quote:Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.
Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.
quote:However, the scientists noted they still don't know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away.
Still, Atala said the research reported in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology expands far beyond similar work discussed at a heart research conference in November. There, Swiss researcher Simon Hoerstrup said he managed to turn amniotic fluid stem cells into heart cells that could be grown into replacement valves. Hoerstrup has yet to publish his work in a scientific journal.
Atala said the new research has found even more promising stem cells with the potential to turn into many more medically useful replacement parts.
"We have other cell lines cooking," Atala said.
quote:The cells from amniotic fluid "can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology. "Either way, I think this work represents a giant step forward for stem cell research."
quote:Nonetheless, Daley said the discovery shouldn't be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research.
"While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development," said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.
The statement I quoted last confuses me, because it sounds from the earlier parts of the article as though these basically are embryonic stem cells. The article noted that they haven't yet tested the ability to generated every possible type of tissue, but I can't help but think this sounds promising.
I also can't help but think that this would never have been found if the opposition to embryonic stem cell research hadn't forced researchers to look for other avenues.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like a great breakthrough. I'm guessing it would've happened eventually, though. And I'm similarly confused by that last quote—if at least some of the cells are coming from the embryo, then how are they different from embryonic stem cells?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.
Does anyone know why cloning would even factor into stem cells? Considering that there is currently a surplus of embryos, cloning to get new embyros seems kind of pointless. Perhaps the reporter misunderstood what the research actually was?
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Sounds like a great breakthrough. I'm guessing it would've happened eventually, though. And I'm similarly confused by that last quote—if at least some of the cells are coming from the embryo, then how are they different from embryonic stem cells?
Embryonic stem cells are created from fairly young embryos. I didn't see anything in the article about how advanced the pregnancy was when these cells were taken, but I suppose that it might be later on when more cell differentiation has taken place. If so, then these cells might not be as versitile as the earlier stem cells are.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.
Does anyone know why cloning would even factor into stem cells? Considering that there is currently a surplus of embryos, cloning to get new embyros seems kind of pointless. Perhaps the reporter misunderstood what the research actually was?
Nope, they are trying to clone them for research. There has been too great an outcry against trying to use "surplus" embryos for it to work.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the same outcry exists about cloning as about "surplus" embryos.
If anything, I would suspect that there would be a lot more outcry about cloning them for stem cells. With the "surplus" embryos, you can at least make the argument that they are destined to be thrown out anyways. From my personal experience, I've found this to be a fairly compelling argument in support of embryonic stem cell research. I would suspect that a lot of people whose opinions lie on the border for this issue would take much more exception to the idea of essentially creating new embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells from them.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. This debate continues, even as surplus embryos are destroyed routinely, and not used for science... still destroyed. And that's perfectly ok? I mean I think it is, but please, let's know what we are talking about here, it isn't creating life to experiment, it's experimenting on things we are getting rid of anyway right? Where is the moral consistency there?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wow. This debate continues, even as surplus embryos are destroyed routinely, and not used for science... still destroyed. And that's perfectly ok? I mean I think it is, but please, let's know what we are talking about here, it isn't creating life to experiment, it's experimenting on things we are getting rid of anyway right? Where is the moral consistency there?
The Catholic Church, the primary opponent of stem cell research, is also opposed to IVF because surplus embryos are destroyed. There is no inconsistency in their position. There is however enormous inconsistency in US policies which allow and even promote IVF but prohibit stem cell research.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no US policies that prohibit stem cell research. It has never been illegal here. President Clinton put a moratorium on federal funding for one type of it (embryonic), which President Bush lifted.
I don't know US policies, if any, regarding IVF.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...research suggests that for some clinical applications they may work better than embryonic stem cells.
quote: For example, embryonic stem cells injected into muscle can form teratomas - amniotic stem cells do not do this.
quote: it might be possible to take amniotic stem cells from a child diagnosed before birth with a problem, and use them to grow new tissue in the laboratory, which would be ready to use to treat the child when it was born.
The major difference in terms of where these cells come from as I understand it is that they are released naturally by the embryo, so are no longer part of the baby (not all of the developing "structure" if you'll pardon the word, becomes baby. Some of it becomes support structures.) The amniotic stem cells are not removed from cells that would otherwise go on to become a human being by medical intervention. The problem at the moment seems to be how to harvest them. According to the Beeb, they can be harvested up to birth, it's just rather tricky at the moment, especially if (as I saw recently in an episode of Desperate Housewises), the amniotic "waters" end up all over the floor.
But it seems that these sorts of things can be worked on...it sounds like it could be quite a move forward, both in the social arena (causing no damage to a developing embryo and never destined to bcome part of a human baby anyway) and the medical arena, once ways of getting them easily from any pregnant woman is worked out.
I do not think it is fair to say that medical science only seeks alternates when pushed by lobbies of one sort or another for alternates. They do it anyway. We'd be a lot farther behind if there weren't other driving forces as well (basic research instincts and market forces both leap to mind.)
What do people who are otherwise opposed to cloning of cells think of cloning cells that were never destined to be a baby and do not result from a termination? Cloning would still be required to get cells in the numbers needed; only a very small minority of these will be stem (pluripotent).
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
