I heard about this all day on NPR as I was traveling home, so I figured I would throw this out here...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1685965,00.html?cnn=yes

Quote :

" Before Dolly, no one thought it was possible to turn back time, especially where biology was concerned. Once a cell started on its march of development, nothing, absolutely nothing, scientists thought, could turn it around again. Dolly, the cloned sheep, proved this biological maxim wrong in 1996, when Ian Wilmut was able to coax an aging mammary cell to become an entirely new sheep by giving it a home in a hollowed-out egg. And since every scientific experiment just begets more experiments, Dolly's birth got researchers to wondering: If the egg can reprogram a cell, is it possible to tease out exactly what age-reversing factors the oocyte uses, and mix up a Fountain of Youth cocktail that would work on any cell without the need for an egg? The answer is a resounding yes, as evidenced by two groundbreaking papers published on Tuesday. In the journal Cell, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University reports success in turning back the clock on cheek cells from a middle-aged woman, while James Thomson of University of Wisconsin, the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells, achieved the same feat with foreskin cells from a newborn baby. The achievements completely reset the boundaries of the stem cell debate, because both groups generated cells that looked and acted like embryonic stem cells, but without the need for eggs, embryos or ethical quandaries about where the cells came from. "I think this is the future of stem cell research," says Dr. John Gearhart, the biologist who first discovered human fetal embryonic stem cells. "It's absolutely terrific." What's more, these advances are only the latest in a year's worth of exciting firsts in the field. Earlier this month, scientists in Seattle successfully nurtured a line of embryonic stem cells from monkeys using the same process that created Dolly. The feat brings us one step closer to being able to generate patient-specific stem cells to treat diseases in human patients, since primates are evolutionarily closer to humans than mice, in whom the process was tested. The technique, however, called nuclear transfer, is a cumbersome process that requires a steady supply of high-quality donated eggs, and a deft hand to empty out the genetic contents of those eggs and replace them with the DNA blueprint from another, aging cell. The odds of success are pretty low, even in the hands of experts with years of experience. That's why nearly every major stem cell lab began looking for an alternative approach, the most promising of which was to simply reprogram adult cells without eggs or embryos. "When I started this work, I thought it would be a 20-year, not a few-year problem," says Thomson. But sometimes science can be surprising, and in this case, all it took to accomplish a complex biological time warp was a handful of genes that suppress cells from dividing and maturing. Already, the process, called direct reprogramming, is changing the field — on several levels. Ian Wilmut, the pioneering biologist responsible for cloning the first mammal, Dolly, has announced that he will no longer use the cloning method that made him famous to generate stem cells. "Changing cells from a patient directly into stem cells has got so much more potential," he says. And generating stem cells is suddenly possible for anyone with a basic background in molecular biology. No special expertise in handling chromosomes, nuclei or eggs is needed. Finally, the promise and potential of directly reprogrammed cells calls into question whether embryonic stem cells are useful any more. Why go to the trouble of creating embryos when stem cells can be coaxed directly from properly manipulated cells? At least for the time being, says Dr. Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, embryonic stem cell research should continue, since it's not clear yet how robust and safe stem cell therapies from other methods might be. "My answer to that question comes from a different perspective," he says. "Not from a scientific or political one, but from a patient perspective. A patient doesn't care how we got there. They're suffering from a disease and want to get the therapies as fast as they can. Until this method produces cells that have fully normal behavior, and normal physiological behavior, we cannot eliminate any avenue of research." Neither Yamanaka nor Thomson believes their cells are quite ready for patients yet; for one, both methods use viruses to deliver the time-reversing genes, a practice that is acceptable in the lab but unsafe for the clinic. But the advances are finally pushing stem cell researchers to start talking about when, not if, stem-cell based therapies will be developed to treat diseases. "

The long and the short of it is that some researches have found a way to make cells that act exactly like stem cells by using plain-old human skin cells. The technology is FAR from perfect, and according to NPR, most of the studies using these things have failed miserably. Plus, there's the fact that, right now, in order to get the skin cells to mimic stem cells, the researchers were effectively combining elements of cancer with the cells... But still, it's interesting.

How could this discover, though, impact the ongoing debate on embryonic stem cell research? Should it impact the debate?

Just to finish it off, I figure that I'll throw in my2cents as well and mention that I heard a genius on NPR today saying "fuck your morality and religious beliefs, we'll tax you and make you pay for embryonic stem cell research anyway, you backwards, inbred country bumpkins." Gotta love "democracy" in action, eh?

11/20/2007 5:44:12 PM

words

11/20/2007 5:53:17 PM

well, I can't exactly a dot agitator such as yourself to read anything of substance anyway, so I figured I didn't need to worry about your opinion

11/20/2007 5:54:47 PM

Quote :

"How could this discover, though, impact the ongoing debate on embryonic stem cell research? Should it impact the debate?"

not at all, i think.

First, because any kind of stem-cell research is still in the relative early phases, all likely avenues should still be vigorously pursued until we find the ideal way to create/harvest stem cells, or we find specific applications each type of stem-cell (embryonic, natal fluid, foreskin, whatever) are best at.

Secondly, because as long as in vitro fertilization is legal and widely practiced, and as long as such practices produce embryos that are otherwise thrown into the trash, we should have a nearly limitless supply of embryos to work with, all the while without destroying anything that otherwise would have led to a person.

11/20/2007 6:10:11 PM

can't disagree with you about the research itself on that count. But what about federal funding of said research?

11/20/2007 6:16:57 PM

but why expressly prohibit it?

11/20/2007 8:48:12 PM

Quote :

"Just to finish it off, I figure that I'll throw in my2cents as well and mention that I heard a genius on NPR today saying "fuck your morality and religious beliefs, we'll tax you and make you pay for embryonic stem cell research anyway, you backwards, inbred country bumpkins." Gotta love "democracy" in action, eh?"

I'm not sure if you didn't listen closely, or you are being disingenuous about the comments so you can create some thread controversy, but you completely left out the part where the pro-embryonic guy said that if the populace didn't want to fund the research, they could exercise their voice with the vote.

He certainly didn't come off as having the attitude that you just portrayed him as having.

11/20/2007 8:55:13 PM

actually, that's pretty much what he said. he said "fuck your beliefs, these other people want it and there are more of them, so fuck you." sorry, mang

^^ and therein lies the problem w/ our gov't. Congressmen are saying "why not fund it" when it comes to taxpayer dollars when they should be saying "why should we fund it."

11/20/2007 9:31:01 PM

Quote :

""why should we fund it.""

Because we the people want it?

11/20/2007 9:33:37 PM

then let those people pay for it themselves and NOT make me pay for it. only seems fair that way. You want a pony? go out and buy it yourself. You want to fund some research? go pay for it yourself. might I end up benefiting from it? Well, that's an entirely different question. I won't ask you to pay to build a church as long as you don't ask me to pay to destroy one. Only seems fair.

Even better, we, the people, want to have a car. Should the gov't now provide everyone with a car?

11/20/2007 9:35:25 PM

If only Democracy worked the way you wanted it to work.

11/20/2007 9:37:20 PM

if only we were a democracy.

but seriously, if you'd like to explain to me WHY the gov't should fund research that effectively says to one religion "your views on life are bullshit and unimportant," then I'd love to hear it. I'd especially love to hear it with respect to 1st amendment considerations.

11/20/2007 9:43:42 PM

If that is the case, can I not form any religion that I want and make one of its tenants not paying any tithes (taxes) to another God (the government)?

11/20/2007 9:56:39 PM

the government funds directly or indirectly via the NIH and through public universities all kinds of research that may impose on some people religious beliefs. It's unfortunate for the rest of us that the zealots have picked stem-cell research, one of the most promising findings of our lifetimes, to be the one they decide to protest against. But hey - that's just like Christians and religious folk, right? Find one or two causes to rail against, and ignore the rest?

11/20/2007 10:22:04 PM

Quote :

"if you'd like to explain to me WHY the gov't should fund research that effectively says to one religion "your views on life are bullshit and unimportant," then I'd love to hear it"

I'd like to see one person who believes this to tell me, or an infertile couple, why in vitro fertilization proponents is legal and accepted as common practice. Show me one, and I'll show you 10 so-called pro-life, anti stem-cell research Christians who have thrown down $10k's in fertilization procedures once they find out Hubby is shooting blanks.

11/20/2007 10:25:12 PM

We should have dinosaur clones by now.

11/20/2007 10:37:58 PM

if you don't like how we do things here in america you can always get the fuck out

11/21/2007 12:54:37 AM

Quote :

"but seriously, if you'd like to explain to me WHY the gov't should fund research that effectively says to one religion "your views on life are bullshit and unimportant," then I'd love to hear it. I'd especially love to hear it with respect to 1st amendment considerations."

A better question would be: Should the government be prevented from taking a particular action if some portion of the population disagrees with it?

As far as your first admendment concerns...well, there are none. Stem cell research is not a religious topic. While it may be true that opponents of publicly fundied stem cell research are religious and they reach their position via religious tenets, that does not mean that stem cell research itself is a religious topic. Publicly funded stem cell research cannot be reasonably construed as government endorsement of a particular religion.

Regardless, your first amendment rights have limits. They do not prevent the government or other individuals from taking action.

11/21/2007 12:13:09 PM

Quote :

"A better question would be: Should the government be prevented from taking a particular action if some portion of the population disagrees with it?"

a lot of people were against integration. I think that should answer your question sufficiently.

Quote :

"Regardless, your first amendment rights have limits. They do not prevent the government or other individuals from taking action."

right. the gov't can take action to silence me. They can take action and pass laws to establish a state religion...

11/22/2007 5:19:58 PM

And how does stem cell research establish a state religion or silence you?

11/22/2007 9:42:01 PM

Quote :

"Secondly, because as long as in vitro fertilization is legal and widely practiced, and as long as such practices produce embryos that are otherwise thrown into the trash, we should have a nearly limitless supply of embryos to work with, all the while without destroying anything that otherwise would have led to a person."

agree

11/23/2007 2:45:57 AM

^ Yeah I agree that the idea of fertilizing eggs for the sake of creating and experimenting on stem cells is distasteful, the issue of wasting discarded embryos is a little less clear cut.

I could see a risk in using discarded embryo/zygotes in that it would create a pressure on fertilization clinics to keep providing them. Say invitro techniques improved to the point where the creation of excess embryos was not really required to give a good chance of success anymore. I could see fertility clinics having a conflict of interest, particularly if they were compensated for providing stem cells to research facilities.

As long as that kind of situation could be avoided, I don't see anything wrong with consenting patients allowing the discarded zygotes or early embryos to be used in stem cell research.

11/23/2007 12:58:15 PM

^what do you mean by distasteful?

11/23/2007 4:59:57 PM

The farming of human cells from previously non-existent gene lines as opposed to using incidentaly created zygotes. Doing this when there are readily availible and otherwise discarded zygotes out there seems like a waste to me. I suppose that if it was done with doner samples from people who had knowingly consented to them being used in such a way, I wouldn't really mind. I suppose I was thinking more about something like this being done from sperm banks and egg doners who were likely under the impression that their material would be used to create babies.

It's not really an issue though since federal funds are denied to researches researching anything but existing cell lines anyways.

11/23/2007 8:34:24 PM

something that doesn't seem to be addressed much is that the IPS cells generated by this procedure can develop into a viable fetus... so is it really more ethical to use these cells than ES cells (for those that are opposed to ES cell research)?

[Edited on November 24, 2007 at 1:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2007 1:45:27 AM