes work to make adult stem cells able to differentiate into any other cells. Embryonic stem cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option. You know, I've seen people saying that many times in the past six years.

But if the embryonic stem cells are really so much easier to work with, why hasn't anyone succeeded in making heart valves out of embryonic stem cells? Why has it been easier in practice to use adult bone marrow cells? You can't chalk this up to US federal funding restrictions, because the research in TFA took place in the UK, where they don't have those restrictions.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because NOBODY uses data generated in the USA in their research. In fact, all research is de-novo, not using any prior research from anyone as a basis!

Re:Whole heart next?

[Runefox]

See, not that I disagree, but there's a very big flaw in that argument in that there isn't a clear line drawn - Same with the abortion debate.

So taking an embryo and using it for science is wrong, it's murder, etc, etc. Yes, I agree to some extent. What about all the potential humans flushed down the toilet by those dreadful female teens during their period? Shouldn't they be forced to mate at every opportunity to enable the ovum of the month the chance to become a human being? After all, women typically ovulate 400 to 450 times in their lifespan (if Wikipedia can be believed; Likely so in this case). How is an ovum any different than an embryo, save for its state of fertilization? It still has the potential for human life, just as the embryo does, and isn't that what should be protected? What of lesbians? For that matter, should it be an offense for a man to flush millions of potential keys to human life down the toilet on a Kleenex? To waste them on another man? To have them accomplish nothing but serve as a flush for the reproductive system via a wet dream?

These questions represent the path this sort of argument is taking, and how far it can go. I'm sure there are people out there that actually believe this, too (and I'm sure Slashdot users would like Mandatory Mating Hour).

Re:Whole heart next?

[LEgregius]

It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is "baiting" people to start a flame war. The same post could have been rewritten with a different tone and not been flamebait. A tone like that won't win many people over.

I'm not sure I can see calling it slavery. Cannibalism would be more appropriate, and just as flamebaiting. Even then, I think it would matter the source of the stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have been created without using an embryo. I those cases, a human life was never really stopped, except if that cell was going to be using in cloning. Only if the stems cells came from an abortion could you say it's killing one human for the benefit of another.

Another point I'd like to make is that I don't see how stem cells made from abortions are really of any use except in research. It seems that stem cells would need to match the recipient genetically to be of maximum use. That means taking an adult human's cells and making stem cells, or creating a clone.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Saganaga]

Actually this is pretty simple...simple enough for a 4-year old to understand. Sperm and eggs, separately, are not human beings. When they join together, they form into a human being. If you remember your high school biology, the sperm and egg each only have half the DNA needed to form a human. Once the egg is fertilized, only then do you have a human.

This is true for any organism that reproduces sexually, by the way.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the cell is made of chemicals, why don't you regress your thinking one step? This carbon atom could become part of an autonomous human being (I guess this means it's OK to kill humans that can't be autonomous) so don't put carbon atoms into slavery!

Re:Whole heart next?

[plague3106]

However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human.

No, there could be a miscarrage.

You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.

We do the same thing to other living things all the time. We kill catapillers before they become butterflys.

How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery?

Because its a mass of cells, and not a human being? There's no brain, arms, legs, heart, anything. It cannot survive on its own either.

We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.

More than that; these embros live inside another human being, which has rights too. Unlike an embryo, that person can reason and decide what they want to do (or not do) with their own body, including whether or not another living being may survive in it.

I'm also suprised how many Americans think they can involve themselves into the personal affairs of others. Does it really affect YOU specifically in any way? I don't see how it could.

The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?

Don't equate a few human cells with slavery. You just look foolish.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Dausha]

"It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is 'baiting' people to start a flame war."

It wasn't meant in an angry tone. This is exactly a question, raised 1.5 years ago in my law school Health Law class, somebody else posed to a PhD Bio-ethicist. He avoided answering the question, and I thought somebody here could pose an answer. Whenever somebody's right of autonomy is stripped and the person reduced to property status, we call it slavery. (Voluntary renunciation of autonomy would be indentured servitude.) Arguably, the embryo is a person (or would be left to his one devices). Destroying the embryo to create stem cells is not voluntary, and it reduces the embryo to mere property. Thus, how is it not slavery?

The great question is "when does life begin?" The bio-ethicist argued after 21 days, and he based his argument on our decision point for when somebody is dead (e.g. brain activity, not "mostly dead/all dead"). My question to him was "what happens if we harvested all embryos before day 21?" (An obvious ad absurdium argument, but it underscores the distinction between establishing "life at 21" verse "death at no-brain function.) He ended up conceding that the 21 days was arbitrary.

As for baiting someone into a flamewar: by that definition, half of /. is flamebait. I merely asserted my view that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and could be compared to slavery. If whomever modded me down for flamebait agreed with my view and thought it was too heated; then I would be more willing to agree with the assessment. However, as is normally the case, mods are used to censor opposing opinions. As this is normal, I have to assume that was the motive here. I assumed I would be down-modded because somebody wouldn't like my POV; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't express my view.

Re:Whole heart next?

[SatanicPuppy]

So, for example, if I go in with my wife, and they harvest my sperm and her eggs, and fertilize 10 or so eggs (common practice) and we end up only needing one fertilized egg to be implanted and the other 9 stay on a freezer shelf for a few years before they are routinely discarded, does that make the person who discarded them a mass murderer?

By your example, yes. It is often these embryo's which are almost always destroyed, that could be used for stem cell research...It's not all about abortion. Not even close.

There is a lot more to it than simply (sperm + egg) = person. I'd think even a 4 year old would understand that.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is pretty simple...simple enough for a 4-year old to understand ... Once the egg is fertilized, only then do you have a human.

Why, because you said so? What criteria are you using for what makes a human being a human being? For that matter, given that there is no widespread consensus on the issue of what "life" is, exactly, in any of the major fields of interest - biology, religion, psychology, philosophy - which is why it's an issue to begin with, upon what authority do you draw from to make such a final statement of "fact" meaningful? Are you an expert in some relevant field? Have you research to back any of this up, or a cohesive philosophical argument that doesn't have any major holes in it like all others before it?

I doubt all that, really. It's easy to see a "simple" solution when you can't even process the complexity of the actual problem. When you can prove to me what makes "life" alive, I'll reconsider your argument in full, but first I want to see that you even remotely grasp the sheer scope of the problem underlying this topic.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Runefox]

I understand that, but just because it requires intervention doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken to ensure that these two ingredients to humanity, while they exist, shouldn't be put to the highest possible potential to form as many new humans as possible, to give them the chance at life that the argument always talks about. Where a woman who is perpetually pregnant and having children could bring life to a great number of new humans, a woman who is abstinent will deny that potential for life to those human beings.

The philosophy is thus: A female has the potential to give life to human beings with the help of either artificial fertilization or sexual intercourse with a man. This potential could either bring life to many, or bring none. The point is, an embryo is just "potential", too, since it isn't quite a human being. It could either grow into a healthy person, or die before childbirth. The only difference is that the fertilization has already been made. What you have to look at is, every time a woman has a period, that's a potential human being sent to the sewers. Every time a man masturbates, that's a potential human being's lifeblood being soaked into his favourite shirt. If people truly believed the argument that potential life should be preserved, then they should truly believe what I'm saying here. Anything else is just parroting someone else's (flawed) viewpoint.

Of course, not even I do, though I argue it. It forces you to think about the bigger picture; Of course, if such a policy were ever instated, the world would be quickly overpopulated.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Saganaga]

No, you're making it more complicated than you need to: a human life, personhood if you will, begins at conception. And yes, if you discard nine embryos, you are murdering them. Perhaps that makes you upset, or maybe you don't care. You have to decide for yourself what you believe.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Saganaga]

You call both a sperm/egg and a fertilized egg "potential" human life, but by doing so you are displaying your bias against the status of a fertilized egg as a full member of the human family. In my opinion, once an egg is fertilized, something fundamental has changed and a new person has been formed.

If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins? If your answer is "I don't know", then shouldn't you err on the side of caution and support the protection of embryos from exploitation or other harm?

Re:Whole heart next?

[Gravatron]

Given the only alternative for those embryos is a quick trip to the incenerator, i'd say they are at least dying a noble death. Though that sacrifise, they live on in the tissue of the potentialy millions who they help. Given a choice between anonymous destruction and anonymously helping others, I know which one i'd pick.

So I think the major ethical questions would be which of these doomed embryos do we select for research, how do we keep people from creating them just for profit, and donar privacy issues. Since furtility clinics produce thousands a year which are otherwise incenerated, we certainly don't have to purposley abort to get them.

Re:Whole heart next?

[dbrutus]

The problem is that omni-potential cells might not be a good thing. Embryonic stem cell treatments seem to have a lot of extra problems with tumor formation which is one of the reasons why we don't have any such treatments approved by medical bodies. Cancer is radical change in cell function. Change is not always good.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Gravatron]

So what do we do with those nine then? Keep them frozen forever? The odds of them ever getting used is pretty minute. No idea how long they can stay vaible frozen ether.

Re:Whole heart next?

[dbrutus]

If somebody would like to adopt those 9 embryos, implant them, and bring them to term, what is the problem with that? Look up snowflake babies and you'll see that there is pro-choice resistence to the practice.

There is nothing inevitable about discarding embryos.

Re:Whole heart next?

[SomeGuyTyping]

One thing often left out of embryonic vs adult stem cell conversations is who supplies the stem cells and how much they can charge. When adult stem cells are taken from you, you are charged for the procedure(s) (taking the cells, growing them in the lab, reinserting them in a new place) sort of like a skin graft. Embryonic cells are provided for you and sold to you as a product, with procedural costs on top.

There is much more profit to be made with the embryonic cells, which is one reason they get all the attention and lobbying support (of course they get negative attention for other reasons) even though much more real success had been made with adult stem cells.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Belial6]

The reason that a fertilized egg is referred to as a "Potential" human life is because it is not a human. No bias needed.

"If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins?" It happens gradually. There is no magic point that you are instantly human. That is why we DO err on the side of caution, and don't allow abortions a week before a due date. While we might not know exactly when the line is crossed between organ and human, we do know that it is not even close to conception.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Goatie]

It's people with opinions like this that are holding back the advancement of medical science. I wonder how you'd feel if a relative of yours died, knowing that some treatment could have saved them, had stem cell research been allowed to commence without so much protest.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Ash Vince]

Why the devil has parent been modded flamebait? Currently I see it as having been modded funny. That is a much better description.

Re:Whole heart next?

[twistedsymphony]

Interesting... it would seem that using adult stem cells has more than one benefit. It almost makes me think that all the Anti-Stem cell research rallying had a silver lining in that it shifted work towards adult stem cells.

If not for being being denied the ability to work with undeveloped stem cells would as much work have been done with Adult Stem cells? and would we still be seeing these kinds of results today?

Re:Whole heart next?

[Arterion]

Sperm and eggs, separately, are not human beings. When they join together, they form into a human being.

By your definition of "human being". Not by mine. Not by a great many people's. If you pulled out an embryo, sat it down int front of someone, and asked them what it was, most of them wouldn't be able to tell you until it was a couple months old -- way past the time they'd be collecting stem cells. It's human cells, yes, but it's not a human being any more than my arm, by itself, is a human being (even though it composed of human cells.)

Re:Whole heart next?

[ebingo]

I lost my aortic valve from an endocarditis and I can say this is quite exciting. I imagine I could eventually get rid of my titanium mechanical valve and the blood thiners I take every day...

Re:Whole heart next?

[drDugan]

Arguably, the embryo is a person...

No. An embryo is an embryo, not a person.

A seed is a seed, not a tree.

Or a better analogy is: Flour and eggs are flour and eggs, not a cake.

An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.

An embryo cannot communicate at all, thus it cannot consent. Trees communicate and react more than embryos do, and there is no moral problem keeping and controlling trees as property.

Asserting 21 days for the start of life is absurd and slanted to support your religious point of view. You have called an anonymous "expert" to justify your position. Please list for me the volitional actions a 21-day old ball of human cells takes that are indicative of life. (I think that there are none.) In return, I'll list all the things that living things commonly do that a 21-day old ball of cells cannot.

Raising the question of voluntary action (and thus consent) makes no sense if the item in question cannot take any volitional action.

Re:Whole heart next?

[SatanicPuppy]

Nah, I just think you're full of it. Explain to me the world in which sperm and egg combined outside of a hospitable environment would ever grow into anything. Seriously. I honestly want to know how you think that's possible.

The truth of it is, that sperm + egg - womb = nothing. It's a pile of potentially useful genetic material. Stick it in a womb for a few months, then you have a potential human being. If it survives to leave the womb, then you have an actual human being.

This is the only practical way of measuring the process...Anything else brings with it a host of rights violations which you cannot even begin to imagine, and an absolute legal nightmare. Not that I expect you, of course, to care about the way the world actually works...The inflammatory nature of your rhetoric shows your lack of concern for such niceties.

Re:Whole heart next?

[DragonWriter]

However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human.

A human embryo has no native environment ("native environment" being the environment in which you are born), and left to its own devices, a human embryo will, fairly certainly, die.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Yvanhoe]

Hmmm, I like spinning.
From what I understand, being able to bring an adult stem cell to be omni-potential means that it could be made to evolve into an embryo and then a living human being (a clone). So who is to say that this life should not be protected ? Does religion even have a point of view on the issue ? If every unicellular life is sacred as long as a complete human DNA is present, and that it can evolve into a full life, should we preserve amputated members as soon as adult stem cell research is sufficiently advanced ? If not, are we allowed to grow them to embryo stage and use their organs ? To adult human stage and reduce them into slavery ?

I agree that some ethical lines must be traced, but first, ethical whistleblowers (read : religious officials) should admit that their definition for "human life" seriously lacks precision. They still have difficulties to grasp two major changes that occurred in the 2Oth century : life creation without sexual act is now possible and sexual acts without life creation are now possible.

Re:Whole heart next?

[SatanicPuppy]

Well I don't think "adopt" is an appropriate term...If I was a sperm donor, no one would be "adopting" my sperm...It's a donation, like a blood, kidney, or bone marrow donation.

That being said, I'd have no problem donating an embryo. The problem is, the number of embryo's created every year far outstrips the demand. My example of 9 extra embryos is reasonable. Some people have even more created, especially if they're trying to select around a hereditary condition or something.

So, for every couple who goes in to have an embryo fertilized and implanted, you'd need (conservatively) a half dozen women who were completely infertile and wanted a donated embryo about whose respective donors she knew nothing about. Yeesh.

So pretty quickly you end up back in the same position...You have an ever-increasing store of frozen embryos that no one wants to implant, and that are forbidden from being used in potentially life-saving research.

So they get thrown away, like garbage.

I'm a blood donor. If someone wanted it, I'd donate stem cells, bone marrow, or even some sperm cells. I'm an organ donor...If someone has a use for my parts after I die, so be it. I'd far rather they be used than wasted. The same is true of extra embryos; if they had been made, I'd prefer to see them go to some good, rather than end up in the trash.

Re:Whole heart next?

[nospam007]

So how far does this leave us from growing a whole heart? Or other organs?
--
Yes, does that mean I have to open the penis enlargement spam from now on because it might be a true offer?

Re:Whole heart next?

[Tony Hoyle]

From what I understand, being able to bring an adult stem cell to be omni-potential means that it could be made to evolve into an embryo and then a living human being (a clone). So who is to say that this life should not be protected ? Does religion even have a point of view on the issue ? If every unicellular life is sacred as long as a

The only reference in the Bible I know of to abortion is the punishment for causing miscarriage by hitting a woman, but not otherwise hurting her (which has a separate, much greater, punishment) is only a fine (Exodus 21:22-23) so in the Judeo-Christian context the embryo is clearly *not* seen as a human being in any way... merely property.

Re:Whole heart next?

[mh1997]

I wonder how you'd feel if a relative of yours died, knowing that some treatment could have saved them, had stem cell research been allowed to commence without so much protest.

Not saying that the original post was correct, but the "what if it happened to you?" question is flawed because it assumes nobody will stand by their principles when tested.

People let themselves and their families come to harm/death everyday based on principles. Some even consider it a badge of honour when they suffer great loss because of their principles - for example, suicide bombers.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Hercynium]

Embryonic stem cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, ... Just to put in some requisite corrections to some popular (mis) understandings...

The clause, 'without any modification' is flat out wrong, applied to either type of stem cell.

I'm not a stem cell researcher myself, but It's my understanding that adult stem (AS) cells are actually easier to work with. In addition they're clearly more readily available. That being said, this is all the bleeding edge of medical and life science and *nothing* is 'easy'

... and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option. I'm assuming what you mean by this statement is that 'they were the only vector for this type of treatment perceived as plausible'? Because, charitably, that's the most truthful interpretation, but still incorrect. Embryonic stem (ES) cells were known to have the potiential for breakthrough treatments at an earlier date than AS cells, but the difficulties in this research quickly led to the need for multiple vectors by which to proceed. AS cells soon became the most useful vector for developing viable treatments, and to date, viable treatments with AS cells outnumber ES cell treatments by far and continue to be safer and more effective.

I'll concede that ES cells certainly have the most potiential for manipulation, and there are valuable things to be learned about cell development from their study. However, this manipulation is difficult, at best, and from my own research, the resulting treatments are much more difficult to apply to human patients. (Less so where somehow a patient may have his/her own ES cells available, of course, but this is currently a rare occurrence)

God willing, (or science, if you prefer) we will soon have the break-throughs we so desperately desire for the treatment and cure to so many of the diseases you read about in the news. Whether it comes from ES or AS cells, or some other unrelated research doesn't much matter except to those who care more for politics than saving lives.

I will freely disclose that I morally oppose ES cell research when the cells are obtained through IVF, cloning, and abortions, but that is mainly because I morally oppose those procedures. HOWEVER, my beliefs are my own, and I have no problem that other people do not share those beliefs. I only care about the truth and moral and intellectual honesty, both of which tend to be cast aside by ideologues on both sides of this particular issue.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Jhon]

An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.

An infant would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an infant stops growing and devoloping, almost immediately.

Re:Whole heart next?

[jcr]

Today the values, tomorrow the ventricles!

I don't doubt that we'll eventually be able to grow a new heart for any patient that needs one. Hopefully before I need one..

-jcr

Re:Whole heart next?

[Mc1brew]

Sperm+Egg=expired condomn

Re:Whole heart next?

[ncc74656]

Why the devil has parent been modded flamebait? Just because he doesn't agree with the groupthink doesn't mean that it's a null/void opinion!

You must be new here.

#ifndef _SARCASM_H
#include <sarcasm.h>

Anyone who disagrees with the Slashbot hive-mind is obviously a reichwing Christianist deathbeast who must be silenced by the oh-so-tolerant-of-diverse-opinions progressives.

#endif

What I found disappointing was that the original poster in this thread was surprised that it was adult stem cells that provided this breakthrough. If he had googled "adult stem cell cures," he would've learned that they've already been developed into dozens of useful cures. Compare that to the number of useful cures derived to date from embryonic stem-cell research.

I'm sure this inconvenient truth (to borrow a phrase) will get modded down...so be it. I've quit giving a damn about /. karma. It's devolved into the collective opinion of a pack of foaming-at-the-mouth left-wingers; why should I pay it any attention?

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to be working, while the other isn't.

Embryonic seems to cause nothing but cancer, while adult does not seem to.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Goatie]

Yeah you've got a good point there, very true. I was just hoping to emphasise the fact that it's a lot more difficult in real life to stand by your beliefs when faced with the consequences of it first hand. But you're right enough.

Re:Whole heart next?

[drDugan]

Your statement is correct, we do not treat an infant as "a human" (meaning: an adult). We treat them as infants, and care for them as they need to be cared for.

What point are you trying to make? Would you like the reader to jump to the conclusion that because of this similarity we would then treat embryos as we treat infants? Someone has marked this comment as "insightful" - but I don't see why.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Gideon Fubar]

does this mean that women who miscarry are commiting manslaughter, for failing to save the life of an unborn child?

seriously, i really would like to know your opinion on this..

Re:Whole heart next?

[buswolley]

flame war, or stimulating conversation? making people think? etc?

Re:Whole heart next?

[will_die]

Embroyonic stem cells are not easier to work with and were not the only options, try to find some actual medical articles that use them.
Embryonic stems cells gain of press after articles started coming out about non-embryonic stem cells. Since embryonic stem cells have the potential of doing alot more, ignoring all the additional problems they cause, when the stem cell craze started alot of venture capitalist started investing in them. After pumping a bunch of money in embryonic stem cells it came up that it was a bust, so the venture capitalists started spending money in pumping up their worth and how they would solve everything. After the venture capitalists sold off thier stocks and got back some of thier money it press of them dropped and all you are left with are some people who have a far off dream that they will actually produce something and the general public thinking they will do more for them then non-embryonic stem cells.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you say "us". But the US won't be able to do this ever, because your stupid president says that Jesus doesn't want anyone to have stem cells. So the rest of the world can do this kind of thing but not you. Sorry.

Re:Whole heart next?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"Arguably, the embryo is a person (or would be left to his one devices). Destroying the embryo to create stem cells is not voluntary, and it reduces the embryo to mere property. Thus, how is it not slavery?"

First of all you can argue that an embryo is a person but it would not be a strong argument. An embryo does not have a free will. Nor is it self-aware or does it have a conscience, as it does not yet have a functioning brain.
Secondly, I understand that you are argueing from a juridical point of view, but you are using those arguments to make an ethical point. The law is not ethical per se, so your juridical arguments to a moral conclusion hold no ground.
Secondly, I do not see how destroying the embryo reduces it to property. This is play of words, most notably 'destroying'. If an embryo were a person, you would not say you would destroy it, but you would say you would murder or kill it.
Thirdly, quid pro quo, if it were property, it would be owned by the mother and how could you then say the embryo is not a slave of it's mother, by your own reasoning? She is keeping it captive, feeding it or not feeding it, and might have plans to reap financial benefits from it later on (as a pension plan for instance, like in many third world countries). The body of the mother might decide to abort spontaniously ... should we then arrest the mother for murder of her slave?

Re:Whole heart next?

[jimstapleton]

I'm not a stem cell researcher myself

Well, if a "and never have been" is in there, that makes one of us.

OCKQUOTE>Embryonic stem cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, ...

Just to put in some requisite corrections to some popular (mis) understandings...

The clause, 'without any modification' is flat out wrong, applied to either type of stem cell.

I'm not a stem cell researcher myself, but It's my understanding that adult stem (AS) cells are actually easier to work with. In addition they're clearly more readily available. That being said, this is all the bleeding edge of medical and life science and *nothing* is 'easy'


OK, reprhase - there's a lot of crap that is put onto the DNA (called methylataion) that turns off genes by blcoking transcription initiation sites. This, until recently, was not easy to remove.

Now, to cause a cell to differentiate, you grow it in a medium with the appropriate chemicals. By applying the right chemicals to an embryonic stem cell, you can differentiate it to ANYTHING that you can find in an adult body. Conversely, without removing the methyl groups from the DNA, you cannot do this with an adult stem cell.

That is what I meant, and until recently, that was not possible without also killing the cell.

And I was talking about this type of treatment, but research in general. This type of treatment is not the only thing that stem cells would be useful for. But without the understanding of growth and development found in ES cells, then they probably would *NOT* have gotten this far this quickly with the adult stem cells, because they would not have known the factors to cause the proper differentiations by now. It'd probably be a few more years off.

I do admit, the adult stem cells, due to rejection issues, are better for the treatments, but for understanding growth and development, ES cells are a lot easier to work with, and prior to being able to "undifferentiate" a cell, the only option.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Jhon]

Someone has marked this comment as "insightful" - but I don't see why.

Obviously.

Would you like the reader to jump to the conclusion that because of this similarity we would then treat embryos as we treat infants?

Would you like the reader to jump to the conclusion that because of relationship of seed to tree that we should treat embryos as seeds? Shouldn't we therefore treat infants as saplings? How about a novel approach: Let's treat embryos as embryos?

We treat them as infants, and care for them as they need to be cared for.

We treat them as embryos, and care for them as they need to be cared for.

Re:Whole heart next?

[DroppedPacket]

It almost makes me think that all the Anti-Stem cell research rallying You may not realize it, but what you refer to as "anti-stem cell research" is not actually anti-stem cell. It is focused against the use of embryonic stem cells because it is unethical to kill the children they come from. In fact, if you look at the guidlines from the Catholic Church, you will find that there are ethically acceptable sources of stem cells:

• Adult stem cells extracted from donors
• Stem cells from umbilical cord blood (which I believe contains embryonic stem cells>
• Embryonic stem cells from miscarriages (rejected by the research community because they don't want to have to figure out why the miscarriage happened.)

Re:Whole heart next?

[twistedsymphony]

you are correct... I meant to say anti-embryonic-stem cell research

Re:Whole heart next?

[dbrutus]

Donation implies that the embryo is property. For a lot of people that's very objectionable.

Your supply/demand curve is off by a few factors. You rarely implant one embryo. It's an expensive procedure and often they don't take. This is why you have so many stories of multiple births due to IVF. So out of those 10 embryos, the original donor would probably use 2-4 and if they had excess implantation, selectively reduce (which is one of the major reasons why the Church is against IVF, it promotes abortion). You would then only need about 2-3 women willing to carry snowflake babies to use up that set of embryos.

The supply of women is currently quite small but that's because an awful lot of people don't even know about the possibility and few organizations are pushing the concept. A huge cadre of post-menopausal birth mothers is available that nobody's even considered and efforts to make artificial wombs continue apace.

In short, there's no reason except a lack of love and ingenuity why voluntary supply and demand would necessarily doom large numbers of these embryos. We can do better.

Re:Whole heart next?

[dbrutus]

I wasn't aware that they approved miscarriage stem cells. Do you have a source?

Yeah!

[bigattichouse]

As the owner of a slightly defective valve, I feel encouraged that when the time comes, I'll have my own supply of spare parts. (Or will be able to use loaners while mine are being grown.) Good work, folks!

Re:Yeah!

[DragonFodder]

I have to echo your sentiments with a loud "Hell Yeah!".

As the father of somone with a slightly defective valve. We have been told that at some point in the future this valve will need to be replaced. How wonderful it is that the replacement will no longer need be reduced to the choices of cadaver, pig, or mechanical.

Re:Yeah!

[Bob-taro]

As the owner of a slightly defective valve, I feel encouraged that when the time comes, I'll have my own supply of spare parts. I wonder what the chances are that if you have a defective valve, any valves created from your stem cells would also be defective. Has there been a sci-fi movie about growing full clones for "spare" organs?

Re:Yeah!

[AaxelB]

Here's one: The Clonus Horror. It was remade as The Island.

Re:Yeah!

[j_snare]

As the new owner of a shiny new mechanical replacement for my own defective valve, I wish these would have come out a couple years ago. Heh.

However, I would mention, don't make plans to go through this several times. Your doctor will generally tell you to minimize the times you have an operation. Listen to him well. It sucks. And it sucks more each subsequent time. And to top it off, there's the wonderful non-zero risk every time.

I look forward to the day when we don't have to use cheap replacements, but useful pieces that will be accepted and healed properly by the body when they get worn.

Won't be legal in the US

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

With the fundies in charge and the technologists in the back pocket of the government, the growth of heart valves from adult stem cells will be prohibited in some obscure provision tucked into who knows what sort of must-pass spending bill...

Re:Won't be legal in the US

[jimstapleton]

Quite incorrect. The fundies only dislike fetal stem cells and full-organism cloning. This shouldn't cause an issue with them.

Re:Won't be legal in the US

[jimstapleton]

*ahem*

s/fetal/embryonic/ ./get --amount=more --type=coffee

Preventing Rejection

[pscottdv]

Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue

What slashdotters need is a way to grow a girlfriend from their own cells.

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Anonymous Coward]

This is doable with today's technology. It takes about 18 years, 12 in Alabama.

Re:Preventing Rejection

[eln]

If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest?

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Applekid]

If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest? Masturbation perhaps?

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Miykayl]

That's a good idea... I think there are numerous slashdotters that are sufficiently in love with themselves to prefer a their clone... Wait... what about the gender! Oh No! What have WE DONE?!?

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Firethorn]

Simple enough; remove the Y chromosome and substitute a duplicate X.

Make sure you screen for some defeciences first though.

Re:Preventing Rejection

[jcgf]

Don't you mean a rib?

Re:Preventing Rejection

[cellocgw]

If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest?
Masturbation perhaps?
This exact set of jokes about clones showed up in a SciFi short story in the mid-60s (I believe). I can't recall the author or title for the life of me, but the story concerned a large number of clones (magically turned into both sexes) who worked as a team, mining something out of some remote planet. The two non-clone supervisors found it very difficult to understand the social interactions, etc etc.

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Knackered]

Old song, sung to "home on the range".

http://www.tranquility.net/~scimusic/lyrics.html#C lone,%20Clone%20of%20My%20Own

Re:Preventing Rejection

[mazarin5]

In a similar vein, Isaac Asimov wrote a song about clones:

The Clone Song
By: Isaac Asimov
Tune: Home On The Range

Oh, give me a clone \ Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And after it's grown, \ Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone \ With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

Oh, give me a clone, \ Is my sorrowful moan,
A clone that is wholly my own.
And if she's X-X, \ And the feminine sex,
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone \ With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

My heart's not of stone, \ As I've frequently shone
When alone with my own little X.
And after we've dined, \ I am sure we will find
Better incest then Oedipus Rex.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone \ With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

Why should such sex vex, \ Or disturb or perplex,
Or induce a disparaging tone?
After all, don't you see, \ Since we're both of us me,
When we're having sex, I'm alone.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone \ With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

And after I'm done \ She will still have her fun,
For I'll clone myself twice ere I die.
And this time without fail, \ They'll be both of them male,
And they'll each ravage her by and by.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone \ With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[slughead]

Tissue rejection isn't an issue with heart valves (one of the few tissues where it's not a problem).

The problem with heart valves is that if you replace one with, say, a pig valve, it won't grow. For adults, this is not a problem, but for kids, it means they'll have to have a replacement in a few years as their heart literally grows out of the valve(s).

This new grow-your-own approach would probably be best for children. For adults, however, heart valve replacement is actually fairly routine and requires no anti-rejection drugs afterwards.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[ambulatorybird]

I've had a valve replacement myself, and I believe there are two problems: (1) pig valve: those are basically like leather, and they wear out after 5 years, requiring replacement even in adults. And open heart surgery isn't normally something one wants to have on a regular basis. (2) artificial valve: blood clots form on them, requiring the patient to take anticoagulant drugs for the rest of his life.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the problem with wearing out in five years, there are some people, e.g. jewish, muslim, who wouldn't be willing to accept a pig valve.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[cayle clark]

When I was getting ready to have my aortic valve replaced, the surgeon showed me a porcine valve; in appearance it is nothing like leather, but rather an incredibly thin and flexible structure. The aortic valve is not like a flap valve, but more like three little plastic grocery bags hung from the sides of a pipe. When blood flows one way, the leaflets collapse against the wall; when it flows the other way, whap, they fill up and block the tube.

There is no rejection problem with porcine or bovine heart valves because everything except the collagen has been chemically leached out of them; there's no distinctly cow/pig cell material left for the human immune system to react to. Same for a human-tissue replacement valve (harvested from a cadaver). Nevertheless, I think a lot of people opt for the mechanical valve (and a lifetime of coumadin) because of the "ick" factor.

The reliability figures I got from researching medical journals was that my porcine valve should last 15 years (not 5). At the time (2002) I told the doctor, "Great, by the time I need another, they'll be able to grow it from my own cells." I am just delighted this is proving to be true!

p. s. I also predicted that by 2017 they would be installing new valves using minimally-invasive, arthroscopic surgery -- not opening the chest like a book. There has been progress on that front, too...

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[Dwedit]

Are you sure the lifetime of a pig valve is that low? I took a class about the history of artificial organs, and recall reading about newer generation processing to pig valves to make them last at least 15 years.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[ambulatorybird]

Regarding porcine valves, the doctors told me that they're tanned, so I assumed that they'd be leathery. The doctors also mentioned off-handedly that they last about 5 years, but maybe I'm misremembering. (The time of my operation was 2001.)

Old Colony vs. New Colony

[Shoten]

[humor mode on]
Of course the British are working on doing this in labs. They lost all their colonies. But we don't need this stuff; this kind of thing is what Puerto Rico is for :)

Re:Old Colony vs. New Colony

[grayNOISEeffect]

Troll... but true. We've been used for pharm testing and alien abductions since before I was born. :/

Silly question, but...

[FlyByPC]

...won't this be a problem if there's a genetic defect in the patient's heart valves? In other words, won't the replacement be following the same DNA blueprint, and have the same problems?

IANanMD, but I would think this would pose problems with usability, wouldn't it?

Re:Silly question, but...

[Stonent1]

Well if the valve failed because a defect in the formation as it grew, you'd be able to see that defect while it was growing in the lab and if it didn't have the defect, it could be implanted.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Jack9]

My aorta was perforated due to external developmental interference (virulent infection).
A stem cell replacement would develop normally (theoretically). The chances that I'd actually let them put such a "replacement" in me is very very low as it would not have been properly "worn" for my age and lifestyle (history of running marathons and intense workouts). The mechanicals are very efficient and I wouldn't trust a vat valve for my aorta today. I'm just not the guinea-pig type.

Re:Silly question, but...

[Renraku]

Sometimes.

Sometimes its genetic. Sometimes a cosmic ray hit one of the stem cells crawling down to develop the original. Sometimes the mother's alcohol intake interfered with the proper acquisition of nutrients and scaffolding to build it properly.

The Religious Right Extremists...

[eno2001]

...and the anti-genetic manipulation extremists will take issue with this kind of research. The religious folks will say we're playing god and that it's not good to fight his will. "If his will was for you to have faulty heart valves that it's probably a punishment because you've done something wrong. Maybe you didn't support president Bush, or you faltered in your stance against gays, or you said 'hi' to a liberal moonbat, or didn't tithe on Sunday. Whatever the case, you're a sinner and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity so he made your heart valves faulty. Just get right with God and he'll recreate your heart valves so that they're as good as a new born's". (No, I'm not being hyperbolic, I've dealt with christian fundamentalists who actually think and say things like this)

On the other hand, the extremist anti-genetic manipulation folks will say, "This goes against nature. We do so many things that violate the rules of nature which is why the Earth is at such a treacherous tipping point. There are too many people alive at this moment because of the artificial system's we've put in place to help them survive. This contradicts the survival of the fittest and provides us with nothing but an oversurplus of people who just shouldn't be alive right now. This means we're going to exceed the Earth's ability to support life (carrying capacity). By being able to grant people with faulty heart valves longer lives, we're only making the problem worse. Do NOT support the this research. It is an anti-Earth stance and is unsound science".

Meanwhile more people continue to die for oil in Iraq in a war founded on lies. No, the terrorists of 9/11 were not Iraqis. Get over the fact that you were lied to.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Broken scope]

Wow.... I'm impressed, you made that jump from stem cell research to the war for oil was one of the smoothest I have ever seen during my time on slashdot. /Bow

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

I was actually disappointed that it took 20 minutes from posting of the story for someone to complain about Bush. Libdotters are normally on the ball with this.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[FlatLine84]

Since when did we think the terrorists were Iraqis... Great points on the FUD storm coming.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Gordonjcp]

The religious folks will say we're playing god and that it's not good to fight his will.

You'll notice that a lot of them are strongly against abortion, but all for fertility treatment, even though it's rather more like playing God...

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[crrkrieger]

You're kidding, right? You say that you are not being hyperbolic because you have dealt with people actually think and say things like this. Have you actually met anyone who said all of that? Perhaps there are some wackos out there that think like that, but I think that you will find that most Christian Fundamentalists have no problem with such research.

I cannot believe that this post got rated 4 Interesting! It is a troll and a screed. If you need any more evidence of this, just look at the last paragraph talking about Iraq. A true war for oil would have us occupying the oil fields and leaving the rest of the country to rot. It would not have us trying to establish democracy in Iraq and pumping in lots of money and then letting them sell the oil to anybody they want and keep the profits.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and the anti-genetic manipulation extremists will take issue with this kind of research. The religious folks will say we're playing god and that it's not good to fight his will."

Most of the right-wing problem with stem cells comes from those concerned with abortion, by far, and so opposition to adult stem cell work is in no way a conservative viewpoint. While there are always going to be people who believe that the world is flat, the moon landings are fake, and the Second Coming was in 1847 but was "invisible", that doesn't cover conservatives any better than calling all liberals eco-terrorists.

Most conservatives I know are wary of things that could be seen to be messing with the substance of what people "are", but if they can find a way to remove the ethical reservations they have about it, embrace it just as fast as anyone else does. You are going to have a significantly easier time convincing someone that something from themselves is safer to use than something from another person, particularly one who became spare stem cells in a way that they consider to be unethical.

I know you said "extremists", but the linkage to the Bush Administration's Iraq policy leads one to believe that you mean that "right-wing extremists" is the same thing as the 46% or so of people in the US who re-elected Bush. Or perhaps you mean that a discussion on medical ethics is merely a smokescreen in a world where we should only be talking about the uh... ethics... of the Iraq war and the alleged lying involved.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get over the fact that you were lied to.."

WTF? So we should accept that we were lied to and the war is good? Try previewing your post next time, cock monster.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Arterion]

People are calling you a troll, but that's actually a good example of how a lot of the religious right thinks -- and I'd say not just the extremists. I've had first hand experience with folks who think and say things like that before. Hell, my whole childhood I was forced to be around them every Sunday.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[eno2001]

Oooh... you called me a cock monster. Is that some kind of X-rated muppet?

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[eno2001]

Same here. In a way I'm glad I had that upbringing because it gave me a really good idea what most religious organizations are all about: power and money.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Tony Hoyle]

Everytime you put someone on a life support machine you're playing god. Every time you use medical science to save a life you're playing god.

Me, I just wish we'd play god a bit more often. We seem to be a bit more enthusiastic about playing the other bloke.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the anti-genetic manipulation extremists will take issue with this kind of research. The religious folks will say we're playing god and that it's not good to fight his will. "If his will was for you to have faulty heart valves that it's probably a punishment because you've done something wrong. Maybe you didn't support president Bush, or you faltered in your stance against gays, or you said 'hi' to a liberal moonbat, or didn't tithe on Sunday. Whatever the case, you're a sinner and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity so he made your heart valves faulty. Just get right with God and he'll recreate your heart valves so that they're as good as a new born's". (No, I'm not being hyperbolic, I've dealt with christian fundamentalists who actually think and say things like this)

Meanwhile more people continue to die for oil in Iraq in a war founded on lies. No, the terrorists of 9/11 were not Iraqis. Get over the fact that you were lied to.

I think your sarcasm is so far off that you are basically not even factually correct. No one said or believes the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. Everyone (even the government) knows they were al Quaeda members who were mainly from Afghanistan I believe. In addition, many Republicans don't agree with Bush's war policy now so I'm not sure who you are talking to other than maybe the 10% who still believe he is right to continue doing what he is doing. And finally, realize that although Christian fundamentalists exist and probably are considered the "ultra conservative" or "extreme right-wing" there are also the "extreme left-wing" and "ultra liberal" and I bet you don't ever complain about them (they are just as guilty concerning other topics). Christian fundamentalists don't represent the majority so don't pick out a few to represent the whole so you can have what you think is a basis for your argument. If you continue I'll just pick out a few extreme liberals and do the same right back at you. Christians believe in helping others especially those in need but if it comes at the cost of hurting others then its questionable as to whether it is worth it (means justifying the ends); many of them believe you shouldn't hurt 1 person to help another (abortion for example or cloning people just for harvesting body parts). For your information, we (liberals and conservatives) already play God when we kill other people or ourselves.

Re:The Religious Right Extremists...

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

...and the anti-genetic manipulation extremists will take issue with this kind of research. The religious folks will say we're playing god and that it's not good to fight his will...

I love the way that some people, in the absence of an argument from any hyper-religious whackos, will start the argument themselves by arguing against what the hyper-religious whackos would be saying, if they were saying anything, even though they are not. It's kind of cute :-P

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A small step for science...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a large step for politicans who still need some TV time to boost their ego by complaining about this scientific achievement because they just remembered the word "ethics" and looked it up in a dictionary to be sure it means what they think it means.

In the meantime people keep dying because of diseases that could have been cured for long if only the politican-needs-more-TV-time delay wouldn't hinder further progress every time something was achieved.

That's nothing!

[aadvancedGIR]

Real geeks build their own pacemaker.

Re:That's nothing!

[JAlexoi]

That is why MDs are not "Real geeks" and get girlfriends.

Re:That's nothing!

[geekinaseat]

But could it run Linux?

PING Dr. Hfuhruhurr

[Anonymous Coward]

The religious folks will say we're playing god SOMEbody has to!

Re:Heart Value

[crow]

Looks fine to me. Are you reading this at a computer in a pvblic library?

New Valve?

[Double Entendre]

I'm open to it.

Too soon?

Idea worth thinking about

[JSchoeck]

Wow, interessting concept, but very problematic non the less. If the fetus doesn't survive it would be a hard judgment case.

Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Miykayl]

There are people doing embryonic stem-cell research, they simply are not government/public funded here in the U.S.

From what I can see, however, the folks doing research with the adult-stem-cells are outpacing embryonic research by leaps and bounds.

This sounds like a bona-fide adult-stem-cell success.

From what a vaguely remember, the embryonic-stem-cell experiments have either failed outright, or ultimately failed after initial success. We've heard lots of promises, but adult-stem-cells are delivering, where embryonic-stem-cells do not seem to be.

If I'm ignorant, it's honest ignorance.

Let's see some links to comparable embryonic-stem-cell successes...

I think peer-reviewed periodicals are our best bet for the straight-story, but even those articles may have biases. And, it's probably heresy in the medical field to oppose embryonic-stem-cell-research... which is an important clue.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[jimstapleton]

A lot more money is being thrown at adult stem cell research - it's really not comparible which is more useful from the start.

You put $10B into research on ethanol from corn, vs $100K into research for ethanol from cane... Which one will show up better? Which one is actually better?

The scales were weighted and the measurement isn't good.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the money being thrown at either one is not that drastically different. Just because it is illegal in the US doesn't mean a 'gasp' multi-national company can simply set up a lab in another country.

So it comes down to which one pans out more in the end, and we haven't had much success with embryonic stem cells ..... yet. So grandfather poster does have a point. But I think the true verdict will not come for a few years...

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very hotly-debated and highly emotional, ethically-sticky, etc, etc issue. You can be sure that the best and the brightest of those who are against embryonic stem cell research will be putting in 150% effort to make other stem cells do what embryonic stem cells can, and even surpass them.

Yes, the embryonic stem cell research crowd will have a lot of bright people, perhaps even brighter than the other group, but there is nothing for them to prove. They're already starting out ahead. At the moment, the general belief (fact?) is that embryonic stem cells are more effective, easier to work with, etc. (Do rejections still occur with embryonic stem cell-developed tissues?)

They also might not have the general drive and motivation to make the embryonic research surpass the non-embryonic research out of any moral or ethical issues. I mean, if you don't have any problems working with embryonic stem cells or their origins, you wouldn't have problems with adult stem cells either; you just wouldn't do that because embryonic stem cells appear to hold more promise. Those who are only after the funding are useless to either side of the project fence.

(I don't know which will ultimately prove to be better, which is why I say "appears" and "suppose")

You can get a knucklehead (or group of them) in the $10B project, and a genius (or group of them) in the $100K project, and the smaller project will soar. Combine that with drive and motivation, and you'll have a winning team almost regardless of funding. Especially so if the smaller project is substantially more viable (in this case, common belief is that it's not).

Money isn't everything, but it sure helps.

-M

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not illegal, just not government funded.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Firethorn]

A good point; the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research has resulted in a comparative lack of funds.

Another argument would be that embryonic stem cell research is 'higher level' research - more theoretical than practical. The lessons learned there could filter down and help adult stem cell research develop practical treatments.

For one thing, without some extensive modification you'll have problems with immune systems rejecting the cells; just like with transplanted organs unless you make it a habit to collect them for all children. That's a rather massive storage project, and what happens if an accident takes out your tube of stem cells.

Better to use adult stem cells - they can be harvested anytime, and we can provide service to people today using them.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[plague3106]

There are people doing embryonic stem-cell research, they simply are not government/public funded here in the U.S.

From what I can see, however, the folks doing research with the adult-stem-cells are outpacing embryonic research by leaps and bounds.

Hmm... read those two statements, and see if you can't figure out how linked they really are.

From what a vaguely remember, the embryonic-stem-cell experiments have either failed outright, or ultimately failed after initial success. We've heard lots of promises, but adult-stem-cells are delivering, where embryonic-stem-cells do not seem to be.

Since loss of federal funding likely shut down much of the research, that's expected. Also, the lines that ARE still in existance are mostly contaminated and are useless.

Let's see some links to comparable embryonic-stem-cell successes...

Since I'm in the US, and we've 1) cut federal funding for research using new lines of embryonic SCs, and 2) the existing lines are contaminated, I won't be able to do so, since a good portion of research is not being done anymore. I wouldn't know where to look for research by other countries.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[devC]

It makes more sense to me to use adult stem cells as well. I don't know a lot about it, but it seems the stem cells found in my body would better suit me. Who's to say that a new heart made from an embryonic stem cell would even match? Because of the potential for the new organ (or whatever) made from embryonic stem cells to not be compatible, would our money be better inverted in adult stem cell research?

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[jimstapleton]

the point of embryonic stem cells isn't to make the replacements (although, they could make batches of low-antigen factors), the point is to understand the growth and development of the tissues in the body.

So it wouldn't be to grow you a new heart valve, but to understand how the heart valves grow.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[devC]

Couldn't the same research be performed on adult stem cells? This is a serious question. I only know what is mentioned briefly in the news, so this is all education to me. It seems you know a lot. For instance "low-antigen factors". I am interested to know what your back ground is in stem cell research. Are you a professional or just a passionate advocate? This is obviously such a hot topic; one that could, I think, change the world: cures for disease, better understanding of the human body, cloning. Tons of things could happen regardless of the moral issue and a person needs to be educated in order to make a rational, honest decision ( and not one just force fed to them).

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[jimstapleton]

more recently than a year or two ago? No.

Now? Maybe. It would require a lot more effort though (there are methylation sites on the DNA that "turn off" genes, and these methyl groups need to be taken off, but only some, not all if I remember correctly. There may be other factors as well. And this has to be done without killing the cell.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[devC]

Ok, I can see why embryonic stem cells would be easier to research. Do they use stem cells in placentas? If not, why not? Are they available. If there are stem cells in a placenta, which I am pretty sure there are, why are they just thrown away? It seems like a huge waste of resources.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Firethorn]

They are using stem cells from placentas and umbilical cords, but at the time of birth they're almost like adult stem cells; they're no longer as plastic as earlier term stem cells.

Then there's the whole 'tarred brush' problem - current administrations don't make a huge differentiation between fetal stem cells and birth stem cells. There are also some ethical problems with using the discarded parts of a baby (cord&placenta) in research when the donor is a minor and unable to give consent. You'd think that the parents could give permission, but there are still issues for the really paranoid people.

One suggested source was fetuses that are generated yet discarded at fertility clinics*, not aborted fetuses/babies. That would result in absolutely 'fresh' cell masses, that by design are never going to be implanted to grow into a baby, that right now end up as medical waste.

*Fertility clinics will generally fertilize a half a dozen eggs or so at a time. They do this to increase the odds of getting a viable embryo. Remember, the whole reason somebody would go for artificial fertilization is because something is messed up so they can't do it the natural way, so the odds are good that any given fertilized egg won't be viable. The process is fairly expensive, yet collecting/fertilizing multiple eggs in a procedure doesn't really cost any more. So they do a number at once, select the most 'viable' embryo, and implant that one (or two).

Not much different than nature, really. The odds are slightly against any given fertilized egg surviving to the one month stage, when women usually start figuring out they're pregnant.

Re:Adult vs. Embryonic stem cells... ?

[Miykayl]

Your implication appears to be that nothing can succeed without funding by the U.S. government.

That is not only untrue, but it could be argued that the converse is true... and that due to government incompetence, it is often government involvement and/or funding that spells doom for any honest project.

We cannot both distrust our government and insist that it solve our problems. We cannot both insist that it let us live in liberty and insist that we become indebted to it.

Back to my point, there is plenty of private investment, and even other-government investment. But, the privately-invested dollar will go further, because private entities keep far better track of their money than the U.S. government does.

Insisting that stem-cell failure is only due to lack of funding does at least oversimplify the situation.

If we can help all mankind equally well (or better) with adult-stem-cells as we can embryonic-stem-cells, then we've done a better job of adhering to the Hippocratic oath, of first doing no harm.

It is not insanity to respect that very old and very useful creed. Age does not make a thing false. A thing is not inherently false by cause of antiquity. Wouldn't it be nifty if I could stick to one point? Thank you.

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Heart patients in the U.S. are routinely transplanted with "pig" (actually bovine) heart valves. Heart valves are cartilagenous, and for this reason do not typically produce a xenogenic or graft vs. host reaction. For example, heart valve replacement patients do not usually need to take immune suppression drugs and the transplants have expected service lives measured in decades.

Re:php

[buswolley]

Told you we shouldn't kill babies. It was a short-sighted 'solution.'

Conservatives need to stop this!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG... a new technology which can benefit humanity. Conservatives, you must stop this at all costs!!

If a conservative is against something, that's an indication of how beneficial it actually is. The better something is, the more conservatives hate it.

Being reported in theJournal of the Royal Society?

[jimicus]

If it's being reported in a proper journal, do we have a link to the journal itself rather than something from the Daily Hysteria?

The Daily Mail is famous for blowing medical reports out of all proportion - they "cure cancer" an average of 2 or 3 times a year.

Yeah! Too!

[dazedNconfuzed]

This news is exactly why I've put off getting a replacement: so long as the incomplete valve I have does its job adequately, 'tis better to wait for better technology to develop. Wait long enough, and voila - new identical replacement parts become available.

Re:Yeah! Too!

[plague3106]

Wait long enough, and voila - new identical replacement parts become available.

Um, if its identical, won't it also be incomplete?

Re:Yeah! Too!

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, and I am in the same boat, there is a fairly good chance its more likely to be nurture over nature. DNA isn't every thing (but I miss his books). Even, if I was to have my valve replaced, with the way its degraded so far through my life, I should make it until the end with out needing another. The big bonus is not having to take medication to stop me rejecting the pig,human valve, or drugs to stop clots forming on the mechanical version.

Caucauios optimisim

[mavi_yelken]

The procedure is still untested in animal experiments, meaning they don't know if transplanted it will work at all but this is certainly encouraging. Best of luck to Dr. Yacoub and his team.

Also I couldn't find a link to the paper by Dr. Yacoub which should have been here

Yay heart valves

[Anonymous Coward]

As a person born with a bicuspid Aorta valve (In other words, my Aorta valve, the valve that pumps blood to most of the body, has two flaps instead of three) this excites me greatly. Since I was born I've had to live every year with the possibility that I would have to have a mechanical implant if I ever overexerted my heart. I truly, truly hope that this caches on, not just for me but for the 1 in 300 (According to my cardiologist the number is that high) people who have the same or similar conditions to me.

Praise science!

Re:Yay heart valves

[Anonymous Coward]

I too have a deformed heart valve that has only two parts instead of three. It was discovered for the first time during my exit physical from the Navy. I was a competitive distance runner before the discovery, and continued running afterwards as well. Don't forgoe exercise in fear of your heart valve giving out. Lack of exercise is more likely to kill you than over exercising. I'm really glad to hear that a natural alternative to the mechanical replacement valves may be on the horizon. Science is a good thing. Moderate exercise and a good diet is good for all of us, good heart valves or bad.

Re:Yay heart valves

[Anonymous Coward]

As previously mentioned, if you are an adult, then this has little bearing on your situation. At some point, your cardiologist will probably suggest that they fix your aortic valve. This is commonly done with the "Ross Procedure", and involves replacing your aortic valve with your pulmonary, and then using a pig valve or human tissue valve to replace the pulmonary. If done now or in the near future, it's generally a 50+ year shelf life until it starts to break down.

I had my Ross done in 1995, but they had to fix an issue with my ascending aorta last year and had to go back in. They typically stint the aorta now when they do a Ross, since it will eventually become an issue later in life. I have no restrictions (other than no weight lifting) and the recovery time isn't as bad as you might think. As scary as the prospect seems, it's a pretty common procedure and beats the alternative of having to fix it in an emergency.

I think the possibility of heart valves from stem cells is huge for infants and kids, and there are a lot of kids that have this done each year.

Re:Yay heart valves

[CharlieSu]

Wow.. I have aortic stenosis and I'm 23 yrs. old. My doctor has told me this is probably what will happen to me later in life. I've experienced some exhaustion due to my heart problem so far in life. I'd like to get into contact with you if possible to find out about your surgery. I'm scared about my future and would like some reassurance. PM me or email me at charlie dot sullivan at gmail dot com

OEM parts

[thejuggler]

I guess this means that we are now using OEM parts instead of third-party knock-offs.

Re:OEM parts

[Gravatron]

There is a newegg joke in there somewhere, damn If I can see it though.

Re:php

[Retric]

So, ignoring the fact that a strong push into embryonic stem cell research would have resulted in zero additional baby deaths you assuming we would be in the same place today? Ethics aside we are probably in a worse place today than we would be without embryonic stem cell research. Over time millions of people may die because we are just a little behind where we could be. However, we will never know what could have been...

Thanks.

PS: The point of research is to find out how to do things. It was unlikely we would ever use embrionic stem cells as "standard" treatment but we could have learned a lot about how cells work much sooner.

Re:php

[apparently]

Oh, do fuck off. This has nothing to do with adult stem cells being just as good as fetal stem cells, but how am I supposed to argue against someone whose head is so far up their ass that they think babies are "killed" for stem cells? Seriously, you're fucking useless and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance.

Re:I'll be more impressed...

[Col. Bloodnok]

The problem of NHS dentistry in the UK is a national scandal - and is no joke. In many parts of the UK there is no NHS dentistry provision at all, or waiting lists to join NHS practices that beggar belief.

The NHS, free at the point of delivery, unless it's something to do with your teeth, but Clove Oil is supposed to be good for toothache.

Maybe I'm offtopic and Parent is a Troll, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This goes against nature. We do so many things that violate the rules of nature which is why the Earth is at such a treacherous tipping point. There are too many people alive at this moment because of the artificial system's we've put in place to help them survive. This contradicts the survival of the fittest and provides us with nothing but an oversurplus of people who just shouldn't be alive right now. This means we're going to exceed the Earth's ability to support life (carrying capacity). While it goes against our American ideals, the philosophy of "the greater good" is often at least a good way to play Devil's Advocate. It's generally wise to wholly consider the opinions of the other side before you throw up your mental walls against their ideas. The odds are that you're not 100% right and that they're not 0% right.

Obviously you have very strong feelings about this because you have done significant research or studying into the matter. Would you please enlighten the rest of us as to why what these "extremists" are saying (quoted above) is flawed?

How many years does it take?

[flyingfsck]

How many years does it take to grow a replacement part? Do we need to start growing replacement bodies a few months after birth in order to have a ready supply of spare parts?

Re:php

[dbrutus]

All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. Had we concentrated our funds on adult stem cell research, we might be even further ahead. Instead we got a lot of inaccurate tear-jerking testimony that emotionally manipulated the process and lots of funding ended up supporting what has largely been a "dry hole" of scientific exploration.

Over time, millions may die because we funded embryonic stem cell research to the level we are doing so today instead of concentrating on the more productive adult cell approaches. Millions of lives hang in the balance on a lot of speculative decisions and they can be lost no matter how you choose. We do our best and cut our losses as much as we can if we're ethical.

Been there, done that

[marol]

I grew my own heart valve once.

Re:Been there, done that

[ACMENEWSLLC]

>>I grew my own heart valve once. (ha ha)

For this to be scientific, you have to be able to reproduce the results and grow it again :P

Re:Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet your mommy helped you out, just like she did with all those school projects.

Re:Been there, done that

[jagdish]

Chuck Norris, is that you?

Re:Been there, done that

[Spurion]

You stole my joke :-/

Painless Heartbreak Recovery

[Doc Ruby]

So now all we have to do is pay a doctor a lot of money to punch big holes in our sides, through our bones, to harvest our stemcells, a painful core sample.

Why can't we use some of the 400,000 blastocysts discarded by fertility clinics every year?

Then we'd just need the expensive second surgery to implant them, or the tissue externally grown from them in a lab. Eventually maybe we'll get a stemcell pill, or better yet, some kind of herbal tea that stimulates our own stemcells. But first let's get rid of the bone puncher.

Re:php

[Cervantes]

...and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance. Ironically, that may have helped further embryonic stem cell research...

Re:php

[Retric]

Wow, All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. and my point was if we don't do significant embryonic research we don't get results from embryonic research...

You are double plus good at double speak. (1984 is a book read it and thinks about what you're saying.)

PS: If you assume killing babies is bad and embryonic research kills babies then you might assume it's an ethical decision. But if one of your facts is wrong then it's a pointless argument.

What's that movie?

[Kris_B_04]

Where there is a secret community of clones who are being grown so that their organs can be harvested in order to extend the lives of people who are wealthy enough to afford it.

Hmmm....

Kris

Re:What's that movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Island

Re:What's that movie?

[Kris_B_04]

That's the one!! :)

Thank you muchly!

Kris

Re:php

[kasparov]

All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. Had we concentrated our funds on adult stem cell research, we might be even further ahead.

Gee, do you think that the adult side being more productive currently might be because funding has been severely limited on the embryonic side? Of course the option with the most funding has an easier time being developed. Jesus, funding has been concentrated on adult stem cell research! There is almost no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that the embryos that would be used for embryonic stem cell research are just being thrown away! No one is going to outlaw IVF because it would be just about impossible to get a law passed forbidding couples that desperately want to have a child the option of IVF. So the embryos are going to be there no matter what. Why not use them? Forbidding embryonic stem cell research in no way shape or form "saves babies". And you have the nerve to decry people "emotionally manipulating the process" with their tear-jerking testimony? BULLSHIT!

Re:Being reported in theJournal of the Royal Socie

[Tony Hoyle]

They've cured alziemers and diabetes over the last few months too.

I'm waiting for the Mail to announce a cure for death :p

Re:php

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, that may have helped further embryonic stem cell research...

By the time the fetus has developed to the point that someone realizes they're pregnant and might want an abortion, the embryonic cells have already differentiated and cannot be used. The stem cells used for research come from in vitro fertilization attempts where a dozen or so eggs are washed in a trillion or so sperm cells, ending with one or two failed implantations, one successful implantation, and a number of leftovers.

DIY

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, I just missed a DIY technique...

I already did this

[voxel]

I grew my own heart valves about 29 years ago thank you very much.

Grow Your Own Heart Valves

[zonker]

Grow Your Own Heart Valves

Again? It was hard enough for me to do it the first time. ;P

And the next thing is:

[boltik]

Grow you own enlarged... No, thanks, i'm not interested!

This discussion is funny.

[rammer]

I have always found it funny how the supposed "leader" nation of the "free" world still has these archaic notions. And not just on abortion.
In many European nations these "issues" have not been discussed publicly for a looong time. The reason being that they are essentially a non-issue.
Just goes to show how outdated the religious mob is. Talk about groupthink...

Grow your own from pig valves

[dvnelson72]

About 12 years ago I was involved in a bio-engineering project at Ga Tech. There was a company in Atlanta Cryo-something that took pig valves, stripped everything but the collagen matrix, and grew cells cultured from your own body on the "valve". Basically, the only thing left from the pig was a floppy skeleton of a valve. The advantages were that it would be your own cells so there was no rejections. Also, since it was alive, it wouldn't need replacing.

The problem, was floppiness. If it's too floppy, it's not a valve. If it's too stiff the flow is constricted. They had ways to control the floppiness/stiffness of the grown tissue. Our project was this: how do you measure the stiffness of a heart valve leaflet? It's like measuring the stiffness of overcooked angel hair pasta.

Re:php

[dbrutus]

The ratio of adult to embryonic research by the NIH is about 3:1. There are 73 stem cell treatments out of which 73 use adult cells. Were even 10 of those treatments from embryonic stem cells, I would concede that the embryonic funding was about reasonably productive. But that would be a different world.

There are zero restrictions on private money going into embryonic stem cell treatments. States do fund and private groups can fund what the federal government does not want to fund. But the private money generally isn't going to embryonic because the private money has to earn a rate of return and people get tossed out of work if they fund too many unproductive research proposals.

I like Michael J Foxx just as much as the next guy. I hope that he gets a cure for his disease. I think that it's a tragedy that he's spending so much time and effort to lobby on behalf of type of therapy that has not given any positive results in terms of actual therapies. And yes, he's manipulative as hell.

Re:php

[dbrutus]

NIH is spending $147M this year alone on embryonic stem cell research. It is spending about $400M for adult stem cell research. This administration has radically shifted funding ratios so that embryonic gets more funding yet the number of therapies from adult cells keeps growing while approved embryonic therapies (I hope you don't want to count the snake oil guys) are still stuck at zero.

I am not actually addressing the moral argument in this post, just the pure utilitarian one that so far as we know, embryonic stem cells might not work in reality, no matter how well they work in theory (and that happens a lot). The continued disparity in progress in favor of the adult cell approach would lead a prudent person to eventually abandon embryonic research even if they were a card carrying atheist and believer in 4th trimester abortion.

There's also a powerful moral argument besides the utilitarian one but if you can't even get past this one, why bother bringing God into it?