Adult stem cells in breakthrough

[MDM4AU 336]

Adult stem cells in breakthrough

Study shows they have same ability to multiply as embryonic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: June 23, 2005

5:17 p.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Hailed as a ground-breaking study, scientists in Pittsburgh say they've discovered that adult stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply.

The previously unknown characteristic indicates post-natal stem cells may play an important therapeutic role, according to the researchers at the city's Children's Hospital.

In the heated national debate, embryonic stem cells -- regarded as destruction of human life by opponents -- have been touted as having a greater capacity than adult cells to multiply, making them more desirable to research as a potential treatment, noted Johnny Huard, director of the hospital's Growth and Development Laboratory.

"Scientists have typically believed that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells, but this study demonstrates that is not the case," said Huard, the senior author of the study.

The Bush administration has been criticized for using moral arguments to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Proponents of embryonic stem-cell research argue the cells are desirable to researchers because they are more versatile, holding the potential to produce virtually any specialized type of cell.

California voters have approved $3 billion in state funds for stem-cell studies, including embryonic research.

Nevertheless, the most successful therapies and experiments to date have involved cells that require no use of embryos.

"The entire world is closely following the advances in stem-cell research, and everyone is interested in the potential of stem cells to treat everything from diabetes to Parkinson's disease," Huard said. "But there are also many ethical concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells, concerns that you don't have with post-natal or adult stem cells."

Huard said he believes the study should "erase doubts scientists may have had about the potential effectiveness of post-natal stem cells."

The research showed adult cells were able to match the the capacity of embryonic cells to live through more than 200 population doublings -- a method of measuring the age of a population of cells.

Bridget Deasy, a scientist in Huard's laboratory, found the post-natal cells were able to undergo population doublings while maintaining their ability to regenerate muscle in an animal model, a key finding indicating they could maintain their treatment potential.

The findings are published in the July 1 issue of Molecular Biology of the Cell, published by the American Society for Cell Biology.

The paper is under consideration for Molecular Biology of Cell paper of the year.

The researchers also found that, unlike embryonic stem cells, rejection by the recipient's immune system is not an issue with adult stem cells.

Huard, one of the world's top cell biologists, is searching for a cure for Duchene muscular dystrophy and researching the use of stem cells to repair injured muscle following sports-related injuries, as well as to treat cardiac, joint and bone injuries.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune reported the announcement of research indicating that human stem cells taken from a patient's bone marrow may help in treating Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurologic diseases,

At a meeting in Philadelphia Wednesday, Kiminobu Sugaya of the Chicago biotechnology firm NewNeural LLC said he has processed human stem cells into nerve cells and implanted them in the brains of aged, demented rats, improving their memories.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44955

[Tigermike 3,053]

That's amazing, everything I have read up till now has said that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells. If that is not the case, the debate should change, don't you think?

[MDM4AU 336]

That's amazing, everything I have read up till now has said that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells.  If that is not the case, the debate should change, don't you think?

165963[/snapback]

One would think...

[AURaptor 1,126]

I find it extremely dispicable that the embryonic stem cell crowd waves false hope in the faces of those afflicted w/ injuries or diseases by implying that only THEIR area of study will pay off. It's damn near criminal to prey on the emotions of patients, family and friends for the sake of advancing their political agenda via the scientific arena. There's every indication that this whole issue is completely blown way out of proportion, and we all can understand why some are hell bent on seeing that it stays in the public instead of scientific circles.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

we all can understand why some are hell bent on seeing that it stays in the public instead of scientific circles.

I don't claim to understand the scientific details of stem cell research, so I don't have a strong opinion on the subject at this point. I have no doubt there are those who overstate their case on both sides, but issues such as this ARE public policy issues. Bush had to make a policy decision a couple of years ago on the issue. Hopefully, one appropriately uses the known scientific knowledge, but science does not determine what is ethical. Public debate should be informed, but it should happen.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Bush had to make a policy decision a couple of years ago on the issue. Hopefully, one appropriately uses the known scientific knowledge, but science does not determine what is ethical. Public debate should be informed, but it should happen.

Oh yeah, Bush was so terrible, his administration has directed more $ be spent on Stem Cell research than any other President. And don't kid yourself about science and ethics.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Bush had to make a policy decision a couple of years ago on the issue. Hopefully, one appropriately uses the known scientific knowledge, but science does not determine what is ethical. Public debate should be informed, but it should happen.

Oh yeah, Bush was so terrible, his administration has directed more $ be spent on Stem Cell research than any other President. And don't kid yourself about science and ethics.

166158[/snapback]

You're stuck in one gear-- attack and be argumentative regardless of what is said. I didn't evaluate Bush's decision-- maybe its a good one. I do understand his basic reasoning behind it. If I knew more about the subject I might agree or disagree. As I said, I don't currently have a strong opinion. I certainly don't think the issue is simple. I only pointed out that this issue is uavoidably in the public policy arena.

I don't what your reference to science and ethics means, but ethical decisions are not determined by what science is capable of doing. I think that is Bush's point as well on this issue.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Bush had to make a policy decision a couple of years ago on the issue. Hopefully, one appropriately uses the known scientific knowledge, but science does not determine what is ethical. Public debate should be informed, but it should happen.

Oh yeah, Bush was so terrible, his administration has directed more $ be spent on Stem Cell research than any other President. And don't kid yourself about science and ethics.

166158[/snapback]

You're stuck in one gear-- attack and be argumentative regardless of what is said. I didn't evaluate Bush's decision-- maybe its a good one. I do understand his basic reasoning behind it. If I knew more about the subject I might agree or disagree. As I said, I don't currently have a strong opinion. I certainly don't think the issue is simple. I only pointed out that this issue is uavoidably in the public policy arena.

I don't what your reference to science and ethics means, but ethical decisions are not determined by what science is capable of doing. I think that is Bush's point as well on this issue.

166162[/snapback]

I gotta back TexasTiger on this one AURaptor, though you and I normally find ourselves on the same side in political discussions. You blurted out an acidic response without apparently reading what he said, almost like it was just a knee-jerk, automated response to someone you've pigeonholed as your permanent opponent.

I find it extremely dispicable that the embryonic stem cell crowd waves false hope in the faces of those afflicted w/ injuries or diseases by implying that only THEIR area of study will pay off. It's damn near criminal to prey on the emotions of patients, family and friends for the sake of advancing their political agenda via the scientific arena. There's every indication that this whole issue is completely blown way out of proportion, and we all can understand why some are hell bent on seeing that it stays in the public instead of scientific circles.

What in that article would qualify as "false hope"? Don't just make such broad accusations without some specifics.

And don't kid yourself about science and ethics.

Care to elaborate? TT had an excellent point here. There are many advances and discoveries that come through science, but ultimately the application of those things is not a debate reserved only for the scientists themselves. It's a necessary broader public debate that must obviously be informed by scientists, but also includes people form all kinds of backgrounds and specialties. Science deals with "how" and "what". Ethics deals with "why/why not" and "should/should not". The former is limited to the scientists and researchers. The latter involves us all. If you have some salient points to actually put out there to demonstrate why that's not the right way to view this, we'd welcome the insight.

And dial it back a notch. This is a discussion, not a flame fest.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

And dial it back a notch.  This is a discussion, not a flame fest.

166204[/snapback]

Bravo, thank you, Titan. Some on here are just too damn eager to take the opposing view from others that it is sickening.

I am too uneducated on this whole issue to make a comment on this issue, but I felt compelled to thank Titan for his call for sane and civilized discussion. Too many Rush and Franken wannabes hang out here. Oops, does that count as a flame?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Too many Rush and Franken wannabes hang out here.  Oops, does that count as a flame?

166226[/snapback]

Yes it does young man. Now march right over to the corner and stay there!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Too many Rush and Franken wannabes hang out here.  Oops, does that count as a flame?

166226[/snapback]

Yes it does young man. Now march right over to the corner and stay there!

166241[/snapback]

Mega-dittoes!!!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yep, I responded in a broad, general manner. Guess that makes me human.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yep, I responded in a broad, general manner. Guess that makes me human.

166258[/snapback]

Noted. Please now take this opportunity to expound on where you think we're wrong.

And I think you owe TexasTiger an apology. You completely went off without any justification.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yep, I responded in a broad, general manner. Guess that makes me human.

166258[/snapback]

Noted. Please now take this opportunity to expound on where you think we're wrong.

And I think you owe TexasTiger an apology. You completely went off without any justification.

166261[/snapback]

How did I 'completely go off ' on TexasTiger? My sole intent was to express annoyance at how so many ( in general ) try to use this issue as a political sledge hammer. To be honest, John Edwards and his antics are what come to mind first. Perhaps I should have said as such. It wasn't so much initially that anyone here stated.

I made a quick, generalized reply to the 'stem cell ' topic. That is all.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Could stem cell research help me grow a new toe? If so, I am all for it!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yep, I responded in a broad, general manner. Guess that makes me human.

166258[/snapback]

Noted. Please now take this opportunity to expound on where you think we're wrong.

And I think you owe TexasTiger an apology. You completely went off without any justification.

166261[/snapback]

How did I 'completely go off ' on TexasTiger? My sole intent was to express annoyance at how so many ( in general ) try to use this issue as a political sledge hammer. To be honest, John Edwards and his antics are what come to mind first. Perhaps I should have said as such. It wasn't so much initially that anyone here stated.

I made a quick, generalized reply to the 'stem cell ' topic. That is all.

166267[/snapback]

You're right. I overstated. You took a rather pissy tone of voice with TexasTiger for no good reason. The "generalized" response was the more acrimonious of your two contributions and was curious as a response to what I saw as a very encouraging article.

Do you mind explaining your reaction to the science and ethics tension that he mentioned and I followed up on?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Do you mind explaining your reaction to the science and ethics tension that he mentioned and I followed up on?.

Well, I'll respond to what TexasTiger said, as my reply was to his comment..

.but science does not determine what is ethical.

There isn't a clear cut line between science and ethics. Granted, the role of science isn't to DETERMINE what is ethical, but there are a great many instances where previous views of what is 'ethical' are challenged by what science uncovers. Science often delves into new territories which strain the limits of society. It was once deemed 'unethical ' for anyone to cut open a corpse to try to understand how the human body worked. Today postmortem exams are routine, even manditory. Are our views on embryonic stem cells destined to be seen in the same light as we currently view such early attemptted autopsies? Time will tell.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

There isn't a clear cut line between science and ethics. Granted, the role of science isn't to DETERMINE what is ethical, but there are a great many instances where previous views of what is 'ethical' are challenged by what science uncovers. Science often delves into new territories which strain the limits of society. It was once deemed 'unethical ' for anyone to cut open a corpse to try to understand how the human body worked.  Today postmortem exams are routine, even manditory.  Are our views on embryonic stem cells destined to be seen in the same light as we currently view such early attempted autopsies? Time will tell.

166276[/snapback]

This is a good point. Scientists are included in the ethical debate, but it is critical that decisions on ethics be determined by society at large, not just the capabilities given or revealed by science.

As it is, I find this article to be very encouraging. If adult stem cells or even cord blood can give the same benefits as embryonic stem cells are believed to have, this is good news. We can forge ahead with promising research without diving headlong into the more debated and troubling ethical areas.

[AURaptor 1,126]

As it is, I find this article to be very encouraging. If adult stem cells or even cord blood can give the same benefits as embryonic stem cells are believed to have, this is good news. We can forge ahead with promising research without diving headlong into the more debated and troubling ethical areas.

I agree 100%

And yet we hear so much about how backward thinking some are simply because they question the wisdom of using FEDERAL $$$ on embryonic stem cell research ( never mind that private $$$ is still perfectly legal ) when the article makes it clear...

Nevertheless, the most successful therapies and experiments to date have involved cells that require no use of embryos

[TitanTiger 20,510]

As it is, I find this article to be very encouraging. If adult stem cells or even cord blood can give the same benefits as embryonic stem cells are believed to have, this is good news. We can forge ahead with promising research without diving headlong into the more debated and troubling ethical areas.

I agree 100%

And yet we hear so much about how backward thinking some are simply because they question the wisdom of using FEDERAL $$$ on embryonic stem cell research ( never mind that private $$$ is still perfectly legal ) when the article makes it clear...

Nevertheless, the most successful therapies and experiments to date have involved cells that require no use of embryos

166284[/snapback]

Well damn, Raptor! We were in agreement the whole time and still had all this arguing. This is all your fault.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Well damn, Raptor! We were in agreement the whole time and still had all this arguing. This is all your fault.

Don't that make it more fun?

Guilty as charged.