Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biologists Find Stem-Cell-Like Functions In Ordinary Cells

Posted by Soulskill on from the anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-better dept.

mattrandy123 writes with news that scientists from NYU and Utrecht University have discovered ordinary plant cells can fulfill some of the same regenerative functions previously attributed to stem cells. Quoting: "In the study, the researchers cut off the plant's root tip, thereby excising the stem cell niche, and examined the return of cell identities by measuring all gene activity. The results suggested that stem cells returned quite late in regeneration after other cells were already replaced. The researchers then used mutant plants in which the stem cell niche no longer functions to confirm their initial observations. Despite the absence of the stem cell niche, the plant's ordinary cells worked to regenerate all the major tissues constituting the root tip — a process that began hours after it had been removed. However, researchers found that plants without functional stem cell niches could not resume normal growth, showing that other cells did not replace all functions of stem cells."

4 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by gillbates · · Score: 1, Troll

    Okay, we all know where this is going, so might as well collect all the trolls under one thread. Here goes:

    Bush banned stem cell research, holding back cures that would have been available during the Obama administration.

    Good, now that *that* little piece of misinformation is out of the way, I'd like to add just one thing more. It appears to me that while this discovery is promising, it will do nothing to mollify the supporters of embryonic stem cell research (ECS). It's not that ECS proponents really believe cures are around the corner, but that they believe science can do no wrong. The "miracle cures" are just a distraction (adult stem cells are already being used to cure) to what really amounts to a bigger issue: the role and authority of science in the public debate.

    Science has typically enjoyed support among the urban elites - typically liberals who believe in abortion and stem cell research. They aren't keen on having any authority tell them what to do with their bodies - God, government, or otherwise. They believe in science, _except_ in certain circumstances. That circumstance is the subject of embryonic development. At the time Roe v Wade was decided, it was not commonly known that a person's physical characteristics were uniquely determined at conception. The problem with science - from the perspective of the urban elite - is that it confirmed that, indeed, a person is fully human from the point of conception onward. Thus, for the first time, there existed a scientific basis for the opposition of abortion. This represents a *very real* problem for a demographic which, in their zeal to eliminate God's influence from public policy decisions, replaced Him with science. Now, it seems, science is the enemy of social progress.

    And this is why the issue of embryonic stem cell research is so salient to the Left. It has nothing to do with finding miracle cures, and everything to do with discrediting the scientific notion that a person's life begins at conception. The science is undeniable - but the conclusion that a fertilized egg is a person - need not be, at least not in public policy. The Left is rightly concerned, for if a court finds that indeed a fertilized egg is a person from a legal standpoint, then abortion is sure to be next. If the Left allows embryonic stem cell research to be scuttled under the premise of being unethical - that is, that we are experimenting on live human beings without their consent - then they pave the way for the repeal of abortion in the US. And *that* is what the ECS debate is really about.

    It has nothing to do with finding cures, and everything to do with the influence of science vs. theology in politics.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah! I see you are new to the intartubez. Despite what popular children's storybooks might have you believe, "trolls" are not cute, green hominids that live under bridges, devour unicorns, and provoke outbursts of simple, charming songs from smiling youngsters. On the contrary: trolls are annoying, bored regular-old-humans that live on forums, devour conversations, and provoke outbursts of useless, redundant replies from inexperienced users---like yourself! ;)

    2. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Lordnerdzrool · · Score: 0, Troll

      If a diploid chromosome number is what determines "fully human" then pretty much all the cells in the human body are "fully human". In fact, even the unfertilized egg is "fully human" (it is after all, diploid - not yet having completed the second cell division of meiosis II). Pretty much only sperm cells are not "fully human".

      More reasonable people oppose abortion not on the grounds that they are a fully living human, rather, that they are different fully living human. Even if you consider my spit or some other cells I produce to be "human" that's alright, and furthermore, if you determine them to be alive that's alright too. Once it obtains DNA other than that of my own, I have no right to destroy it, without their permission. A female can take a pill and destroy the egg without harm as it is part of her body. Once it obtains a unique DNA signature of its own, it is no longer her body, it is another human's body and a new set of rules should be applied, notably, you can't kill another human-being unless it is in self-defense (hence why, in some medical situations, abortion is acceptable).

      Just as an aside, I look at the world and I see a world where, fundamentally, most people thinks it's OK to kill even living babies as long as you have a sufficiently good reason. In the Iraq war, for example, the USA killed lots of babies but that was OK because "spreading democracy" is a sufficiently good reason for killing babies. Now you'll say "but it wasn't intentional" meaning that killing babies was not the objective of the USA (that if the USA could have spread democracy without killing babies that it would have done so) - but that's exactly my point: it's OK to kill babies if you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g. "spreading democracy"). So, anyway, IMHO this whole debate about what is "alive" and what is "human" is kind of silly because we live in a world where it's perfectly OK to kill living humans (as long as you have a sufficiently good reason).

      Um. No. See, you can't just wave a wand and change the world's opinion of the Iraq war from "we don't like how you guys killed the babies in Iraq" to "thank goodness you guys killed the babies in Iraq". The fact that most people disagree with the Iraq war because of the collateral damage, under your logic, is more than enough reason to assume that people disagree with the notion that it is "Ok to kill babies if you have sufficiently good reason".

      I should also then mention that self-defense can be considered a "sufficiently good reason" and in this sense, we do live on a world where it is perfectly OK to kill living humans, as long as you have sufficiently good reason. Regardless though, that still doesn't make this debate "silly" because if we don't define what a living human is, there is nothing really stopping me from killing you for no particular reason and just telling your family "Oh, but he wasn't a human, so it's all cool!"

  2. Re:Animal by VennData · · Score: 0, Troll

    No coincidence they waited until Obama was inaugurated to announce this one, Bush would have made killing plants illegal.