Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Developed From Skin Cells

juliangamble writes "Scientists reported Thursday they had developed a technique that can quickly create safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells, a major advance toward developing a less controversial approach for treating a host of medical problems. The researchers published a series of experiments showing they can use laboratory-made versions of naturally occurring biological signals to quickly convert ordinary skin cells into cells that appear virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the same strategy can then coax those cells to morph into specific tissues that would be a perfect match for transplantation into patients."

Comments

Re:"appear"... "virtually"?

[geekoid]

No, they are not identical. Several clinical hurdles ahve been passed, and it is clearly in improvement. But no, not identical.

Re:"appear"... "virtually"?

[The Pirou]

To quote the article:

Here we describe a simple, nonintegrating strategy for reprogramming cell fate based on administration of synthetic mRNA modified to overcome innate antiviral responses. We show that this approach can reprogram multiple human cell types to pluripotency with efficiencies that greatly surpass established protocols.

I repeat, 'GREATLY SURPASS ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS.'

Better = Better

Re:They still have to take living tissue

[sed quid in infernos]

This new technique isn't a workaround. It's an important step to fulfilling the ultimate potential of stem cell therapy. Something like this skin-cell technique will be necessary for the creation of truly effective stem cell treatments. Stem cells formed from the patient's own tissue will prevent a host of rejection-related problems. Stem cells from an embryo have a different genotype and thus can cause more rejection issues.

Victim of Language?

[WeatherGod]

While, I welcome any and all advances in the field of stem cells, I often wonder if the controversy around embryonic stem cells is mostly a product of language. As I understand it, the names "embryonic" and "adult" refers to where in the life-cycle of the stem cell it is in. It does not describe the source of the cells. Notice that even babies can have adult stem cells.

In cloud physics, there is a concept of a embryonic cloud drop. It is merely a label for a cloud droplet at the beginning of its life cycle, before it grows or evaporates.

So, are many people having problems with embryonic stem cells because they believe that it comes from an embryo instead of a zygote? Would public opinion be different if people understood this distinction? Would they care?

Re:Victim of Language?

[bflong]

For those that believe that a human life begins at conception, there is no moral difference between an embryo and a zygote.

Re:Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm pro science. I think everyone should be doing nuclear experiments in their basement like the http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html"> Nuclear Boy Scout. After all, everyone trying to prevent him from experimenting is just plain anti science.

Or is it that all science needs boundaries and you just disagree with where that boundary has been set?

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are "anti science". Though throwing the whole "Anti" tag on things seems like common way to be dismissive without actually making any soft of point. Which makes you as bad as the Christian Fundies. Maybe worse, because at least they don't pretend to be logical.