Embyronic Stem Cell Research Supports, Please Read!

[BasketCase]

The original post actually doesn't have much bearing on the stem cell debate.

What it really shows is that all science should be regarded with a critical eye, and verified before being accepted--because there are always a few unscrupulous souls out there who are willing to stoop low and deceive everybody in order to gain fame or money.

 

[JohnRM]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-12-23T163050Z_01_KRA309204_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-KOREA-DC.XML&archived=False



So what do you now say about the "ground breaking" research of this disgraced "scientist"?


EDIT: Or, what BasketCase said...above...

This proves once again that the best results for Stem Cell Research is from Adult cells, not from Embryos.

No it doesn't. It proves that this guy was doing something wrong. The idea behind his work may still hold value.

 

[classical_hero]

I do like how everyone was saying that this is good news what this scientist had done, but now that his research is proven to be fraudulent, everyone is now saying that it does not matter too much what he did. Does it occur to you guys that alot of research has been taken from this research, so do you realise that most research into ESC it based on falsified research? It does seem that ethics in research is missing and that all that is important it the results. You do realise that this type of reasoning was the same tyoe used by Nazi scientist in the research done in Concentration camps and also the Japanese reseach done in many parts of China. Science without the restraint of ethics is very dangerous.

 

[Perfection]

I do like how everyone was saying that this is good news what this scientist had done, but now that his research is proven to be fraudulent, everyone is now saying that it does not matter too much what he did.

It very much does matter what he did, it was an unethical action that hampers research. What it doesn't change much is our opinion on the subject.

Does it occur to you guys that alot of research has been taken from this research, so do you realise that most research into ESC it based on falsified research?

Do you have a percentage of what research is based off of that research? I have a seaking suspicion that you are grossly exaggerating its impact.

It does seem that ethics in research is missing and that all that is important it the results.

Not really, lots and lots of research happens all the time. Occasionally they will be shown to be fruads. I don't allege that all clergy are unethical based on reports of peadophile priests. Research is a human endeavour. Human endeavours have unethical behavior. The best way to deal with it is acknowledge its presence and compensate.


Just an interesting quote on the topic

Good science is governed by a whole set of rules and processes, that make it harder to bullfeathers in science than in any other area of public life

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAA22.htm

 

[classical_hero]

Here is another example of the hyprocracy of ESCR promoters. I wonder how many people have heard of Irving Weissman. Here is what he said about ASC in one report co authored by himself. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12215650&dopt=Abstract

Little evidence for developmental plasticity of adult hematopoietic stem cells.

Wagers AJ, Sherwood RI, Christensen JL, Weissman IL.

Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

To rigorously test the in vivo cell fate specificity of bone marrow (BM) hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), we generated chimeric animals by transplantation of a single green fluorescent protein (GFP)-marked HSC into lethally irradiated nontransgenic recipients. Single HSCs robustly reconstituted peripheral blood leukocytes in these animals, but did not contribute appreciably to nonhematopoietic tissues, including brain, kidney, gut, liver, and muscle. Similarly, in GFP+:GFP- parabiotic mice, we found substantial chimerism of hematopoietic but not nonhematopoietic cells. These data indicate that "transdifferentiation" of circulating HSCs and/or their progeny is an extremely rare event, if it occurs at all.

But he also co authored this paper.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...abs/nm1100_1229.html&dynoptions=doi1073510204

Purified hematopoietic stem cells can differentiate into hepatocytes in vivo
Eric Lagasse1, Heather Connors1, Muhsen Al-Dhalimy2, Michael Reitsma1, Monika Dohse1, Linda Osborne1, Xin Wang2, Milton Finegold3, Irving L. Weissman4 & Markus Grompe2

1 StemCells, 525 Del Rey Avenue, Suite C, Sunnyvale, California 94085, USA

2 Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, L103, Portland, Oregon 97201, USA

3 Department of Pathology, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA

4 Department of Pathology and Developmental Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Eric Lagasse

The characterization of hepatic progenitor cells is of great scientific and clinical interest. Here we report that intravenous injection of adult bone marrow cells in the FAH-/- mouse, an animal model of tyrosinemia type I, rescued the mouse and restored the biochemical function of its liver. Moreover, within bone marrow, only rigorously purified hematopoietic stem cells gave rise to donor-derived hematopoietic and hepatic regeneration. This result seems to contradict the conventional assumptions of the germ layer origins of tissues such as the liver, and raises the question of whether the cells of the hematopoietic stem cell phenotype are pluripotent hematopoietic cells that retain the ability to transdifferentiate, or whether they are more primitive multipotent cells.

So you can see that there is plenty of lies made about the potential of ASCR when in fact ASCR is both active right now and shows great promice in the future also.

 

[Archbob]

That is wonderful to hear. Why don't you also go on other far fetched Ideas? Science is meant to be about proof and if there is proof that it exists, then more research is to be done to and idea, if not, then we should stop wasting our time on that issue. It should be about empirical results, not hope.

If everyone was conservative, we'd still believe the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[Perfection]

So you can see that there is plenty of lies made about the potential of ASCR when in fact ASCR is both active right now and shows great promice in the future also.

ASC and ESC both hold a lot of potential. Few dispute that. They each, though, have limitations. ASC is limited in variability, ESC requires far more coaxing.

As you've mentioned ASC is great for many things, but that doesn't mean we're hypocrites for recognizing its limitations.

 

[classical_hero]

If everyone was conservative, we'd still believe the sun revolved around the earth.

Great come back. I mean that is such a profound statement. You seem to forget that Aristotle was the founder of this theory, not the Bible. So you must blame Greek philosophy for that error, not christians. You obviously do not know much about the history behind the case of Galileo. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
If you read this you will see that it was the Catholic Church that condemned him, not the Bible. See also this. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
I'll quote a few paragraphs to show that Galileo believed in the Bible and that he believed that Science and scripture did not contradict ech other.

Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]

He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.

"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]

The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.

Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.

Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place..." Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage "observer true." In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]

A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air. Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.

See how Galileo used the Bible to defend his position, so it is clear that it was not the Bible that condemned Galileo, but it was the Catholic Church that did the condemning. It was only after a about one hundred years of evidence did the Catholic Church see that they were wrong in their assumptions about the solar system. It was the Catholic Church, not the Bible that is at fault.

 

[classical_hero]

ASC and ESC both hold a lot of potential. Few dispute that. They each, though, have limitations. ASC is limited in variability, ESC requires far more coaxing.

As you've mentioned ASC is great for many things, but that doesn't mean we're hypocrites for recognizing its limitations.

So you say that ASCs are not pluripotent, then look at this. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/ASCpluripotency.pdf

It gives numerous example of the fact that ASCs are infact pluripotent and thus this will make ESCs not necessary. In some article they have been said to have Embryonic like qualities. So you see that ASCs have many benefits over ESCs.

Here is a quote of the 3rd proof behind the pluripotency of ASCs. The bit in bold is my emphasis to show that we could be wasting our time on ESCs, when ASCs have all the answers, that ESCs so far have not shown.

Cardiologist Douglas Losordo at Tufts University showed that a type of bone marrow stem
cell can turn into most tissue types, and can regenerate damaged heart. According to
Losordo, bone marrow "is like a repair kit. Nature provided us with these tools to repair organ
damage." "I think embryonic stem cells are going to fade in the rearview mirror of adult stem
cells." "This discovery represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy.” “Based on our
findings we believe these newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate into
most tissue types in the human body. This is a very unique property that until this time has
only been found in embryonic stem cells." Yoon Y-s et al., “Clonally expanded novel multipotent
stem cells from human bone marrow regenerate myocardium after myocardial infarction,” Journal of
Clinical Investigation 115, 326-338, February 2005.

 

[Perfection]

So you say that ASCs are not pluripotent, then look at this. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/ASCpluripotency.pdf

Multipotent? Definitely! Pluripotent? Maybe. Totipotent? Absolutly not!

It gives numerous example of the fact that ASCs are infact pluripotent and thus this will make ESCs not necessary. In some article they have been said to have Embryonic like qualities. So you see that ASCs have many benefits over ESCs.

ESCs have many benefits over ASCs too! Totipotency is a very powerful thing.

 

[classical_hero]

Multipotent? Definitely! Pluripotent? Maybe. Totipotent? Absolutly not!
ESCs have many benefits over ASCs too! Totipotency is a very powerful thing.

It has definitely been shown that ASCs are pluripotent. They have the ability to become any cell they want. It does seem that Bone marrow is natures own healing center for us. They contain pluripotent SCs. If you had the the whole article, you will see that the work of ASC does fit into the definition of Pluripotent, because they have given rise to many different types of cells. and here they are that they have done so far.
Heart, Liver, Nerve, Kidney, Brain, Muscle, Insulin secreting, Blood vessel, neuronal. In fact they contain a protein marker that show the presence of pluipotent cells. The is number ten from that article.

In 2003, led by Andrea-Romana Prusa of the University of Vienna, researchers found that
human amniotic fluid contains stem cells that express Oct-4, a protein that is a marker for pluripotent cells. Researchers hope these adult Oct-4-postive cells will eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research. Prusa A-R et al., “Oct-4-expressing cells in human amniotic fluid: a new source for stem cell research?,” Human Reproduction 18, 1489-1493, 2003.

[

Show me what cells ave totipotency? From what I have been reading, it is only possible as a result of fertilzation and that it is :"In mammals, the expression totipotent stem cells is a misnomer: these cells fail to meet the second criterion — they cannot make more of themselves." http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Stem_Cells.html
So from the little research I have done on them, it does seem to be a dead end, unless you can show some research that shows it is not a dead end.

 

[Perfection]

It has definitely been shown that ASCs are pluripotent. They have the ability to become any cell they want.

You have not demonstrated that claim to be correct. You've shown links that give credence to the idea that many cells can be formed, but certainly not all.

If you had the the whole article, you will see that the work of ASC does fit into the definition of Pluripotent, because they have given rise to many different types of cells. and here they are that they have done so far.

I've seen other definitions of pluripotent. Also given the fact that the article is from a biased source, I am not entirely trusting of it.

Show me what cells ave totipotency? From what I have been reading, it is only possible as a result of fertilzation and that it is :"In mammals, the expression totipotent stem cells is a misnomer: these cells fail to meet the second criterion — they cannot make more of themselves."

The seems like definition-twisting, you're using a definition in one source within the context of another.

The bottom line is human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into any other cell. This has not been shown with adult stem cells. Throwing out all kinds of definitions isn't gonna change that.

 

[Oerdin]

I want to see some research that proves that ESCR has done any good.

Classic. First they block all research into the field then they claim "see it hasn't cured any diseases yet so it must be no good".

 

[Archbob]

Great come back. I mean that is such a profound statement. You seem to forget that Aristotle was the founder of this theory, not the Bible. So you must blame Greek philosophy for that error, not christians. You obviously do not know much about the history.

Well, the Pope and Priests are supposed to speak for God on this earth, according to catholic belief, right?
I know alot about the history, probably more than you, your completely trying to play down the fact that it was the Conservative Christian Church at the time to condemned him for life and were stubborn enough not to give an apology until almost 400 years after his death. Regardless who came up with the theory, it is those who maintained it and those who imprisoned the forward thinkers that are at fault.

My statement still holds that if the entire world was conservative, we'd still think that the earth revolves around the sun. The catholic church was certainly conservative and the time and rejected new ideas. If it wasn't for the brave liberal-thinking individuals to challenge the notion and go to jail for it, we'd still think that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Classical Hero - what you're not realising is that, by theory, nearly all cells are pluripotent, the cells need to be washed with a hormone recipe to revert them back. I haven't read the studies for awhile, because the discoveries were not all that useful -considering that differentiating is much, much easier that undifferentiating.

Theoretically, science can move almost any cell into a embryo-like status (available for implantation). I can't prove it now, and I don't care to, because it's not part of my current project. The differentiating process is possible to undo, it's just hard.

Getting ESC to become neural cells is MUCH, MUCH easier than going any other way. Unless you can find me an easier way to make neural stem cells, I'll continue to say that restricting ESC research is hurting people who really need help. ESC research is on the path of least resistance.

The reason why we're pushing for SCNT cloning is because the perception is STILL that getting autogenic stem cells is easier done through this (currently undiscovered, but theoretically viable) method than undifferentiating somatic cells and then differentiating them up another pathway (to become neural cells).

The catholic church is of the opinion that ESC research is wrong (as in, evil), you know what they're doing? Walking the walk. They fund studies that attempt to push the boundaries of what we can do with ASC - and you know what? I compliment them for what they're doing. They're not standing in the way of research, they're pushing it forward. Funding ASC research helps everyone. The CC is hoping to beat SCNT cloning to the punch - and that's fine.

 

[BasketCase]

I do like how everyone was saying that this is good news what this scientist had done, but now that his research is proven to be fraudulent, everyone is now saying that it does not matter too much what he did.

I'm glad to be one of the exceptions there, bro.

What he did matters in a lot of ways--just not directly to the research. It casts other research into doubt (whether or not any other research into ESC is accurate or not, it will now get unwarranted negative attention), it besmirches the reputation of science in general--and, on the plus side, it will hopefully remind people to examine the subject more carefully. Something that should be done with all scientific claims anyway.

 

[classical_hero]

Classic. First they block all research into the field then they claim "see it hasn't cured any diseases yet so it must be no good".

There have decades of research into ESCR, so that is a flase assumption.

 

[classical_hero]

Classic. First they block all research into the field then they claim "see it hasn't cured any diseases yet so it must be no good".

Other countries have not restricted this research like the Americans some other countries and yet we do not see much results from them. You seem to be forgetting that the restriction is just in the fact that they do not recieve Federal funds for their research. They can still recieve private funds in private companies or foundations or charities or individuals want to give money to such causes, then they can. Also there are other countries that are doing reasearch on ESC and yet we have not heard much about them. Since noone has given me any examples on the benefits of ESCR, then I will give an example how ESCR is not even up to the level of ASCR. I give you juvinile diabetes. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/diabetesupdate.pdf
Notice how ESC have not even made it to human trials whereas there is evidence that human trials have been done on humans using ASC. We already have a cure that is out there for this disease and all that is needed to get this off the ground is finacial support. The funny thing is that a group that should be supporting this research is actually ignoring in favour of ESCs which have not even shown any promise in this area. http://www.fumento.com/biotech/diabetes.html

Harvard researcher Dr. Denise Faustman thinks she can cure type 1 (or juvenile) diabetes. She's done it in mice and wants to try it on humans. She's gotten financial backing from the Lee Iacocca Foundation and other groups, but needs millions more. But she isn't going to get it from the world's largest diabetes foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International, for reasons having little to do with the potential of her work.

In a recent TV commercial, JDRF International Chairwoman Mary Tyler Moore proclaimed, "We are so close to finding a cure." "We" aren't, Ms. Moore. But Faustman may well be.

It seems that if you are only working through ESCR, you can get money but not if you are advocating ASCR, like I am. It is the case of ESCR supporters ignoring. http://www.fumento.com/biotech/diabetesfoundation.html
Here is what a former chairman of the JDRF has to say about the organisation now.

Former top Time Warner executive J. Richard Munro once chaired the JDRF board but is now bitter towards the group and sits on the board of Raff's organization instead. "I'm a huge fan of Denise [Faustman] and simply cannot understand why JDRF won't fund her," he told me. "For 25 years my two sons have been diabetic and it's maddening that nothing has changed."

The denying of research looks to be on the other foot, not ours.

 

[Perfection]

There have decades of research into ESCR, so that is a flase assumption.

It took decades to get genetic engineering right, but look at it now!

Also, don't be silly, advocating ESCR is not advocating abandoning ASCR. I would think that is plainly obvious but you don't seem to get it.

They aren't mutually exclusive, ya know.

 

[classical_hero]

It took decades to get genetic engineering right, but look at it now!

Also, don't be silly, advocating ESCR is not advocating abandoning ASCR. I would think that is plainly obvious but you don't seem to get it.

They aren't mutually exclusive, ya know.

It took ASCR much less time to get going and get results out. I will continue my objection to ESCR because the results just do not back it up.

Here is an update on that story. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-12-26T175243Z_01_KRA309204_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-KOREA-DC.XML&archived=False

Medical researchers have said it would be one of the biggest scientific frauds in recent history if Hwang's team did not produce tailor-made stem cells, as they claimed in the paper published in the journal Science.

The moment of truth will be some time next week. Then we willl see if it is fraud or not that we have seen.