Scientists: Embryonic stem cell made

[Zed Snardbody]

Crusing google news this morning. I had to do a double take when I saw where the news story was.

US researchers said they have created a new human embryonic stem cell by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell.



They hope their method could someday provide a way to create tailor-made medical treatments without having to start from scratch using cloning technology.

That would mean generating the valuable cells without using a human egg, and without creating a human embryo, which some people, including President George Bush, find objectionable.

But the team, led by stem cell expert Douglas Melton, Kevin Eggan and others at Harvard Medical School, stress in a report to be published in next Friday's issue of the journal Science that their method is not yet perfect.

Stem cells are the body's master cells, used to continually regenerate tissues, organs and blood. Those taken from days-old embryos are considered the most versatile. They can produce any kind of tissue in the body

AlJazeera

[spikenigma]

whenever I hear about these little breakthroughs, the scientists always stress how far off the goal is

didn't know Aljazeera reported on things like this, interesting

[wolveraptor]

Damnit, that's what I was talking about days ago, in this thread. It was on NPR.

[Lord Zentei]

After missing this thread and starting a new one, I'm reposting CNN's article on the matter here:

Researchers report potential stem cell breakthrough

Monday, August 22, 2005 Posted: 1745 GMT (0145 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Harvard scientists announced they've discovered a way to fuse adult skin cells with embryonic stem cells, a promising breakthrough that could lead to the creation of useful stem cells without first having to create and destroy human embryos.

The scientists said they were able to show in their early research that the fused cell "was reprogrammed to its embryonic state." Such a breakthrough could have the effect of taming a biting national debate about the ethics of stem-cell research, but not any time soon.

"If future experiments indicate that this reprogrammed state is retained after removing the embryonic stem cell DNA -- currently a formidable technical hurdle -- the hybrid cells could theoretically be used to produce embryonic stem cells lines that are tailored to individual patients without the need to create and destroy human embryos," said a summary of the research reported on the Science journal site.

Researcher Kevin Eggan stressed, however, that the technology is preliminary.

"I can't stress enough that this technology is not ready for prime time right now," Eggan said at a briefing Monday. "It is not a replacement for those techniques that we already have for derivation of embryonic stem cells."

"This is the first step down a long and uncertain road," said Eggan, noting that it comes with its own set of limitations.

It could easily be 10 years before the process is usable in people, he said. Eggan said, "There are still fundamental biological hurdles that have to be overcome."

The goal is to make stem cells that carry a patient's genes, and only the patients genes, he said. The cells created in this process carry too much DNA, both that of the stem cell and that from the embryonic stem cell used in the process.

The new process still involves use of an embryonic stem cell, but the researchers hope it will tell them how an adult cell can be reprogrammed into an embryonic stem cell without use of embryonic cells to begin with.

"There are groups of people in the U.S. and elsewhere who feel it's fundamentally wrong to destroy early state (stem cells)," he said. Learning how the adult cell is changed might lead to a way around that concern, Eggan said.

The researchers used laboratory grown human embryonic stem cells -- such as the ones that President Bush has already approved for use by federally funded researchers -- to essentially convert a skin cell into an embryonic stem cell itself.

If a number of hurdles can be overcome in subsequent research, the new technique "may circumvent some of the logistical and societal concerns" that have hampered much of the research in this country, Chad A. Cowan, Eggan and colleagues from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute reported in the Science article.

Those social concerns are reflected in the Senate's looming debate over a House-passed bill to force taxpayers to fund stem cell research that would destroy human embryos, legislation that Bush has promised to veto. Bush and many fellow conservatives believe it is immoral to create embryos only to destroy them, even in the name of scientific progress that could cure or treat diseases afflicting millions of people.

Debate and a vote on the bill will proceed next month as planned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's spokeswoman, Amy Call, said Monday. Frist earlier this month said he will vote for the bill, widely expected to pass even in the face of Bush's veto threat.

The hybrid cells created by the Harvard team "had the appearance, growth rate, and several key genetic characteristics of human embryonic cells," the summary of their work said.

"They also behaved like embryonic cells, differentiating into cells from each of the three main tissue types that form in a developing embryo," it said. The authors conclude that human embryonic cells have the ability to reprogram adult cell chromosomes following cell fusion."

[wolveraptor]

If I could repeat my question from my thread: would it be beneficial for us to abandon conventional embryo creation (given we've perfected this method) in order to appease the fundies, or would giving in to them be a bad idea?

[Lord Zentei]

If I could repeat my question from my thread: would it be beneficial for us to abandon conventional embryo creation (given we've perfected this method) in order to appease the fundies, or would giving in to them be a bad idea?

I'd say that giving in to them would be a bad idea. I'd reccomend allowing research in both technologies, then we will see which one becomes more useful in the end.

[Zero]

I don't see why giving in is a bad idea, really, unless the practical advantages and disadvantages turn out to be significant. Many said in the last argument of this sort that giving in to them would be a concession that they were right, but really, does it even fucking matter as long as they LAY THE FUCK OFF!? I hate fundies...

[Lord Zentei]

I don't see why giving in is a bad idea, really, unless the practical advantages and disadvantages turn out to be significant. Many said in the last argument of this sort that giving in to them would be a concession that they were right, but really, does it even fucking matter as long as they LAY THE FUCK OFF!? I hate fundies...

You underestimate theie ambitions. give them an inch, and they won't lay off. Instead, they will be energized and attack science on another fromt. This makes it a bad idea.

Besides, it has yet to be seen which technology is more useful. If it turns out that this method is better than the embryonic stem cells, then fine, we stop using them. If not, then discarding the embryonic method to appease the fundamentalists is a bad idea for this reason as well.

[Zero]

You're assuming that their actual goal is to fight science. They don't see it this way. They simply want their views given equal consideration because they can't understand that it isn't a rational view. They don't truly want to bring down science, and in this case, it may be just as practical.

[Zero]

You are right, though. If it's a far less practical method, there's no reason that it should be considered differently.

[wolveraptor]

I think giving in at such an early stage, when it's not yet clear which method is better, might a) be detrimental to progress and b) galvanize fundies into thinking their mindless fanaticism actually works. Think about it: the last victory they've had is a scattered one on the gay-marriage front, and that's only because so many moderates agreed with them.

[Lord Zentei]

You're assuming that their actual goal is to fight science.

No. I claim that this is the result of their activities. Certainly it is the case with evolution and stem cell research.

They don't see it this way. They simply want their views given equal consideration because they can't understand that it isn't a rational view.

Ergo: they are, ultimately and effectively, fighting science which is a rational enterprise. Giving their views "equal consideration" with science is bullshit and undermines the progress of scientific research and public education. Giving the original Flat Earth Society "equal consideration" would have done likewise.

[Zero]

Yes, I agree that giving them equal consideration is stupid, but if their public outcry against one of these methods is strong enough that it actually makes that method more of an inconvenience, then it would be good to let them have just that one bit. If not, then I don't give a fuck. In the end, I just hope for the most efficient process there can be... after all, juvenile diabetes is a genetic thing, and I've heard claims that it may be helped by stem cell research.