Slashdot Mirror
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."
So not embryonic stem cells. Everybody wins.
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?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
Monkeys should really be more careful and should never, ever dive into the shallow end of the pool.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"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.
Surely you meant "mojility".
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Mein furher! I can walk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc
--
BMO
The issue is really whether one should be able to pre-select the DNA of their children.
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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...
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
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
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!
Trolling is a art,
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?
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.
I don't really understand the social stigma against cloning. Is it some genetic diversity argument?
People perhaps cling to the illusion that clones would somehow inherit the originals personality.
Emotions! In your brain!
Are you trying to make a joke or do you really think your DNA stores all the information you have in your brain?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Until growth acceleration and brain transplants are available.
One stigma is about people growing clones for spare parts, a la Dr. Venture.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is it some genetic diversity argument?
No, it's just that people are scared of clones.
That is all.
Why are we not funding this?!?!?
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Thanks for the info. I don't see an author there tho.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
Currently hooked on AMP
Which would totally work for ACs.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Just pointing out the irony...
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
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.
I'm cool with that as long as it doesn't have a brain.
Brilliant idea considering that he posted without logging in.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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."
Who gets the first clone? If it's a clone of Jessica Biel, I claim firsts!
First there's this:
...which is then followed by this:
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?
Argh! This is about the upteanth post to do this. Does anyone on slashdot know what "Begging the question" is?!?
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Fools! Don't you realize that is EXACTLY what the monkeys have been waiting for?! Now there's nothing to stand in there way!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've heard that Linux is also a cure. Tested in a small penguin.
"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.
---
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.
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/
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
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I am SO fucking glad I'm a beta.
With the first link, the chain is forged.