Stem Cells From Fat Create Beating Heart Cells

Amenacier writes "Melbourne scientists recently discovered that stem cells isolated from human fat could be made to turn into beating heart muscle cells when cultured with rat heart cells. This discovery may lead to the use of fat stem cells in repairing cardiac damage, or fixing such cardiac problems as holes in the heart. It is proposed that culturing the stem cells with rat heart cells allows them to differentiate into heart muscle through signals from the rat cells. In the future it may be possible to inject/transplant the stem cells into the damaged area and have them naturally differentiate into the type of cell required, with only the natural stimuli provided by surrounding cells, without any danger of rejection by the body. Quoting: 'The next step is to implant the human heart cells onto the damaged heart of a laboratory rat to see whether they repair the heart. Then they would be trialled in higher species such as sheep and pigs before human applications could be considered. Clinical application could be five years away ...'" The Age has a multimedia treatment (Flash) of the discovery.

Comments

Rat hearted overlords?

[rubies]

Nah. We've already got those.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Rod Beauvex]

I ask that all rat lovers mod parent down for such an insult to rats everywhere.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[gnick]

I ask that all rat lovers mod parent down for such an insult to rats everywhere.

Pretty much off-topic, so I've foregone my karmic bonus. Mods, please be gentle.

Rats rock. Best pets I've had. They're clean, loyal, friendly, and low upkeep. Terrific. They've even potty-trainable with less that 1-month of effort - I used to let mine run loose and kept ramps up so that they could return to their cages to crap.
-----
On-topic... If we can generate stem-cells applicable to human research trans-specially, who other than PETA would continue to object?

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you can't potty train them for #1. They piddle everywhere they walk. *shrug* You get desensitized after awhile.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dougisfunny]

On-topic... If we can generate stem-cells applicable to human research trans-specially, who other than PETA would continue to object?

People afraid of cloning

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Psiren]

What the hell is a "loyal" rat? Come to that, why the hell do I want to know?!

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[pz]

On-topic... If we can generate stem-cells applicable to human research trans-specially, who other than PETA would continue to object?

The goal of the field is to use stem cells derived from the person being treated. The idea is it would run something like this: take a few vials of blood or a bit of adipose tissue (subcutaneous fat), send them to the lab to be turned into stem cells or precursor heart / kidney / pancreas / brain cells, inject into or near the appropriate tissue (maybe just give as a transfusion), and things will Just Work.

The only -- ONLY -- reason people are in an uproar about this sort of work is because fetal stem cells are being used by many researchers in the field, and obtaining fetal tissue is politically charged. (There's good scientific reasons to use fetal stem cells that have to do with host rejection.) Once we can take adult cells and turn them back into pluripotent stem cells (fixing the telomeres along the way, even), or barring that can get the equivalent naive stem cells from placenta or umbilical cord tissue, we won't require fetal tissue any more and the whole issue will fade quietly as it should.

Unfortunately, I'm on vacation, so don't have my references handy, but there are lots and lots and lots of people working on creating stem cells from adults, and there has been remarkable progress.

So, this is a long-winded way of saying that I doubt anyone in research team from the article is considering the application for their work to be to use xenograft stem cells (from a different species), but to instead use human fat cells to create new heart tissue.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[jgtg32a]

I was under the impression that there already were a couple of treatments in use that used Adult Stem Cells. The advantage of Embryonic Stem Cells is that they are more changeable then the adult Stem Cells.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[bornyesterday]

On-topic... If we can generate stem-cells applicable to human research trans-specially, who other than PETA would continue to object?

there are plenty of people out there who believe in the sanctity and purity of the human body. so they'd protest on those grounds. and PETA probably wouldn't have a problem with the treatment because from what it sounds like, the stem cells would be applied to the human heart along with human heart muscle cells. no rats or other animals involved. other than in the experiments that created the treatment

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

P eople
E ating
T asty
A nimals

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[nutrock69]

there are plenty of people out there who believe in the sanctity and purity of the human body. so they'd protest on those grounds.

So those people will eventually die off because they're unwilling to receive the help they'll need, while those of us that would be happy to use a lab-grown replacement heart/kidney/left-leg with no possible chance of tissue rejection would continue the human race...

Sounds like a win-win to me...

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

There are a bit over 70 treatments using adult or cord blood stem cells (list here) with embryonic cells being used in zero treatments. The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

The end point of the research is to use your own tissues to create a fix. There is no objection to using common animal tissues for testing along the way in order to speed up progress.

PETA, on the other hand, would protest because the rats had not given consent.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Tenek]

The relevant question is whether we need to do research on the embryonic stem cells first in order to have the luxury of only using adult stem cells. (And whether the extremist pro-lifers would forgo such treatments if the answer turns out to be "yes".)

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[gnick]

A "loyal" rat is one that will not bite even if you coat your finger with peanut-butter, prefers your company to people that he doesn't know, and will jump in front of a ninja's throwing star to save you should the occasion arise.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.

Tissue rejection is a bigger issue from what I've heard. In plenty of cases, it's possible to take embryonic stem cells and turn them into mature cells which will be less likely to make tumors, but it would still be foreign tissue you would reject.

Of course, if you are not a woman who has given birth and saved your cord blood, that's not an option, and it doesn't appear that adult stem cells can fill all our stem cell needs, so we need IPS cells or embryonic stem cells. And also we've already learned a lot in labs from embryonic stem cells.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[DinDaddy]

Also, from his cage, he will mimic your every move, so that after your unseemly demise, he will avenge your death by defeating the dishonorable villain who murdered you.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

rats are ok . They still haVe that whole "spread plague" thing going on though. And they are huge. Now, mice? They make awesome pets.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's never enough for them just to refuse to undergo a treatment they find immoral. They also have to prevent anyone else from doing it, too.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Hatta]

I used to let mine run loose and kept ramps up so that they could return to their cages to crap.

Don't they chew your cords?

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if there's no tastier alternative.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[CodeMunch]

So those people will eventually die off because they're unwilling to receive the help they'll need, while those of us that would be happy to use a lab-grown replacement heart/kidney/left-leg with no possible chance of tissue rejection would continue the human race...

That would be nice, but chances are quite good that they've procreated before they would need a replacement part that they can't get.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[Just Some Guy]

there are plenty of people out there who believe in the sanctity and purity of the human body.

If they were sincere, they'd refuse to breathe tainted air (smog, CO, might've been exhaled by $MINORITY) and would die immediately. The rest are moralizing hypocrites that you can make fun of before moving on.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

We don't actually know that adult stem cells cannot fit all our needs. That's why there's ongoing research, it's not a mature field. The difference between the adult and the embryonic cells is that we know how to make the adult cells work in real treatments, we just need to extend what we know. With embryonic, we hope to get past the rejection and tumor and other problems and we've got no actual record of success to support that hope.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[rcuhljr]

Oh if I only had mod points...

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

I would be a terrible scientist if I didn't preface this with the disclamer: I could be wrong in every word, current theories may be wrong and I could also not be current. Having said that...

The evidence suggests that adult stem cells are not pluripotent and are fate restricted. An adult stem cell population that could give rise to any cell type would be a big liability to the organism, as that would be a population of cells much closer to producing tumors than a fate-restricted stem cell.

It is unlikely that an adult stem cell will be able to regenerate central nervous system neurons for two reasons. One: adults generally do not reproduce neurons of the CNS due to integration problems, thus after the age of 18 it appears unlikely you have a population of stem cells that can produce CNS neurons. Two: Since the neural progenitor cells line the ventricular lumen in the embryo and young children, that's where adult CNS stem cells would be. Unfortunately, this is at the center of the brain, getting to them even if they do exist would require significant damage to the brain.

So we don't think they exist in most people, and if they did you'd have to tear apart your brain to get at them.

Having said that, I should come right out and ask, is there evidence that you know of that adult stem cells can regenerate brain or spinal cord neurons? I'm far from an expert on that subject.

Barring an unexpected finding that bone marrow stem cells can naturally make CNS, the barrier to using adult stem cells to make CNS seems higher than the barrier of tissue rejection and tumorgenesis.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[DavidTC]

That's completely absurd, a tiny rat couldn't avenge your death. He have to be exposed to mutagen of some sort and become much larger, and, preferably, humanoid.

It would also work better if some more mutant animals helped, although those, of course, would not have to be rats.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

Google does provide if you know how to ask. We've known that bone marrow can be induced to make CNS cells since at least 2002. You are, indeed, out of date.

This is not my field either but I cared enough to spend 90 seconds doing the search before I hit reply. You might ask why didn't you? In case you're wondering, the string I used was:
adult stem cells central nervous system

Finding this sort of thing isn't brain surgery. Perhaps pro-life people who you think are being unreasonable are merely better informed?

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

Perhaps pro-life people who you think are being unreasonable are merely better informed?

I'm going to call foul here. I never said anything about the pro-life movement, which I happen to agree with to an extent, certainly I didn't call them unreasonable, nor do I think they are. Don't know why you're getting so hostile. If I were to have a low opinion of pro-life people, you wouldn't exactly be helping it with your tone. This is a casual discussion.

I didn't do a google search, but I think I did a pubmed search with a similar string. Pubmed is an index of primary literature, the actual research papers. There were several thousand hits, mostly on neural adult stem cells, which as I mentioned are problematic. Rather than peruse through all that I thought it would be more efficient to ask you for your source, which I did.

I also have to point out that the article you cited was merely showing you could get neurons in a dish from bone marrow cells. That's a long way from being able to use them to heal spinal cords. Had you spent more than 90 seconds on it, you may have found the most recent work from that lab.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113489486/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It's more promising than the article you posted, since they actually demonstrate these cells can make brain cells in actual brains rather than in a dish. I haven't read it as carefully as I apperantly need to to post on /. but in the last figure we see that bone marrow cells encouraged to differentiate into neurons have extremely low efficiencies of turning into brain cells even when implanted into chicken embryo brains. The efficiencies could be raised, but not without manipulating the bone marrow stem cells with viruses, which the authors did. Obviously there are some problems that raises. And this is still far from showing that bone marrow stem cells can repair damaged CNS in adults.

I was somewhat wrong, and thank you for correcting me. You're absolutely right in that we should not give up on adult stem cell therapies, but it's still too early to say adult stem cells make HES cell research and especially IPS cell research obsolete.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

Fair enough, I shouldn't have assumed anything about your attitude. But you're hardly the first guy I've encountered and I was playing the odds and cutting, I thought, to the chase.

The simple truth is that time and again, I've encountered people claiming to be reasonable state factually erroneous things about adult stem cells. The errors are pretty much all on the side of making adult stem cells less attractive. They also make factual errors regarding embryonic stem cells. But those errors minimize the problems and overstate the benefits. You claim not to be one of those people, fine. I'll take you at your word for now.

Now the article I cited debunked your actual claim. Thank you for trying to give me a better article but your link doesn't actually work for me so I can't comment further on it. The purpose of my link (which I found on the fly specifically for the purpose of debunking your claim) remains just fine.

Human Embryonic Stem (HES) cell research and Induced Pluripotent Stem (IPS) cell research have yielded exactly how many treatments? And at what point is it appropriate to admit that they're a dry hole that should no longer be pursued? I'm actually curious what the mainstream scientific thought process is regarding dead end research.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

Human Embryonic Stem (HES) cell research and Induced Pluripotent Stem (IPS) cell research have yielded exactly how many treatments? And at what point is it appropriate to admit that they're a dry hole that should no longer be pursued?

IPS cells have been known for about one year, so they have exactly as many treatments as you'd expect an important new biological discovery to have one year out: none.

Wikipedia tells me that penicillin was discovered by Flemming in 1928, the first case of a human treated with it was 1942. 14 years, and all that required was purification. Bit unreasonable to demand that IPS be treating people within one year. In fact, it's a bit unreasonable to expect to get approval to test it in humans in one year.

As far as HES cells, studies on them have given us IPS cells. That's a success in my book. HES cells have also been used extensively for studying cell biology and development. Conventional wisdom suggests that HES cells are most useful for research, not for treatment, because of the tissue rejection issue you mentioned, and because IPS cells seem to be the same thing just without tissue rejection and the ethical concerns.

So, when do we admit HES cells represent a dry hole that shouldn't investigate further? When we know all there is about how cells turn from the ball of cells stage to all of the thousands of different types of cells. I'd optimisticaly estimate 3000 AD. When do we admit IPS cells are at a dead end? When we... uh... no longer have a need to replace organs or parts of organs? Hard to imagine IPS cells becoming useless really.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

You also found it hard to imagine that adult stem cells in the form of bone marrow could be coerced into CNS cells even though a quick Google search would have let you know that it's been done since at least 2002.

Human embryonic cells have been failing at providing actual treatments for years now. But because the research has led to IPS cells, they're a 'success' that 'optimistically' needs to be used for the next thousand years. Right.

You are not a winner, please try again.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

Human embryonic cells have been failing at providing actual treatments for years now. But because the research has led to IPS cells, they're a 'success' that 'optimistically' needs to be used for the next thousand years. Right.

I said they're useful in figuring out how cells differentiate.

You also found it hard to imagine that adult stem cells in the form of bone marrow could be coerced into CNS cells even though a quick Google search would have let you know that it's been done since at least 2002.

You gave me an article saying rat bone marrow cells can turn into nerves in a dish. HES cells can do that. Adult stem cells haven't been used to treat CNS disorders. At what point is it appropriate to admit that they're a dry hole that should no longer be pursued?

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

Adult stem cells have over 70 active treatments in use for human health. We're already way beyond "dry hole" status with them. They're useful and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But you already knew that if you've paid attention whatsoever with the field.

The plain fact is that cell differentiation can be studied using animal models just fine. Human embryonic stem cells have not been proven effective in treatments whatsoever. The only scientific reason they've been pursued is their supposed superiority in plasticity which would lead to actual treatments for diseases that adult stem cells couldn't cure. But as adult stem cells prove more and more versatile, there become fewer and fewer reasons to violate the consciences of pro-lifers.

A secondary reason is that they give nice political cover for abortion rights ideology. When you talk about using human embryonic stem cells for a thousand years without any thought to using animal models instead or stopping use when adult cells turn out to be useful enough, I'm thinking that what's really at the heart of your position is this secondary reason.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

Adult stem cells have over 70 active treatments in use for human health...Human embryonic stem cells have not been proven effective in treatments whatsoever. The only scientific reason they've been pursued is their supposed superiority in plasticity which would lead to actual treatments for diseases that adult stem cells couldn't cure.

None for the CNS, which is the big issue. Adult stem cells have the same number of CNS treatments that HES cells do, which is but one reason why both need to continue to get funding and research.

The plain fact is that cell differentiation can be studied using animal models just fine.

First of all, that's not true in the slightest, and I feel it's appropriate right here to mention I do actually work on cell differentiation in animal models. I still say that HES cells have their place. Second, this is the type of decision you want to leave up to the experts. Third, between you and the average animal rights activists, there would be no research.

But as adult stem cells prove more and more versatile, there become fewer and fewer reasons to violate the consciences of pro-lifers.

A secondary reason is that they give nice political cover for abortion rights ideology. When you talk about using human embryonic stem cells for a thousand years without any thought to using animal models instead or stopping use when adult cells turn out to be useful enough, I'm thinking that what's really at the heart of your position is this secondary reason.

Who is violating consciences of anyone? If you don't agree with the research, don't do it, and don't take the benefits of it. And there need only be one reason to continue HES cell research even if you or I don't agree with it: we have things to learn from them.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

So I just saw this, the actual article isn't out yet. Although it is further proof of your point, I think you would be interested in it

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/124974.php

And another one

http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0810/081009/full/stemcells.2008.132.html

Basically you can get HES like cells from human testis. No treatments to come out of it of course, since it was just recently discovered, and unfortunately wouldn't work in females, but still important.

It's worth pointing out that this is another example of HES cells being used in valuable research.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

CNS may be your big issue but I'm reasonably certain that for sufferers of any of the 73 odd conditions, their big issues are addressed by adult stem cells just fine.

The problem with animal rights activists is that they're confused as to the boundaries of what's ethical in experimentation. They draw the prohibited line way too wide. My first job as a network admin was for a group fighting them. Part of my responsibilities were disaster recovery in case they bombed our offices. Suffice it to say that I understand the problem having worked in that particular field.

We leave exactly zero ethical questions of experimentation solely "up to the experts". Why should human embryo stem cell experimentation be any different?

The battle lines have always been that the pro-life crowd has said that human embryonic stem cells were unethical because it was the unnecessary taking of a human life and the riposte was that we were going to get all these great cures out of the research that would never come from adult stem cell research and therefore the life taking *was* necessary. Now if the embryonic cures don't actually come, why should we continue to act as if they were coming? If the adult stem cell cures are actually coming in areas which were supposedly never going to happen, why shouldn't adult stem cell research get the lions share of attention, press, and funding? Why shouldn't embryonic research be limited to spontaneous abortion tissue?

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[philspear]

CNS may be your big issue but I'm reasonably certain that for sufferers of any of the 73 odd conditions, their big issues are addressed by adult stem cells just fine.

Good for them. We still have hundreds of diseases to cure and need to do more work, and need to keep all avenues open.

The problem with animal rights activists is that they're confused as to the boundaries of what's ethical in experimentation. They draw the prohibited line way too wide.

You could easily replace "animal rights" with "pro-life." I wouldn't agree with the resulting statement, but you're still saying "Their ethical concerns are stupid, but mine aren't," without justifying that. Some of them are violent, but some pro-life activists are too.

We leave exactly zero ethical questions of experimentation solely "up to the experts". Why should human embryo stem cell experimentation be any different?

In this case, because the objectors are uninformed. That HES cells are most usefull for basic biological research and not direct treatments is something you appear to be having a hard time with, and I'm sure you don't understand how incorrect it is to say that animal models are all we need.

It's also inaccurate to act as if it's a community as a whole that is opposed to HESC research, and only a few mad scientists are in favor of it, when in fact it's closer to a few misguided activists extremely opposed to it, engaging in a campaign to obfuscate the nature and benefits of HESC research.

If the adult stem cell cures are actually coming in areas which were supposedly never going to happen, why shouldn't adult stem cell research get the lions share of attention, press, and funding?

For the reason you continually ignore: HES offer our best model for understanding how cells mature and turn into cells we need.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

Nobody has a problem with cells taken from testes. It's all about the ethics of abortion. Human embryonic stem cells from spontaneous abortions, testes, cord blood, etc elicit no objections because even in the pro-life strict moral code, nobody dies of it.

Re:Rat hearted overlords?

[dbrutus]

I would be willing to bet money that even you don't believe that all avenues should remain open. Are you in favor of using prisoners for non-consensual experiments? That's an avenue that's banned in the West but would certainly speed scientific progress and has been permitted in the past and is likely in use elsewhere today (N. Korea, PRC). Once you admit that it isn't about keeping all avenues open but rather a struggle between competing ethical systems, your construction equating pro-lifers with animal rights activists falls flat because the only difference is that you've not honestly laid out your own limits and made any positive case why yours should be privileged over mine.

Your statement that "the objectors are uninformed" is itself uninformed. The US bishops conference of the Catholic Church is not uninformed. They've been holding yearly meetings on the ethical problems of this since 1973. A corpus of religious law (Catholics maintain their own legal code) has been developed consistent with longstanding Catholic religious and ethical principles. No doubt some objectors are uninformed. No doubt some supporters are uninformed too.

Again, the objections to HES cells are objections to their sourcing via killing embryos. Were there a non-fatal way to harvest such cells, the objections would evaporate immediately. The ethics of when it is acceptable to kill are not a topic reserved to the research scientist.

The inconvenience to HES researchers is real but one cannot just go the convenient route because that's better for your budget.

frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

frosty piss: you nerds love it

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep its always great to piss in a glass and sell it to douchebags like you. It's pretty much one hundred percent profit.

Re:frosty piss

[Ethanol-fueled]

Pabst Brewing co., is that you?

Re:frosty piss

[jeremiahbell]

Hey, I tried Pabst Blue Ribbon for the first time the other day, and it wasn't too bad. Everybody always talking about how bad it is, but they should just give it a try.

Beer, and this includes your favorite beer, is something you grow to like. In reality beer is nasty shit and we all know it. We just learn to tolerate a certain flavor, and we like to stick to what we learned to tolerate. Many may deny it, but in reality all we really want is the alcohol, or one to have the taste to remind us of the alcohol.

Yep, I just said that a beer didn't taste bad, and then went on to say that all beer tastes bad.

Re:frosty piss

[moosesocks]

Yep, I just said that a beer didn't taste bad, and then went on to say that all beer tastes bad.

Ah. I guess that means you're drunk :-P

Re:frosty piss

[RulerOf]

Yep, I just said that a beer didn't taste bad, and then went on to say that all beer tastes bad.

For the majority of commonly available beers, I tend to agree with you. As the troll pointed out, many commonly available beers range from "frosty piss" to "bitter, frosty piss," and as such, only lend credence to your point of view.

I do challenge you, however, to try beers available from local breweries. Beers like Budweiser and PBR are brewed for price and consistency. Independent breweries brew for taste.

If you're in the Great Lakes region, anything available from the Great Lakes Brewery, especially their seasonal brews, can be very good. Nosferatu, out for Halloween, is particularly good.

Re:frosty piss

[spvo]

If all you want to do is get the effects of alcohol without tasting the drink then why the hell would you drink beer? Drink liquor or some sort of mixed drink that will get you drunk without the burden of flavor.

I would bet most people, although certainly not all, drink beer because they do like the way it tastes. And, amazingly enough, some of us actually like to try a variety of beers because we don't want to taste the same one every time.

Re:frosty piss

[cashman73]

You've apparently never had Professor Gesser's Mind-Numbing Ale from the Bluegrass Brewing Company,... ;-)

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Or anything made by Bells up there... everything they touch turns to gold.

Re:frosty piss

[cromar]

Good for you Mr. Fancy Pants Beer Drinker. Nothin' wrong with PBR; it's quite drinkable. To be honest, I prefer Hamm's though, and Budweiser before it turned into a froo froo Belgian beer ;)

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

That's incredibly silly. If I just want alcohol with a nice taste, I'd drink vodka with mixers. Some people actually *like* beer and wine. If you don't, it's your problem. I could easily say the same thing about coffee and caffeine. Just because something doesn't instantly set off happy feelings in your taste buds doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

Also, not all beer is created equal. I've personally gotten a girl who said she hated beer to happily drink a Hoegaarden.

Better hope

[woot account]

That McCain/Palin don't get elected if you want this kind of research to continue.

Re:Better hope

[acris]

That McCain/Palin don't get elected if you want this kind of research to continue.

no matter who gets elected in the USA, future research won't be effected by this. Unless said president decides to attack Australia. Please do more research next time before making off-hand comments about politics.

Re:Better hope

[bonch]

Conservatives oppose embryonic stem cell research, not adult stem cell research.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

When we learn how to create any cell out of any other cell, from any species of animal, the Christian (sic) Right (sic) will most certainly have something to say about it. They don't like it when science replaces the need for their magic sky fairy.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

When "research" includes such things as "discovering that other nations exist," we are well and truly fucked.

Re:Better hope

[bonch]

Well, I wouldn't know what Christians are saying. As far as I can tell, they're not saying anything about adult stem cells. They were opposed to embryonic stem cells because of how they were harvested, and it wasn't just Christians who were opposed.

By the way, mocking Christianity on Slashdot for easy upmods is too easy.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think, people like you are voting Obama the Christian and Biden the Catholic into office. Whoopee! We'll have an administration that thinks America invented AIDS and demons are running around influencing world events.

Re:Better hope

[MPolo]

Even more so, since this is not embryonic stem-cell research (to which McCain, Palin, and many other Christians object), but rather adult stem-cell research (to which only Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists object, as far as I know).

Personally, I have yet to read of truly successful research with embryonic stem cells (because they are generally rejected by the recipient), whereas many large advances have been made with adult stem cells (since the donor and the recipient are the same person, rejection is eliminated) -- for men at least, pluripotent cells have been found in the testicles, so that any type of cell could be produced without having to use embryonic stem cells. I also recently saw a report about a person with congenital heart disease who was apparently cured by an injection of his own bone-marrow stem cells.

So I suppose my question would be why the intellectual elites want to spend their research monies on embryonic stem-cell research that is more expensive, less successful, and morally questionable to a large sector of society, rather than on research in areas where successes keep coming, the cells are available without moral complications, and the costs are in general lower. A cynical person might think that it's all about getting drug patents and getting money out of the consumers and padding their own checkbooks...

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless said president decides to attack Australia.

I think this is what the post was referring to. Australia does have some small oil reserves after all!

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear? Palin glimpsed a postcard from Sydney and now knows the exact coordinates of your evil fat muslim terrorist cloning lair.

Re:Better hope

[DavidM01]

We have a lot more oil here than they do down under, I hate to tell you. We have more in oil shale than in all of Saudi Arabia. Not to mention only about 15% of our oil comes from the mideast.... Please stop the "war for oil" nonsense/idiocy.

Re:Better hope

[LWATCDR]

Why is that?
This isn't embryonic stem cell research at all.
Nobody has any problems with this research.
So
1. You don't know what your talking about.
or
2. You are using lies and fear to support your political viewpoint.

Re:Better hope

[dbrutus]

Even Jehovah's Witnesses don't have an objection to banking and reusing their own personal blood. A lot of people are trying to make religious objections larger than they actually are in an effort to make religious people seem foolish or weird. Don't get taken in.

Re:Better hope

[dbrutus]

Actual christians (instead of the caricatures and straw men you see on slashdot and elsewhere) are rather happy about adult stem cell therapies and wholeheartedly support them.

Re:Better hope

[Tenek]

Possibly because they think there might be some potential to embryonic stem-cell research. If they knew what was going to happen, it wouldn't be research at all. As for the morally questionable element, well, keep in mind that the "large sector of society" is also mostly ignorant of the details, so it's probably best not to let them handicap science too much. There are ethics boards for this sort of thing and I haven't noticed them smacking stem cell research down. That seems to be the exclusive domain of the religious right.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

When we learn how to create any cell out of any other cell, from any species of animal, the Christian (sic) Right (sic) will most certainly have something to say about it. They don't like it when science replaces the need for their magic sky fairy.

Atheists may not believe in gods, but they nevertheless need to cling to some sort of a Satan-figure upon whom the world's troubles can be blamed.

You can almost hear their fearful vision of pitchforks-and-pointed-ears when they say "Christian (sic) Right (sic)".

Re:Better hope

[omnipresentbob]

for men at least, pluripotent cells have been found in the testicles

Shit. What a decision.

"We can save you life. But, in order to do so, we have to cut open your scrotum and remove a few cells."

"How many is 'a few'?"

"Look, let's not make this about what we're taking from you. Think about what we're giving you: another chance at life!"

Re:Better hope

[philspear]

So I suppose my question would be why the intellectual elites want to spend their research monies on embryonic stem-cell research that is more expensive, less successful, and morally questionable to a large sector of society, rather than on research in areas where successes keep coming, the cells are available without moral complications, and the costs are in general lower.

Well, human embryonic stem (HES) cells have already proven invaluable in research. Notably it was by studying them that we found out how to make induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS), basically how to make any cell into personalized embryonic stem cells without the embryo or the tissue rejection. That's not something you can say about adult stem cells: they won't ever be able to make new spinal cord cells. IPS cells can, and if we hadn't been researching HES cells, we never would have figured out how to make IPS cells.

And THAT'S why you don't ban different types of research: you don't always know where it's going.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they saw that other nations existed, remarking "they'll have to go."

Re:Better hope

[genner]

Actual christians (instead of the caricatures and straw men you see on slashdot and elsewhere) are rather happy about adult stem cell therapies and wholeheartedly support them.

Speaking as one of those fundamentalist christains you've been warned about, I support adult stem cell research.

Re:Better hope

[Anonymous Coward]

>mocking Christianity is too easy.

fixed that for you.

Re:Better hope

[zippthorne]

And THAT'S why you don't ban different types of research: you don't always know where it's going.

If you only care about the results, then yeah, but in the real world, that's actually an incredibly sticky question of medical ethics.

I mean, take Mengele's research, for instance. Would you allow it because you didn't know where it was leading? What about the rest of the Nazi research? Some of it had the potential to save many lives, but would you have allowed it to take place just to get to the result? How about the Tuskegee experiment? The list is, sadly, not short.

Would you allow all of that because you don't know what good might come of it?

Some research is not worth the price: The ethical taint it puts on *all of us*. Even if the results are beneficial.
The question is, as it's always been, what's ok and what isn't.

If you come to the table having already decided that jews, or blacks, or the poor aren't really people, you're not going to have much empathy for people who think we shouldn't experiment on them. You might even object to analogies to groups you have decided are people, but whom have had tragedies inflicted upon them in the name of research, as specious or as "straw-men."

That's great!

[Hojima]

But the real question is, when do I get my set of super long prehensile boners?

Re:That's great!

[Ethanol-fueled]

Melbourne scientists recently discovered that stem cells isolated from human fat could be made to turn into beating heart muscle cells when cultured with rat heart cells

Making the joke "hung like a mouse" a little more true to life.

Re:That's great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm hung like an infant: 10 pounds, 18 inches.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat people will save the world...

Does McDonalds have a stake in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I having visions of average Joes being fatted up for their stem cells... wait, but... those darn fast food companies may be on to something!

(captcha: exporter ["We will be exporting fat stem cells from obese Americans!"])

Re:Does McDonalds have a stake in this?

[theaveng]

Yep. We Americans have been looking for a new invention to sell the world. Well, it's fat. We have the biggest supply of fat of any country. Start-up the liposuction machines, and start exporting those fat-to-heart organ replacements.

Re:Does McDonalds have a stake in this?

[cbiltcliffe]

I was just thinking the same.

Six months ago, fat was bad for your heart. Now it turns out it can (with a little engineering) repair a damaged one.

Kinda like the flip-flops on red wine and chocolate.

I don't think these "experts" know what the heck they're talking about.....

its only fair

[circletimessquare]

my fat cells are killing my heart cells

might as well sacrifice a few of them to give back what they took

Re:its only fair

[TheLink]

They're stem cells from fat tissue though, not the fat cells themselves.

Maybe the problem is most of those stem cells are being convinced to change to fat cells instead of heart cells ;).

Seriously though, are fat and heart cells from the same "germ layer"? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Re:its only fair

[daniorerio]

They're both derived from the mesoderm, so yes same germ layer.

Re:its only fair

[TheLink]

Thanks! But that's boring news then :).

Re:its only fair

[daniorerio]

Well, not if you assume fat tissue derived stem cells are too differentiated to become anything else as fat tissue cells, like heart muscle cells ;)

Re:its only fair

[TheLink]

I don't.

Especially since:

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-skull-stem-cells,0,5876836.story

While the above is not proof and more anecdotal (but I'm sure everyone was happy that the skull finally healed for whatever reason), it is also claimed to have worked with rats before:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4873

And also they've been coaxed into smooth muscle:

http://www.physorg.com/news72983041.html

So, just another step, not a leap. Useful step no doubt :).

I think there are plenty of people doing research in this area. Good news for the people who have grown extensive reserves ;). 1 kg of fat stem cells needed? No problem for them.

Re:its only fair

[nospam007]

Soon there will be mobile liposuction centers every few blocks.

"Donate your fat, save lives!"

Not to mention "Drink beer, so you have fat to donate"

Oh the irony...

[gillbates]

That from the fat of the overweight American comes the cure for heart disease brought on by his poor diet!

With two thirds of Americans overweight, this is promising news.

Re:Oh the irony...

[plasmacutter]

That from the fat of the overweight American comes the cure for heart disease brought on by his poor diet!

With two thirds of Americans overweight, this is promising news.

for THEM..

what about thin people like me.. they'll live forever now and have more fat daughters >: |

Re:Oh the irony...

[Barny]

And we shall harvest them, oh yes the time of the great fat farm is at hand.

Re:Oh the irony...

[TapeCutter]

I'm not fat or American, I'm an Aussie and I'm all heart.

Re:Oh the irony...

[denttford]

Meh.

I want my stem cells the right way, derived from the tortured souls of aborted cherubic foetuses. Enough to fill the dancefloor atop the head of a pin.

The immortality of one can not be achieved but by the suffering of many.
This is just dishonest.

Re:Oh the irony...

[cgenman]

I'm not vegging out on the couch. I'm building up my stem-cell reserves.

Re:Oh the irony...

[Joebert]

You've obviously never had a fat chick bent over the counter at Wendys after hours fucking her from behind so hard that nugget sauces are falling off the walls & the cash register starts ringing shit up on its' own, all the while hearing her moan like a wildebeast inbetween her feedbag-looking titties swinging up and slaping her in the mouth.

More cushin for the pushin !

Re:Oh the irony...

[Joebert]

Shit I forgot to hit the AC button !

Re:Oh the irony...

[DinDaddy]

Well, it has got some rat in it.

CmdrTaco?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be afraid?

Soylent Green

[jeremiahbell]

See, Saul won't go to waste. Soylent Cells, the wave of the future.

Re:Soylent Green

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, it will be like the matrix but plausible :)

I'm Rich!

[Tablizer]

I have enuf in my gut to be wealthier than Warren Buffet.

Tuesday is my Fat-Heart group...

[retech]

So the plan was to get the entire world to bulk up and then sell their fat back to them as a means to save them...

the first rule of stem cell research is you don't talk about stem cell research.

Re:Tuesday is my Fat-Heart group...

[wdef]

The first rule about fat club is you don't talk about fat club.

Untrue and ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you've just proven yourself uneducated on this topic.

The lack of government funding (not an outright ban) was on stem cells harvested from fetuses.

1) So, these fat stem cells aren't in that fetus stem cell funding ban.
2) The private sector can do what the damn well please. Fat stem cells or fetus stem cells.

But you keep living the lie.

Re:Untrue and ignorant

[Schadrach]

I thought it was closer to "organizations doing embryonic stem cell research cannot receive federal funding at all" as opposed to receiving federal funding for that project. I'm not certain on that, but if that was the case, it is effectively a ban, as no academic or research institution is going to give up all access to grant money over one line of research, and ditto for most private ventures, exacerbated by private venture disliking research that doesn't have a clear and obvious product that is likely to be approved and unlikely to cause them much grief involved.

Re:Untrue and ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was closer to "organizations doing embryonic stem cell research cannot receive federal funding at all" as opposed to receiving federal funding for that project. I'm not certain on that, but if that was the case, it is effectively a ban, as no academic or research institution is going to give up all access to grant money over one line of research, and ditto for most private ventures, exacerbated by private venture disliking research that doesn't have a clear and obvious product that is likely to be approved and unlikely to cause them much grief involved.

I don't know the exact rules, but I'm quite sure your idea of them is incorrect.

Stanford University does huge amounts of human embryonic stem cell research. For example, look at this faculty member's recent publications (I don't mean to single this guy out -- it's a random page from a Google search). Or look at this page, or this page. But at the same time, it's well known that Stanford University also receives hundreds of millions of dollars in funding per year from federal grants for various (unrelated) research projects.

Re:Untrue and ignorant

[Hatta]

Whether it's a ban, or simply withholding funding (which might as well be a ban) is irrelevant. The fact is US policy is impeding the progress of medical science at the behest of religious fanatics. That is despicable.

The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry if I offend anyone here but... no wait I am not.

Why can't we just use the stem cells from fetuses, drop the friggin "soul"-discussion now, ok? Stem cells are probably the most promising research field in biology today, can't we just drop the fundamentalist christians from the whole thing? In the name of humanity? Please?

Re:The easy way

[cosmocain]

Uhm, when did any religion ever step back from anything in favor of humanity?

Re:The easy way

[Your Pal Dave]

One big advantage of using fat (or other adult) stem cells over fetal cells is that the cells could be harvested from the target patient, thus avoiding tissue rejection problems.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down: (Score: -1, Baby-eater)

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up: (Score: +50, Baby-eater)

Re:The easy way

[Exanon]

Uh? I thought the whole idea of stem cells was that they could be made into any other cell and since you use the dna of the receiver to grow the fetus, you have a perfect match?

Re:The easy way

[tloh]

What do you mean? Step back as the opposite of step up to the plate?

here is a partial list of when they (have) work(ed) against progress
Christianity vs. Galileo & Copernicus
Fa Lung Gong vs. every frigging thing that is normal
Christian Science vs. modern medicine
Scientology vs. psychology
Islam (the fundamentalist variety) vs. gender equality and global harmony

But to be fair, religion *has* also stepped up to the plate on a few occasions. It is important to keep in mind that the concept of higher education and the modern collegiate system took shape within the catholic monasteries of the middle ages among the scribes whose efforts in propagating language and culture proved vital to later civil/social developments of the western world. And centuries before the crazy nut jobs took over Islam, it was Islamic scholars who preserved much of the writings of Plato, Aristotle and other treasures of Greek antiquity.

We play politics with this sort of thing a lot these days. But the actual stories behind the talking points are many shades of gray.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we just use the stem cells from fetuses, drop the friggin "soul"-discussion now, ok?

Because it doesn't friggin work.

Stem cells are probably the most promising research field in biology today, can't we just drop the fundamentalist christians from the whole thing? In the name of humanity? Please?

Is that 'promising' in the same sense as a politician promises things?

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? Step back as the opposite of step up to the plate?

here is a partial list of when they (have) work(ed) against progress

Christianity vs. Galileo & Copernicus

Sorry, but the Catholic Church did not oppose Copernicus. In fact, they got on rather well.

And just for the record, the objection to Galileo was that he was teaching things as fact without adequate scientific evidence, as the instruments at the time were still not accurate enough.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

I'm not really offended, but it comes down for when life starts. Both Biblically and humanistically, I believe that we MUST value unborn life as a society, and not subject it to the whims of "the greater good," which rarely turns out as such. We consider human testing on anything other than volunteers as inhumane. If I consider the unborn as human, what other position am I supposed to take?

Re:The easy way

[Harin_Teb]

i would guess we can't do this because, oh i don't know, possibly because we live in a republic where the majority of people identify with Christianity?

It's pretty hard to say "oh well you're all just wrong so we'll ignore you" when the "you" is picking the people who make the laws every time. As such we need to work around it. /Full disclosure: I'm a pro-life Christian so if that adjusts what you think of this comment so be it.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I'm all for it if you can define when life begins... Look, religion has little to do with this. There is obviously a living breathing baby at 9 months, 8 months, even 7 months. If you can give an objective definition of when life actually begins and where that fetus has the same rights as every other human being, then I won't support abortion.

Re:The easy way

[CrimsonAvenger]

Christianity vs. Galileo & Copernicus

Oddly enough, Copernicus was a Catholic priest.

Also, I doubt seriously Galileo would have been sent to his house and told to stay there if he hadn't called the Pope (a personal friend of his) a fool in public.

Re:The easy way

[RulerOf]

Strictly speaking, unborn children lack the capacity to care whether or not they are born in the same sense that we do.

Further, also strictly speaking, children are extremely easy to make, placing (very mathematically speaking) very little value on whether they live or die.

People can and should hold investment in the welfare of their own children... but for God's sake, once those are secure, as evidenced by pornography, we've got plenty of gametes to spare.

Re:The easy way

[Muad'Dave]

Autoimmune rejection, plain and simple. The proteins on a fetal stem cell may be rejected by the patient, whereas stem cells derived from their own fat are already histologically compatible.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

"dna of the receiver to grow the fetus"

So, only aborting pregnant women could get stem cell cures? No, you are incorrect, the idea of stem cells is that they can become any type of cell (muscle, nerve, liver, what-have-you), thus they can be used to repair any part of the body.

Fetal stem cells have unique DNA and thus such cures are subject to the current restrictions on organ transplants, the body could reject the foreign matter (just as it rejects the strep that makes your throat sore). If adult stem cells become viable, the advantage is that you are repairing yourself with more of 'you', thus you will not reject 'you'.

Re:The easy way

[LWATCDR]

Well for one thing. Embryonic stem cell research really hasn't been very fruitful.
This is Adult stem cell research which frankly is exactly what where the anti embryonic stem cell people say most of the funding should have been going.

Second, Just a comment. Next time anyone you love or even care about has a miscarriage see what the emotional effect of them loosing the "baby" is. Would you tell them to just get over it because it wasn't a baby?
I am not what the Pro-Life people would consider pro-life but I can understand why the feel the way they do.

I also understand how some of the pro-choice people feel. Oh and I am not what the Pro-Choice people feel is pro-choice so I am pretty sure that I am right where I should be on this matter.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

That's rather...cold. I thought that it was us right-wingers who were supposed to be cold and heartless about people?

Re:The easy way

[dbrutus]

We can't just use the stem cells from fetuses right now because every time we try, we end up giving those people tumors and other nasty conditions. It's been tried. It doesn't work. Maybe, someday, they'll start figuring out how to make actual treatments using embryonic stem cells. They've got a lot of catchup to do. We've already got dozens of conditions that adult stem cells have been successfully used for.

So why are you pimping for a treatment path that, so far, doesn't work? Why not push for more funding for the pathway that's actually providing real treatments today? In the name of humanity? Please?

Re:The easy way

[dbrutus]

The religious problem of Galileo was that he was saying that the Church must change the way it taught Scripture so that it conformed to heliocentrism. The Church, reasonably in my view, said that Galileo had to either say it was a theory, prove it was a fact, or shut his pie hole. Within a few short years, Galileo's works were in free circulation in Catholic Christendom using the formulation that heliocentrism was a theory. The last actual scientific objection to heliocentrism was laid to rest in the mid 1800s when stellar parallax was finally observed, centuries after Galileo claimed it as fact, instead of theory and got into trouble over it.

Galileo was an SOB and pissed off a great many early supporters. They *did* behave badly to him but that doesn't make Galileo right in his theology any more than Galileo's theory of comets was right. Eventually the Church admitted the personal revenge part of the affair, made a minor penance, and moved on.

Re:The easy way

[dbrutus]

Coma patients, the demented, the unconscious don't care either. Some may care in future, but that's true for unborn children too.

You very obviously haven't thought this through very well.

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

People, great. Lumps of organic matter that in no way resemble an actual human being, no.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

Except, of course, for DNA, which is human. You and I were human when we were "lumps.." or were we supposed to develop into something else?

Re:The easy way

[RulerOf]

You shouldn't attack the standpoint from an unrelated angle though. You might be missing the point, because I forgot to mention that the donors from whom any stem cells are created obviously don't care either.

Again, strictly speaking, coma patients are in a coma, and not brain dead, demented folk could quite possibly have life-preserving instinct. I won't argue the unconscious because, frankly, that's just ignorant.

I'm sorry, but genetics dictates that reproduction is a nearly boundless resource. Demented people and coma patients are not, nor is being demented or in a coma a part of living and reproducing.

If you want to argue for the rights of the unborn, stick to the unborn, or at least the reproductive cycle. A chance to lead a life != a life lead.

People with already established lives come first and always have.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Shall we weep for the wasted sperm while surfing porn as well?

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

What makes you a person, and separates you from all the other critters on God's green earth, is in your head. You can think. You are self-aware. You are sentient. A cockroach is not. A fern is not. An embryo is not. It may develop into a person but it is not yet one. The most cogent argument I've ever found against this is that it has a soul, which puts it nicely into the land of "your religion", which you can kindly keep to yourself.

Re:The easy way

[Hatta]

We consider human testing on anything other than volunteers as inhumane. If I consider the unborn as human, what other position am I supposed to take?

You're supposed to consider why testing on humans is inhumane, and then consider whether those reasons apply to lumps of cells in a dish. There's a lot more to being human than just having human DNA. It's disingenuous to apply a simple syllogism (testing on humans is bad; fetuses are human; therefore testing on fetuses is bad) when "human" means different things in different contexts.

Re:The easy way

[sbeckstead]

fetal! Try that position, it works for me when I want the world to go away!

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

"It may develop into a person..." Does that mean it "may" develop into something else? At what point does it cease to be a "lump of cells?" Where is the line? Why am I not just a "lump of cells" now that just happens to think and feel - are those not just byproducts of my biology in that case?

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

Unless you're wrong, in which "human" has only one meaning which is absolute.

Re:The easy way

[Hatta]

No, it's trivial to demonstrate that the word "human" can mean different things in different contexts. Suppose I'm doing some tissue culture work in the lab. A co-worker comes by and asks me "are those cells human?". I respond, "yes, these cells are human."

Now that I've admitted that those cells are human, does it follow that killing them is murder? Of course not.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

I'm using the context of "human" meaning "human being," which, if I am right, is absolute.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro-life people make me sick. Stop pushing your silly views on the rest of the world, we don't care. Stop trying to remove peoples rights.

Re:The easy way

[LWATCDR]

Sorry to offend you with facts.

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

It may just die. Conception doesn't guarantee a live birth.

At what point does it cease to be a "lump of cells?" Where is the line?

There isn't a line. Sorry, no easy way out of this one.

Why am I not just a "lump of cells" now that just happens to think and feel - are those not just byproducts of my biology in that case?

You are a lump of cells that feels and thinks, if you really want to strip out the extras. It's the feeling and thinking part that matters. Not the lump of cells.

Re:The easy way

[genner]

People, great. Lumps of organic matter that in no way resemble an actual human being, no.

Your a lump of organic matter that in no way resembles an actual human being....Name calling is fun I see why you do it.

Re:The easy way

[dbrutus]

Unrelated? I don't think so. "Strictly speaking" you said in the GP. Well, strictly speaking it's true of all of my examples as well. All that is different is the time to a return to consciousness and its likelihood.

It is vastly more likely that your average aborted fetus would have woken up and achieved an opinion on their existence before your average long term coma patient.

We have an abundance of 20th and 21st century experience in the sort of morality that condones harvesting human parts as you advocate. The slippery slope exists and it does extend to eventually killing and harvesting the infirm.

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

What facts ... ? Pro-life people are all religious reasons for not wanting stem cell research. Nothing fact or science based.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

"It's the feeling and thinking part that matters" according to what? What is your basis that your life matters at all?

Re:The easy way

[LWATCDR]

1. I am not technically pro-life. I actually think that abortion should be legal.
2. Pro-life people don't want embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is just fine with them.
3. This break through is using adult stem cell research.
4. Embryonic stem cells have not really been very useful. problems with rejection and other issues.

  You are clueless, you will not even try to understand people that disagree with you, and you are a zealot that keeps screaming because you feel your world view is unquestionable.

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

I think intelligent life is intrinsically valuable. I'm not really sure how to break that down any more.

Are you implying that having strands of molecules 99+% similar to yours is what matters?

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I am not technically pro-life. I actually think that abortion should be legal.

Good

2. Pro-life people don't want embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is just fine with them.

Due to silly religious views

3. This break through is using adult stem cell research.

Irrelevant to my point

4. Embryonic stem cells have not really been very useful. problems with rejection and other issues.

Fine, but NO reason to stop research on it.

You are clueless, you will not even try to understand people that disagree with you, and you are a zealot that keeps screaming because you feel your world view is unquestionable.

Nope, I don't care about religious views ... thats the only thing I am pissed about. People who believe in an invisible man living in the sky are trying to make laws preventing research that _might_ help many people.

Re:The easy way

[LWATCDR]

"3. This break through is using adult stem cell research.

Irrelevant to my point"
Ummmm.... THIS IS WHAT THE BLOODY STORY IS ABOUT!

"4. Embryonic stem cells have not really been very useful. problems with rejection and other issues.

Fine, but NO reason to stop research on it."

Gee lets see no success while adult stem cells seem to work better????
"Nope, I don't care about religious views ... thats the only thing "

No you are an ass that doesn't care about facts or others options, you are off topic, will not post under your name, and clueless. Why do I even try to enlighten the dim witted.
Maybe you should just try to understand others feelings, viewpoints and beliefs before belittling them and SCREAMING YOUR OWN at the top of your lungs. AND TRY TO KEEP ON TOPIC!!!!!

Re:The easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pretty simple ... I can not stand people who use religious views to stop research.

Re:The easy way

[LWATCDR]

Then find a a discussion that has anything at all to do with it, this one doesn't.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

What makes intelligent life intrinsically valuable if all we are is a mass of living, thinking, and breathing cells? What's the point?

I'm implying that either there is a definite reason that we matter which is defined outside of ourselves, or there is no reason at all.

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

I'm implying that there is no objective reason anything matters. What matters to me is personally defined, by me. I'm not hunting for any external justification for valuing intelligent life. Yes, this is arbitrary and capricious, but it's all we have. The universe doesn't contain a "X matters" parameter.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

Unless it does.

If there's no objective reason anything matters, then what is the matter if I break laws and hurt people? What is the point for me to control my actions?

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

You would feel bad if you hurt people. People who don't believe in objective values don't all run around murdering for shits and giggles.

Alternatively if you don't care about hurting people, there's always fear of retribution, although that doesn't always work so well.

This is difficult stuff to puzzle over. Pretending that you have a Correct Answer doesn't really help anyone, it just makes you less likely to learn from your mistakes.

Re:The easy way

[Dog-Cow]

Non-pro-life people should be terminated. If they don't care about life, we shouldn't be burdened with them.

Re:The easy way

[Notquitecajun]

What's the point in feeling bad if I hurt someone? Why should I bother feeling at all? If it feels good to hurt others, and I take care to simply protect myself, who is to say whether I am right or wrong? If there's no objective values, there's no reason to follow rules other than retribution, even at the core. Who would you do away with if you know that you could get away with it? What would you steal? Who would you take advantage of?

How does having (or pretending to have) a Correct Answer prevent me from learning from my mistakes? What's a mistake if there's nothing objective? Shouldn't finding - or having such an Answer help me to realize that there are mistakes and wrong actions that are inherently wrong because of a higher Standard?

Re:The easy way

[Tenek]

If you can't answer any of those questions without getting spoonfed by a guy in a funny hat, there's not much point in discussing it with me.

Adult stem cells vs. foetal stem cells

[Amenacier]

The beauty of using adult stem cells is that they can be taken from and used on the same person without fear of rejection because they are already marked as "self" by the body...foetal stem cells may still cause problems because they have their own unique DNA.

Not realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of questions that have to be answered here - it's not as simple as they say it is. Adipose-derived stem cells are definitely nothing new - adult stem cells are widely studied and commonly used in bioengineering labs. The problem is that translating this into a clinically useful tool is far from reality, and there are a lot of fundamental issues that have to be resolved before something useful can be made:

1. You have to isolate the stem cells from fat properly, which is not a simple task especially when you think about doing this en masse for many patients.
2. Then you have to transform the cells, which is costly and takes time and never works completely.
3. After you get the cells beating, they have to beat in rhythm with the electrical pulse from the heart.
4. Then you have to ensure that they stay that way and don't require any additional growth factors or other biomolecules to keep their differentiation.
5. You also need to anticipate possible immune responses, i.e. a host could reject its own cells.
6. Then you have to consider the cost of growing these cells ex vivo and you probably have to do this in advance, especially if you want to use autologous cells (the patient's own cells), since it will take a lot of time and patience to grow the cell number to something substantial that can be injected.

In Australia things might happen faster, but for the US, getting this particular system running is full of regulatory issues and problems that aren't going to be easily addressed - 5 years is frankly impossible. I'd say 10 years, and that's AFTER they get all of the animal studies up and running. Ah, and it will cost tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions.

Re:Not realistic

[wdef]

To respond to your issues: 1. Isolate a few, then culture the rest? 2. Tranformation appears here to be quite simple and spontaneous. The rat cells are doing the work. 3. Rhythm can be synchronized with an electric current. 4. Additional maintenance - speculation until we know more. 5. Wondering how a host rejects its own cells - unless an autoimmune disease has been triggered? They all have the same HLA complex, or am I out of date? 6. Time to culture cells - so what? Heart failure is a slow and costly way to die. Drugs have greatly extended life. There is time enough. Industrial processes and technology should be able to streamline the process. Regulatory and funding issues: you're forgetting how many fat arses sit on funding and ethics committees and are shit scared of dying from heart problems. In short, I think you are being prematurely negative. Wait until the data is in. Personally I'd be more concerned that, if it works, it'll be *suppressed*. After all, what are we going to do with all the old people that live to 120+ because death from heart failure has been eliminated?

Re:Not realistic

[dreamchaser]

Yes, yes. It wasn't realistic that we'd fly in airplanes either. It wasn't realistic that we'd be able to transplant organs. It wasn't realistic that we'd put men on the Moon.

Not one of the issues you list is insurmountable. You could say 'not ready' but 'not realistic' is just plain inaccurate.

Re:Not realistic

[virgil Lante]

You always have to be skeptical when an institute pushes news of a discovery that has not been published yet. There are definitely inherent problems with current stem cell work (embryonic and non-embryonic), but we're getting better. However I don't think we've even thought about the largest hurdles and how to get over them. The biggest problem I see with this and other stem cell work is it involves transforming cells with multiple genes (often these genes are integrated into the host genome) which a number of them are usually potent oncogenes (c-myc is a good example used often). The result you typically get is a cell with similar phenotype to the tissue that the researcher is trying to grow, but these cells often aren't normal karyotypically. Karyotypic change is one of (if not the major) driving force of tumorigenesis and is involved in a number of other diseases, but most of the stem cell labs never check karyotypes. They are always assumed to be normal when they aren't. Unstable karyotypes are one of the reasons that embryonic stem cell research has been problematic. For some reason, when put into culture especially for extended periods of time embryonic stem cells are less stable than somatic stem cells. Hence embryonic stem cell therapy often results in cancer.

Re:Not realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it can definitely happen. But as a bioengineer who works with adult stem cells myself, I'm tired of people making far-fetched predictions and saying "5 years to clinical application." That comment is the most egregious one, because if that were true, there'd be a lot more people making money right now off these therapies - this sort of concept has existed for a long time. The problem is that people are hitting brick walls in really understanding what the cells are doing. There's been a lot of work showing that you can transdifferentiate cells - that is, change them from cardiac to fibroblast to osteoblast - but then you realize that if a cell can transdifferentiate that easily, then perhaps it's not really as permanent/perfect solution as it seems. And what marks a cardiac cell? Simply beating in response to electrical current? Not that simple.

The FDA is a slow beast. It's underfunded, understaffed and overworked. But what they will do is force these guys to show a lot more data than what they've currently got - and transitioning into an in vivo model will probably kill these guys even before they move up to a pig, and even before human clinical trials.

So what I'm trying to say is, I don't doubt our ability to fix these problems - I just doubt that unbridled optimism is the right way to think about it. I think the researchers themselves can demonstrate a little reservation, since they're the ones doing the work, but laypeople out there are latching onto these false dreams from misinformed sources and never really finding solutions. Remember the whole "we'll cure cancer and obesity and AIDS" in the 1990s? Where has that gotten us now?

Re:Not realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problems can be solved, yes. I just don't think it's a 5 year thing. It's not anywhere close to being "5 years and clinical application." That's seriously just crazy talk. And it gives people false hope. We as a scientific community have been giving a lot of false hope to people lately - would do us some good to scale back our claims a little bit.

Re:Not realistic

[dreamchaser]

I can agree with that, but the '5 year' thing seems to be a pretty standard stance taken by technologists and scientists alike these days. I think it might be an attempt to attract capital. If you tell people something is 20 years away they are probably less likely to throw money at it. I'm not saying I agree with that; it is what it is.

5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why 5 years? I am sure they got enough funding to shorten that to at least a few months, them lazy b...

i wish upon a day when

[kasmq1]

"This discovery may lead to the" will become "This discovery has lead to the"

Re:i wish upon a day when

[MrMr]

Just stop reading press releases and start reading books.
The reason you see these preliminary results everywhere is that there is a constant need of more good news to attract investors and sponsors.

Re:i wish upon a day when

[kasmq1]

and/or having news of "possible" (not probable ) super implementations of technology infant discoveries attracts people and therefore money. Needles to say that all , and i mean all, the news seem to succomb some information about what fact they are preaching that will almost always turn the wheel in another direction. if you can turn a wheel in a direction that is. point of reference i mean.

Department

[mrbobjoe]

from the for-the-love-of-god-montressor dept.

Eh? Was there a beating heart in The Cask of Amontillado? Maybe "the beating of his hideous heart" from The Tell-Tale Heart would have been more appropriate?

OMG: Someone's been watching..

[maroberts]

Doctor Who

Re:OMG: Someone's been watching..

[JayAitch]

The fat just walks away.

Cancer

[Thundergod_Thor]

Reprogramming normal tissue cells into other types usually involves inserting new genes randomly into the genome of these cells. This process is highly mutagenic. I wonder if this is the "mixture" they mentioned in the article is some kind of viroid to insert these genes. If this is the case the patients threated with this method my end up with cancer.

Re:Cancer

[wdef]

No. Stem cells are pluripotential and can change into any cell type. That is why they are called stem cells. Once stem cells have forked into mature cells, they do not change again by themselves. "Reprogramming" as you call it would be taking mature cells and injecting genetic material via a virus or some other means, which indeed has risks. This is exactly why some cancers are caused by viruses.

Re:Cancer

[Thundergod_Thor]

The Cells they are using are no real pluripotent stem cells like the ones from embryos but fat cells treated to behave like stem cells. In general differentiated cells do not revert to stem cells in vivo. You have to insert certain genes to induce this, but the result is not the same as a real stem cell.

Re:Cancer

[dbrutus]

Adults do have stem cells. The stem cells have been cultured and multiplied and have been coerced into differentiating into various types of tissue. Pluripotency is a red herring that has mostly led to tumor formation in attempts at embryonic stem cell treatments.

Nobel Prize material

[wdef]

Clearly a humongous discovery. Should these cells be made to repair damaged heart muscle, it will revolutionize medicine. And without all the tedious hoo-hah about embryonic stem cells. Cardiac cells, like neurons, cannot be replaced by the body when damaged. This in fact is why many people die from heart failure years after surviving heart attacks. Heart attacks cut off the oxygen supply to cardiac cells, which die and can only be replaced by non-functional scar tissue, which is like the body's spakfiller. You lose enough cells, the heart cannot pump properly.

Re:Nobel Prize material

[MichaelSmith]

And if they can grow new neurons it will be all for the better. If the heart and brain can be kept in good working order into old age, other tissues should be in better shape too.

Re:Nobel Prize material

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Rat cells when injected could go forage for food by eating the fat cells
and crap out heart cells thus cleaning out the clogs in ones arteries. Oops! hopefully
not to much or else the crap/heart cells will block the artery.

reading sideway...

[Monkey-some]

I did saw "stem cells extracted from human farts..." had to re-read it a second time wondering where the science could ever stop

And people were always

[meist3r]

giving me a hard time for being big ... "You're killing yourself" ... No, I'm just well prepared.

Way to a man's heart...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a really roundabout way to prove that the way to man's heart is through his stomach.

Feed a man lots of fatty foods, he gets fat.
Turn those fat cells into stem cells.
Turn those stem cells into heart cells.
Done.

Come for the Liposuction...

[MrMonroe]

Stay for the heart surgery?

We are forgetting.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. who the primary to thank for this. If it wasn't for them, I highly doubt this research would have been possible. Can we give a big round of applause to McDonalds and Burger King!

Dual Operation

[kiick]

Liposuction + heart fix
Come out thinner and heart-healthy, all in one swell foop (without all that tedious dieting and exercise).
Someone is going to make a fortune.

.... as holes... ?

[AssTard]

Heh, anyone else read this as Assholes in the Heart? "...or fixing such cardiac problems as holes in the heart...." LOL!

Just say NO

[cromar]

Just say NO to beer snobs ;)

Budweiser, PBR, Hamm's, etc. are perfectly drinkable, tasty beers. Sure if I could drink Celebrator or Delirium or microbrews every day, but why spend so much on beer if a cool, crisp brewski is all you want?

Re:Just say NO

[RulerOf]

You've got it the wrong way around.

Why drink beer if you're not going to drink what you'd like? That's not to say I don't have a taste for Budweiser when I'm in the mood for a beer, but if you're going to buy beer and cost is a consideration, you're probably doing it to get plastered... in which case, liquor is usually a better choice ;)

Re:Just say NO

[Just Some Guy]

Preach it. I'm not a beer snob (because it's hard to be snobbish about something you only get to drink once ever other month or so), but I don't bother with anything "lighter" than Sam Adams. If I'm going to have a beer, I'm going to have one that tastes good.

Re:Just say NO

[laddiebuck]

Just go to any grocery store or bar and pick up some Bass, it's a widely available cheap import. I used to hate beer as a kid (now I've grown used to most types), but even kids that have drunk Bass I know liked it. Not all cheap beers suck.

Re:Just say NO

[cromar]

I guess you can argue for hours about beer probably. I've always loved the taste of hooch, but I really don't find much to like about Bass or Guinness... gimme a Smithwick's or another Porter instead. And even though I like those I don't want to have more than a couple in one sitting before I would have to switch to liquor or a more "drinkable" beer, say Hamm's or 1664.

Viva la difference!

Re:Just say NO

[laddiebuck]

I haven't tried Smithwicks, but I like Porter, though I've not had it much.

For people who don't know about beer reading this thread, note that Bass and Guinness are about as different as you could wish; don't lump them together. Bass is a pale ale, Guinness is a dark stout.

I mainly drink whisky anyhow (by which I mean Scotch whisky).

As you say, vive le difference.

Publication?

[realisticradical]

Maybe I haven't been properly keeping up with the state of the art in tissue engineering lately. Actually, I'm sure I haven't.

It seems to me though, that this is a massive discovery and a huge step forward in technology. So why is the only publication that they list a multimedia presentation on, The Age? Shouldn't Science and Nature be all over this? At least it should be in the Journal of Tissue Engineering.

Re:Rat hearted overlords? What is a loyal rat?

[davidsyes]

Looney, but...

One that goes to Walgreens and other stores similar to them in San Francisco, and weekly buys boatloads of sticky rat traps (peanut-butter-scented) to help these stores make up for loss of cigarette sales since SF banned sales of cigs/tobacco in stores like Walgreens & Rite-Aid. (Actually, those traps smell pretty good, but, i don't have a rat heart, fortunately....)

Great new US export market!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we can sell our abundant liposuctioned fat into the cardiac stem cell market. Sweet!

Excellent...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been McDonald's plan all along.

Existing stem cell treatments

[SoopahCell]

Yes, there are. Here's my non-biologist attempt to explain what a real biologist explained to me:

Bone marrow seeps blood stem cells slowly into your blood every day. An AIDS patient has blood drawn, and that is spun down for the small number of adult blood stem cells present (so they are partially differentiated like the fat cells in this article - they can become blood cells but probably not liver cells).

The filtered cells are cultured, differentiated to T-Cells, and allowed to divide in culture until they reach 50x normal body levels. Then they are put back into the patient's blood stream and, ideally, the body wins the war by brute force.

I probably screwed that up but as I understannd it, it works some of the time and they were able to get through this process in a few months and save a few people a year.