4 ms·

Not only is this groundbreaking with respect to the potential ease of harvesting stem cells, it could also likely change the 'debate' on stem cells. If all we n

by jds375 13y ago

Not only is this groundbreaking with respect to the potential ease of harvesting stem cells, it could also likely change the 'debate' on stem cells. If all we need to harvest them is some ordinary cells and acid, then the whole 'embryo' debate should no longer be an obstacle.

berberous 13y ago
They already have a way of making induced pluripotent stem cells without using embryos. I think it involves using a virus to inject certain genes. My cells were turned into stem cells in this manner and can be ordered online by researchers. If this new technique is cheaper/easier, that's awesome, but the debate should have already shifted past ebryos.
andrewflnr 13y ago
There was never a debate on "stem cells", only embryonic stem cells. AFAICT, the same people who have been against embryonic stem cell research have always pushed adult stem cell research as an alternative, which had already produced results at that point. The insistence on embryonic stem cells always seemed pretty stupid to me.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > The insistence on embryonic stem cells always seemed pretty stupid to me. If embryonic stem cells are the only option for some protocols, due to adult stem cell limitations, then no, the insistence isn't stupid. It's practical.
JunkDNA 13y ago
As another poster says, there was not ever a substantive "debate" with regard to ordinary stem cells, only ones derived from fetal tissues and discarded fertilized embryos from IVF. One of the things about the embryonic stem cell debate I always found maddening is that none of the proponents of using them had a solid answer to overcoming immune rejection problem. If you're going to make new organs from someone else's tissue, you have a lot of heavy lifting to do to make sure those things don't cause the recipient to attack the cells/tissues that you've transplanted. This is a massive problem with organ transplants generally, and I see no reason why stem cells wouldn't be in the same category (though I'd love to know if my knowledge is outdated/wrong). Even assuming that there are ways to get around the immune system (e.g. taking anti-rejection meds). It is likely far easier and safer to work with pluripotent cells from an adult who is also both the donor and recipient. Even if there's a genetic defect that needs to be "patched" prior to re-implantation, that is far easier than trying to make a foreign cell look like it's from you or being on meds for the rest of your life so your body doesn't attack that new liver.
- zspade 13y ago
  Two words, Therapeutic Cloning. From the center for Bioethics and Human Dignity(http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview): 6. What is the relationship between embryonic stem cell research and "therapeutic" cloning? Another potential obstacle encountered by researchers engaging in embryonic stem cell research is the possibility that embryonic stem cells would not be immunologically compatible with patients and would therefore be “rejected,” much like a non-compatible kidney would be rejected. A proposed solution to this problem is to create an embryonic clone of a patient and subsequently destroy the clone in order to harvest his or her stem cells. Cloning for this purpose has been termed “therapeutic” cloning—despite the fact that the subject of the research—the clone—is not healed but killed.

by jds375 13y ago

berberous 13y ago

They already have a way of making induced pluripotent stem cells without using embryos. I think it involves using a virus to inject certain genes. My cells were turned into stem cells in this manner and can be ordered online by researchers. If this new technique is cheaper/easier, that's awesome, but the debate should have already shifted past ebryos.

andrewflnr 13y ago

There was never a debate on "stem cells", only embryonic stem cells. AFAICT, the same people who have been against embryonic stem cell research have always pushed adult stem cell research as an alternative, which had already produced results at that point. The insistence on embryonic stem cells always seemed pretty stupid to me.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
> The insistence on embryonic stem cells always seemed pretty stupid to me. If embryonic stem cells are the only option for some protocols, due to adult stem cell limitations, then no, the insistence isn't stupid. It's practical.

JunkDNA 13y ago

As another poster says, there was not ever a substantive "debate" with regard to ordinary stem cells, only ones derived from fetal tissues and discarded fertilized embryos from IVF. One of the things about the embryonic stem cell debate I always found maddening is that none of the proponents of using them had a solid answer to overcoming immune rejection problem. If you're going to make new organs from someone else's tissue, you have a lot of heavy lifting to do to make sure those things don't cause the recipient to attack the cells/tissues that you've transplanted. This is a massive problem with organ transplants generally, and I see no reason why stem cells wouldn't be in the same category (though I'd love to know if my knowledge is outdated/wrong). Even assuming that there are ways to get around the immune system (e.g. taking anti-rejection meds). It is likely far easier and safer to work with pluripotent cells from an adult who is also both the donor and recipient. Even if there's a genetic defect that needs to be "patched" prior to re-implantation, that is far easier than trying to make a foreign cell look like it's from you or being on meds for the rest of your life so your body doesn't attack that new liver.

zspade 13y ago
Two words, Therapeutic Cloning. From the center for Bioethics and Human Dignity(http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview): 6. What is the relationship between embryonic stem cell research and "therapeutic" cloning? Another potential obstacle encountered by researchers engaging in embryonic stem cell research is the possibility that embryonic stem cells would not be immunologically compatible with patients and would therefore be “rejected,” much like a non-compatible kidney would be rejected. A proposed solution to this problem is to create an embryonic clone of a patient and subsequently destroy the clone in order to harvest his or her stem cells. Cloning for this purpose has been termed “therapeutic” cloning—despite the fact that the subject of the research—the clone—is not healed but killed.