According to physorg.com, a
new breakthrough has been made in the creation of adult stem cells, or "induced pluripotent stem cells" (called iPS or iPSC). The technique previously had shown that
"...four ingredients could transform differentiated cells taken from adult mice into "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS) with the physical, growth, and genetic characteristics typical of embryonic stem cells. Pluripotent refers to the ability to differentiate into most other cell types. The same recipe was later shown to work with human skin cells as well."
But now the recipe has been reduced to just one component that is both necessary and sufficient to regress the cells into stem cells that are equivalent (apparently) to embryonic stem cells.
"The simple recipe scientists earlier discovered for making adult stem cells behave like embryonic-like stem cells just got even simpler. A new report in the February 6th issue of the journal Cell, a Cell Press publication, shows for the first time that neural stem cells taken from adult mice can take on the characteristics of embryonic stem cells with the addition of a single transcription factor. Transcription factors are genes that control the activity of other genes."
"Those cells, which Schöler's team calls '1F iPS' can differentiate into all three germ layers. Those primary germ layers in embryos eventually give rise to all the body's tissues and organs."
[Emphasis Added]
One of the next expriments will be to determine whether the "factor" can be introduced without the use of retroviruses as carriers. The progress of adult stem cells is fascinating to watch. But you probably won't hear much about it on the mainstream media, which is overwhelmingly enamored of the ill-fated embryonic type.
2 comments:
What possible basis do you have to declare research in embryonic stem cells "ill-fated"? You don't know. That's the whole point of research!
Look: I get that you think a blastocyst is morally equivalent to a ten-year-old. That's nuts and all, but it's your prerogative to hold nutty beliefs. What you shouldn't do, however, is lie about science!
Your position wouldn't be undercut one iota in a moral sense if you were just honest about it. Say something: "It doesn't matter how promising embryonic stem cell research is; it's morally wrong to use human blastocysts to do said research." That is a fair argument.
Embryonic stem cell research will fail due to the overwhelming advantage of using cells taken from the individual that needs to use them. Embryonic stem cells are invaders to a foreign system, and, like other transplants of foreign objects into a living system, require immunosuppressants in order to prevent their rejection. This is not the case with adult stem cells, and this functional disadvantage will ultimately result in the demise of embryonic stem cell usage.
The second reason is that the agreement of rational nations at Neuremburg produced a code against the destruction of humans.
Science is not allowed, under the Neuremburg code, to destroy humans; your denial of human status to brand new humans notwtihstanding, it violates that code.
Your comments are increasingly shrill; perhaps you need to develop a more rational argument. You seem not to keep up with the pros and cons of the science.
Post a Comment