regarding the stem cell debate...effectively removing the debate, entirely: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070604/full/447618a.html Simple switch turns cells embryonic Technique removes need for eggs or embryos. David Cyranoski Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice1, 2, 3. The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, and that are genetically matched to individual patients. There are limits to how useful and safe these would be for therapeutic use in the near term, but they should quickly prove a boon in the lab. "It would change the way we see things quite dramatically," says Alan Trounson of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. Trounson wasn't involved in the new work but says he plans to start using the technique "tomorrow". "I can think of a dozen experiments right now — and they're all good ones," he says. In theory, embryonic stem cells can propagate themselves indefinitely and are able to become any type of cell in the body. But so far, the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells involves destroying an embryo, and to get a genetic match for a patient would mean, in effect, cloning that person — all of which raise difficult ethical questions. As well as having potential ethical difficulties, the 'cloning' procedure is technically difficult. It involves obtaining unfertilized eggs, replacing their genetic material with that from an adult cell and then forcing the cell to divide to create an early-stage embryo, from which the stem cells can be harvested. Those barriers may have now been broken down. "Neither eggs nor embryos are necessary. I've never worked with either," says Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, who has pioneered the new technique. Last year, Yamanaka introduced a system that uses mouse fibroblasts, a common cell type that can easily be harvested from skin, instead of eggs4. Four genes, which code for four specific proteins known as transcription factors, are transferred into the cells using retroviruses. The proteins trigger the expression of other genes that lead the cells to become pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially become any of the body's cells. Yamanaka calls them induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). "It's easy. There's no trick, no magic," says Yamanaka. It's unbelievable, just amazing. It's like Dolly. It's that type of accomplishment. The results were met with amazement, along with a good dose of scepticism. Four factors seemed too simple. And although the cells had some characteristics of embryonic cells — they formed colonies, could propagate continuously and could form cancerous growths called teratomas — they lacked others. Introduction of iPS cells into a developing embryo, for example, did not produce a 'chimaera' — a mouse carrying a mix of DNA from both the original embryo and the iPS cells throughout its body. "I was not comfortable with the term 'pluripotent' last year," says Hans Schöler, a stem-cell specialist at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Münster who is not involved with any of the three articles. This week, Yamanaka presents a second generation of iPS cells1, which pass all these tests. In addition, a group led by Rudolf Jaenisch2 at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a collaborative effort3 between Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Kathrin Plath of the University of California, Los Angeles, used the same four factors and got strikingly similar results. "It's a relief as some people questioned our results, especially after the Hwang scandal," says Yamanaka, referring to the irreproducible cloning work of Woo Suk Hwang, which turned out to be fraudulent. Schöler agrees: "Now we can be confident that this is something worth building on." The improvement over last year's results was simple. The four transcription factors used by Yamanaka reprogramme cells inconsistently and inefficiently, so that less than 0.1% of the million cells in a simple skin biopsy will be fully reprogrammed. The difficulty is isolating those in which reprogramming has been successful. Researchers do this by inserting a gene for antibiotic resistance that is activated only when proteins characteristic of stem cells are expressed. The cells can then be doused with antibiotics, killing off the failures. The protein Yamanaka used as a marker for stem cells last year was not terribly good at identifying reprogrammed cells. This time, all three groups used two other protein markers — Nanog and Oct4 — to great effect. All three groups were able to produce chimaeric mice using iPS cells isolated in this way; and the mice passed iPS DNA on to their offspring. Jaenisch also used a special embryo to produce fetuses whose cells were derived entirely from iPS cells. "Only the best embryonic stem cells can do this," he says. "It's unbelievable, just amazing," says Schöler, who heard Jaenisch present his results at a meeting on 31 May in Bavaria. "For me it's like Dolly [the first cloned mammal]. It's that type of accomplishment." The method is inviting. Whereas cloning with humans was limited by the number of available eggs and by a tricky technique that takes some six months to master, Yamanaka's method can use the most basic cells and can be accomplished with simple lab techniques. But applying the method to human cells has yet to be successful. "We are working very hard — day and night," says Yamanaka. It will probably require more transcription factors, he adds. If it works, researchers could produce iPS cells from patients with conditions such as Parkinson's disease or diabetes and observe the molecular changes in the cells as they develop. This 'disease in a dish' would offer the chance to see how different environmental factors contribute to the condition, and to test the ability of drugs to check disease progression. But the iPS cells aren't perfect, and could not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant in, for example, spinal-cord injuries. Yamanaka found that one of the factors seems to contribute to cancer in 20% of his chimaeric mice. He thinks this can be fixed, but the retroviruses used may themselves also cause mutations and cancer. "This is really dangerous. We would never transplant these into a patient," says Jaenisch. In his view, research into embryonic stem cells made by cloning remains "absolutely essential". If the past year is anything to judge by, change will come quickly. "I'm not sure if it will be us, or Jaenisch, or someone else, but I expect some big success with humans in the next year," says Yamanaka. Additional reporting by Heidi Ledford For more on alternative stem-cell work, see 'Stem cells: Recycling the abnormal'; and see http://www.nature.com/stemcells
source [rquoter] Does stem cell advance provide an ethical out? Doctors, funders shouldn't put all their embryos in one basket Just as Congress is about to vote on a bill that would require federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, something has me tempted to join the ranks of those loony tunes who see conspiracies lurking around every corner. The bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, passed the Senate by a big margin in April. But just as the House prepares to vote later this week, news breaks that scientists have made progress in finding alternative ways to generate cells from other types of cells that can mimic the special powers of embryonic stem cells. Convenient timing for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, isn’t it? It’s certainly not the first time a scientific “breakthrough” has promised an alternative to embryonic stem cells just as funding issues were under debate. It has happened so often that even the wolf is no longer listening to the boy crying out, “there are alternatives!” Except this time, there is a big difference. There really has been a breakthrough. Today’s news about other ways to create embryonic-like stem cells, published in the journals Nature and Stem Cell, comes from mainstream, cutting-edge, world-class scientists. This is news worth listening to. Rudi Jaenisch, a leading expert on cloning, and teams of scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were able to do some elegant engineering in which they genetically tweaked skin cells in mice to reprogram themselves and act like embryonic cells. They used artificial viruses to carry genetic information into a large batch of mice skin cells to turn on certain regulatory genes in the cells that normally only work in embryos. By injecting the reprogrammed cells with markers into early-stage mouse embryos, researchers were able to show that these reprogrammed cells turned into all manner of cells in the adult mice that grew from the embryos. That is exactly what stem cell researchers are seeking — cells that could be manipulated to turn into other types of cells to repair diseased ones in our bodies. This is very big news indeed. So why bother with a vote in Congress on funding human embryonic stem cell research? Shouldn’t we simply put all of our federal funds into this type of reprogramming research? End to ethical quandary? That would make President Bush and others who oppose the destruction of human embryos happy. And those who want to see progress made in trying to cure conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s disease should be pleased as well. Ethical dilemma solved! Well, not so fast. I’m afraid that ditching embryos and jumping to fund alternatives is not the right response to this fascinating news about mouse cells. This research is promising, but it’s in mice. Many technical hurdles remain for translating this work to human cells. Some of the techniques used by the MIT scientists to isolate embryonic mouse cells are known not to work in human cells. Also, using cells that have been changed by means of viral vectors can pose health risks. This form of gene therapy has proven very difficult to do safely in human beings. It is certainly true that the reprogramming option in both animal and human cells deserves funding, but so does human embryonic stem cell research. As much as critics of this field of research would like to have you believe that human embryos in dishes are people, that moral argument is not compelling. Human embryos in dishes are not people or even potential people. They are, at best, possible potential people. Frozen embryos in infertility clinics face a fate of certain destruction anyway. The moral case against using them, or cloned embryos, which have almost zero chance of becoming people, is no less compelling because progress has been made in another area of research. The existence of a new way to perhaps make embryonic-like stem cells is not enough to make frozen embryos and cloned embryos off-limits for American scientists or for research relying on federal funds. Those in favor of human embryonic stem cell research, and that is the majority of Americans according most polls, including one done by CNN just last month, do not have to change their minds about the morality of such research even when another avenue for creating embryonic-like cells is found in mice. Explore all possible avenues If you are an Iraq War veteran stuck in a wheelchair, if you are taking care of your father who is losing his ability to walk due to Parkinson’s, if your child suffers from juvenile diabetes or if you need new skin as a result of terrible burns, you want scientists to pursue all the ethical options available for stem cell research. No one knows for sure whether any of them will work. But it is certain that if they are not all aggressively pursued with generous federal support, then the chance of any line of research ever turning into a therapy is greatly reduced. The House should pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. President Bush will surely veto it, undoubtedly invoking this latest work on reprogramming adult cells as one of his reasons. Congress should then override that veto. On the frontiers of science, good news about one promising route should not cause anyone to abandon other possible roads until someone actually gets to where they are trying to go — in this case, the goal is new cures for the sick, the dying and the severely disabled. Too many lives are riding on this to be fooled into taking the wrong detour. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. [/rquoter]
I saw the original article and was going to post it but it looks like Mad Max beat me to it. I agree though with Ottomaton's article though that its too early to say if this will really work but research on an alternative should continue and if it does pan out that would be great. IN the meantime though research on embryonic stem cells should still continue as they already are showing a high likelyhood of treating a range of problems and it would be a shame to wait years to see if the alternative works while many people suffere from potentially curable ailments. In a related article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19050236/ Scientists aim to cure blindness with stem cells First patients could receive treatment for damaged retinas in five years Updated: 11:00 a.m. CT June 5, 2007 LONDON - British scientists plan to use stem cells to cure a common form of blindness, with the first patients receiving test treatment in five years. The pioneering project, launched on Tuesday, aims to repair damaged retinas with cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Its backers say it involves simple surgery that could one day become as routine as cataract operations. They believe the technique is capable of restoring vision in the vast majority of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness among the elderly that afflicts around 14 million people in Europe. Some drugs, like Genentech Inc.’s Lucentis, can help the one in 10 patients with so-called “wet” AMD and U.S. biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology is looking at stem cells in other eye conditions. But there is no treatment for the 90 percent with “dry” AMD. AMD is caused by faulty retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, which form a supporting carpet under the light-sensitive rods and cones in the retina. The new procedure will generate replacement RPE cells from stem cells in the lab, with surgeons then injecting a small patch of new cells, measuring 4 by 6 millimeters, back into the eye. U.S. donor The London Project to Cure AMD brings together scientists from University College London (UCL), Moorfields Eye Hospital in London and the University of Sheffield. It has been made possible by a 4 million pounds ($8 million) donation from an anonymous U.S. donor, who the project’s leaders said had become frustrated by U.S. curbs on stem cell work. Embryonic stem cells are the ultimate master cells of the body, giving rise to all of the tissues and organs. Their use is controversial because many people oppose embryo destruction, although Britain has encouraged such research. Surgeons at Moorfields have already restored the vision of a few patients using cells harvested from their own eyes, which were moved to a new site. But this process is complicated and only a small number of cells can be moved, limiting its use. By injecting RPE cells derived from stem cells instead, Dr Lyndon Da Cruz of Moorfields hopes the operation can be reduced to a simple 45-minute procedure under local anesthetic. “If it hasn’t become routine in about 10 years it would mean we haven’t succeeded,” he told reporters. “It has to be something that’s available to large numbers of people.” Similar tests on rats have already proved highly effective. Pete Coffey of UCL, the director of the project, said he was confident the procedure would work in humans but the team needed to ensure the safety and quality of batches of cells, which would take time. “The goal is within five years to have a cohort of 10 or 12 patients to put the cells into,” he said. The project, which is non-commercial, was welcomed by patient support groups. Alistair Fielder of the eye research charity Fight for Sight said it represented a real chance to tackle a hitherto untreatable condition.
Some research options might be limited until they reduce the high occurrences of cancer, but a new method for cloning will open more doors for everyone. It'd be interesting to find out why the cells can't form chimeras with another embryo.
Great news. Hopefully the research can progress quickly. Until then, we shouldn't delay helping people with Parkinson's or diabetes or something potentially curable by stem cells by limiting the funding and research possibilities. I'm sure people will understand if a Parkinson's patient would rather be helped in 3 years with stem cells than be dead in 5 years because the bill never got through.
Wanta bet that the wingnuts are not going to be happy with this new development? Their current arguments against stem cell research are nonsensical in scientific terms. Maybe since wingnuts likely tuned out in biology class starting first when they heard the satanic word 'evolution'.
Generally Speaking Why is scientist and their Followers are so quick to dismiss other people's faith with an incredible amount Arrogance easily stating that the other folx are idiots not unlike the very fundamentalist they make fun of yet They consider their God the one true God moreso than any other religion Scientist . . or rather the Atheistic Scientist . . . work on a broad band of assumptions and . .yes. . FAITH I generally detest the dismissive arrogant tone of the 'Science' crowd Like the guy said to Jodie Foster in Contact " . . . you beleive 95% of the population of this world suffer from a mass delusion" [or something like that] How Arrogant is that??? Rocket River . . . somewhere in the vastness of space a 1958 VW bug is floating around . . . because it just randomly came together perfectly . . . .without any help from anyone . . .and boy can that car run
I generally detest the dismissive arrogant tone of the 'Science' crowd. Funny you should mention arrogance. Isn't a touch arrogant for someone to believe that G-d created the world in 7 days? To get there, one has to read an ancient religious book uncritically and then discard a multitude of modern scientific facts to finally arrive at their belief. That sounds wildly arrogant to me.
hmmm...i don't think it's arrogant to believe that. i don't know if it went down that way or if it's just metaphor/parable. i tend to lean on the metaphor/parable nature of genesis. it is, after all, a poem. i think it would be arrogant to say, "that's the way it happened and there's no room for questioning!!!"
I agree The strangest thing to me is that Science and Religion don't really disagree that much then again . .. I don't take the Bible literally and I don't dismiss everything that science teaches To use the 7 days analogy What is a day when their was not day or night? From a Scientific point of view. . could it mean 7 galactic spins around the center? that would could millions upon millions of year I beleive so . . . Saying it happened in 7 days becomes more explainable Science and religion to me is like explaining Physics to a 2 yr old Knowing the Mechanism of God 1. does not devalue how great an accomplishment it is 2. does not mean you can do it yourself Rocket River
It was 6 days. "To get there, one has to read an ancient religious book uncritically and then discard a multitude of modern scientific facts to finally arrive at their belief." No, one has to believe and then question a multitude of modern scientific theories and critically understand that an ancient religious book is no better than the author. More people question the divine inspiration of the story... if the God described in the bible exists as he is portrayed, then one day would have been sufficient.
