Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Targeting Wins First Nobel of 2007
An anonymous reader writes "'Gene targeting,' which allows scientists to isolate stem cells in mice and reproduce genetically modified offspring, has won the Nobel Prize for medicine. Having allowed pathologists to better understand diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes and cystic fibrosis for close to 20 years, the technology is just now getting its big day in the sun. From Nobel's full how-it-works: 'Their [i.e. ES cells] use as a vehicle for the transfer into the mouse genome of mutant alleles, either selected in cell culture or inserted into the cells via transformation with specific DNA fragments, has been presented as an attractive proposition. In many of these studies the use of pluripotential cells directly isolated from the embryos under study should have great advantages.'"
but that sounds like they are well on their way to creating Mighty Mouse.... He'll save us from Global warming, right?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Oh wait.......
It's a mouse, so neither. also, it sounds like they were harvesting cells using a non-destructive method, so the embryo survived after harvesting a few cells from them.
Neither.
1. Meat being muscle, it's not that.
2. Living being is too vague a term to use here, so it doesn't really fit that...
3. The article discusses a mouse, so "human" is right out.
4. We're talking about a group of undifferentiated cells-- usually ones that would otherwise be destroyed.
5. The benefits are to poor, rich, athiest, Christian (except Christian Scientists), and the rest of humanity.
6. "Let's see" is incorrect, since you obviously didn't even glance at the article description, let alone its concents
You might have gotten the word "or" right, but it's not looking good.
E pluribus unum
Harvesting of embryonic stem cells constitutes only a small part of the process. The stem cells undergo genetic processing and are then injected into other embryos (blastocysts), which are implanted into a mother and grow into chimeras. When the chimeras reproduce some of their offspring contain only genetic material from the affected stem cells. THAT is the end result that they are looking for. I really don't think this process is likely to ever be performed on humans, so the ethical issues of human stem cells are irrelevant.
How many people, both babies and adults, could be saved by this kind of research? I'll trade a clump of cells for the life of my child any day of the week thanks.
You keep shaking from that Parkinsons, buddy. I'll be feeding myself and walking. Enjoy!
Living With a Nerd
Good thing we don't need the government to fund something to make progress on it.
Actually, the US government DOES support this type of research. This was done with mice, not human embryos. Still, even it was human tissue being researched, the US Gov't would still fund research providing that it either used one of the existing stem cell lines or the stem cells came from a different source such as cord blood or adult stem cells.
You should really look this stuff up before you spout off like that.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Please learn and understand the meaning of the word "contaminated" and the difference between "pluri" and "omni".
As I said in my blog entry about it ('bout 3:00 this morning when we heard about it), I am actually surprised it took this long as it would be hard to quantify how much science has been dependent upon Mario's work or even work that comprised prior Nobel Prize awards. Certainly my science going back to my dissertation has relied on transgenic techniques pioneered by Mario Capecchi and I owe much to him, but more importantly the doors for much discovery made in bioscience over the past several decades would simply not have been possible without Mario's pioneering work.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
your perspective will change significantly when you've been diagnosed with terminal cancer and offered an experimental treatment gleaned from this invaluable research.
Oh, HELL no!! Who's picking this, man?! How the hell the Nobel Peace Prize for MEDICINE gonna go to ANYBODY but me?! That's ridiculous! My album went Gold in a day, babe! My album went Gold in a DAY!!
I ain't heard of NONE of y'all theories! But if the Nobel Peace Prize isn't going to ME.. the Nobel Peace Prize LOSES.. credibi -- [ expletive deleted ]
Cue totally irrelevant, misinformed, and asinine stem cell blather in 5..4..3...
Oh, wait - I'm too late.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Hopefully this will improve the image of stem cell research in the public eye. While the "NO MEDDLIN' WITH GOD'S WORK" crowd probably won't have an instant change of heart, this is still a start.
You used to have a really crappy sig, but then I stole it.
I don't know anyone who opposes stem cell research in general. I have not even heard of anyone who opposes stem cell research in general. The only thing I have heard is opposition to killing people in order to heal other people. That is how those who oppose embryonic stem cell research see the situation. They view human embryos as human. Therefore they consider embryonic stem cell research to be comparable to the medical research done by the Nazis (in particular Dr Mengele). You may disagree with their view of human embryos as human, but it does not advance the discussion to mis characterize them as the "NO MEDDLIN' WITH GOD'S WORK" crowd. If we are ever going to make any progress on divisive issues, we need to address where we disagree. If you don't believe that human embryos are deserving of the same legal protections as post natal humans, let's have that discussion.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And if his perspective doesn't change, he'll die. Natural selection (memetic, in this case) will have taken it's course.
Technoli
I have met Martin Evans as my mum knows him, plus he was born in my home town. I'll may be invited to the celebration party, something I think I won't be able to turn down.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
What, if any, is the difference between harvesting a liver/heart/kidney from a motorcycle accident victim and harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses?
It's not like women are going to have extra abortions to support research!
Amen brother! Oh, wait, you said you were an atheist. Sorry about that.
That is a valid question and certainly part of the debate. Many of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research would say that the difference is that one is an accident victim, the other a murder victim.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This story is not about stem cells. It's about knocking out genes (mostly in mice) to figure out how what metabolic pathways certain genes control.
Alright then - why is that distinction actually relevant? I mean, I understand how some people would be afraid that rich people would have poor people killed for their organs...but doesn't that boil down to the same thing as the "if you fill out the organ donor card, the paramedics won't really try to save your life" hypothesis?
...Jesus will kill a kitten
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
...beacuse the most rational decisions are always made under duress.
Good, I F'ing hate cats.
No one opposes stem cell research - they just essentially stop such research by changing federal funding rules. I would WELCOME an honest assertion that the US government opposes embryonic stem cell research because embryonic cells are humans (because they are totipotent or have a soul or the bible says so...). If, the majority went along with that then I'd be fine with it as an informed moral choice made by the society we live in.
However, the reason we can't have that discussion is that the "NO MEDDLIN' WITH GOD'S WORK" crowd thinks that they would lose if they were honest and so wisely prefer to obfuscate - a strategy that, since we've already gone Godwin, some supporters would say was similar to that used by the Nazis (in particular Goebbels...)
Anyway, this prize was not about ES cells but about gene knockouts in a mammalian system (since this was already easy to do in bacteria, yeast and fruit flies).
Quite right. We certainly need government supported research to keep mice living longer and longer. That is the primary goal, right?....
Wow. That's sound just like something Jesus would say. I missed the part of the bible where Jesus mocked the cripples, I thought he showed compassion and healed them. Opps. My bad.
It would be the first such treatment. So far adult stem cells have netted 73 treatments and embryonic treatments have yielded ZERO. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Ok, but adult murder victims would also be harvested for organs, if processed in time. It's just that usually once the paramedics get there, all the organs are toast. Murderers tend not to call 911.
Motorcycle accident victims have the unique feature that they often go brain-dead from massive head trauma (especially in no-helmet states), leaving everything else intact (and alive). This makes them great for harvesting organs.. so much so that they're often called "donor-cycles".
Your fingers slipped... I've corrected your post for you:
"I'll trade the life of some unknown human any day of the week, provided I can imagine it is nothing more than a mass of cells rather than a distinct human being in the early stages of development. Please exploit this unknown, innocent, defenseless life for my own benefit."
There, fixed. You can thank me later.
I love my sig.
your perspective will change significantly when you've been diagnosed with terminal cancer and offered an experimental treatment gleaned from this invaluable research.
Actually, probably not. When has a doctor ever told you anything at all about the origins of any medicine or treatment? Most doctors probably don't know much about such things, as it's not really relevant to treatment. Medical researchers would usually know, but they're not the ones that treat patients.
Anyway, people are pretty good about being hypocritical about such things. Most people would happily use a medical treatment for a problem, even if they knew it came from something that they had opposed years ago.
It might be interesting to read about a survey of what doctors know about the origins of drugs and other medical treatments. I'd predict that a small number of doctors would be knowledgeable on the topic, because they personally find it interesting. The majority might know about a few specific cases, but probably wouldn't know much about it in general, and would have an "I don't have time to study things that aren't job-related" attitude.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.