TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Stem Cells from Amniotic Fluid

Stem Cells from Amniotic Fluid

Excellent breakthrough that may hopefully curb the debate a bit:

quote:

Stem cell finding spares embryos Amniotic fluid proves plentiful source By Paul Elias - Associated Press Writer Monday, January 8, 2007 Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells � sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research. Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone. �Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well,� said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest�s regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project. It took Atala�s team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that �can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy.� However, the scientists noted they still don�t know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away. Still, Atala said the research reported in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology expands far beyond similar work discussed at a heart research conference in November. There, Swiss researcher Simon Hoerstrup said he managed to turn amniotic fluid stem cells into heart cells that could be grown into replacement valves. Hoerstrup has yet to publish his work in a scientific journal. Atala said the new research has found even more promising stem cells with the potential to turn into many more medically useful replacement parts. �We have other cell lines cooking,� Atala said. The hallmark of human embryonic stem cells, which are created in the first days after conception, is the ability to turn into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Researchers are hopeful they can train these primordial cells to repair damaged organs in need of healthy cells. However, many people, including President Bush, oppose the destruction of embryos for any reason. The Bush administration has severely restricted federal funding for the embryo work since 2001, leading many scientists to search for alternative stem cell sources. The cells from amniotic fluid �can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells,� said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology. �Either way, I think this work represents a giant step forward for stem cell research.� It�s the latest advance in the so-called regenerative medicine field that has sprung from Atala�s lab in Winston-Salem, N.C. In April, Atala and his colleagues rebuilt bladders for seven young patients using live tissue grown in the lab. In the latest work, Atala�s team extracted a small number of stem cells swimming among the many other cell types in the amniotic fluid. One of the more promising aspects of the research is that some of the DNA of the amnio stem cells contained Y chromosomes, which means the cells came from the babies rather than the pregnant moms. Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said that finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/j...spares_embryos/

Appears to be quite promising.

Yeah--just wait till you and the Mrs. are expecting and you have some Cord Blood Bank salesman knocking on your door trying to rape and pillage your earnings for something you probably won't ever need...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yeah--just wait till you and the Mrs. are expecting and you have some Cord Blood Bank salesman knocking on your door trying to rape and pillage your earnings for something you probably won't ever need...

What? What are you talking about here?

Sidenote: did you have your baby born yet? If not, when?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What? What are you talking about here?

Probably only a minor correlation: There is an entity called the Cord Blood Bank. Basically they're selling you insurance. For a nominal fee (right around $2000 up front and then a monthly maintenance fee) they will extract and save some of your baby's umbilical cord blood (essentially equivalent to harvesting stem cells, I believe) which you can theoretically use if your baby has some abnormalities or crazy diseases in the first few years of development. I think the blood expires after a few years. Needless to say it's an emotional sell, but in the end we opted to pass. It helps the decision making process if you know your family history, but pharmacuetical sales reps can be awfully seductive.

quote:

Sidenote: did you have your baby born yet? If not, when?

Not yet--we just entered the long awaited second trimester a few weeks ago. Survey says sometime in early/mid June.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Probably only a minor correlation: There is an entity called the Cord Blood Bank. Basically they're selling you insurance. For a nominal fee (right around $2000 up front and then a monthly maintenance fee) they will extract and save some of your baby's umbilical cord blood (essentially equivalent to harvesting stem cells, I believe) which you can theoretically use if your baby has some abnormalities or crazy diseases in the first few years of development. I think the blood expires after a few years. Needless to say it's an emotional sell, but in the end we opted to pass. It helps the decision making process if you know your family history, but pharmacuetical sales reps can be awfully seductive.

Wow. I never heard of that at all. Without knowing much more about it, I'd say you made the right decision. It almost sounds like a scam, especially since we're really only in the infancy of stem cell development (no pun intended).

quote:

Not yet--we just entered the long awaited second trimester a few weeks ago. Survey says sometime in early/mid June.

Hehe, a Gemini eh? Be on your toes for that one - us Geminis can get a little screwy .

The issue I continue to have with some stem cell researchers is their "all or nothing" attitude. Umbilical stem cells have been around just as long as their omnipotent embryonic brothers. So, you can still make all the cures you'd like with umbilical cells, but you can't clone. So everyone gets their panties in a bunch because science demands these omnipotent fetal stem cells when everything but cloning can be accomplished using umbilical cells.

Oh well...

This has actually been known for some time. It's common sense that there are a huge amount of stem cells somewhere near the baby, they don't come from magic, you know. Like NeoPhono has said, the Umbilical Cord also has a good amount of stem cells inside it.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The issue I continue to have with some stem cell researchers is their "all or nothing" attitude. Umbilical stem cells have been around just as long as their omnipotent embryonic brothers. So, you can still make all the cures you'd like with umbilical cells, but you can't clone. So everyone gets their panties in a bunch because science demands these omnipotent fetal stem cells when everything but cloning can be accomplished using umbilical cells. Oh well...

I disagree, as do the broad majority of researchers in the field. The stance is not an "all or nothing" as far as I know. Quite the contrary - there's ample research in the field of somatic/adult stem cells from umbilical cords. The problem and difference, however, lies in the fact that they are multipotent cells, meaning they primarily give rise to a related family of cells within that derived tissue only. There are some exceptions, and continuing research is showing a bit more diversity, but it's still limited. Contrast that to embryonic stem cells which are pluripotent, easy to grow in a cell culture, and give rise to a much greater diversity of cell types (skin, heart, nerve, etc.). The difference is clearly in potential between the two, which is why researchers pursue the embryonic stem cells with greater need and funding (which would be thrown away by fertility clinics anyway) versus umbilical stem cells.

The possibilities of amniotic fluid, which Marc correctly asserted has been around for some time, cut through these arguments and differences between the two. The difference between when it was first discovered a coupla years back and now is researchers have been able to refine the process to allow more pluripotency, as the article posted describes.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hehe, a Gemini eh? Be on your toes for that one - us Geminis can get a little screwy .

Great..on top of a Taurus wife that I routinely butt heads with! Where are all of the Aquarians?!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I disagree, as do the broad majority of researchers in the field. The stance is not an "all or nothing" as far as I know. Quite the contrary - there's ample research in the field of somatic/adult stem cells from umbilical cords. The problem and difference, however, lies in the fact that they are multipotent cells, meaning they primarily give rise to a related family of cells within that derived tissue only. There are some exceptions, and continuing research is showing a bit more diversity, but it's still limited. Contrast that to embryonic stem cells which are pluripotent, easy to grow in a cell culture, and give rise to a much greater diversity of cell types (skin, heart, nerve, etc.). The difference is clearly in potential between the two, which is why researchers pursue the embryonic stem cells with greater need and funding (which would be thrown away by fertility clinics anyway) versus umbilical stem cells. The possibilities of amniotic fluid, which Marc correctly asserted has been around for some time, cut through these arguments and differences between the two. The difference between when it was first discovered a coupla years back and now is researchers have been able to refine the process to allow more pluripotency, as the article posted describes.

I disagree. There are three germ layers in a developing (or derivatives in an adult) human and umbilical stem cells can give rise to each. Yes, umbilical cells are not omnipotent (totipotent), but they are pluripotnet. It was once believed they were further differentiated (multipotent), but even as far back as 2001,maybe farther, pluripotent umbilical stem cells had been harvested. As far as the "ease" of culture, I have not heard anything as to umbilical cells being more difficult to maintain than embryonic lines, but I'd be happy to change my mind if you could find some sources.

We also have to realize that even science is about compromise. If we have a viable source of stem cells, that could lead to the exact results advocates of fetal stem cells are pushing, we have to "take what we can get." We can easily get past the stigma much of the country has about using stem cells from aborted fetus by using umbilical lines.

I'd lastly add that this is not a "new" issue. I took a grad course in biological ethics as an undergrad, and our professor went on and on about the disservice science was doing by pressing for the use of embryonic stem cells when umbilical lines could give rise to the exact same discoveries. Regardless of the source, stem cell therapies are still theoretical, and although we'd like to think they are the "Holy Grail" of future medical treatments, we don't know how successful or unsuccessful their use will ever be.

If you all only knew how hot the girl from the Cord Bank was!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I disagree. There are three germ layers in a developing (or derivatives in an adult) human and umbilical stem cells can give rise to each. Yes, umbilical cells are not omnipotent (totipotent), but they are pluripotnet. It was once believed they were further differentiated (multipotent), but even as far back as 2001,maybe farther, pluripotent umbilical stem cells had been harvested. As far as the "ease" of culture, I have not heard anything as to umbilical cells being more difficult to maintain than embryonic lines, but I'd be happy to change my mind if you could find some sources.

Here's a few sources. The first is from NIH (as you know, the largest government-funded science organization):

quote:

V. What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become. Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

The first paragraph shows some agreement with your statement. I also agree and mentioned that recent research has shown more pluripotency with adult stem cell lines. However it is still generally regarded as not as fruitful as embryonic stem cells.

Another source is from the Stem Cell Research Foundation:

quote:

Adult stem cell � Stem cells found in various tissues of an adult organism that remain in an undifferentiated, or unspecialized, state. Adult stem cells can renew themselves and (with certain limitations) differentiate to yield all the specialized cell types of the tissue from which it originated. For example, a heart stem cell can give rise to a heart muscle cell. Some scientists feel that adult stem cells may be able to give rise to a variety of different cell types, and ongoing research is exploring this issue. Currently, several limitations exist to using adult stem cells: * Although many different kinds of multipotent adult stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. * They also may not have the ability to multiply like embryonic stem cells do. * Adult stem cells can be difficult to isolate and purify because they are often present in minute quantities. * Finally, during the course of their lifetime, adult stem cells may accumulate DNA abnormalities�caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies. http://www.stemcellresearchfoundati...ew/Glossary.htm

Another source at the University of Wisconsin:

quote:

Why not derive stem cells from adults? There are several approaches now in human clinical trials that utilize mature stem cells (such as blood-forming cells, neuron-forming cells and cartilage-forming cells). However, because adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited: skin cells will only become skin and cartilage cells will only become cartilage. Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs, so when those tissues are damaged, scar tissue develops. Only embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any kind of human tissue, have the potential to repair vital organs. Another limitation of adult stem cells is their inability to proliferate in culture. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have a capacity to reproduce indefinitely in the laboratory, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age. Therefore, obtaining clinically significant amounts of adult stem cells may prove to be difficult. Studies of adult stem cells are important and will provide valuable insights into the use of stem cell in transplantation procedures. However, only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases. http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/s...ls/facts.html#5

Similar findings can be searched here as well:

http://www.isscr.org/

And my own school, KU Medical Center:

http://www.kumc.edu/stemcell/

I imagine similar findings are given at most universities.

quote:

We also have to realize that even science is about compromise. If we have a viable source of stem cells, that could lead to the exact results advocates of fetal stem cells are pushing, we have to "take what we can get." We can easily get past the stigma much of the country has about using stem cells from aborted fetus by using umbilical lines.

I don't believe it's a push of "taking what we can get". Again, it's demonstrated that there is research being given (especially with more government funding) to adult stem cell lines. However, as the Univ. of Wisconsin website asserted above:

quote:

Studies of adult stem cells are important and will provide valuable insights into the use of stem cell in transplantation procedures. However, only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases.

We need to understand quite a bit more about how cells become what they become in order to effectively treat a disease. Failure to do so would limit the full potential of our understanding. To me this is a shortsighted mindset of science to be within the boundaries of limiting research to a particular branch that does not have near as much potential to answering these questions (i.e. Adult stem cells).

I also believe that new discoveries in extraction techniques for embryonic stem cells must also not be overlooked:

http://www.advancedcell.com/press-r...ntial-of-embryo

This entails that a cell can be extracted without damaging embryonic development. As with most issues in this field, it's still in it's infancy, but it shows some very good promise and can also help curb the issues of contention as well.

quote:

I'd lastly add that this is not a "new" issue. I took a grad course in biological ethics as an undergrad, and our professor went on and on about the disservice science was doing by pressing for the use of embryonic stem cells when umbilical lines could give rise to the exact same discoveries. Regardless of the source, stem cell therapies are still theoretical, and although we'd like to think they are the "Holy Grail" of future medical treatments, we don't know how successful or unsuccessful their use will ever be.

Granted, therapies and practical uses are in the very early stages. However the knowledge gained, I believe, from understanding the development of these stem cells from embryos into a myriad of other cells is what is so vital to our understanding and must not be ignored. And if your professor stated directly that the exact same discoveries are evident between the two, I would respectfully disagree and would like to see his sources of information.

And again, I have a difficult time accepting any argument against embryonic stem cells when, in fact, I see very little to no argument from that corner about fertility clinics trashing stem cells anyway. If they are so fervent in their pro-life beliefs, I would like to see more argument of this seemingly strange double standard.

Are they allowed to fiddle around with animal stems cells in their research at all or has the entire chapter of medical research in this are been 'generally' clubbed over the head as a forbidden study?

Having just begun my second NIH funded project, I realize who they are. However, besides looking at them for money, I wouldn't look at them for the most up to date research, at least on their website. (PubMed however, is an excellent source.)

Here's the "big thing" behind my argument, "unrestricted somatic stem cells" (USSC), or pluripotent adult stem cells. All the functionality of embryonic stem cells, none of the legal or ethical debate.

First, a few links.

http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/200/2/123

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum

Unfortunately, due to our wonderful government's stance on stem cell ownership (NIH included), the initial line of these USSCs has been patented (ViaCell). However, other lines do exist. This stem cell line grew very robustly, as can be seen by its ability to be cultured to 10^15 cells, while still maintaining pluripotency. Again, I won't argue as to ease of culture, because I have not worked directly with stem cells, however, when it can be said that this particular line grew "adherently" and to such a large population, I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to perform research using it.

Not that it's a very strong point, but I could also argue that as of now, the only "real world" application of stem cells is via adult stem cells in the form of marrow regeneration. Again though, seeing that there are pluripotent strains available with (and again, I can't rate "ease" very well) the ability to grow under in vitro conditions to large numbers, I again argue that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells that offer the same rewards with much less "stickiness."

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Are they allowed to fiddle around with animal stems cells in their research at all or has the entire chapter of medical research in this are been 'generally' clubbed over the head as a forbidden study?

It is only human embryonic stem cells that have legal limitations (in the US and other countries).

Sorry for the triple post, but just to clarify what I meant about the government's stance on stem cell ownership.

You can patent a line, if it is from a novel source.

You can patent a technique to differentiate stem cells into other cells.

You cannot patent the end result of stem cell differentiation. (For example, if you find a way to convert a stem cell into a lung cell, another group can still discover and patent a way to make lung cells with stem cells. No one gets a monopoly on stem cell derived lung cells.)

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Having just begun my second NIH funded project, I realize who they are. However, besides looking at them for money, I wouldn't look at them for the most up to date research, at least on their website. (PubMed however, is an excellent source.) Here's the "big thing" behind my argument, "unrestricted somatic stem cells" (USSC), or pluripotent adult stem cells. All the functionality of embryonic stem cells, none of the legal or ethical debate. First, a few links. http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/200/2/123 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum Unfortunately, due to our wonderful government's stance on stem cell ownership (NIH included), the initial line of these USSCs has been patented (ViaCell). However, other lines do exist. This stem cell line grew very robustly, as can be seen by its ability to be cultured to 10^15 cells, while still maintaining pluripotency. Again, I won't argue as to ease of culture, because I have not worked directly with stem cells, however, when it can be said that this particular line grew "adherently" and to such a large population, I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to perform research using it. Not that it's a very strong point, but I could also argue that as of now, the only "real world" application of stem cells is via adult stem cells in the form of marrow regeneration. Again though, seeing that there are pluripotent strains available with (and again, I can't rate "ease" very well) the ability to grow under in vitro conditions to large numbers, I again argue that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells that offer the same rewards with much less "stickiness."

Thanks for the links. I'm checking right now with my PubMed access to see if I can get the full text of the Kogler article. I'll be reading both of these today and will get back with my thoughts.

Just a quick update - I've skimmed the 2004 Kroger citation and cannot get access to the full text of his 2006 article. Oh well. Sooner or later all primary lits will be fully accessible to everyone - I can't fucking wait until that day comes.

In the meantime, I'm also skimming through a few reviews on the subject. Needless to say, I think I'm a bit more behind on the topic than I originally believed. I don't want to comment any further on this until I've fully assessed everything. What I'm primarily interested in is an actual comparison of potential between embryonic versus adult stem cells. That's why I'm skimming through reviews for now (plus they're easier to read - I'm gettin' lazy lately).

I'll get back to you on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Not yet--we just entered the long awaited second trimester a few weeks ago. Survey says sometime in early/mid June.

Cool

We're 6.5 weeks away...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Cool We're 6.5 weeks away...

Has your wife demanded a Bugaboo stroller yet? Outfitting this little guy is going to sap the life out of me!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Has your wife demanded a Bugaboo stroller yet? Outfitting this little guy is going to sap the life out of me!

Get one, standard US football, the goofy oblong shaped ones and ram it all the up your arsehole, after youre done, come back and tell us which was worse, paying for stroller or passing that football.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Get one, standard US football, the goofy oblong shaped ones and ram it all the up your arsehole, after youre done, come back and tell us which was worse, paying for stroller or passing that football.

I declare the pain to be equal, though I'd probably demand a larger sum for sticking a football up my ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Has your wife demanded a Bugaboo stroller yet? Outfitting this little guy is going to sap the life out of me!

I was actually looking at something different...

You might want to read this too (not to do with strollers but does have to do with car seats...)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childcarseats/

K, now that we're totally hi-jacked this thread...

I have to agree with Opus though, for now, this looks very promising indeed.
And as NeoPhono stated:

quote:

Regardless of the source, stem cell therapies are still theoretical, and although we'd like to think they are the "Holy Grail" of future medical treatments, we don't know how successful or unsuccessful their use will ever be.

I guess that would put me in the cautiously optimistic category....

I've completed my quick little research project on this topic, both on the two articles you gave me Neo as well as a coupla other articles I ran across. It kinda sucks for me because the person I rely on the most pertaining to stem cell research, one of my current mentors is out of town until February on sabbatical. Oh well.

First off, I will say that the Kogler articles and discoveries are impressive. One review article I ran across seemingly addressed his 2004 article with a bit of cautious optimism that I also share:

quote:

Several reports have described the derivation of multipotent or pluripotent cell lines from adult tissues, including multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs; Fig. 3) from adult bone marrow71 and unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSCs) from human newborn umbilical cord blood72. These cells were shown to differentiate into cell types indicative of all three germ layers in culture and, when a single MAPC was injected into blastocysts, one extensive chimaera was reported71. This is surprising, as MAPCs divide infrequently, and to contribute to somatic tissues of the chimaera must successfully compete with the host epiblast cells that divide with a 6-h cell cycle73. Although these results are intriguing, they await confirmation by independent laboratories. Also, it remains to be seen whether MAPCs and USSCs can functionally contribute to somatic tissues in animal models of disease or injury. http://www.nature.com.proxy.kumc.ed...e04955.html#B72 Hochedlinger, K., & Jaenisch, R. (2006). Nuclear reprogramming and pluripotency. Nature, 441, 1061-1067.

Now it would appear that Kogler's 2006 article supports his previous work - but what I am curious about is to whether or not these measures have been repeated in other laboratories. As you're well aware, any new discoveries and new research needs repeated experiments and repeated methodology for confirmation. I am not aware of this occurring yet. To your knowledge has this occurred? Until that happens, I will remain cautiously optimistic on this. I think we both understand the serious flaw from a certain S. Korean researcher in this regard.

Second, again I wonder the viability and productivity these cells are in comparison to the totipotency of embryonic cells. If these cells are equally viable and are equally productive versus embryonic cells, again I hold some cautious optimism.

I also noticed that Kogler was cited in the White House Domestic Policy Council paper released:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stemcell/

Nothing to note of major significance about that really, but I do want to say that NIH stem cell expert James Battey called such programs on alternative pluripotent stem cell lines as "pie in the sky":

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfr...iew.ww?id=11735

Now I don't presume to know why NIH stem cell expert would state such an idea, but I would have to think he has solid ground in doing so. Granted, this is an appeal to authority in my argument, but I would hope Battey of all people would know his ground on this topic.

Third, I also wonder how much time and recourses are being spent in attempting to find pluripotency on these alternative methods when we have such means with embryonic stem cells right here. Since I and the majority of the public as well as the broad majority of researchers have no disagreement with using embryonic stem cells for research (and considering they're tossed in the trash regardless), a financial concern must also be noted.

Fourth, and granted might be a bit unrelated, I took a gander at ViaCell:

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ing-sickly.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-...x?ref=foolwatch

It appears their stock ain't doing too hot, and it almost appears that they're gambling a bit on these cord cell lines as well. I don't know how the business aspect really ties into this whole argument much, and it very well might not at all, but having these lines being immediately sold to this company, seeing the company's prospects tanking, perhaps is a bit coincidental but I think it shouldn't be entirely dismissive.

Lastly, I think we must not be dismissive of embryonic stem cell discoveries so quickly. Let's keep in mind that this field with embryos was only discovered in 1998. Compared to adult stem cells which has been going on since, what, the 60's? I think much can be said about what has been discovered and what remains to be discovered, especially when seeing the vast funding differences between the two (adult >>>>>> embryos).

For example:

helping paralyzed rats walk:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...in1734662.shtml

Creating sperm that could successfully fertilize mouse eggs, leading to possible advances in infertility:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/s...1817401,00.html

Slowing vision loss in rats:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6092001674.html

Reducing Parkinson's Disease Sx in rats:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6102200928.html

Created insulin-secreting cells which could aid diabetes research:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-diabetics.html

A vaccine that protects mice from lung cancer:

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2919

CV precursor cells that could be used to treat CV disease:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...hree-teams.html

Created mature T-cells that could aid immulogic diseases such as AIDS:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...60705083338.htm

Again, much of these are in the animal model as to be expected with early research, but we cannot be dismissive of this potential created already from these stem cells.



One other side note - I also found it interesting how the term "embryonic stem cell research" came about - none other than GOP strategist Frank Luntz:

quote:

�when we started talking about stem cell research, Frank Luntz wrote a memo. Frank Luntz is the conservative language man. And the memo said, �Don�t talk about stem cell research; talk about embryonic stem cell research.� Why? And notice this has spread. The New York Times says embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats say embryonic stem cell research. The bill in California says embryonic stem cell research. What is the mental image of an embryo? Think about it, it�s a little baby. Tom DeLay says stem cell research allows people to tear babies apart. Dismember embryos. How does it really work in stem cell research? Stem cell research is carried out on blastocysts. What�s a blastocyst look like? It�s a hollow sphere, just a few days old. It has in it a small number of stem cells. No hair cells, arm cells, blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, nothing else but undifferentiated stem cells. And if you called it blastocyst stem cell research, who would care? But that�s what it really is. Language matters, framing matters. And framing can distort the truth. It�s very very important, that framing can distort the truth simply by carrying mental imagery. And you know about mental imagery, that�s what you deal with every day. http://www.tcg.org/events/conference/2005/Lakoff.cfm

Extracting these cells from a blastocyst prior to it becoming an embryo seemingly doesn't matter in the context of framing that Luntz sold us all on.

That's about all I have for now. To sum up, I do hold some cautious optimism for Kroger's work PROVIDED that there's further independent research to support his own, and I will further support alternative stem cell research as well, but I cannot be dismissive of embryonic/blastocytic stem cell research when it's clear that it is still currently the most viable and productive means of pluripotency at present.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.