Comments on: Stem Cell Century http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229967 John Quiggin Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:09:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229967 Thanks, Fitz. I note the following from the first article <blockquote>The one thing we can't say yet is that whether these stem cells generated in this way will have the full potential that embryonic stem cells have," Taylor said. "They probably won't. But exactly where that line will be drawn isn't known. If they do almost everything that embryonic stem cells do, that'll be wonderful. If they don't, we may still need to consider using embryonic stem cells.</blockquote> which appears to leave open the key question you raised. The headline of the second story reads "Discovery Could Help Reprogram Adult Cells To Embryonic Stem Cell-like State" which yields a similar view. So, I'll leave my statement as it stands for the moment. Of course, this is a fast-moving field. Thanks, Fitz. I note the following from the first article
The one thing we can’t say yet is that whether these stem cells generated in this way will have the full potential that embryonic stem cells have,” Taylor said. “They probably won’t. But exactly where that line will be drawn isn’t known. If they do almost everything that embryonic stem cells do, that’ll be wonderful. If they don’t, we may still need to consider using embryonic stem cells.
which appears to leave open the key question you raised. The headline of the second story reads “Discovery Could Help Reprogram Adult Cells To Embryonic Stem Cell-like State” which yields a similar view.

So, I’ll leave my statement as it stands for the moment. Of course, this is a fast-moving field.

]]> By: Fitz http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229794 Fitz Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:04:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229794 John Quiggin Two new papers have just been published documenting further advances with induced pluripotent stem cells—stem cells that are “embryonic-like” but that are not derived from embryos They relate further successful attempts at creating induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells in humans. Here’s a summary of the Yamanaka results: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080214/scientists-show-stem-cells-dont-cause-cancer.htm Here is the paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154884v1?sa_campaign=Email/pap/14-February-2008/10.1126/science.1154884 The second paper, from a team of researchers at Harvard, does some important background work in the reprograming methodology. Science Daily summarizes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215130617.htm The full paper is here. http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1934590908000659 John Quiggin

Two new papers have just been published documenting further advances with induced pluripotent stem cells—stem cells that are “embryonic-like” but that are not derived from embryos They relate further successful attempts at creating induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells in humans.

Here’s a summary of the Yamanaka results:

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080214/scientists-show-stem-cells-dont-cause-cancer.htm

Here is the paper.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154884v1?sa_campaign=Email/pap/14-February-2008/10.1126/science.1154884

The second paper, from a team of researchers at Harvard, does some important background work in the reprograming methodology. Science Daily summarizes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215130617.htm

The full paper is here.

http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1934590908000659

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229732 John Quiggin Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229732 Fitz: As I said, I haven't followed this part of the debate very closely, but there have been previous instances of strong claims being made and invalidated, either because of error or fraud. I don't have any reason to disbelieve the latest claimed discovery, but (AFAIK) it hasn't had the kind of replication required to be regarded as firmly established. And if it is established, I don't know whether it will render research on embryo lines obsolete in general, or only in some cases. Feel free to point to links correcting me on any of these points. MPowell, I discuss this a bit more in the linked post. I don't see why awards couldn't be given in a manner similar to that for research grants (in practice, these grants are, to a significant extent, rewards for previous success). Fitz: As I said, I haven’t followed this part of the debate very closely, but there have been previous instances of strong claims being made and invalidated, either because of error or fraud. I don’t have any reason to disbelieve the latest claimed discovery, but (AFAIK) it hasn’t had the kind of replication required to be regarded as firmly established. And if it is established, I don’t know whether it will render research on embryo lines obsolete in general, or only in some cases. Feel free to point to links correcting me on any of these points.

MPowell, I discuss this a bit more in the linked post. I don’t see why awards couldn’t be given in a manner similar to that for research grants (in practice, these grants are, to a significant extent, rewards for previous success).

]]> By: Fitz http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229648 Fitz Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:11:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229648 <i> “Research on human stem cells has been at the centre of one the more ferocious science policy debates in the US, only partially cooled off by recent claims that the necessary cultures can be generated from samples taking from adults, rather than from human embryos destroyed in the process.” </i> One wonders why you characterize the discovery of pluripotent stem cells from skin tissue as “recent claims” rather than “new discovery” or the like. Do you have some reason to think that this discovery does not make the harvesting and destruction of human embryos obsolete & unnecessary? Do you have reason to believe that continuing scientific research should be conducted on embryo derived stem cell lines rather than the new type? If this new source proves ready, do you believe holdouts will persist in using embryo derived lines? If so …why? “Research on human stem cells has been at the centre of one the more ferocious science policy debates in the US, only partially cooled off by recent claims that the necessary cultures can be generated from samples taking from adults, rather than from human embryos destroyed in the process.”

One wonders why you characterize the discovery of pluripotent stem cells from skin tissue as “recent claims” rather than “new discovery” or the like.

Do you have some reason to think that this discovery does not make the harvesting and destruction of human embryos obsolete & unnecessary? Do you have reason to believe that continuing scientific research should be conducted on embryo derived stem cell lines rather than the new type?

If this new source proves ready, do you believe holdouts will persist in using embryo derived lines? If so …why?

]]> By: mpowell http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229632 mpowell Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:52:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229632 I think I've heard this prize oriented theory before. Have someone thought much about the practical implications this poses? I can't imagine doing a startup in an environment where my payout will be determined somehow by a politician. The marketplace is a rough place for a small company to compete, but in Congress they have no chance whatsoever. That kind of system might work if you can somehow produce a reasonable process, but it also has a chance to be utterly terrible. Imagine a system where big companies lobby Congress as to how much money they should be awarded for their research. The payments to crucial donors part could happen independently, of course. I think I’ve heard this prize oriented theory before. Have someone thought much about the practical implications this poses? I can’t imagine doing a startup in an environment where my payout will be determined somehow by a politician. The marketplace is a rough place for a small company to compete, but in Congress they have no chance whatsoever. That kind of system might work if you can somehow produce a reasonable process, but it also has a chance to be utterly terrible. Imagine a system where big companies lobby Congress as to how much money they should be awarded for their research.

The payments to crucial donors part could happen independently, of course.

]]> By: Person http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229600 Person Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:28:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229600 <i> is a useful guide to the way the debate evolved in the US. </i> The debate didn't evolve, it was intelligently designed. (Hey, don't blame me, I'm just obeying the law that requires someone to make precisely that snarky remark every time someone uses that terminology in reference to the US and government funding of life sciences.) is a useful guide to the way the debate evolved in the US.

The debate didn’t evolve, it was intelligently designed.

(Hey, don’t blame me, I’m just obeying the law that requires someone to make precisely that snarky remark every time someone uses that terminology in reference to the US and government funding of life sciences.)

]]> By: Stuart http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/comment-page-1/#comment-229560 Stuart Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:50:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/24/stem-cell-century/#comment-229560 I take it the second US in the second paragraph was meant to be UK? <em>D'oh! yet again! Fixed now I hope. It should be Australia - JQ</em> I take it the second US in the second paragraph was meant to be UK?

D’oh! yet again! Fixed now I hope. It should be Australia – JQ

]]>