Team Use Stem Cells to Restore Mobility in Paralyzed Monkey

interval1066 writes "From the article: 'Japanese researchers said Wednesday they had used stem cells to restore partial mobility in a small monkey that had been paralysed from the neck down by a spinal injury.' This is huge news in the world of stem cell research; restoring some muscular control to a simian is a huge step. This means that stem cell therapy is a demonstrably viable path to restoring motility for millions of accident victims, palsy and ms sufferers, the list just goes on."

Comments

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

... welcome our regenerated monkey overlords.

Re:I for one...

[stoanhart]

There should be a "Delete Account" mod option, which kicks in if every moderator selects it. It would be great for tired old jokes that just won't die!.

Re:I for one...

[igreaterthanu]

Which would totally work for ACs.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant idea considering that he posted without logging in.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to say I totally agree with you, except for that part about deleting their account, but to be honest actually, that's the first time I've laughed at that joke in a really long time....

Posting anon for obvious reasons...

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

how about a mod option that deletes posts from fucking morons who can't realize people are posting as AC

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new Slashdot moderator overlords.

Re:I for one...

[mcgrew]

There should be a "Delete Account" mod option, which kicks in if every moderator selects it. It would be great for tired old jokes that just won't die!.

There are three: Troll, flamebait, and overrated. All damage karma, and if your karma gets low enough you're going to wait as long as posting AC to post a comment, and your comment will start at AC level and nobody will see it anyway.

Note that "Funny" gains no karma, so making jokes is dangerous to your karma, as you risk one of the three karma-harmful mods with no corresponding chance of gaining karma.

And in Soviet Russia, our our regenerated monkey overlords welcome YOU!
=P

Re:I for one...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'd support it if the true functionality would be to delete the account of every moderator that selects it.

Anyone that would check that box to delete someone else's account is a censoring Hitler. I say we fuck them in the ass and delete THEIR account.

Induced pluripotent stem

[makubesu]

So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[butalearner]

So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.

Except for wheelchair manufacturers.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I was just going to point out that the article trolls about embryonic stem cell usage in the final two paragraphs:

"Scientists say the use of human embryonic stem cells as a treatment for cancer and other diseases holds great promise, but the process has drawn fire from religious conservatives and others who oppose it.

Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain the cells capable of developing into almost every tissue of the body."

The cells used in this treatment were derived from adult skin cells. No controversy here. Everyone wins. The article barely alludes to the fact that adult skin cells were used (not even a complete sentence is devoted to this critical fact), and they devote their closing 2 paragraphs to trying to gin up controversy over the embryonic stem cell issue without pointing out how this treatment bypasses that issue. I find it very disingenuous, and the Slashdot editors should have caught it and addressed it in the summary.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[transami]

Not really. An embryo doesn't get to save a life before it's flushed down the drain.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Hatta]

The cells used in this treatment were derived from adult skin cells. No controversy here. Everyone wins.

The fact that adult stem cells are useful should lead us to believe that embryonic stem cells are useful too. In this way any work on adult stem cells is linked to (the lack of) work on embryonic stem cells. If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[blackraven14250]

The /. editors can hardly spell or even read over the summaries for blatant redundancy or shitty sentence structures; I don't expect them to read the article at this point.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[h4rr4r]

What controversy is there for anyone in the least bit educated?

Who opposes fertility treatments? If you do not oppose those why would you oppose the methods used to dispose of the left over embryos?

They were going in the garbage anyway.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

I made no claim one way or the other regarding the ethics of embryonic stem cell usage. My only claim was that the reporting was intentionally deceptive.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[interkin3tic]

These actually are "induced pluripotent stem cells" not "adult stem cells." The difference being that these are adult skin cells (fibroblasts technically) that have been manipulated, likely by viral transfection of 3 or 4 genes (genes which have been linked to cancer) to become -like- embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells which would regenerate your spinal cord without manipulation have not really been done much. There is a population of stem cells found in mouse whisker roots that seem to do the job, and I'm not sure why that hasn't gotten more press. There might be some in the center of your brain, but I don't think harvesting those have been considered as treatment for CNS injuries for obvious reasons.

Embryonic stem cells and IPsC both appear to have the same broad range of potential fates, wheras most people don't think adult stem cell populations would.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[interkin3tic]

So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.

Not quite, ESC are mostly used right now for basic research into cell biology. One fairly small down side to results like these, where adult stem cells or IPsC get results for treatment, is that people forget the fact that there's more to learn here than how to repair a spinal cord. We haven't figured out how a fertilized egg becomes a full human, ESC are a valuable tool to that end. If people get the idea that there's nothing more to do with ESC since we can fix monkey spinal cords, ESC research is going to become illegal.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

They were going in the garbage anyway.

Indeed. Organ and limb harvesting of death row inmates should be required too. And harvesting from the general population should be compulsory as well. And don't get me started on the cigarette smokers. They're as good as dead anyway.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

We haven't figured out how a fertilized egg becomes a full human

So you have no objection to being forced under the dissection knife right or forced to be experimented on in order to help figure out how adults age? It's the same argument.

If people get the idea that there's nothing more to do with ESC since we can fix monkey spinal cords, ESC research is going to become illegal.

• You seem to be arguing that we should cover up the fact that iPSCs so that they don't think ESCs are useless and therefore allow them to be banned. Is this correct?
• There are a great number of things that would advance science that are illegal. Why is experimenting on embryonic humans without their consent any different?

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even its own.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mug funky]

big wtf from me.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mug funky]

chill dude. it's not even got a head yet. it's a ball of near identical cells that has the potential to become something greater. or has the potential to miscarry. or grow ectopically and kill it's host. or grow up into the next Hitler (yay! Godwin!).

do you pray for all the unfertilized eggs? or all the sperm that end up wrapped in a tissue and flushed?

* disclaimer - my wife is pregnant, due next june. yay!

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mug funky]

"One fairly small down side"

"You seem to be arguing that we should cover up the fact..."

ummm... you can leave now.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[h4rr4r]

Not sure about compulsory, but organ donor status should indeed be the default instead of opt-in.

Smokers are fine by me, they pay a lot more in taxes than they cost.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[h4rr4r]

So should animal testing be illegal? They cannot consent either.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Also not human, you might note.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even got a head yet.

Hmm. so your criteria for being a live human being is having a head? In general, you're correct; a more advanced human development stage would have a head and it'd be required for the human to continue living. OTOH, when you remove the head, the human stops living. The embryo, in contrast, is clearly alive without a head and still human, albeit at a very early stage. Other than possessing a head (or perhaps some other obvious feature such as 2 arms and legs or 10 toes or, with the same underlying (lack of) logic, being some arbitrary skin color; indeed, possessing some features, using the same logic, can allow one to define inconvenient people as non-human) What's your basis for asserting that it's not human?

it's a ball of near identical cells that has the potential to become something greater.

It's a live human being. Or on what basis do you deny it being alive or human?

or has the potential to miscarry. or grow ectopically and kill it's host. or grow up into the next Hitler (yay! Godwin!).

We all have the possibility to do great or horrible things or to die at any time. It's a poor justification for killing someone. Regarding ectopic pregnancies or killing the mother: bad situations like that can happen in real life too. Sometimes you have to decide between two lives and both don't get to live. Ask a battlefield medic or ER triage nurse or doctor. Doesn't mean that the un-chosen one ceases to be human.

do you pray for all the unfertilized eggs? or all the sperm that end up wrapped in a tissue and flushed?

Not sure where prayer is coming into the argument; you're the first to introduce it. You'll perhaps note that sperm and eggs are not fully human yet (haploid, not diploid). They don't also continue to develop until they are joined with their respective opposite. Unless fertilized, they just die.

* disclaimer - my wife is pregnant, due next june. yay!

Congratulations! Parenthood is an interesting place.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Frantix]

For calling yourself educated, that's a poorly formed sentence. It's not the controversy of using an embryo, it's the thought that it leads to breeding and harvesting embryos for the use of stem cell.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[interkin3tic]

So you have no objection to being forced under the dissection knife right or forced to be experimented on in order to help figure out how adults age? It's the same argument.

No, an embryonic stem cell is not a person by anyone's standards. A leftover embryo from IVF scheduled for incineration is not a person by my standards. I am a person by my standards.

You seem to be arguing that we should cover up the fact that iPSCs so that they don't think ESCs are useless and therefore allow them to be banned. Is this correct?

You know full well it's not. I'm not advocating covering anything up. It would be nice though if people realized there was more benefit from ESC research than repairing spinal cords.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[cheekyjohnson]

Organ and limb harvesting of death row inmates should be required too.

To be honest, I don't see the problem with this. They're dead, they don't need them, and it could potentially help people.

And harvesting from the general population should be compulsory as well.

Don't see the problem here, either. They have no use for their organs or limbs.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[MillionthMonkey]

That's an easy thing to regulate. Are you worried about creating an embryonic stem cell black market? (Too late.)

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they don't go in the garbage. They go into cryogenic freezing for the rest of time.

A small distinction I know, but in a society that will do anything to avoid making hard choices it's an important one.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[MillionthMonkey]

Hmm. so your criteria for being a live human being is having a head?

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Carl Sagan had a better suggestion, that a useful criteria for ethical or moral purposes can be that the brain is working, claiming that this happens in the seventh month of pregnancy. Of course the technical criteria is earlier than that; I would certainly consider a zygote to be technically a live human being!

You use "live human being" and "human" in an argumentum ad lexicon, confusing descriptive and proscriptive definitions. The people who oppose Plan B tablets engage in a similar fallacy, as if preventing a blastula from implanting is the same as murder. (Well it can't possibly be any other species of animal in there, can it? So it must be human, ergo, taking that tablet is committing murder.)

Trying to come up with a single definition for something that's useful for all purposes will lead you to think you have to "draw a line" somewhere. I certainly wouldn't want to be eight months pregnant with a brain dead baby inside and find myself on the wrong side of some "line" drawn by people who think anything spelled the same must be the same.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for wheelchair manufacturers.

For God's sake! Someone think of the wheelchair manufacturers!

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that adult stem cells are useful should lead us to believe that embryonic stem cells are useful too. In this way any work on adult stem cells is linked to (the lack of) work on embryonic stem cells. If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?

The benefits of embryonic stem cells, real or theorized, don't matter. The subject so much of a hot topic that more good can be done finding ways to circumvent the issue than meet it head-on. It's not that embryonic stem cell research is wrong (from a scientific point of view), but spending resources fighting that battle would be a waste. The only way to win that fight is to wait it out until views on life and the nature of humanity change.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[PhxBlue]

What controversy is there for anyone in the least bit educated?

Ah, yes, well, there's the kicker. Uneducated people tend to outnumber the educated ones.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Bacon Bits]

I'd love it if they were the next buggy whip industry.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[ultranova]

If we can save lives with adult stem cells, what if we could save even more lives with embryonic stem cells? Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?

Adult stem cells have the obvious advantage of being your cells, and thus not causing any issues with rejection. Also, as nanotechnology matures, there's the long-term prospect of setting up fully autonomous regenerative capability, which would solve the problems with "lifestyle" diseases, thus vastly decreasing medical spending.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[demonrob]

Shouldn't we at least do the research to find out?

There's lots of things we can find out by experimenting on live human bodies. We should at least do the research. Starting on you.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Arterion]

I wonder if the GP had a teratoma, would he respect its right to live? It is, after all, human life -- a living bundle of human cells.

What a jerkoff.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[DMUTPeregrine]

The big, big benefit of stem cells is that they are identical to the tissue recipient's cells, and thus won't be rejected by the immune system. Embryonic stem cells don't have that benefit. However, they're more likely to remain the proper cell type after differentiation, whereas induced pluripotent cells sometimes revert. Research is needed on both types of cells to get the ideal of induced pluripotent stem cells that function the same way as embryonic ones.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

No controversy here.

Hang on a minute. I don't care much about the stem cell issue, but I do care about subjecting sentient beings to pain.

This is one of a number of monkeys deliberately paralysed so that research can be carried out. In this case the monkey's functionality is partially restored. Others will have been less lucky, and it's highly likely that all of them including this one were killed off afterwards in order to see what had happened.

Fully grown monkeys are more sentient than human embryos, and have more ability to suffer.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[justinlee37]

Your analysis is too simplistic, just like anyone who would blame corporations for all the world's problems.

Why are the poor stupid and lazy? Why are the people who work for corporations good at something? Could it have anything to do with differences in access to education, nutrition, and a safe, positive environment?

What can we do to improve access to those things in order to prevent more people from becoming stupid and lazy? Could we improve spending on welfare and social services, or take steps to curb the overpopulation trend? If we did that, would it also lower the crime rate in addition to reducing scarcity?

How much does it really cost to feed the poor? You're worried about the expense, but have you done a full cost/benefit analysis? We spend a majority of our federal budget on our military and the Iraq war was financed with hundreds of billions of dollars, would you be opposed to taking a few billion dollars that we are currently spending to kill people on other continents and using it to feed the poor instead? Do you think that would be a better use of our resources?

If you haven't asked yourself questions like these and you're not willing to, then your analysis of social problems will always be stupid and lazy, and you will continue to be part of the problem.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll always have a market with the racing enthusiasts.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[yorugua]

mo cuishle lost already, but this looks like good news for similar cases, hope that there's a solution fast enough,

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[ThatsNotPudding]

So would the Jackass franchise.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[AmiMoJo]

It seems to be more a question of potential than actual functionality or conciousness. We kill animals for food or pest control and they are clearly capable of feeling pain and fear. The main difference between a relatively intelligent animal and an embryo at an early stage of development seems to be the potential for the latter to grown into a self aware human being.

Our attitude towards unborn children is biased by the Christian notion that human life is sacred. It extends to other areas of human life too, e.g. the way we consider it humane to put down an animal in pain and no chance of recovery but don't extend the same consideration to people even if they ask for it.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Thing 1]

To be honest, I don't see the problem with this.

Here's the problem: Logan's Run.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Jason Levine]

They only go into cryogenic freezing until they are no longer needed. Then they are disposed of by incineration. It would be too expensive to keep all unused fertilized eggs cryogenically frozen for all time.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[zerro]

Hang on a minute. I don't care much about the stem cell issue, but I do care about subjecting sentient beings to pain.

This is one of a number of monkeys deliberately paralysed so that research can be carried out. In this case the monkey's functionality is partially restored. Others will have been less lucky, and it's highly likely that all of them including this one were killed off afterwards in order to see what had happened.

Fully grown monkeys are more sentient than human embryos, and have more ability to suffer.

That was the first thing that I thought of as well, and noticed that the TFA conveniently glazed past this. If it was an accidentally injured primate, that would be one thing, but intentionally crippling and maiming of primates is incorrigible.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mcgrew]

Hmmm... it seems you must be poor, as you're too stupid and lazy to register an account.

I don't know about your country, but in the US there is no welfare and hasn't been since 1996. The closest is SNAP, which used to be food stamps.

Do you know who is on the SNAP program? Wal-Mart and McDonald employees! That's right, the people who are WORKING. Who really benefits from the SNAP program? Wal-Mart and McDonalds, who don't have to pay their employees a living wage. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable level and there would be little need for the SNAP program.

And your "let the fucking poor kids starve" attitude is sociopathic to the point of psychopathic. You REALLY need to see a mental health expert... if you can afford on.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Jason Levine]

Someone I know online found themselves in pretty much that situation. Their baby-to-be was diagnosed with a rare birth defect and had zero chance of survival. The choices were a) abort now or b) go through a difficult pregnancy and risky birth to give birth to a dead baby. Awful choices to make and ones I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

They opten for the abortion but time was a factor and the hospital couldn't get it done in time. So they went to a family planning center/abortion clinic. Of course, there were protestors outside. On this, the worst day of their lives, when they were heading in to end the pregnancy they had so looked forward to, the protestors thought it was a good idea to shout at them and tell them "You're killing your baby!"

When his wife was taken away for the procedure, he realized he couldn't just sit in the waiting room. He turned on his video phone, walked out and politely confronted the protesters.

http://www.daddyfiles.com/2010/07/13/abort-protesters/

The fun part is when the protesters get annoyed at him for bothering them and threaten to call the police. So calling someone a "baby murderer" when you don't know anything about their situation is fine but asking you questions in a polite manner (when he had every right to yell scream and curse at them) is cause for calling the police?

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mr_mischief]

Are you under the impression that a ban on US federal funding determines the research agenda in Japan? Maybe your concern is that the Japanese researchers are so worried about getting US researchers who are federally funded to replicate their experiment that they are afraid to use embryonic stem cells?

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[bjk002]

You deserve many more mod points... good post.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[mr_mischief]

The question of humanity by an individual's standards is the problem here. I think much of the ESC debate is centered around the idea that we've had a lot of disagreement in the past about who is human. Just a few generations ago, some people considered Africans subhuman. Some people considered the mildly retarded subhuman. Some considered Jews subhuman.

I think there's such a backlash against allowing arbitrary individual standards to be applied to what constitutes humanity that some of it spills over into at what point the reproductive process constitutes a person. This is, I think, not mutually exclusive with religious feelings on the issue but is separate and not nearly as widely talked about. I think it's taboo to say there's a possible link between medical science and eugenics. There has been before, though, and some of our current institutions even have some of their roots in those links.

If you really value ESCs, just saying that they aren't human isn't enough to quell this fear. You'd have to give your logical reasons why and an assurance that you're all for ethics restrictions on how the embryos are acquired (which right now are already in place in most first-world countries).

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[PinchDuck]

The controversy, in my opinion, is that I don't think it's a good idea to create a market for human embryos. Stem cell treatment will certainly take off to huge heights within the next few decades. Yes, the current research is done with embryos that were going to be trashed anyway, but at what point does demand outstrip the supply? I have ethical issues about people then getting pregnant just to abort the embryos for cash, which is what would inevitably happen. Your point is a bit of a troll, too, in that you assume that all educated people must share your opinion. In any case, my ethical qualms are completely sidestepped if they aren't using embryonic stem cells.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Anonymous Coward]

So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.

Except for wheelchair manufacturers.

And countless forcibly disabled monkeys. I sense a growing business opportunity in simian wheelchairs.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[cheekyjohnson]

When he said death row patients and citizens, I meant specifically after they're already dead.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[surgeterrix]

On the contrary, one of the unexpected benefits of the blocks on embryonic research is it has forced researchers to take a hard look at the possible uses of adult stem cells, which are more difficult to work with which provides us with an alternative that 7-8 years ago everyone was screaming didn't exist. Now we are finding that adult stem cells can be used in a lot of applications and can be gathered from a large number of donors. If it hadn't been for that, researchers would have taken the path of least resistance and only looked at embryonic stem cells for everything because adult stem cells were more difficult for them to work with initially, even if the whole ethics of the "supply" issue hadn't quite been fully understood or resolved yet. I think it worked out better this way since now both avenue's of research are now a greater possibility instead of the narrow focus on just one. Necessity is the mother of intention - Plato

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[surgeterrix]

Necessity is the mother of invention - Plato

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[interkin3tic]

Just a few generations ago, some people considered Africans subhuman. Some people considered the mildly retarded subhuman. Some considered Jews subhuman.

My standards for "personhood" include "having a central nervous system" and "are recognizably human?" I'm inherently biased in favor of those standards, but I think they're better than the standards that racists use.

If you really value ESCs, just saying that they aren't human isn't enough to quell this fear. You'd have to give your logical reasons why ...

That would have been completely tangential to my point though (which was that ESC research is still valuable). More important, stating my reasons why I don't consider IVF embryos human lives would have been redundant with the reasons mentioned by others here already.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[nametaken]

I'm in awe of that man. Largely because he has so much self control.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Thing 1]

My point was, this gives someone (in Logan's Run's case, the government) incentive to murder people in order to harvest their organs. Sorry my compression was too much.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[cheekyjohnson]

My point was, this gives someone (in Logan's Run's case, the government) incentive to murder people in order to harvest their organs.

It does? The whole point of harvesting the organs is to save someone else. Killing the original owner just makes that goal pretty pointless, including the fact that no one would let other people go around killing people for organs. They certainly wouldn't get away with it, and no one person would get to decide where the organs go (they would be used on demand).

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Thing 1]

The whole point of harvesting the organs is to save someone else. Killing the original owner just makes that goal pretty pointless

Yes, if I can save my daughter by killing a stranger then I might. So yes, I would have incentive to commit murder under such a system. Sorry if my daughter's life seems to you pointless.

They certainly wouldn't get away with it

The Chinese government currently does get away with it (Google "Chinese death vans"), so you are quite wrong. And Chinese officials decide which of their family members get the organs.

no one person would get to decide where the organs go

Sure, I'll grant you that "no one person", the Chinese officials are more than one in number, but that's not my point; my point was setting up such a system will have unintended consequences.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, if I can save my daughter by killing a stranger then I might.

Have fun getting jailed, and then not even being sure if the organ will go to her in the first place!

The Chinese government currently does get away with it (Google "Chinese death vans"), so you are quite wrong.

If the people let their government become that corrupt, then who is at fault? It sounds like they have more problems on their hands than just people killing for organs. This also isn't the fault of forced organ donation, but of the government.

It's possible that people could do bad things in such a system (not likely if implemented correctly, however), but anything can be abused.

Sure, I'll grant you that "no one person", the Chinese officials are more than one in number, but that's not my point; my point was setting up such a system will have unintended consequences.

So, the answer, I suppose, is to let people rot in the ground and waste space, all because it might be abused?

We better stop people from becoming voluntary organ donator, too, because it could encourage murder!

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Thing 1]

One of Larry Niven's cornerstone pieces is about organ harvesting; it's a very real risk. No, the answer is not to let people rot in the ground, it's to develop nanotechnology so we don't have to die. Coincidentally, we also won't need to harvest organs, voluntary or not. So it's win-win.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[cheekyjohnson]

One of Larry Niven's cornerstone pieces is about organ harvesting; it's a very real risk.

If the government would go so far as to kill people to harvest organs, again, the people have more of a problem on their hands than just people purposely killing others. Sounds like they have been in need of a revolution for a long time.

Besides that, if a corrupt government really wanted that to happen, they could make it happen now (since it's plainly obvious that they wouldn't listen to the people).

No, the answer is not to let people rot in the ground, it's to develop nanotechnology so we don't have to die.

That's unlikely for quite a long time, if it's even possible.

Re:Induced pluripotent stem

[Thing 1]

Good luck saying no to the people who are proving yes.

Embryonic or adult?

[bluefoxlucid]

Embryonic adult stem cells are a grenade topic under much political (moral, ethical, religious) fire; adult stem cell research is universally free game. Which is this?

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[Bucky24]

The article mentions embryonic stem cells at the end, so it's probably a fair guess that's what they are using.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[bknabe]

iPS cells are usually adult stem cells. So it's probably adult, although there's a slight chance they're embryonic. I suspect they were adult because of the way the article was written. They never mention type until they start talking about embryonic stem cells at the end of the article. That way they didn't lie, they just forgot to mention that little detail.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[CrustyMustard]

Yeah, what bknabe said: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics10.asp. Score another one for adult stem cells.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[PopeRatzo]

The article mentions embryonic stem cells at the end, so it's probably a fair guess that's what they are using.

Not that it matters...

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why it's called research. You can't really use your own embryonic stem cells because there ain't any. But by understanding how embryonic cells differentiate you can huge insight into adult stem cells that are readily available. Clinical stuff will ALWAYS end up using your adult stem cells, but that will not happen unless we understand how these cells work....

There are tons of embryonic stem cells being flushed down the toilet every day, yet no one can study these cells for "ethical" reasons. Sometimes people have fucked up "ethics".

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule of thumb on stem cells, if they are mentioned in an actual procedure then they are adult stem cells; if they are mentioned in regards to policy they are talking about embryonic stem cells.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[h4rr4r]

Why do you care?
Do you oppose fertility treatments? If not, why do you care how they dispose of the left over material?

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[jgtg32a]

The article also mentions that Induced Pluripotent stem cell were what were actually used in the procedure, so they most likely used cells from the same monkey that received the treatment, therefor adult stem cells.

The mention of embryonic is a absolutely moronic the controversy is about embryonic not adult stem cells. Stem Cell articles really make me hate the media, every article says that stem cells are the greatest thing since germ theory and they could very well be right. If journalist want to help they could maybe just maybe try to help the pubic understand the difference. I guarantee that 99% of the controversy would disappear, and 2/3 of the remain controversy would be from instances where a minor storm would pop up because someone misreported and said that embryonic and not adult cells were used.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[interkin3tic]

To clarify, the blurb from "inquirer.net" was light on that detail but was not written by the scientists involved in the research. They undoubtedly wrote it up and submitted it for peer-review, and will include the experimental details.

It may also be that they did a control of the same things with embryonic stem cells. It would make sense: if the iPS monkeys didn't recover the same mobility the ESC monkeys did, that would be important to know.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[interkin3tic]

Yeah, what bknabe said: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics10.asp [nih.gov]. Score another one for adult stem cells.

Sorry to be a stickler over terms, but "adult stem cell" and "induced pluripotent stem cells" are two different things. An adult stem cell is a stem cell from the adult (or child) body which can effectively be used as is. These generally have a narrower range of fates. You can take a blood stem cell and it will produce blood cells. It will not produce neurons, but you don't have to change it's epigenetics to get it to produce blood.

iPS on the other hand are cells which don't need to be stem cells initially, but have to be epigenetically "reset" to produce anything. To do this, you need to manipulate it a bit to make it more like an embryonic stem cell. The upside is that it can produce, say, spinal cord neurons, and you avoid host rejection since you can use a patient's own cells. The downside is that the manipulations are very low efficiency and the risk of producing cancer is likely increased.

Two different things. This is a "score" for iPS, not adult stem cells. I guess it's not too important if you're more concerned with "They're not harvested from embryos" than accuracy, but there is a real difference.

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[jgtg32a]

Yes I do oppose fertility treatments

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[h4rr4r]

How do you feel about older folks attempting to reproduce?

For each birth many miscarriages occur, in older women the rates get worse. At what point is it immoral for women to keep trying to get pregnant?

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[deapbluesea]

There's a big difference between having unprotected sex in your middle years and having a doctor insert sperm in an ovum under a microscope. While you're considering that thought, you might want to look up Genetic Fallacy (fittingly enough).

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[countertrolling]

...adult stem cell research is universally free game.

You think so? Wait till you get the bill...

Re:Embryonic or adult?

[The End Of Days]

They were the same people? Did you keep a list or are you just using an rhetorical device to make it look like you actually have a point?

Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[sonnejw0]

There's only a handful of reasons why you'd hear about this first from a newspaper called "The Inquirer" as opposed to Nature Neuroscience ... I'll leave it to you to figure out what those reasons are.

Re:Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[Kelzar]

Because the Philippine Daily Inquirer publishes daily instead of monthly?

Re:Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[wealthychef]

It's not just on that one paper. Google it. E.g. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g6udzhonWNxb7k0JA5m3zUajYjqA?docId=CNG.b8e9e74ca1623255c8dd0b5233b5ac93.121

Re:Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[allanmackenzie]

Hideyuki Okano has almost 300 papers and some of them in very reputable journals. This is most likely the real deal.

Re:Peer-Review v. Newspaper

[91degrees]

Because more people read The Inquirer than Nature Neuroscience, and it doesn't assume a grounding in the basics of Neuroscience - a subject that while undoubtedly fascinating, I seem to have skipped at school.

This'll show them...

[iluvcapra]

Monkeys should really be more careful and should never, ever dive into the shallow end of the pool.

Re:This'll show them...

[markass530]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-japan-team-stem-cells-paralysed.html

Salute.

[sbenson]

"that had been paralysed from the neck down by a spinal injury" -- Bet it wasn't an accident.
I for one wish to honor our little buddy that took one for the team, Not his team, our team, the team two branches over on the evolutionary tree.

Re:Salute.

[Stregano]

I was thinking that as well. How often do Japanese people run across paralyzed monkeys and then think, "I bet this monkey would be good for stem cell research"

Re:Salute.

[errxn]

I hope that you're completely wrong, but I sadly suspect that you are completely correct.

Re:Salute.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Honestly, I don't care if some intern in a lab halfway across the world has to snap the spine of 100 monkeys by hand. If the research pays off and eventually does lead a treatment that can restore full mobility to MS, palsy, ALS, and other paralysis victims, I say go ahead and break as many monkey spines as you need.

Re:Salute.

[Anne_Nonymous]

But it *was* an accident. A simulated accident, in which monkeys were strapped into the driver's seat of a large van full of Maybelline products, which was then crashed into a stack of Jersey barriers at 60 mph, to test the durability of an iPhone in the glove box. After that the monkeys were used for stem cell experiments.

Re:Salute.

[OzPeter]

I was thinking that as well. How often do Japanese people run across paralyzed monkeys and then think, "I bet this monkey would be good for stem cell research"

Yes thats correct. They run accross the monkey first, then think, "Yep he is a good candidate for stem cell research!"

Re:Salute.

[Opportunist]

I know this is going to be tasteless, but you just know it's true:

Hey, why're you complaining? The alternative would've been throwing the monkey away, that way it was at least good for another test. And it even worked!

Re:Salute.

[craash420]

“If hooking a car battery to a monkey's brain might possibly find a cure for cancer in ten years I only have one thing to say; the red one is positive and the black one is negative.”
- unknown

Re:Salute.

[Pharmboy]

It's a sticky wicket to say the least. It bothers me terribly for cosmetics to be tested on animals, and don't think it should be done. It bothers me somewhat less so to know animals are being used for medical testing. But it still bothers me. I still think it is a good idea to have animal testing for medical research, as yes, there are some amazing discoveries made because of it, which is admittedly hypocritical. And yes, it also bothers me that I am willing to be hypocritical to save humans lives, but I'm not willing to give up the science, even for the poor critters.

For it is worth, at least I am honest about my own hypocracy. Sometimes life just gives you shitty options to choose from, and I gotta choose the shitty option that saves more human lives.

Re:Salute.

[frank_adrian314159]

They run accross the monkey first...

With what? A Honda?

Re:Salute.

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

"That poor sweet monkey. Oh well , lets gather him up , theres no sense in letting him go to waste" *licks lips*

Non-Obligatory Futurama reference ;)

Re:Salute.

[shadowofwind]

As I see it, a defining characteristic of our world is that some live by sacrificing others. Obviously it doesn't start with man, it goes all the way down the evolutionary chain. Seeing that the whole natural order is like that, and that its often unavoidable given what came before, people justify it. But there's a price we pay. And as we become increasingly powerful, the price can get higher. Europe's 20th century wars would be one example of how behavior that sort of worked before becomes more problematic with advances in technology.

Personally I think we'll pay eventually for every bit of our lack of humility and love for others, be they other people or other animals.

Re:Salute.

[by (1706743)]

They run accross the monkey first...

With what? A Honda?

Well, if it was with a Toyota, then it very well could have been an (accelerator pedal related) accident...

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, I think the monkey would win in that collision...

Re:Salute.

[h4rr4r]

You had better hope we never have monkey overlords.

So long as the monkeys were properly anesthetized and they only did the 100 monkeys they needed not a couple more just for jollies then I say go for it.

No need to torture the little bastards.

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay. They only do it to the bad monkeys. The Hitler monkeys, Mussolini monkeys, and occasionally the "give me your lunch money or you get another swirlie" monkeys.

All the good monkeys are treated with utmost respect, given massages every day, and an up-to-date subscription to HBO.

Re:Salute.

[zippthorne]

Unknown? Seriously? Nick DiPaolo

Re:Salute.

[shadowofwind]

It seems similar to me as the quandary with eating meat. A lot of people have to eat meat to stay healthy, yet it still requires sacrificing something else. All you can do is pick the lesser of evils, and try to point yourself in the right direction. Personally I'm against a lot of the medical testing they do, but its a judgment call, and reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions.

One reason I'm against some of it, is I see that the medical industry has a lot of power lust and greed in it, and in a lot of ways doesn't really care about health. The way many hospitals treat both their own patients and their own employees is really brutal. So I say, try treating people right, and focusing more on caring for the body doing the obvious things like exercising and not eating junk food. That right there would do as much or more for health than a whole lot of grisly animal experiments. Do the right things first, and see how much of the wrong things remain necessary.

Re:Salute.

[mug funky]

fell out of a tree.

who are you going to believe? the monkey can't even talk, and i heard he was drunk when he fell from the tree.

the researcher just happened by shortly afterwards and said "poor little monkey. never fear, i think i have just the thing for you!"

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before junkfood and TV we were getting regular exercise and eating appropriately, yet life expectancy was much lower.

i do however feel sorry for the poor monkey that only has 80% mobility now, what if he didn't want to use his legs?

i'm ok with researching on animals other than cosmetics. i mean really, most other large predators would kill us for an easy meal, at least the creatures are going towards something that won't only help us, but help all mammals. IMO there is less morally wrong with testing / experimenting on animals then eating them. as long as its done humanely and the animals don't suffer, making the animals suffer is just being unnecessarily cruel.

Re:Salute.

[Pharmboy]

I understand your view on meat. I eat meat, and catch, clean and prepare my own fish as well. I was raised doing some hunting, and have shot, cleaned and prepped everything from rabbits, squirrel (once or twice), dove and quail, deer, turkey, etc. I don't hunt now, but understand why others do. I think being too far removed from the food chain in unhealthy, personally. I'm of the belief that a person should do their own dirty work at least every now and then, or go vegan.

Re:Salute.

[shadowofwind]

I'm of the belief that a person should do their own dirty work at least every now and then, or go vegan.

I agree. Or at least smell a feed lot one time and see if they still want to eat beef that's not free range. The way chickens are raised these days is appalling also.

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you feel the same if we were under them and they'd occasionally grab 100 of us and break our necks for research? Or would you fight back if you could? Oh right. You only care about yourself, dick.

Re:Salute.

[Grapplebeam]

Meh. I love animals, but they really don't build societies. A human life is basically always worth more than an animal life. And it's not like the scientists do inhumane things, especially not for fun. I'm not saying inhumane treatment is okay, I'm just saying that you're not really hypocritical if you also state that humans are more important than animals. It's not black and white. You can care about preventing animal abuse and still be for euthanasia.

Re:Salute.

[Arterion]

I am trying to figure out why you value animal life more than plant life.

All eating requires sacrifice of life.

Re:Salute.

[DMUTPeregrine]

Human medical advances eventually filter down to veterinary medicine. You can easily get X-rays for your dog or cat, and can now get CT-scans and MRI scans done (though those are quite expensive). Antibiotics are easily available, etc, etc. There's no reason to think that stem cell treatments won't eventually be used for animals also, including monkeys.

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

For it is worth, at least I am honest about my own hypocracy. Sometimes life just gives you shitty options to choose from, and I gotta choose the shitty option that saves more human lives.

I applaud you for recognizing your own hypocrisy, but I'm saddened that you can't see beyond this. Isn't this like saying "racism sucks, but if I critically look at my own positions, I must conclude I'm a racist - oh well, so be it"? Surely if you agree that racism sucks, and if you were to look at yourself and conclude that you're a racist, you'd change something: either you'd figure that racism isn't quite so bad after all, or you'd change your opinions, your words, your actions. You wouldn't just live with the cognitive dissonance that you're doing something that's bad and unacceptable.

As such, I don't think I really understand you here, either. Do you just live with this cognitive dissonance - if so, how? Or do you not feel it in the first place - if so, why? I could see several options there; the most likely, I think, is that you're thinking "yes, it's wrong to mistreat animals like that, but humans are more important, so it's the lesser of two evils". But if that is your opinion, you're not really seeing the hypocrisy, so... I'm confused.

(Another option would be that you think "OK, this is wrong, and we shouldn't do it, but I'm powerless to stop it and/or need to pick my battles on focus on more pressing issues because I've only got a limited amount of time in my life I can spend on these things". But your post doesn't seem to resonate with that.)

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, with E. Honda.

Re:Salute.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Oh right. You only care about yourself, dick.

No, I simply don't equate monkeys with human beings. That's a big difference. Now, if you want to place yourself on the same level as a monkey, go right the fuck ahead. I'll continue on with my life knowing that my species is more important to me like the other 99% of the population. In the meantime, you can go back to your PETA rallies and pretend you're doing something useful.

Re:Salute.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well of course, and while they are at it, maybe they can give each monkey a shot of Jack and a nice massage beforehand. I am not saying they need to light the little buggers on fire while they are still breathing or anything. I just really value functional human spines more than functional monkey spines.

Re:Salute.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I say we use politicians and lawyers for cosmetics testing, and maybe even medical testing. But then, I also value monkeys more than I do politicians and lawyers.

Re:Salute.

[Jason Levine]

"Sometimes life just gives you shitty options to choose from, and I gotta choose the shitty option that saves more human lives."

Exactly. There is idealism and realism. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to experiment on any animals. Of course, in that world, there would be no disease or suffering and life would be a whole lot easier.

We, for better or worse, live in the real world. This means we need to make choices. The choices offered won't always be Good Choice No Downside verses Bad Choice No Upside. They'll be Choice A With Some Upside Some Downside and Choice B With Some Upside Some Downsite. We make our choices and try to get the most "upside" for the least "downside" but we'll almost never get choices that match up perfectly with our ideals. (Ideals are still good to have, mind you. You should strive towards them. Just recognize that you may never actually reach them.)

Re:Salute.

[shadowofwind]

I am trying to figure out why you value animal life more than plant life.

I'll take this statement at face value.

All eating requires sacrifice of life.

Not to the same degree. For example, eating cheese does not sacrifice life to the same extent as eating beef. And eating fruit sacrifices life not as much as uprooting a plant. Also, there are huge differences in the brutality involved, for example feed lot cattle have a far worse life than free range cattle, so I prefer to eat the later if I eat beef.

Re:Salute.

[craash420]

Thanks for the link, I'd seen it attributed to several people but I hadn't actually seen the act.

Re:Salute.

[Arterion]

Actually, I hadn't considered that eating plants doesn't necessarily have to kill the plant, so I guess it's a more "humane" in a sense.

No really, thanks -- it's really unusual for me to encounter a point of view I hadn't considered. I'm going to have to think about that for a while an reevaluate where I stand on this issue.

Re:Salute.

[Pharmboy]

To be clear, I am a carnivore, and I eat meat, with no appologies. I respect the fact that an animal died for me to do so, enough that I am willing to so at least some of the dirty work. I also respect the animal enough to want to be sure it doesn't suffer, either in meeting its death, or how it lived its life. What bothers me is people who are not ever willing to do a little of their dirty work, to at least understand what goes into that delicious steak on their plate. What bothers me even more is people who love meat, but won't eat meat on the bone. It is like they are trying to remove themselves from the reality that the meat was a living, breathing animal at one time. These are the same kinds of people who are "pro-war" until someone they know dies: as long as they are removed from the ugly reality, they are all for something.

Some people have difficulty understanding this perspective at first glance. Most of those won't think about it long enough to understand it, and prefer the sterilized reality that meat comes from a styrofoam container, wrapped in cellophane wrap. Some go vegan or vegetarian. The rest get it and simply learn to respect their role in the food chain, and respect the animals the soon become dinner.

Re:Salute.

[Pharmboy]

Before junkfood and TV we were getting regular exercise and eating appropriately, yet life expectancy was much lower.

Correlation is not the same as causation. Please see this for a similar comparison between the decline in pirates and increase in global temperature. My guess as to why life expectancy is higher might be the advances in heart surgery, cancer treatment, overall disease diagnoses and treatment. But that is just a guess.

And in cosmetic testing, the animals DO suffer. Crack a book some time and read about it. I would also suggest reading up on how beef, chickens and pigs are now raised compared to 50+ years ago.

Re:Salute.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to exaggerate, retard. There's a difference between being a moron who doesn't realize that killing monkeys for no reason is bad, and being a PETA lover. Surely they can find monkeys with accidents. Idiot.

Re:Salute.

[chimpo13]

Testing cosmetics on animals continues because sometimes products produce detrimental actions. It's not that they sit in a lab and think, "Hey, what does this monkey look like with green lipstick" it's a "Let's test to make sure the green pigments won't cause the monkeys lips to fall off".

For what it's worth, I once worked at a primate testing place. I went in fully expecting to get annoyed at useless testing and figured I'd quit. It's nothing like that at all.

Re:Salute.

[Pharmboy]

My point was simple: testing for medical advances that can save lives is acceptable. Testing for products to make us "pretty" or make our lives "more convenient" AND that causes distress to the animal, is not acceptable.

"motility"?

[thewils]

Surely you meant "mojility".

Re:"motility"?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Surely you meant "mojility".

That'd be funny if it contained an element that was humorous.

Re:"motility"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more informative if it contained elements that were informative?

Or more tautological if it ....

Embryonic stem cells

[cdrguru]

I find the statement

Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain the cells capable of developing into almost every tissue of the body.

rather interesting. I suspect if it is explained to most people adequately you find that there are two things people really have a problem with:

1. People being encouraged to produce embryos for use as a source for stem cells, either for research or treatments. Encouraged as in getting paid for it. If there is a market, there will be payments.
2. What is required for human embryonic stem cell treatment is either there are no treatments unless stem cells are somehow saved as in cord blood cells or you have human cloning. This is because embryonic stem cells are genotype specific - in order to treat you they need your DNA in the stem cells. If you can produce an embryo on demand with any required DNA in it, then you can clone people.

The problem with human cloning is that no matter what it takes, once it is possible and proven who will be the first? Does the world need another Kim Jong Il? How about Bill Gates or Larry Ellison? Do you think George H. W. Bush has enough money for the process? I don't see any way to sever the connection between embryonic stem cells and human cloning - once you can produce an embryo on demand, you can produce a baby from that embryo on demand with whatever DNA you would like.

Didn't some folks go to incredible lengths to preserve Lenin's DNA? Is there anything left of Hitler? How about Eva Peron? I am sure there is a group of people that would be able to gather enough money, however much it took, to "resurrect" one of these figures if it were possible.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Dthief]

Clones that are born with the same DNA would not be the same person at the very least because they are born into a different context (i.e. hitler born today would unlikely be able to lead germany into genocide and world war). Also their life experiences will be completely different no matter what you do (GW Bush did not grow up with the internet, his clone would have to.....unless he lives in a jungle which would also alter the adult version of GW #2).

The issue is really whether one should be able to pre-select the DNA of their children.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[bmo]

Uhm....

There are "clones" out there already.

They're called Identical Twins.

I'm sure you can agree with me that one twin is not the same person as the other.

--
BMO

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[RapmasterT]

I've never understood the unease that people show about human cloning. My reaction is usually "so what"? Who gets the first clone? Hell, I don't know, or really care. Why SHOULD I care about that any more than I do about those people reproducing the old fashioned way? All of the people you listed already have offspring, what would change if they were clones (essentially infant identical twins), or regular kids?

This all reminds me of Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby". When she was born there was a fantastic amount of outrage about "playing god" and I even remember some evangelist saying she wouldn't have a soul. Now, nobody give a fig about in vitro fertilization. Cloning will be the same in a very short amount of time after it's perfected.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[badboy_tw2002]

I don't really understand the social stigma against cloning. Is it some genetic diversity argument?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Securityemo]

People perhaps cling to the illusion that clones would somehow inherit the originals personality.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Are you trying to make a joke or do you really think your DNA stores all the information you have in your brain?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[tycoex]

It's mainly what Dthief said. Should people really be able to choose the DNA of their children? It's tied to the genetic engineering debate. If you think there is disparity between rich and poor now.... imagine when all the rich people can have their kids genetically altered to be smarter, more athletic, more mentally stable, better looking, ect. Not only would these children start off with the benefit of being rich and having connections, they would also be physically and mentally superior humans to the poor people. It's already near impossible for a poor person to become a rich person in a single lifetime, I can imagine it would be completely impossible once this has been going on for awhile.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Culture20]

Until growth acceleration and brain transplants are available.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Culture20]

One stigma is about people growing clones for spare parts, a la Dr. Venture.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Opportunist]

Well, there are a few concerns. A few moral ones, and a few genetic ones.

Let's get the genetic ones first, since they're more tangible. Cloning is an imperfect way of reproduction, at least in organisms that are not "supposed" to propagate through cloning. We "fade" as we clone. Cloning introduces errors. Errors multiply. Unless that theory is wrong (admittedly, I don't know of a proof yet, so far I only know of the theory, and I kinda hope nobody put it to the test yet), creating a copy from a copy from a copy increases errors and hence sooner or later the result is ... well, let's not be ugly and tasteless here. Unfortunately we're not digital, else we could create lossless copies. But we're analogous critters.

And then there's that moral problem. Let's assume for a moment cloning is possible, simple, cheap and reliable. And that genetic problem is solved. Now let's look at social dynamics. Insurances are already eagerly eying genetic tests so they can determine the premium depending on the diseases you might get, or the genetic defects you might have. Now let's assume we can genetically alter our offspring or replace them with clones. How long until the pressure arises that parents who have genetic diseases in the family can't have kids but have to get an "approved" clone? Either that or there's no way to get an insurance, so propagate if you can afford it or take a "fully functional" clone. How about government offering a financial benefit for people with "desirable" traits to allow copies of them? Or how about governments (or NGOs) offering financial incentives to have "more desirable" children, clones of someone with interesting traits? How about discovering a rare genetic "defect" that works as a cure for a disease (IIRC some time ago they found out that certain people are immune to AIDS due to their T-cells), would it be ok to create thousands of clones who are little more than bone marrow factories? What about rare blood types, same question?

Another interesting question: Who owns the clone? Is my clone mine? Does it belong to itself? Does it belong to the company that made it? Or the one that paid for the procedure? The immediate answer is of course "it belongs to itself". Sure. A human being owns itself, by default, everything else is slavery and that's something we don't want. Case closed? Well, why should I create a clone of myself if I don't benefit from it? Why should anyone else create one? Returning to the "clone with the cure" from above, how long until the discussion about the "good of the many outweighing the good of the few" starts?

Enough or should I ponder the problem for more than 5 minutes?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[frank_adrian314159]

Is it some genetic diversity argument?

No, it's just that people are scared of clones.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Opportunist]

1. So what? Good way for poor people to get some money on their hands, good way for researchers to get cheap embryonic stem cells. Win-win. Your problem being? That "people" (I use the term loosely) die? Oh please, happens across the globe, thousands of times per hour, and here it's at least for something good.

2. What's your problem with cloning me, butchering whatever gets created that way and saving my life with it? Might surprise you, but I kinda like living!

The problem I have with cloning stems (pardon the pun) from the problems arising when that clone becomes an actual human being and when the question arises whether and what human rights he might have. As long as you kill that clone before this problem occurs... no, cancel that. ... as long as you kill that clone, there is no real problem with cloning.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[badboy_tw2002]

Yeah, I get the technical issues, but I think the moral arguments are mostly assuming that cloning is perfect and we can do whatever we need to do.

But in terms of the other stuff, if you did a thought experiment where one child was a clone and one wasn't, if they were both via IVF what's the difference, really? Its ridiculous to even suggest that you'd somehow "own" the resulting person as it is to suggest parents "own" a test tube baby. The only real parallel I can see is a lesbian couple that has a child fertilized by donor sperm and one member's egg. The child's guardian is whomever adopts it legally, genetics don't count.

The gene altering stuff is interesting, and I can see the point, but that doesn't have much to do with cloning but more manipulating genes of embryos. Once you get to the point where you're manipulating perfect people, does it matter that you clone them? Perfect people seems like the real issue.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[badboy_tw2002]

I'm cool with that as long as it doesn't have a brain.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[badboy_tw2002]

But again, that's just a facet of ever advancing medical technology. In some ways, rich children that benefit from the best medicine and education are already mentally and physically superior because of that. But cloning by itself doesn't affect the situation, as you'd need modifications to the genes to get to a situation where you have perfect people you'd want to clone anyways.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[h4rr4r]

1. Nope, we trow out more due to fertility treatments than we will ever need. No need to pay anyone.
2. Why is cloning people such a big deal? What if I split an embryo inside a lady just as it happens in nature when identical twins are created? Does that make me an evil madman?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[h4rr4r]

How is this any different than the current system?
My mother did not smoke crack this gave me an advantage over the children of crackheads. My parents could also afford to spend lots of time with me and teach me to read before I ever stepped foot in a class room, again a huge advantage over the children of crackheads and many others.

At which point is the help a parent gives immoral.

It is nearly impossible for a poor person to become rich, it has always been that way what would be changed?

The current batch have no need to be physically or mentally superior humans, look at some of the presidents we have had, why would the future rich be any different?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[h4rr4r]

What if we grow just the parts?
Or a clone that lacks anything but a brainstem?

Where do you want to draw the line?

Should we kill all the identical twins now, just to be safe?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[jgtg32a]

You know what the best part is this treatment used, as stated in the article, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Which are most like harvested from the monkey what received the treatment. You know Adult Stem Cell, in otherwords not Embryonic which means no babies were kill in this procedure.

It truly pisses me off to no end that the media doesn't add the word adult in every article where adult stem cells are used. I sometimes think there's a conspiracy they don't want to inform people so the contraversy will stay alive so they can keeps up traffic, and/or they get to throw in a bit of "religious conservatives" bashing at the same time.
But then I remember Hanlon's razor and shake my head and die a little inside.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Score Whore]

Who gets the first clone? If it's a clone of Jessica Biel, I claim firsts!

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[tycoex]

I'm just saying it would be even worse than it already is. I'm not saying that rich kids don't currently have advantages.

It does seem a little bit different in my mind though. A middle class family can easily not smoke crack, give their child decent healthcare and education, and at least get them to a somewhat close level to the rich kids. In either scenario the poor are left hugely disadvantaged. What genetic engineering would do is create a broader gap between the middle class children and the upper class children than currently exists.

Whether or not it is immoral is something I can't really decide. It would definitely make a cool sci-fi movie though.

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[Opportunist]

I guess the problem is rather the definition of "perfect". What is a "perfect" human being? Which traits are desirable? Will it be socially acceptable to be a clone? Or to NOT be one?

I think the real issue would be the social response to clones. Not to cloning, but to the people resulting from it. Currently we view people are special and as valuable because everyone is unique (ok, aside of identical twins and the like, but that's a small enough sample for us to "ignore" that matter). What if there are hundreds of "you"? What will happen to your identity? Not your legal one, but your psychological one. How would you feel about being just one of thousands who are identical, look, talk and act identically?

How would others feel? How would they react to you when they know one of your clones? Would they judge you by its behaviour? Would they expect you to be "like that"? I think everyone who has ever been compared to a sibling and told "why can't you be more like $sibling?" can relate to it when I say that this would put a lot of undue pressure on cloned people. How would they react to it? Would people start hating their clones? Maybe to the point of wanting them dead?

I think the core issue is a social/psychological one. How would people react to it?

Re:Embryonic stem cells

[LanMan04]

I am SO fucking glad I'm a beta.

Obligatory...

[bmo]

Mein furher! I can walk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc

--
BMO

iPS cells - a pound of stomach flesh basically

[WillAffleckUW]

While iPS, or pluripotent stem cells, are better in some ways, in that they are basically your same DNA bombarded into acting like stem cells (e.g. high plasticity), it still basically takes a pound (or 500g) of flesh to get enough. Kind of a Merchant of Venice approach.

Since many of us never had our spinal cells stored, it is better than nothing, but does NOT obviate the scientific research need for actual stem cells.

No matter how much you outlaw it in one country, the research will exist somewhere. When we cracked down on stem cell lines, lots of scientists I know went to Canada, China, Vietnam, Scotland, and other countries that were not filled with religious freaks.

Re:This is awesome for all primates!

[jnaujok]

Uh, these are adult (induced pluripotent) stem cells -- the ones that xtian evangelists have no problem with, as no embryos were destroyed to create them. In fact, they come from skin scrapings.

But it's good to see that you're living up to the ideal image of the "tolerant left" as opposed to the "bigoted right". It's not like you were calling for people to die and burn in hell or suffer a lifetime of paralysis for holding a belief.

Oh, wait...

But at least you didn't say anything about hypocrites...

Well...

[grub]

All you naysayers can fuck off. I've just told my paralyzed monkey about this new and he's most excited.

Go rain on some other parade!

Re:Well...

[R3d M3rcury]

Uh, I think they're referring to a "simian" monkey. Not the one you spank. For that, there's still viagra...

Re:This is awesome for all primates!

[badboy_tw2002]

If he doesn't believe in Hell and condemns you to it, is it really an insult? Its like saying "I condemn you to pink fluffy elephant land....for ETERNITY!" or "I'll see you in non-existence!". Does it really matter?

Obligatory

[Master Moose]

I for one welcome our Stem-Cell-Restored Japanese Monkey Overlords

Firstly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news, secondly - its not that big because even when it was old news it was old news (mice, rats, monkies, etc) Human trials might be nice to see at some point, its been over a decade with this treatment...

Obligatory Family Guy

[Phizzle]

Why are we not funding this?!?!?

Malicious reporting.

[paxcoder]

Thanks for the info. I don't see an author there tho.

How does help MS patients?

[wealthychef]

Is the poster just ignorant, or is there something really here for Multiply Sclerosis sufferers? That would imply stroke victims as well. But I don't think this applies to brain damage, does it?

Re:How does help MS patients?

[Grapplebeam]

He might've got overexcited- but then again, any step in this direction is a small victory, even if we won't see another improvement in a while.

Re:How does help MS patients?

[wealthychef]

BTW -- Multiply Sclerosis sounds like a mathematical ailment, LOL. sorry for my typo...

Re:This is awesome for all primates!

[jnaujok]

Just pointing out the irony...

Re:This is awesome for all primates!

[h4rr4r]

Do those same folks oppose fertility treatments?

If they do not, then they have no room to complain about how the left over waste is disposed of. It was going to be burned anyway.

confusing article...

[buddyglass]

First there's this:

The team planted four types of genes into human skin cells to create the iPS cells, according to Kyodo News.

...which is then followed by this:

Scientists say the use of human embryonic stem cells as a treatment for cancer and other diseases holds great promise...

Here's what confuses me: the first bit seems to suggest the stem cells used to "make the monkey jump" were adult, not embryonic. So why include the last little bit about embryonic stem cell research? Am I incorrect about the first quote, and in fact the cells they used were embryonic in origin?

Re:This is awesome for all primates!

[deapbluesea]

Argh! This is about the upteanth post to do this. Does anyone on slashdot know what "Begging the question" is?!?

Fools

[slapout]

Fools! Don't you realize that is EXACTLY what the monkeys have been waiting for?! Now there's nothing to stand in there way!

MS sufferers

[ArsenneLupin]

I've heard that Linux is also a cure. Tested in a small penguin.

I RTFA, this is terrible

[dafing]

"Japan team says stem cells made paralysed monkey jump again"

Oh, researchers make animals "jump" eh? How original! Thats what 1.21 Jigga-watts'll do to ya!

I recommend The Animals Film, from 1981, nothing has changed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animals_Film

I would never force someone to watch The Animals Film, or Earthlings, however, for those willing, TAF has very indepth footage of "animal testing". Near the end, a "two headed dog" is created, by sewing one small dogs head, and forelimbs atop a larger dog. Who knows, perhaps by the same laboratory as this "jumping Monkey".

"TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Wednesday they had used stem cells to restore partial mobility in a small monkey that had been paralysed from the neck down by a spinal injury."

Oh, how nice, they wandered about Japanese rainforests looking for injured Monkeys to help! Awwwww :-)

Most likely, they caused the injury deliberately, perhaps by cutting his or her spine, or in some other fashion. "Look, we kinda fixed it this time" is not a cause for celebration.

We shouldnt be "experimenting" on Nonhuman Animals period.

Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least we can do for others. We kill 56 Billion land animals each year, Fish are not even counted individually, UN FAO statistics from 2007 http://www.bit.ly/56billion , we can do far more help for other animals by *not* treating them as our property, as things, than no doubt deliberately paralysing imported Monkeys, and then "experimenting" to "fix" them.

For more about Veganism, please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ or try these podcasts , http://bit.ly/veganpodcastinfo . Disclaimer, Coexisting is mine.

Re:I RTFA, this is terrible

[LanMan04]

Just wait until someone (human) you love is paralyzed. You'll change your tune REAL quick.

Re:I RTFA, this is terrible

[dafing]

hi LanMan04, People I love in my family have died horrid, slow deaths from cancer, men and women. It takes years to fully claim them, they've lost their breasts, their testicles, their will to live. The latest uncle to die was a living skeleton when he passed on. He really looked like that stereotypical "starving refuge". He couldnt eat towards the end, he couldnt walk, he could just sit...and hope for death.

I think its rather clear that "testing" and "experimenting" on nonhuman animals has not brought about change. We are rather different, as you can tell! :-) Really, if its sooooo important, and if "it would instantly save our loved ones who are dying right now of X", we should be rounding up orphans, right? "cause they're gonna die anyway..."?

I dont know of anyone who would publicly state that. I will fully stand firm and say I'm against "experimenting" on human animals, just as I am against nonhuman animals.

Neither are right, both are awful, rights violations. You're life is your own, and it is precious.

I know my relatives felt that way. But in the end, they wanted to die, rather than keep suffering. Near the end, I'd think both "experimented" on nonhumans, and my cancer suffering relatives lived rather similar lives. Both were awful, perhaps the humans were natural, they were born/caught their problem, for the nonhumans, its fair to assume we deliberately *caused* their problem.

There are enough Nonhumans out there who need our help now, without us harming more.

http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/birdman-of-invercargill.html

If you are interested in Veganism, please visit www.abolitionistapproach.com to find out more.

Subject

[Legion303]

This is great news for people who live in countries not ruled by religious dumb fucks who oppose all stem cells, regardless of where the stem cells originated.

Re:Subject

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure which countries you are slamming. I'm guessing that it's a slam on the US, but I wouldn't call Obama a religious dumb fuck.

It's also helpful to note that No federal law ever did ban... stem cell research in the United States. Even under GWB, there was no ban on stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise. The ban was on federal spending of embryonic stem cell research.

test sex offenders instead of animals

[Anonymous Coward]

everybody knows that some turkey and some mistletoe... sorry, everybody knows that anomals are used for research. Let's stop wasting time. There are jails full of sex offenders that would make great test subjects. Paralyze them from the neck down, administer the stem cells. Watch them jump around again like the monkey did, then paralyze them again. Simple win win situation.

What's next Monkey head transplants?

[one cup of coffee]

Oh.... I see....

Well, I hope it's not too late to help this monkey...

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/12514/Archive_Footage_Monkey_Head_Transplant_Experiment/