What is Digg?108 Comments
- geogeer, on 11/19/2008, -4/+48Another victory for adult stem cells.
- Gemfinder, on 11/19/2008, -12/+42See, folks? This, too, could happen here if two things happen:
1) Stem cell research is unfettered, and
2) Affordable, accessible health care is implemented. - dithyrambica, on 11/19/2008, -1/+28This is one of those I wish I could digg twice.
- chas46, on 11/19/2008, -1/+26 Definitely Cool!
- pyroglass, on 11/19/2008, -6/+28Adult Stem Cells FTW
There is so much promise with Adult Stem Cells. Not even from your own. Being a member of the HLA registry, I have given my stem cells to help cure someone with leukemia. There really is not much need to be splitting research with adult and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are a proven technology and is so much more practical - Dagreenman, on 11/19/2008, -3/+19***** YEAH SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- plhofmei, on 11/19/2008, -8/+22An important part to note (as many have) this was done with Adult Stem cells. Embryonic/Fetal Stem Cells were not involved!
- selmer, on 11/19/2008, -5/+18I wonder if they got the idea from that Family Guy episode.
"Why aren't they FUNDING THIS?????" - ghostlywind, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13Thank Science
- UselessTrivia, on 11/19/2008, -4/+16Probably because they've been banned from studying it with federal dollars. Very few private corporations fund that kind of R&D because they can't be guaranteed a return on the investment.
I will agree, though, that embryonic stem cells aren't the end-all-be-all of stem cell research. They're the most potent and useful, but realistically if you grow an orgran from them and transplant it, the patient still has to be on anti-rejection meds because it's not a genetic match.
It might some day be popular to freeze umbilical cord blood so that it could be used for therapeutic purposes later in life. - Psych77, on 11/19/2008, -1/+12Not quite. In England, to use your example, you get a wide range of treatments free of charge, but would need private cover (or have to pay as needed) for certain treatments not covered by the NHS. This final point is exactly the same as the US access to treatment, but in the UK you get the benefit of the majority of treatments being free. The drugs aren't banned, just chargeable, the same as they are in the US
- pyroglass, on 11/19/2008, -0/+11actually, they have a drug which you get injected with for 5 days. it's called filgrastim and it makes you produce A LOT of white cell stem cells from healthy bone marrow, and then they hook you up to a machine, much like as if you were donating plasma. You need to sit there for about 6-8 hours while the machine filters out the stem cells from your blood. Meanwhile, the donor has undergone so much chemo to destroy all the infected white cells in their marrow so that when my matching marrow is flown out to the patient, they are 100% running off of my stem cells. This has been about 2 1/2 years ago and last I heard from the registry, the patient is doing great.
http://www.marrow.org/index.html - geogeer, on 11/19/2008, -13/+23Adult stem cell (the likes of which was used here) has always been allowed. It is the embryonic stem cell research that has been the problem. The funny thing is that no benefits from the use of embryonic stem cells has been found yet.
- WebmastuhB, on 11/19/2008, -0/+9This is an amazing event that will change the future of humanity.
- IphtashuFitz, on 11/19/2008, -0/+8Wow. Absolutely amazing that mankind has achieved such a level of knowledge and capability. Here's to all the researchers out there who make such things possible!
- Chaoticfist, on 11/19/2008, -0/+8There are benefits to creating a new organ from stem cells such as the body not rejecting the tissue as well not needing to take medications to prevent the immune system from killing the new organ
- azreal156, on 11/19/2008, -2/+9He meant important enough to note for the blind diggers who don't read the article.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -1/+8Did you even read the article?
"And because the technique makes use of adult stem cells donated by the patient, it sidesteps the ethical issues around the use of embryonic stem cells."
She used her OWN stem cells. There's not a problem here. - themonkman, on 11/19/2008, -1/+8Geogeer, I can say with 100% certainty that you are wrong. Adult stemcells are pluripotent, which means that they can be programmed to give rise to certain cell lines. Embryonic stemcells can be totipotent, which means they can theoretically become any cell line in the body. Now, I only say theoretically because we haven't created every single cell line with them yet in a lab, but in nature that is exactly how all of your organs form during pre-natal development via totipotent embryonic stem cells. The only totipotent cells are the fertilized egg and the first 4 or so cells produced by the cleavage of the blastocyst.
The challenge to scientists is stabilizing the replication rates of these cells, since embryonic stemcells can self-renew indefinitely and are thus theoretically immortal. As such, it's possible that runaway replication could occur and result in a cancer-like situation inside of the human body. - dogstylee, on 11/19/2008, -0/+7get over yourself
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8Dugg and shouted because it is great Digg story.
- theutopian, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6The future is now.
- FishHammer, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6obviously someone needs a little more goatse in their life to build up a tolerance to such things
- bezz, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6+1 Science
- cybortrip, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Selling organs you create still leaves the recipient of your organ with the usual complications. The whole idea behind this is that you use your own stem cells to create the ideal replacement organ for you.
- MelekTawus, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6People need to realize that, though a lot is possible with adult stem cells, fetal stem cells are still very useful in research that can lead to more uses for stem cells of all types. Due to the popularity of in-vitro fertilization and the standard practice of freezing several zygotes for every one that is actually implanted, we have tens of thousands of zygotes that will never be born and are just sitting in cryogenic freezers until they are thrown out. We could use these to learn more about uses for stem cells but superstitious fundamentalists believe these microscopic bundles of cells should not be used for research, due to their own personal, mystical reasons.
- TheClassic, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Guns N Roses, Metallica, AC-DC all release albums; maybe not.
- Remelox, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5Wow. People act like harvesting embryonic stem cells is some sort of replacement for birth. "Hey, I see you are 4 days pregnant, how about I just take that off your hands for science." Or do you think there is going to be some sort of stem cell industry? The cells are usually taken from embryos that are not going to term anyay. Why waste them when so much can be learned from them?
You know those stems cells they got from that adult woman? They can only be used for a few limited organs. Embryonic stem cells can be used for any organ.
Are there adult substitutes? Maybe, but we haven't found them all yet. And yes, it would be best so that you only use your own stem cells for your own organs. But in the mean time, lets used those stem cells that are currently going to waste? Scientists are not ignoring other avenues of treatment. - inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4We can do that without stem cells.
- Bith8654, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Once they start being about to grow organs from stem cells that may be a possibility, but right now organ selling would bring up the question of how the seller managed to get their organs. Also, as the article mentions, the body can reject organs that aren't it's own, meaning people need to be on drugs that weaken their immune system, leaving them at risk. Developing techniques so anyone, anywhere can get organ transplants and not have to be on drugs that put them at risk for the rest of their lives is hardly a waste of time or money.
- roctimo, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4That's awesome, what did your donation involve? Was it bone marrow?
- catbeller, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4Because some of us don't have amnesia, and remember damned well why we don't have new embryonic stem cell lines. Bush made a religious decision, while on retreat, to stop it. He was concerned with the sacredness of potential human life.
He wasn't so concerned about the 60,000+ real people he shot, blew up, burned with phosphorus fire, tortured and drowned. The two million he's made homeless, the hundreds of thousands maimed and psychologically ruined. They weren't embryos? What the hell goes through his mind, wind??
No, he's concerned that God is mad about the people that should exist if we scrape the miscarried embryos out of the trash... no wait, those embryos would never be human, so we could never save them. So he's concerned about, what, exactly? Ghosts? WHAT? What the hell was he thinking he was saving? No possible sane explanation. It's all religion, which requires no justification.
What hell, what evil, could possibly exceed what this man has wrought in the name of his fantasies? He's hit every sin we have a name for, and invented new branches of stupid/sin. He's a one man civilization cracker, a catalyst for stupid and mean. - catbeller, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4@oldhick:
Yes, as George Bush said, you can go to an emergency room. Until you get blacklisted for being a deadbeat, and get sent to the public hospital down the street. Which were removed from New Orleans, if you recall, when Bush's people remodeled it into a neocon utopian ideal city. So, in New Orleans, you can go die when you get blacklisted. Or leave utopian fee market New Orleans, the future of American cities, if they had their way. - Coinspinner, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6"Less harmful cultivation". Wtf ??!?
Folks, the embryonic stems cells are going in the TRASH CAN if they don't get used.
These are cells that are created for another purpose, and then not used. If we can get a use out of something that is being thrown away, how is that more harmful ? - depro9, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6Black president, growing human organs? Ok, it's officially the future.
- tgjerusalem, on 11/19/2008, -4/+8In the US, everyone has access to the healthcare they can pay for.
Which means for many people, they effectively have no access to health care at all. - elementop, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4As someone who takes anti-rejection meds due to a transplant, believe me when I say that you are exactly right. I can't tell you how badly I want to be free from $1000/month drugs...but dialysis is worse, so I'll take the drugs for now.
If I could get new identical match kidneys so that I didn't have to take anti-rejection meds, though.............. - RabidAngel, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5This "science" thing... tell me more.
- merrychristmass, on 11/20/2008, -1/+5For those fanatic religious idiots here. Adult stem cells are not sufficient! Reason being is simple, Adult stem cells have short and split DNA. Unlike embryonic stem cells,which are irreplaceable! Do you research instead of tapping you stupid book. In this case it was,of course, the original donor from her own bone marrow. Which is mostly time not possible in other ilnesses.
- roctimo, on 11/19/2008, -2/+5Mmmm no I don't think he meant that.
- nmezib, on 11/19/2008, -2/+5Science definitely has an awesome bias!
congrats to the doctors and researchers, not to mention the patient! - k3rfuffl3, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Come on people, journalists are supposed to know exactly what will affect every single person who reads their articles /sarcasm
- atchon, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4There really is a need to be splitting funding, adult stem cells have proven pretty effective. Embryonic stem cells haven't been fully studied due to the lack of federal money, and the inability to use federal lab equipment, which is a big negative as the government has fun toys. Embryonic stem cells my give us more information which can be used for adult stem cells, or give us a better idea of how to revert adult back to embryonic like stem cells. To concentrate all the efforts on adult stem cells is naive, we will learn more by doing both which in the end will lead us to the best treatments. Very few other cures or treatments were discovered going along the path which initially presented itself as promising.
- griffinjam, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4WOOOOOSH!
Hear that America? That's the sound of other nations flying past us in technological advancement. Hopefully we get back on track soon, but hey, if we don't we can at least start selling post cards that say "Hello from the dark ages!" to first world country tourists. - MelekTawus, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4Quit claiming this is a Liberal/Conservative issue. Nancy Reagan is in favor of embryonic stem cell research, as are many other prominent conservatives. The divide on this is between certain religious fundamentalists and the rational world.
The research that led to this being possible was done with fetal stem cells. And we don't have to manufacture fetuses for this research. We don't even use fetuses - we use embryos, or more specifically, zygotes. These are the small clusters of cells that are created in the first few days after an egg is fertilized. We do not need to make zygotes specifically for this purpose because there are tens of thousands already in storage. Why?
When people go to a fertility specialist for in-vitro fertilization, many eggs are harvested from the mother, and they are all fertilized by the father's sperm. The specialists allow the eggs to divide a few times, and pick one or more to be implanted in the mother, and freeze the rest. If the one they pick does not implant, they use another, and another, until they run out of zygotes or one implants in the uterine wall. What do they do with the rest? They just store them in freezers until they get to a certain age or they run out of room, at which time they are thrown out.
What scientists want to do is take these zygotes that are never going to be used and use them to create stem cells for research purposes. The stem cells created from these little clusters of cells are much more versatile and very useful in stem cell research. Through this kind of research we've found many uses for stem cells, many of which do not require embryonic stem cells. Trust me, we never would have got to the point where this operation was possible if research was not done on embryonic stem cells.
This research will be done. As you can see, other countries are making lots of progress and we are being left behind. The USA is one of the few industrialized nations that allows religious fundamentalists to control government policy, and this is why we are no longer the world leader in this line of research. - oldhick, on 11/19/2008, -5/+8Because many believe embryonic stem cell research is the end all/be all of stem cell research.
- orlandogeek, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Because pw378, despite whatever crime those prisoners committed, they are adults. It's painfully obvious they are alive. That they qualify as life. Blocking the use of embryonic stem cells that have the potential to save millions of lives is, to me, proof of condoning or participating in murder. Nobody is talking about harvesting stem cells from random people off the street. These stem cells would come from embryos that would be thrown away otherwise. The chances of them resulting in a pregnancy if used for their original intended purpose has been drastically reduced because they have been frozen for too long.
By not exploring this potential source of life-saving scientific discovery we are condeming millions of patients suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to death. - pyroglass, on 11/19/2008, -3/+51st) This advancement was done with Adult Stem Cells
2nd) The direction of Stem Cell Research is leaning more towards the stem cells found in the cord blood, which are already a perfect match to the patient. The "advances" which you are talking about will mostly be coming from this. - hadessniper, on 11/19/2008, -4/+6I love science, it just rules. Although it kinda pisses me off that this didn't happen a few years ago like it should have. Most people think that religion is harmless but it very nearly brought down stem cell research and at the very least set it back several years holding back breakthroughs like this and possible cures to many diseases. Just because they aren't killing scientists any more doesn't mean they aren't still waging war against science. Not only is most religion blatantly anti-science, but they get all the holidays. People get off work to celebrate easter, st. patrick's day, and christmas, but we don't celebrate the day we cured polio or the first heart transplant? Basically what I am saying is that I hate people who are anti-science and I think we should all take time to show science and scientists more love.
/rant - MelekTawus, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3corkythatcher, the vast majority of people in the USA are religious. Most of the people I know are religious. I go to church almost every Sunday. The majority are NOT fundamentalists. If most people shared the views that are against stem cell research, then we would not have legal abortion in this country. We would not have a Democratic president-elect now. The Religious Right are a loud minority, and even the Republican party is starting to get sick of their braying and move away from them after a sad 30 years in which Republicans seemed to care more about pseudo-religious philosophies that have little to do with true Christianity than their principals of fiscal conservatism and small government.
Times are changing, and hopefully the marginalization of fundamentalism will continue. I feared that we were going to turn itno a pseudo-Christian theocracy that mirrored those in the Middle East, but maybe there's hope for the USA and we'll return to being the secular republic that our founding fathers envisioned. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is