Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem-Cell-Like Cells Produced From Skin

Posted by kdawson on from the end-of-the-moral-debate dept.

MikShapi writes "Skin cells can now be turned into something resembling stem cells. A genetic modification to four genes using a viral vector reverses differentiating, making the cells revert to a stem-cell state, capable for becoming any other cell in the body. The researchers are calling them 'iPS cells' or 'induced pluripotent stem cells.' In their experiments, iPS cells in the lab turned into nerve cells, heart muscle, and other tissues. The research was published in Cell and Nature by teams from the universities of Kyoto and Wisconsin. The article notes that if the new method proves successful, 'we can disconnect the whole stem cell debate from the culture war, from battles over embryo politics and abortion rights.' And, should this technique be adopted, stem cells will henceforth be abundant, easier and cheaper to come by for research and therapeutic purposes."

3 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. As mentioned on Fark... by Linux_ho · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now all those people getting abortions in the name of science can finally stop.

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  2. Re:Viable by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember, religious people haven't had issues with adult stem cell research

    It's always been false to blame "religious nuts" as being the only ones against harvesting embryonic stem cells. I'm an atheist, and I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of medical experiments on viable humans.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. Re:The science! by MBraynard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    equate a couple of cells in a petree dish to a human

    And that is where we disagree. And I'm sure you can understand this line of thought even if you don't agree with it. It goes to the question of what is a human deserving of human rights. We consider it a unique being with DNA, post-fertilization.

    We find this definition has a scientific and ethical clearity that can avoid a lot of the horrors of history that now (most of) humanity regrets based on what counts as a human worthy of protection.

    We've found your previous and current standards of tribe/religion/family/ethnicity/sexuality/age/disability/ or simply 'might makes right' distinctions to be unworthy of our species.

    So you disagree - so if we are not persuasive, are we at least not 'stupid?'

    you don't get to claim this is some kind of victory

    To quote Jerry Sienfeld's response when he was told he was not in listed in the top 10 of comedians in the history of America but was instead number twelve, I'll take it.