|
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
