What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
88 Comments
- Harvester1, on 02/10/2009, -0/+29Fascinating article, dreambig. If using one's own stem cells injected into the heart would really repair heart damage and make rejection of the cells less likely, this would be a very exciting step in the medical community.
- PuterPrsn, on 02/12/2009, -2/+20NOTE: This is from ADULT stem cells, not fetal. So far, there have been no results from fetal cells, but several from cells taken from the patient's own body.
- PuterPrsn, on 02/12/2009, -2/+19News for you - no religous leaders are against using adult stem cells. They're all for that. Just not using fetal cells from abortions.
This "breakthrough" is from adult stem cells, not fetal. You so obviously didn't bother to read the article at all - it's in the 2nd paragraph. - manzplan, on 02/11/2009, -10/+22Stem cells hold a lot of hope.. too many people protest this advancement simply because their religios leaders tell them too, but wait until you have a family member that could benefit from anything gained from this type of thing
- JP1998, on 02/12/2009, -0/+11Wow this is awesome I hope it is true as a kidney transplant patient I waited 12 years for a kidney to maybe wait a year for kidney cells from my own stem cells to be made sounds great. Dream Big thats for sure. Godspeed to them and hopefully we are on the verge on ending waiting list for all transplant patients.
- CL38, on 02/12/2009, -7/+17Those who were advocating using fetal stem cells were talking about using frozen stem cells, not aborting babies. Unfortunately, that was the Republican propaganda being used to fight stem cell research.
- ExSlashdotter, on 02/12/2009, -0/+9girlfriend/fiance with cystic fibrosis over here.
Science FTW. - UselessTrivia, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7Stem cells are awesome. The best news is the advancement in using adult stem cells. Embroynic stem cells may be superior in many ways, but unless you happen to have some of your own, you're still talking about using someone else's genetic material which has the possibility of rejection.
If you can grow stuff out of adult cells then it's a genetic match and (in theory) won't reject, even without using anti-rejection meds.
The place to look for big advancements here is actually the veterinary world. They can do things much faster because they are working on animals and not humans, so there are far fewer regulatory hurdles. There's a procedure for horses where they take stem cells from the sternum and use it to regrow/repair tendons in the legs. Horses that would have otherwise had to be put down are going back out and racing on the track. - DivisibleByZero, on 02/12/2009, -1/+8When/where was there a ban on "all" stem cell research?
- UselessTrivia, on 02/12/2009, -4/+10So your position is that life begins at conception then?
Conception is no less arbitrary a point to consider life to begin than birth. Conception is a process, not a point in time. A viable human life is not created the moment a sperm enters an ovum. The genetic material still has to fuse, which takes a little while. Then mitosis has to occur. There are many steps along the path and none of them leap off the page to say "Hey, a life started here!"
Keep in mind as well that more than one life can begin from a single conception. So if conception is the starting point where a single life is started, when did the second life begin? If a group of cells splits into two, which one is the original life and which is the new one? Is it the same life even though two infants may eventually be born?
If I decide to take the second group of cells and harvest it for stem cells, have I destroyed a life even though the "originally" conceived life can continue growing to maturity? And here's a weird one: Chimeras. That's when two eggs are fertilized, ostensibly creating two lives, but then they fuse together into a single entity. Only one life will arise from this union. Was a life destroyed in the process even though the cells lived on and continued to divide?
These aren't just snarky comments meant to poke fun at those who believe life begins at conception...they're legitimate inquiries with no good answers. To say that "life begins at conception" sounds all well and good. It's simple and straightforward and it seems to be logical enough, but it has some real problems scientifically.
If life hasn't begun at conception, then a life hasn't been ended when those stem cells are harvested. - iChopPryde, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5I hope the best for you man glad that science in the near future will help you out :)
- DivisibleByZero, on 02/12/2009, -1/+6Yeah, but even at that, didn't it only ban government funding of embryonic stem cell research?
- emptyo, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5Stem cells rule.
- catbeller, on 02/12/2009, -1/+6Not aborted babies. There aren't enough. They come from fertility clinics. You know, like from that idiot that just had octuplets. You do know they fertilize a lot of eggs, grow embryos, implant a few, and THROW THE REST AWAY? I don't see you shooting fertility clinic doctors. The embryonic stem cells lines came exclusively from fertility clinics! Abortion is practically illegal in the US. Practically as in you can't find a doctor or a clinic almost anywhere.
- abadonn, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5Lets see, I'm 21 now, what are my odds of living to 200 the way medicine is going?
- PuterPrsn, on 02/12/2009, -2/+6Did you bother to READ the article? It's from adult stem cells. Does no one read anything any more??
- iChopPryde, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4man I hope really good lol im 22 and living to 200 would be amazing!
- wonkavsn, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4Judging by the speed at which the FDA approves this kind of thing?
0.0007% - jockrock14, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4I'm a research technician in a lab that specializes in human mesenchymal stem cells (aka adult human multipotent stromal cells, aHMSCs). I'm not going to get into the whole adult vs. embryonic stem cell issue, but this article is making a huge overstatement. Granted, we've made huge strides into coaxing stem cells from bone marrow into a cardiac phenotype, but it is NOWHERE NEAR as simple as treating the cells with a single chemical and just letting them grow into healthy heart tissue. Plus, most research is showing that only transient benefits are found from these treatments and that the stem cells don't engraft and thrive in damaged heart tissue. Take this story with a grain of salt. This article (http://www.popsci.com/elizabeth-svoboda/article/20 ... highlighting Doris Taylor's decellularization of hearts and re-seeding them with a recipient's own stem cells, fits this title much more accurately. Either way, both ideas are a long way from significantly improving cardiac damage therapies. I'm working on that though!
- plainOldFool, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4I'm hoping this means that medical technology is on its way to replace my craptastic sciatic nerve. I remember reading an article where researchers were working on growing nerve cells from fat cells. Win-win for me.
- justjoehere, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5@Kershek: And the ban didn't include previously identified lines of embryonic stem cells.
- tgjerusalem, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5For *****'s sake, this has nothing to do with fetal stem cells at all, it's about culturing new heart cells from the patient's own bone marrow.
- darkheritage, on 02/12/2009, -2/+5Why are we not sinking tons of money into stem cell research? I want the $25,000 I am going to have to give to the government for their "bailout" to go to stem cell research. Thank you.
- CabesMojo, on 02/12/2009, -4/+7Here is an amazing breakthrough, you're a moron! No one opposes adult stem cell research, take your religious self righteous bashing some where else where it makes sense.
- catbeller, on 02/12/2009, -1/+4They throw them away. The fertility clinics do not store them "indefinitely". They are trashed. Always have been.
- VoodooPunk, on 02/12/2009, -0/+3I'm an atheist so it's pretty easy for me to debate any issue without "bringing religion into it." As someone that believes life begins at conception it most certainly is an issue for me when you're advocating killing unborn children to harvest their stem cells. To harvest embryonic stem cells the embryo is killed. To harvest adult stem cells nobody is killed. I understand that in your world "there's nothing wrong with embryonic stem cell research," but in the real world many people do in fact believe that killing children for research is wrong.
Just for the record, us grownups don't really use the whole prepubescent internet "fail" lingo. I'd suggest you omit references like that from comments you expect non-morons to take seriously. - inactive, on 02/12/2009, -4/+6I'll have onion rings with my cheeseburger please.
- FredFredrickson, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Insert insensitive, rude, and somehow jealous comment here about how Digg "cures" illnesses every day.
- DivisibleByZero, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2Well, at least in the method we're talking about. I'm not an expert on the low-level details, but my understanding of why they do what they do:
- There's a high chance that an embryo won't make it.
- the fertilization process is cheaper if you do it in bulk.
So, they make like 100 embryos, then insert a batch of 10 on the assumption that most of them will die (or you end up with octuplets). If all 10 of those die, they take another 10 and try it again. So let's say one of that batch makes it, the remaining 80 get tossed out with the garbage. That's like having 80 abortions at once.
I'd be cool with it if they made 10 at a time, gave each one a fair chance at life. You may also wonder why I'm OK with putting 10 in, knowing that probably only 1 of them will survive. The same kind of risk is there with natural sexual reproduction (though I assume the probability of survival is higher in that case). But I'm fine living with a probability that the kid might die, so long as you give it a chance. - method7670, on 02/13/2009, -0/+2Think if Bush had not restricted stem sell research heavily.
Think of the progress... - VoodooPunk, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2I'm curious. Why exactly is it that the trial is using adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic stem cells then? It's perfectly legal in Britain (and the US by the way, you just won't receive federal funds for your research) to use embryonic stem cells. You'd think if it was so much easier and less dangerous to use embryonic stem cells, they'd be doing it.
- pook187, on 02/12/2009, -2/+4God bless you both.
- notaku, on 02/12/2009, -1/+3@mrparker21311:
Why would he leave her because of her illness?
Why should she suffer alone?
Everyone's got to die someday, planned, unplanned, or from a terminal illness.
Life is precious, it's about your quality of life, and your partners. If you are in it for yourself, why bother living? - mojoel, on 02/12/2009, -0/+2Don't know but possibly HIV:
http://digg.com/health/Man_appears_free_of_HIV_aft ... - wonkavsn, on 02/12/2009, -0/+1Mparker:
Thanks for the productive and encouraging words. - inactive, on 02/12/2009, -0/+1The Manhattan Project called, they want their optimistic views of science-gone-wild back.
- MacEnvy, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2That's why we're exploring the solar system. I volunteer for Mars Colony 3.
(I'll let them work out the bugs in the first two before I go.) - Kazakaz, on 02/12/2009, -0/+1http://digg.com/health/Man_appears_free_of_HIV_aft ...
- plainOldFool, on 02/12/2009, -4/+5I'm not sure about that. The Bush Administration allowed for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research with a limited number of stem cell lines from frozen embryos. They refused funding for any embryonic stem cell research outside of this very narrow guideline, meaning no aborted fetuses or cloned stem cells could be used in the studies.
- AllenAllen, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2Most sane people do not think of embryos as being "aborted babies." There are freezers full of them and they are nothing more than a bunch of cells. There are tons of them, left over from potential use in invitro fertilization. They will simply be tossed out. When they do try to implant them, the success rate is low... and you wouldn't call the failed attempts an abortion would you now. So get off it. That's line "aborted babies" is just moronic. I can't stand it that people play with words... you know you're being dishonest, so just stop trying to fool people.
- iChopPryde, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2man I so agree, how about we take all the money out of war and bailouts and all the rest of the dumb ***** we do and put it all into science! Then we all win.
- skatoolaki, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2Why, DivisblebyZero - "Anybody who's against abortion should also be against in vitro fertilization."?
Just trying to be clear on your meaning; not trying to be snarky, but genuinely trying to grasp the argument. Thanks. - DivisibleByZero, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2Well, ok. That's worse than just having them sit around.
Anybody who's against abortion should also be against in vitro fertilization. - sndream, on 02/12/2009, -2/+3It's great news. But most people seem not to realize that utilizing Adult stem cell is a lot more dangerous and difficult than "Embryonic" stem cell.
To obtain "Induced pluripotent stem cell" from bone marrow or any other cell, it require genetics reprogramming thru retrovirus. This would hugely increase the risk of cancer and/or DNA being damage by the retrovirus. Only after all this additional risk and the possibility of not working(Gene Therapy are still in square 1 after 2 decades of research), this only bring adult stem cell to be in line of the "Embryonic" stem cell.
Not to mention, the "Embryonic" stem cell come from Blastocyst (4 -5 days after the egg got fertile), you can't get "Embryonic" stem cell from aborted babies because by that time, the cell line have long been differentiated.
Beside, don't the JeBus freaks oppose genetics engineering too? - plainOldFool, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2Bush is a turd. I agree with you. But he was 100% in favor of adult stem cell research. He only withheld funds for embryonic stem cell research.
- crispy, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2@UselessTrivia: Conception is a very logical point at which to say "life begins". At conception there is an individual entity which is (1) distinct in genetic makeup from its parents, (2) alive, as evidenced by metabolism and growth, and (3) capable of becoming an adult individual and reproducing. It's possible to split hairs and ask at which point in the conception process is there a new life, but we're not talking weeks, or even days, now are we? Since you asked, it's reasonable to bracket the start between the fusing of sperm and ovum and the first division. Harvesting of embryonic stem cells takes place long after this. The original cell has to have divided many times before the stem cells appear.
Using birth as the starting point seems to ignore the objective facts that the child shows every sign of life before the umbilical cord is cut as after, with the exception of breathing air through his/her own lungs.
Obviously an individual whose body consists of a handful of cells is very fragile, and there are many hurdles between this stage and birth. As you mention, the embryo could split into twins, two embryos could fuse into a chimera, and often, the embryo dies for no apparent reason. Similarly, SIDS can strike an infant, without any person having caused the death. This does not mean that since infants might die, that it would be justifiable create them just to harvest their organs for transplantation.
A trickier point you bring up is harvesting the embryonic stem cells without killing the original embryo. Currently, it is almost impossible to do this without harming the donor, but even if it could be done, it would be ethically akin to harvesting a kidney from a newborn--why would you risk the harm?
While you may feel that there are "no good answers", and it may not be possible to unambiguously identify at which nanosecond life began, it is quite reasonable, scientifically, to place it just before the first cell division. This makes the harvesting of embryonic stem cells ethically challenging.
The good news is that use of somatic stem cells, either from cord blood or from the patient's body have showing much more success, and avoid the problems encountered with ESC, including tumor formation, rejection, and of course, the ethical issues. - stuffradio, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2This would actually be pretty cool if it's a success.
- catbeller, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2The promise in embryonic lines wasn't so much about growing the organs from scratch, which as you say has problems. The promise was in seeing how they actually function, which is still up in the air. The embryonic cells are undifferentiated, a state that ends before birth. Adult cells can only be tricked into acting likewise. We are learning how to do that hit-or-miss. What we need to know is how the pure stem cells do it, and THEN we can perhaps regress the adult version to do likewise. We don't know if we are doing it correctly using the adult lines. So we are guessing.
We've lost a lot of TIME. - UselessTrivia, on 02/12/2009, -1/+2True enough. I have no issues with embryonic stem cells. I hope Obama repeals that executive order banning funding for such research soon. Actually did he maybe already do it?
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is