Slashdot Mirror
Safe Stem Cells Produced From Adult Cells
hackingbear writes "Wired, citing a paper published in Science magazine, reports that Harvard scientists may have found a safer way of giving a flake of skin the biologically alchemical powers of embryonic stem cells by turning adult cells into versatile, embryonic-like cells without causing permanent damage. The technique involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA.' Four-month trials on mice demonstrated that the resulting stem cells are free from unpredictable cancer-inducing mutations. This is definitely a breakthrough in stem cell research."
Additional coverage is available at Yahoo, and Science hosts the research paper, although you'll need a subscription to see more than the abstract.
Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in humans by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in 1997. Last year, he also published a paper on getting adult stem cells to act like embryonic stem cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120092709.htm
Wisconsin has and licenses most of the original embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for federal funding. Of course the popular press will cling to anything done by "Harvard".
Conservatives have no problem with stem-cell research. The problem is when the stem cells are harvested from a human embryo - during the process we end a human life. The main question about embryonic stem-cells was 'Is it right to kill a human being to potentially save other lives?' With this new breakthrough, it could be possible to save many lives without killing a potential human life.
Instead we're faced with the new controversy that every skin cell you shed can be considered an embryo that, with the correct application of medical science, can now become a child.
Scratching yourself will now mean you're killing babies!
Or, perhaps you're trying to create an evil clone army with all those cells?
There's plenty of material and interpretations for anyone who wants to find controversy.
As someone who considers "humane killing" an oxymoron of the first degree, I'm fine with the idea. The person being killed probably doesn't care much whether he's injected with a lethal poison or shot in the head. The person needing a transplant, on the other hand, cares very much about living a normal life.
Similarly, the embryos are already being created and destroyed en masse by fertility clinics. (And yet, for some reason, pro-lifers never complain about that.) Does the embryo care whether it's grown into organ tissue or thrown in the trash? Does a person suffering from a degenerative disease care about a cure?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
It's not too far unlike the the reason why labor laws generally do not allow you to opt-out (minimum wage, lunch, etc). While it is understandable that workers may want to on their own accord, it becomes extremely difficult to prove that they weren't encouraged to by their employer.
Similarly, if we're allowed to harvest organ from people we killed on purpose, how can we be sure that the person was killed for legitimate reasons? So we look to legislation to minimize any positive side effects to a person's death.
And likewise, while embryos might not count as human life, they are human. By allowing people to harvest stem cells from them, you are putting utility in destroying human could-be-life. The end result is not awfully far from _farming_ human could-be-life since, as above, proving things like 'abandoned' is difficult. This doesn't sit well with a lot of people, and especially so with those that view embryos are full fledged human life.
many people believe "Human Life" doesn't begin until after the state that embryo's are harvested.
yes, but this new discovery neatly side- steps that problem.
and for those above who say that McCain will find some way to construe it as unethical, the pope has said that adult stem cell research is fine. Pope endorses adult stem-cell research (catholicnews.com) If the pope is good with it, i don't see any elected official having a problem with it.
"The possibilities opened up by this new chapter in research are in themselves fascinating" because adult stem-cell studies have pointed to actual and potential cures of degenerative diseases that would otherwise lead to disabilities or death, the pope said at an audience for participants attending a Vatican-sponsored congress on stem-cell therapy.
>...With this new breakthrough, it could be possible to save many lives without killing a potential human life.
Yep, all those unneeded fertilized embryos now go straight to the incinerator, no stop for any life-saving harvesting in between.
Exfoliation is MURDER!!!
Nobody is aborting foetuses simply to get stem cells. They're taking cells from foetuses who are *already* aborted and whose usefulness is otherwise to merely be thrown in the trash.
Your 'main question' is a complete strawman - we don't even harvest organs from executed prisoners even though that would save a lot of lives, because that question was asked and answered year ago.
Uh, no. They are taking embryo's from fertility clinics, not abortiong clinics. You see, when a couple goes to a fertility clinic, the clinic will fertilize multiple eggs. This is because it is so expensive, may as well do several per shot. When the couple conceives, divorces or whatever, the remaining embryos are discarded. These are the embryos that are donated for science research.
The problem some have this is that the fertilized eggs are put in a culture and manipulated to divide, thus becoming an embryo and no longer a "zygote". Stem cells are extracted from this embryo, killing it in the process.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
try not to be too scared every time the word virus is mentioned. Viruses help as well as harm. There is very good evidence that viruses (and viral originated elements retained in these hosts) have shaped the structure and content of the genomes of many creatures (humans included) in positive ways: http://genome.cshlp.org/cgi/content/full/15/8/1073
Adenovirus are in some way more benign given the lack direct integration into the host genome.
the released paper by Konrad's group is pretty interesting, albeit more of a technical accomplishment than a new paradigm shift.
I wasn't, but now that you mention it....
"We need to find a short blond kid missing an arm and leg."
Or make one.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."