Thread: Stem Cell Ban "stayed"

Originally Posted by CanadianPersian

to be honest, i'm not completely sure where i stand on stem cells....on one hand, it has the potential to save and improve the lives of countless people....but on the other, what if it's too expensive for the poor? the rich live longer while the poor die? third world countries probably wouldn't be able to afford it. how about overpopulation? with this technology we potentially have the power to save million of lives that would have otherwise been snuffed out...AND prolong the lives on million others...can our planet sustain this? but obviously these are all long term problems...

Why would this be any different than any other medication as far as the economics and availability of it go?

Adult stem cells aren't as useful as embryonic stem cells...so embryonic is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Adult stem cells aren't as useful as embryonic stem cells...so embryonic is the way to go.

That is not true as of about 2007 or so Xav.

REALLY??

shit...let me look that up again then... I thought embryonic stem cells were much more versatile than adult stem cells

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

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. One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand 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.

Scientists believe that tissues derived from embryonic and adult stem cells may differ in the likelihood of being rejected after transplantation. We don't yet know whether tissues derived from embryonic stem cells would cause transplant rejection, since the first phase 1 clinical trial testing the safety of cells derived from hESCS has only recently been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Adult stem cells, and tissues derived from them, are currently believed less likely to initiate rejection after transplantation. This is because a patient's own cells could be expanded in culture, coaxed into assuming a specific cell type (differentiation), and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of adult stem cells and tissues derived from the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells are less likely to be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage, as immune rejection can be circumvented only by continuous administration of immunosuppressive drugs, and the drugs themselves may cause deleterious side effects

Originally Posted by Alundil

Yup - not terribly broken up about it either. But, from a science standpoint, I don't think anything is lost by using the less controversial approach.

I propose we use both. Why limit our possibilities?

Check the very next bullet point on the same site from NIH

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics10.asp

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell–like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_ce...esearch_events

• June 2007 - Research reported by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. In the same month, scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov reports the first successful creation of a primate stem cell line through somatic cell nuclear transfer
• November 2007 - Human induced pluripotent stem cells: Two similar papers released by their respective journals prior to formal publication: in Cell by Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka, "Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors", and in Science by Junying Yu, et al., from the research group of James Thomson, "Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells": pluripotent stem cells generated from mature human fibroblasts. It is possible now to produce a stem cell from almost any other human cell instead of using embryos as needed previously, albeit the risk of tumorigenesis due to c-myc and retroviral gene transfer remains to be determined.
• February 2008 - Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach: these iPS cells seem to be more similar to embryonic stem cells than the previously developed iPS cells and not tumorigenic, moreover genes that are required for iPS cells do not need to be inserted into specific sites, which encourages the development of non-viral reprogramming techniques.
• March 2008-The first published study of successful cartilage regeneration in the human knee using autologous adult mesenchymal stem cells is published by clinicians from Regenerative Sciences
• October 2008 - Sabine Conrad and colleagues at Tübingen, Germany generate pluripotent stem cells from spermatogonial cells of adult human testis by culturing the cells in vitro under leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) supplementation.
• 30 October 2008 - Embryonic-like stem cells from a single human hair.
• 1 March 2009 - Andras Nagy, Keisuke Kaji, et al. discover a way to produce embryonic-like stem cells from normal adult cells by using a novel "wrapping" procedure to deliver specific genes to adult cells to reprogram them into stem cells without the risks of using a virus to make the change. The use of electroporation is said to allow for the temporary insertion of genes into the cell.
• 28 May 2009 Kim et al. announced that they had devised a way to manipulate skin cells to create patient specific "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), claiming it to be the 'ultimate stem cell solution'.

AWESOME!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced...tent_stem_cell

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells are similar to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem (ES) cells, in many respects, such as the expression of certain stem cell genes and proteins, chromatin methylation patterns, doubling time, embryoid body formation, teratoma formation, viable chimera formation, and potency and differentiability, but the full extent of their relation to natural pluripotent stem cells is still being assessed.[2]

iPSCs were first produced in 2006 from mouse cells and in 2007 from human cells. This has been cited as an important advance in stem cell research, as it may allow researchers to obtain pluripotent stem cells, which are important in research and potentially have therapeutic uses, without the controversial use of embryos. They may also be less prone to immune rejection than embryonic stem cells because of the fact that they are derived entirely from the patient.

Recently, in May 2009, a team of scientists generated human iPS cells by direct delivery of proteins, thus eliminating the need for viruses or genetic modification.

The research is ongoing and shows more and more promise. Obviously, there are several safety related kinks to be worked out (though embryonic stem cell therapy would share many of the same risks itself).