What is Digg?138 Comments
- 29Victor, on 10/12/2007, -27/+195Another scientific breakthrough brought to by non-embryonic stem cells.
Where is the press on this? Last week there was a story on digg about growing heart valves from bone stem-cells. These are the major "medical miracles" that we were promised were only available through the use of embryonic stem cells. This is a huge deal, why isn't it (and the heart-valve deal) all over the press?
It's interesting that the author of the article feels compelled to toss in a bit about how Bush is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research even thought this article has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with embryonic stem-cell's.
On another note: This story is massive. If doctor's have found a cure for Type 1 diabetes, it's absolutely wonderful, I honestly don't think I could be happier. Thank God and thanks to the hard-working, brilliant, awesome, wonderful scientist who did this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+102Why is this a victory for conservatives? It is not as if Liberals disagree or oppose the use of non-embryonic stem cells. On the contrary, Liberals support the usage of both embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells. The generic success of any stem-cell treatment, wherever or however derived, augments the case that both have promise.
If this is a victory for anyone, it is the scientists, doctors, and their patients. - Railer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59Unfortunately from the studies I've read, it not a 100% cure it lasts a few months to a few years but still HUGE. And it's a victory for every one who's lives are touched by diabetes, I could care less about the politics.
- dle5, on 10/12/2007, -25/+78Indeed. Even though this is a victory for conservatives, it's more importantly a victory for science and those with diabetes.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Nobody ever said you can't cure a disease with non-embryonic stem cells. It's very naive and narrow minded to think that only one source of stem cells will prove useful in stem cell research.
- Darthyoshiboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33As a diabetic of 13 years I almost cried when I started reading this...
***** all you stupid agenda mongering fools, this means something to a lot of people despite the source of the cells. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38I've taken a class on stem cell engineering, and the problem with non-embryonic stem cells is that they are not capable of turning into any other type of cell (they are not truely pluripotent), and as such they are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells. So it may be that we can do amazing things with adult stem cells, but we can do even more with embryonic. So, this is not a reason to get rid of embryonic testing.
- badjoke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27@dle5
Embryonic stem cells wouldn't be harvested from women as reason for abortion. There are an abundance of lifeless, undestined embryos that will be either disposed of or forgotten of if not used. It's not a justification for abortion, it's a use for unused resources.
I'm not trying to impose that these creations are nothing but tools, but they lack thought and any brain capabilities. It's a new cellular structure created by the reproductive system at this point, how's that different than a cellular structure created by another system? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Uh...yes Embryonic stem cells are the most versatile kind and does not require immunosuppresion. What is your contention to that statement?
- Saint3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I thought the title read "Dianetics cured by stem cell treatment" for a moment.
I can only dream. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@DK911:
"I am opposed to the destruction of life for usage in anything (science included)."
If you're not a vegan, then this statement is false.
"If someone could reasonably come up with a definition for "life" and when an embryo has achieved it, then potentially there would be the ability to determine what would be valid embryonic stem-cell research, and what would just be murder for science."
Embryos are a cluster of cells that haven't achieved any differentiation yet. They have no nervous system. They are potential life and not persons and therefore does not meet the definition of murder. Over 50% of all miscarriages happen during this stage as a delayed period/menses. Is God murdering these embryos?
"Now, going back to basic biology (it's been a while, forgive my rustiness), the sperm and ova are two "living" single-celled organisms which join to form a multi-cellular being. So, by the very definition of "living" single-celled organisms, doesn't it make it hard to justify killing a developing "living" multi-cellular being?"
Are all sperm sacred? They have half the DNA of a real cell. Do you eat food("living" multicellular beings)? I have no issue 'killing' cells. They are not people.
"Unfortunately, with a lack of being able to define when "life" starts (that all can agree upon) so as not to have to kill a developing human, funding isn't possible -- so we're not going to be able to see proof for what can be done."
Life starts at conception but embryos are still cells. They are potential life and in no way a person. In the event of choice between saving a pregnant mother and a fetus, the mother takes priority since that is a living person.
Here's an analogy. If you had the chance to save a 3 year old child with Syndrome X Vs. saving a freezer of a million embryos from a burning building. Who would you choose? - Miraa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22These are the patient's own blood stem cells, not the embryonic stem cells that I assume your vitriol is aimed at. Even the most conservative of conservatives don't give two ***** about researchers using blood stem cells (this case) or cord blood stem cells for drug development.
- KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20~Most versatile kind????
Yes, that is correct. Embryonic stem cells can change into any other cell, making them by far the most versatile kind of stem cell.
As far as politics go, though, even being someone who greatly dislikes the idea of abortion, I wonder why my fellow Republicans would rather have the fetus thrown in the garbage instead of using it for immense good. You don't have to advocate abortion to be for the use of these embryos. What a waste.
edit: imperium beat me to it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"But the embryo must be destroyed to harvest the cells!! How can you justify that, on moral grounds?"
Because it is a clump of cells without a conciousness.
"When is it okay to destroy a developing human?"
Because these cells are going to be thrown out with the trash at IVF clinics.
"You must choose when it's okay to murder someone."
It isn't murder. It isn't a person.
"I'm guessing that until you can refer to them by a name, they aren't a someone -- so it's okay?"
Absurd argument. We're talking about harvesting an embryo for its cells which we created not killing a fetus. If we leave these cells in a dish without human intervention, it dies.
"It's already kinda sadistic that we'll use animals to test for humans -- but now science is trying to justify using humans."
Cells are not humans. We take a lot of care when testing in animals to decrease their suffering. I'm willing to sacrifice a million mice to save a living human child with a disease. What about you?
"Especially those who don't have a chance to voice their opinion?"
They don't have an opinion. They don't have a brain. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I don't see how this is a victory for conservatives - this is not political, this is about medicine. Nobody (intelligent) said that embryonic stemcells are the only way to these kinds of finds, just that they show the most promise. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Also, people who are against embryonic stemcell research on principle should also be against in vitro fertilization, because guess what happens to the embryos that aren't used? That's right, destroyed.
- lantus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Title is very misleading. Being diabetic myself, the last thing I need to see is something that says, "Diabetics cured..." when it really is not. Although promising, it is still not a cure. Burried and resubmitted the story with an appropriate header.
- etherag, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You know why there's no breakthrough's coming from embryonic stem cells? because research is prohibitively difficult due to a lack of funding and a lack of available stem cell lines. A breakthrough of this sort is great, and no one denies that there are all sorts of stem cells that have the potential for great benefit to society. However, nearly all biologists and researchers will agree that embryonic stem cells have the most potential uses.
In short, the value of non-embryonic stem cell research does not negate or somehow trivialize the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research.
In shorter:
Hooray breakthrough!
Boo people who pointlessly outlaw potentially beneficial research! - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@chriskzoo (#6106030) said: "It was not a cure - just a break from a need for insulin. Every patient eventually had to go back to insulin."
And yet, if this procedure can be repeated, or improved upon, it sure as hell beats taking insulin multiple times a day. The body deteriorates as blood sugar goes unregulated, and insulin treatment (whether by injection or pump) is not a perfect solution for everyone. If any treatment can stabilize the blood sugar level over an extended period of time, it's fantastic. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It's an interesting study. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been done for other diseases but this is a significant breakthrough for diabetic treatment. However, the need to use anti-rejection meds have significant consequences as well.
It is the ultimate irony that anti-Embryonic stem cell folk are opposed to research on a pseudo-scientific basis instead of just sticking to the ethics behind it. I don't have an argument from an ethical perspective, but to lie and make up pseudo-scientific claims that other stem cells are as good as embryonic cells is just false and dishonest. - JamesSaveker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I am hoping that this will also lead to some progress for Crohn's Disease also.
- robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16> Even though this is a victory for conservatives,
God, please just get a ***** life, would you? What is with people like you who somehow find the need to weave your authoritarian political views into every subject?
The problem with a statement like that is it ignores that conservatives object to certain types of research on MORAL grounds, not on scientific grounds. Therefore, if non-embryonic stem cell research were also viewed as morally objectionable, they would have tried to sink this as well. Conservatives can do their little superiority dance if they want, but it's delusional at best. Assuming that the moral issue is somehow inextricably bound to the scientific is where you and those like you err. The rest of the world doesn't see it that way. What the rest of the world sees is a group of religious zealots trying, yet again, to supercede the progress of science in making our lives better. Because of some fatuous moral highground you assume to hold, you see that kind of interference with medical research as a victory while the rest of us view it as an atrocity. Conservatives really ought to be ashamed for opposing this kind of stuff in any form. - Cerialthriller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12There's a big difference here... This research is given tons of money through grants and such, while Embryonic Research is not. No ***** a team with $50 will lose to a team with a million dollars in a race.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@dreischer: Yup. Embryonic stem cells could potentially lead to transplants and brand new organs that do not require immunosuppression since they haven't developed the rejection markers yet.
Immunosuppression leads to infection, cancers, poor healing etc. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6We'll agree to disagree.
"f companies see money to be made in the end, guess what, they will put money up in the beginning. Do you honestly believe there is not money to be made in curing diabetes, parkinsons, etc.?"
That is true but these companies are interested in an application for these diseases. Most basic science(science for knowledge and is needed for application science) needs huge start up cost and could take years to develop. Many of the current cancer treatments started in the 1960s with government funding and did not become applicable until late 1990s. Most private companies cannot put 20-30years of research without any funding.
"'m sorry that we live in a democracy where everybody has a voice and the system of checks and balances sometimes puts a damper on progress."
I have no problem with this argument. I have no problem when you have an ethical issue with this research. I've respectfully debated this before but I cannot stand people who make pseudo-science claims that's wrong and dishonest.
"You've already either dismissed the moral and ethical implications or overcome them, and I applaud you for that."
I haven't dismissed the implications. I have bioethical training and have really looked into this and don't see any issue. To me embryonic stem cells are just that cells. They are not people.
"If you want government support, you have to convince Joe Six-Pack to get behind the effort and agree that this is where HIS money should be spent. You've failed to do that, so far."
Most Americans support this research. It is a certain President with veto that's going against the will of the people.
"Show me the corollary to something that has moral and ethical considerations for a lot of people."
Good point. - maaddmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sucks that its only for patients who have been recently diagnosed with Diabeties, within 6 weeks. Which unfortunatly my daughter just passed that mark. Hope more is found for current type 1's out there.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+829victor: "Where is the press on this? Last week there was a story on digg about growing heart valves from bone stem-cells....This is a huge deal, why isn't it (and the heart-valve deal) all over the press?"
Where's all the press? Here's 362 articles on the topic provided by Google, including all those "liberal" sources you seem to be implying are ignoring this issue: http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ncl=1115247605
Just because Rush Limbaugh tells you the "drive by media" is ignoring an issue doesn't mean they actually are. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@rationalicthus: You are just spouting lies. Many amazing things have come out of embryonic stem cell research. Here's a recent and amazing example: http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/06/20/hscout533366.html
Furthermore, your claim that ESC research has more funding than adult stem cell research is preposterous. Remember that AVAILABILITY of ESC lines is very limited. As described here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#nihfund
If you want federal funding to do ESC research you are ONLY allowed to use stem cell lines that originated before August 9th, 2001. This extremely limits the availability of ESCs to academic researchers, and as a result it also limits funding. If funding for ESC research is so great, as you are trying to claim, why is it that states across the country have decided to start funding ESC research to fill the void the federal government should fill? Here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9244363
Finally, the arguments against ESC research are so ignorant and stupid, I can't fathom that it is an issue at all. Embryonic stem cells and abortion are ENTIRELY exclusive of each other. Where DO ESC's come from, you ask? Since the 1970's, in-vitro fertilization has been used so that infertile couples can still have children. The way IVF works is that a human sperm and eggs are combined and induced to fuse and fertilize. From this come out many embryo's -- we're talking about 2 or 3 day embryos in which nothing recognizable has been formed -- and from this selection of embryos the "best looking" is used to develop the child for the couple. What happens to the rest of the undeveloped embryos? They are either THROWN AWAY or frozen and kept in case the couples first embryo fails, or if they decide to have another child. THIS IS WHERE ESC's COME FROM. ***If you are against ESC research, you are against IVF -- and then you're just a prick.***
BUT WAIT! It gets better! There exist another type of embryonic cell type, germ cells, that also exhibit pluripotency. They could be as useful, or even more useful, than stem cells. Guess what? THERE IS NO FEDERAL RESTRICTION ON FUNDING for research on germ cell lines -- even though they come from the same source. It is true that germ cells are very difficult to harvest, and as such there are not many people interested in researching them, but I bring this up to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy that is the federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
It is so clearly and vividly a political ploy by Republicans to win-over the ignorant, religious right (who of course believe the ***** that ESC research == abortion) that it disgusts me.
So, to sum it up: You're wrong. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Miraa: Jehovah's Witnesses and few others are opposed to blood transfusions...
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is great news but the reliance on immunosuppressants isn't good, these have nasty side effects including liver damage, kidney damage or increased cancer risk. Type 1 runs in the family so I look forward to a cure. This is just the beginning, I hope only good things come from this. It is shameful to turn this into a political issue - so adult stem cells were used, does that mean we should stop researching embryonic stem cells? Absolutely not - let's give it a chance before we deem them useless for political reasons.
Here is the study in question:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67477&nfid=crss - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Drescher:
"Embryonic stem cells are available throughout the world (including in the USA) for building medical models and research.Sure, they are regulated and limited to some degree, but the tools are available to see medical breakthroughs."
False. The cell lines available are almost useless and contaminated. Most basic science research labs have government funding and the current restrictions prevent any Embryonic stem cell researcher from using any government equipment in a lab. That's reason why US researchers are leaving the US and the UK, Singapore etc. will develop the next generation cures while US is left behind.
"How about instead of pissing on somebody's beliefs (religious or otherwise), we see some tangible advancements and real-world uses other than pie-in-the-sky "we could probably bring people back from the dead with Embryonic Stem Cells but nobody will let us"."
Why do we bother to research fusion reactors, new unproven drugs and other how did you say it, "pie in the sky" research? That's the most retarded argument I've heard.
"If they truly have that much potential for good than NOONE and NOTHING is going to stop progress from happening and changing the minds of people the world over - not religion, not republicans - over time."
Right wingers sure are trying and making it difficult. - jayzeus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@imperium2000
True, but if their beliefs won't allow them this type of cure, then they don't have to get it. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You might want to see if she can have her cells frozen if she is not yet insulin dependent.
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Err.. for those not aware: Crohn's disease results in the death of bowel-endogenous bacteria. In order to create a new bacterial system you need to have a '***** transplant'. My friend's significant other had to ***** in a box and take it to the hospital, where it was made into a mixture and then 'transplanted to her bowel', by which I mean they stuck it up her arse.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lets deny treatment to the right-wing nut jobs who dont like stem-cell research...
- slowfade1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@imperium and dreicher:
as I scientist, I feel the need to put my two cents in here. The problem with private funding for stem cell research is that you cannot use this money if you work in an academic or governmental laboratory, for the most part. Anyone who receives any amount funding from the NIH or NSF is held to their guidelines (including the ban on research using stem cell lines not currently "approved" for research purposes. The fact is that most scientists work in labs that are in some way funded by these agencies. It is very difficult to get enough funding to run a lab from private sources alone.
As to why we haven't convinced enough private agencies to fund embryonic stem cell research, the argument is unfortunately two-fold. Some of our best scientists simply move to other countries to continue their work with the support of a sympathetic government. This is unfortunate in many ways, including the fact that it slows productivity (moving time and staffing turnover alone could set a project back by a year). Additionaly, there are many drawbacks to working with private funding that causes high-caliber scientists to avoid taking this route. A researcher is held completely at the mercy of their funding resource with respect to the nature of their project. This means that the funding organization (often a corporation with vested interest in biotech) can simply drop the project or ask the researcher to do something they may consider unethical. Governmental funding has a system of checks and balances that requires peer review of proposed projects, meaning that a researcher can design their own projects, which are then reviewed by a community of respected scientists.
So you see, funding at the governmental level won't simply increase the amount of money available to study embryonic stem cells, it will also allow a greater number of scientists (and better caliber scientists, at that) to pursue this work. - paradox4190, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There are other kinds of stem cells besides embryonic stem cells. This is coming from a major pro life person.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6*****, I meant to digg you down.
- e73rock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Several theories exist about what causes Crohn’s disease, but none have been proven.
- ZachRetox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn, I elated that the results are this promising. It's unfortunate that any mention of stem cells in the media is instantly politicized (both by the article and diggers)... This is good news, let's leave it at that.
- Moosington, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Diabetes being taken too seriously? Is it not serious enough that complications from Diabetes rank in the top 10 reasons for death? Or maybe the fact that there are children all over the world that are fighting bouts of insulin shock that lead to seizures and hospital visits? You sound incredibly versed on the subject, your sweeping statement claiming that Stem Cell research involves taking a life is proof of that.
All of that, and I'm sure/hoping you were joking anyway. - foreverdaed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank the scientists and those who have devoted themselves to finding a cure and finding a way. AND those who have donated to the study and use of stem cells!
- Morphinity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why don't all the people who think embryos are humans, start tracking the baby's age upon conception? Why is it that it starts upon birth?
- jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It will be at least 5 or 6 years before the treatment is available probably much longer than that in the United States.
- jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, this is the study in question (you may need a journal subscription to view it):
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/14/1568 - Cornea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It is a shame that the comments on this UK website have been hijacked by the religious rantings of medieval Americans. If you want to replay Cardinal Bellarmine vs. Galileo that is fine, but please remember the rest of the western world has moved on and might not appreciate a perfectly innocent scientific report being jumped on by religious zealots.
- fullphaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is excellent news. Even if it is only a temporary hold over I am thrilled to hear that at least we have turned the tide and are beginning to figure things out.
- jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I must emphasize again that THIS WAS NOT A STEM-CELL THERAPY. We've been doing bone marrow transplants for decades.
- ashke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is very good news. I hope this works and becomes a widespread therapy one day.
- geekanarchy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Don't feed the trolls.
- rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Holy *****. That was like 20 pages long. I decided not to read it. Shut up.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is