Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Human Stem Cells Without Controversy?
University of Wisconsin stem cell scientists are reporting in the upcoming issue of Science (subscription only) that they have created pluripotent human stem cell lines by adding four genes to somatic cells that produce connective tissues. The role of the four genes, OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28, in producing stem cells was discovered through previous experimentation with human embryonic stem cell lines.
The researchers conclude:
The human iPS [induced pluripotent stem] cells described here meet the defining criteria we originally proposed for human ES cells, with the significant exception that the iPS cells are not derived from embryos. Similar to human ES cells, human iPS cells should prove useful for studying the development and function of human tissues, for discovering and testing new drugs, and for transplantation medicine. For transplantation therapies based on these cells, with the exception of autoimmune diseases, patient-specific iPS cell lines should largely eliminate the concern of immune rejection. It is important to understand, however, that before the cells can be used in the clinic, additional work is required to avoid vectors that integrate into the genome, potentially introducing mutations at the insertion site. For drug development, human iPS cells should make it easier to generate panels of cell lines that more closely reflect the genetic diversity of a population, and should make it possible to generate cell lines from individuals predisposed to specific diseases. Human ES cells remain controversial because their derivation involves the destruction of human preimplantation embryos and iPS cells remove this concern. However, further work is needed to determine if human iPS cells differ in clinically significant ways from ES cells.
In other words, the eventual hope is that by dosing the somatic cells of patients with these four genes that physicians will be able to produce stem cells that would be perfect transplants to replace damaged, diseased or aged tissues and organs. In addition, further research using human embryonic stem cells is needed to validate these results.
Guy Montag|11.20.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Human Stem Cells Without Controversy?
Ron,
Your fatal error here is the use of logic on this emotional
issue.
The "controversy" is federal funding of anything Leftist remotely
related to human tissue. According to those folks, unless the
federal government is funding x then x never happens.
There is already plenty of embrionic stem cell research going on
privately, but that somehow never gets into the descussion when the
MSM is involved, unless you venture over to Radley's network, of
course. They whine and cry that President Bush never funded stem
cell research and that is what killed [insert celebrity], no matter
how false all of that is.
No amount of embrionic stem cell research will count, anyplace in
the world, unless George W. Bush creates funding,
extraconstitutionally without so much as a by-your-leave to the
Congress. Oh, and even that would lead to a new spat of whining,
especially if abortion on demand does not come with a bonus check
from the government.
|11.20.07 @ 10:19AM|#
If the cells have a complete genome and are capable of dividing
if implanted in a uterus, they meet the pro-lifers' definition of
personhood. If the pro-lifers are being consistent, then the
controvery remains.
But, then, there really isn't an angle related to controlling women
here, so I don't expect the pro-lifers to be consistent.
|11.20.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Hi Guy: I understand your point, but pro-lifers oppose any human embryonic stem cell research, either privately or publicly funded. Also, should religious concerns determine public funding priorities, e.g., stem cell research, abstinence sex education, intelligent design in public schools, nuclear arsenal validation research, and so forth?
SIV|11.20.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Ron,
Do these count as babies? If they aren't federally subsidized
certified dead baby stem cells
christopher Reeve ain't walkin' and Reagan won't get his alzheimers
cured. No more Back to the Future sequels either.
Abdul|11.20.07 @ 10:31AM|#
If the cells have a complete genome and are capable of
dividing if implanted in a uterus, they meet the pro-lifers'
definition of personhood
Personhood is only one element of the pro-lifer's objections to
embryonic stem cell research. Uniqueness is the other
aspect. There's no objection to killing a non-unique cell with a
complete genome anymore than there is to removing warts or
amputating limbs.
|11.20.07 @ 10:35AM|#
There's no objection to killing a non-unique cell with a
complete genome anymore than there is to removing warts or
amputating limbs.
But what if that wart grows up to be the next Einstein?
Abdul|11.20.07 @ 10:38AM|#
But what if that wart grows up to be the next
Einstein?
Well, you have to take the good with the bad. The wart could also
grow up to be the next Barbara Streisand. The metaphysical
implications are deep.
Episiarch|11.20.07 @ 10:39AM|#
But what if that wart grows up to be the next
Einstein?
Or Hitler? GODWIN ME
x,y|11.20.07 @ 10:45AM|#
But, then, there really isn't an angle related to controlling women here, so I don't expect the pro-lifers to be consistent.
For a joke to be funny joe, it has to ring true. This doesn't.
|11.20.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Abdul,
As far as I know, pro-lifers most certainly would oppose the
destruction of one fraternal twin at the zygote stage - which would
be an example of "a non-unique cell with a complete genome."
x,y,
It wasn't a joke.
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:02AM|#
....pro-lifers oppose any human embryonic stem cell
research...
The link indicates the Catholics morally oppose embryonic stem-cell
research but I saw no calls for making it illegal.
I morally oppose "scientific addiction research" where they hook
the monkeys up to a machine that gives an iv shot of cocaine when
they press the bar.I highly doubt this "science" would be conducted
without Federal $$$ but if it is your coke and your monkeys, and
not on my dime, go right ahead. I will remain morally opposed
however.
Matt|11.20.07 @ 11:04AM|#
>>For a joke to be funny joe, it has to ring true. This
doesn't.
For a person to find a joke funny, x,y, you have to be familiar
with the issues surrounding the joke. You aren't.
|11.20.07 @ 11:07AM|#
SIV,
As a former monkey getting iv shots of coke on demand, fuck
you!
Seriously though, I caught something on NPR about a Japanese firm
testing some skin cells that, when treated with the proper
whatever-stuff, act like stem cells. The upside? No embryos harmed
in the making of this medicine.
Ron, is this the same story, or something different? I would likely
know if I RTFA'ed, but it's too early for so much scientific
jargon...
thoreau|11.20.07 @ 11:07AM|#
They would never destroy the next Einstein. They'd just make it look like he was destroyed, then grow him in a vat in the NSA basement.
|11.20.07 @ 11:07AM|#
I'm going to start finding ways to use "if it is your coke and your monkeys, and not on my dime, go right ahead" in casual conversation.
Tacos mmm...|11.20.07 @ 11:08AM|#
They whine and cry that President Bush never funded stem cell research and that is what killed [insert celebrity], no matter how false all of that is.
It's not an issue of "the federal government won't fund the
research so it won't happen wah wah." The problem is that the
federal government will withold funding from instituations that
stray from its too narrow restrictions on stem cell research. So if
the biology department of a university does privately
funded stem cell research, then the engineering,
aerospace, agriculture, etc. departments all lose their grants.
This is obviously coercive, in the same way that the government
uses federal highway dollars to coerce state governments, most
notoriously to raise their drinking ages.
Abdul|11.20.07 @ 11:08AM|#
pro-lifers most certainly would oppose the destruction of
one fraternal twin at the zygote stage - which would be an example
of "a non-unique cell with a complete genome."
Perhaps you meant identical twin? Fraternal twins are the result of
two eggs being fertilized by two different sperm at the same
time--thus they have different genes but the same parents.
Identical twins are the result of one egg fertilized by one sperm
that split in half--thus they have the same genes. If this doesn't
make sense, have your mother or sex educator explain the
details.
Even in the case of identical twins, once that fertilized egg
splits you have two unique persons who happen to have the same
genes.
Personally, I could live without Mary Kate so long as we keep
Ashley around.
Tacos mmm...|11.20.07 @ 11:09AM|#
For a joke to be funny joe, it has to ring true. This doesn't.
I laughed. Or at least grinned a little.
thoreau|11.20.07 @ 11:09AM|#
I'm going to start finding ways to use "if it is your coke
and your monkeys, and not on my dime, go right ahead" in casual
conversation.
I've always said that I want to write a screenplay. Maybe I'll put
that line in there.
Oh, wait, I'm on strike. Not over DVD royalties, however. I'm
demanding a cure for writer's block and a 30 hour day. Until they
deliver that, I'm not writing.
Maybe stem cells could be used to cure writer's block....
|11.20.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Abdul,
.
Yes, I meant identical twins.
.
Even in the case of identical twins, once that fertilized egg
splits you have two unique persons who happen to have the same
genes.
That is precisely the situation when you use this technique to make
a ligament cell pluripotent - you have a distinct, unique cell that
shares DNA with another person.
|11.20.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Guy,
Of course there's a big problem with what is considered federally
funded as well. There were many research institutions that would've
loved to do embryonic stem cell research without federal funding.
However, if it was done in a building that had even one brick paid
for by federal funds, it was considered federal funded.
So there was a lot of research that would be viable in preexisting
facilities, but if a new building had to be used and new
procurement systems had to be used (to separate the federally
funded pipettes from the privately funded pipettes), it no longer
is viable. The research institutions that did it were the ones that
never got federal funds in the first place, so they didn't have to
worry about those extra fixed costs.
That's the problem with not allowing federal funding. It knocked
out a lot of the best research institutions in the world.
And since when is science "Leftist"?
|11.20.07 @ 11:17AM|#
My philosophical opposition is to federal funding of this. I simply am philosophically opposed to federal funding of just about everything. I don't want anyone's money stolen for any purpose. Robin Hood was no hero simply because he was stealing from the rich to give to the poor. And I don't care which party is in power and to what end they are spending the money they are stealing from us. I couldn't care less what private funding is researching. It is none of my damn business. But it becomes my damn business when my money is being stolen to fund it.
|11.20.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Abdul: But what happens to the extra soul when twins (either
identical or fraternal) recombine into one embryo? ;-)
For some of my thoughts on the issue see my column, "Is Heaven Populated
Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?"
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Hey joe,
"Where are you going with that noose in your hand?"
FBI Hate Crimes Statistics are out and Massachusetts reports
379 Hate Crimes last year while Alabama has 1 and Mississippi
zero.
When are you guys going to join the 21st Century?
thoreau|11.20.07 @ 11:21AM|#
And the non-sequitur award goes to SIV, for excellence in "Hey, look over there!"
Guy Montag|11.20.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Ron,
Hi Guy: I understand your point, but pro-lifers oppose any
human embryonic stem cell research, either privately or publicly
funded. Also, should religious concerns determine public funding
priorities, e.g., stem cell research, abstinence sex education,
intelligent design in public schools, nuclear arsenal validation
research, and so forth?
I was just sticking to my criticism of the Left and their research
whining. Some of it popped up here, after my comment.
I am certainly not on the side of religious concerns determining
public policy either. It just so happens that some of those
concerns do move toward the outcome that I prefer, like not
sanctioning the killing of babies, abstenance is an option to
prevent pregnancy and STD transmittal, etc.*
As my comment earlier inferred, I am certainly not opposed to
private embrionic stem-cell research and oppose much of what the
religious herders leaders have to say about
that.
*No, I do not think that a skin cell tricked into becoming
embrionic-stem-cell-like is the same thing as a baby.
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:22AM|#
But what happens to the extra soul when twins (either
identical or fraternal) recombine into one embryo? ;-)
Heaven shouldn't have too many embryos but Limbo is so full of them
the new Kraut Pope shut it down.
Guy Montag|11.20.07 @ 11:25AM|#
nuclear arsenal validation research
I blasted right past that one!
It is "religious" people who stopped live nuclear weapons testing?
Am I even reading that comment right?
NOOOOO! I am in the camp of "test 'em if ya got 'em" and WE have
not used them enough!
drawnasunder|11.20.07 @ 11:29AM|#
>>>additional work is required to avoid vectors
that integrate into the genome
What does that mean? That there's a risk of adding unwanted genes
during the procedure? Or something to do with unwanted activation
of genes by way of contact with the petri dish?
Also, can "doped" cells be "undoped" en mass in completed organs,
to make them 100% matches with the original donor cells, or do they
always retain the doped genes? What effect might that have on
future generations of the cell line in a cloned organ?
|11.20.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Hi Guy: I understand your point, but pro-lifers oppose any
human embryonic stem cell research, either privately or publicly
funded.
Ron, maybe if you define "pro-life" as "someone who opposes any
stem cell research". Plenty of people like me who consider
themselves pro-life who think the stem cell lovers are a bit whack.
And some, like me, also think the "evolution doesn't happen" crowd
is deluded, too. People who believe in protecting fairly small
human beings aren't a monolithic bloc all marching in
lockstep.
Maybe you need to take away my Pro-Life Secret Decoder Ring for
uttering such blasphemy.
;)
|11.20.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Score one for Bush & Co. By sticking to their agenda, they forced scientists to harvest "outside the box" (apologies). Who knows when or even if this technology would have been found without the insistence to find another way.
Guy Montag|11.20.07 @ 11:35AM|#
prolefeed,
Maybe you need to take away my Pro-Life Secret Decoder Ring for
uttering such blasphemy.
G_d is in the process of taking care of Mr. Bailey. His children
are growing up :)
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:36AM|#
What does that mean? That there's a risk of adding unwanted genes
during the procedure?
Sounds like some other "scientific
research"
|11.20.07 @ 11:37AM|#
If the cells have a complete genome and are capable of
dividing if implanted in a uterus, they meet the pro-lifers'
definition of personhood ... But, then, there really isn't an angle
related to controlling women here, so I don't expect the pro-lifers
to be consistent.
joe, you're gonna lose your anti-global warming street cred burning
all those strawmen. Not all pro-lifers are equivalent to the evil,
evil Republican stereotype in your head.
|11.20.07 @ 11:39AM|#
thoreau | November 20, 2007, 11:21am | #
And the non-sequitur award goes to SIV, for excellence in "Hey,
look over there!",/i>
Give him a break, thoreau.
I've obviously come to a play a very large role in his thoughts,
and he just couldn't help himself.
|11.20.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Does anyone really think the religious right will be able to mount a successful campaign to seriously set back scientific research in this field? Methinks the ageing baby boomers will "choose (their own) life" over "choose (some microbial) life"....
|11.20.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Not all pro-lifers are committed to the consistence
application of the principles they claim to base their political
stances on.
There, fixed that for you.
I know, quite well thank you, that many, many pro-lifers don't
actually give a damn about THIS set of "small persons." That's
rather my point.
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Great tag work there joe
I didn't even think of you and the fact that the FBI reports your
State is rife with violent bigotry until you expressed appreciation
for my
cleverly worded "libertarian trifecta" comment incorporating the
WoDs,animal rights and Federal funding of scientific research.
|11.20.07 @ 11:46AM|#
"But, then, there really isn't an angle related to controlling
women here, so I don't expect the pro-lifers to be
consistent."
That was weak. Really weak. I expect better. Save that crap for
when someone shouts 'babykiller' at you, a more appropriate place
for such pablum.
|11.20.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Score one for Bush & Co. By sticking to their agenda,
they forced scientists to harvest "outside the box" (apologies).
Who knows when or even if this technology would have been found
without the insistence to find another way.
I doubt it. There was still going to be a lot of work done in this
area. If they figure out how to make stem cells into organs, the
big money is turning somatic cells into stem cells. The lets you
make organs that won't be rejected by your immune system. So they'd
either have to figure out how to put DNA from somatic cells into
stem cells or how to turn somatic cells into stem cells.
|11.20.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Oh, good, another threadjack about me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me
me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me
me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me
me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me
meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me
me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me
meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me
me me me me me me me meme me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me.
Thanks, SIV, I'm sure everyone appreciates it.
BTW, the libertarian trifecta, as far as I can tell, is 1) hijack a
thread, 2) turn the conversation into a discussion of me, and 3)
take some data out of context to make a case that can't stand on
its own.
So, congratulations, SIV. I'm sure everyone is thrilled at your
contribution to this dicussion of...um...what was the thread about
again? Nose plugs?
|11.20.07 @ 11:51AM|#
kohlrabi,
The fact that nobody is shouting "babykiller" is sort of the point.
Your complaint doesn't make any sense.
VM|11.20.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Taktix:
but what if the nose plugs are part of the campaign to reduce the
avenues for skull fucking?
(yes, this was probably unnecessary)
SIV|11.20.07 @ 11:59AM|#
joe,
Obviously you do.Look at all the typing you are wasting on it.You
quoted me in an off-topic comment first.Dont't
leave your nooses on the MBTA OK?
robc|11.20.07 @ 11:59AM|#
joe,
The fact that nobody is shouting "babykiller" is sort of the
point. Your complaint doesn't make any sense.
What doesnt make any sense is the strawman standard you are trying
to hold all pro-lifers to.
|11.20.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Joe,
Sure it does. My point is this:
When pro-life people claim that pro-choice people only want to kill
babies (calling them babykillers), it carries about the same
intellectual weight and depth of thought as when pro-choice people
claim that pro-life people really only care about controlling
women. That's a claim you made. It's a claim that is frankly
assinine and beneath anyone here.
I get your point that no one is shouting babykiller here. It
doesn't necessary follow that pro-lifers only care about
controlling women.
Abdul|11.20.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Abdul: But what happens to the extra soul when twins (either
identical or fraternal) recombine into one embryo? ;-)
I didn't mention souls, just unique persons. But to answer your
question, ensoulment occurs "when the cell which generation has
provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life." (from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm). Presumably, a cell
which is to recombine is not ready to recieve a surplus soul.
As for embryos which die prior to implantation mentioned in your
article, that's part of the natural process. It's no more immoral
for an embryo to die naturally through this process than it is for
me to catch pneumonia and drop dead. And while some would mourn my
passing, it's hardly a tragedy to those who never knew me.
Similarly, the death of an embryo which existed without the
parent's knowledge is no cause for sadness.
|11.20.07 @ 12:12PM|#
"But, then, there really isn't an angle related to controlling
women here, so I don't expect the pro-lifers to be
consistent."
If you think that the only way to arrive at a position contrary to
your own, one that a considerable number of people hold, is to be a
moral monster without the soul necessary to know that controlling
women is a bad thing, then you probably don't understand the issue
or your opponents' position very well.
|11.20.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Whatever, SIV. I'm sorry demonstrating your superiority over
millions of people you've never met matters so much to you.
robc,
They're not my standards, they're not straw-man standards. The
belief that a cell with a complete set of DNA that can be grown
into a baby is a "person" is the genuine, principled position of
pro-lifers. That's why they criticized Bush's federal funding ban,
but not total ban, in National Review. That's why the Catholic
Church is opposed to In Vitro fertilization. Are you seriously
pretending not to realize that "fertilized egg = person" is the
self-stated position of pro-lifers?
"From conception to natural death" - I suppose you're going to tell
me that's a made-up strawman I'm applying to pro-lifers, too.
Guy Montag|11.20.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Oh no. Now you guys have done it. One more step towards a Species sequil! Trying to control women was a fatal flaw in the logic, as shown in the original documentry.
thoreau|11.20.07 @ 12:21PM|#
If a thread must devolve into discussions about a commenter, why not one more round of beating up on DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
x,y|11.20.07 @ 12:22PM|#
It was definitely a lame attempt at a joke, i.e., trying to be funny. And if it wasn't a joke, care to explain it futher?
|11.20.07 @ 12:22PM|#
kohlrabi,
Fine, let me be more precise.
Pro-life activists who claim to believe single cells capable of
being grown into fully-developed humans are persons, with the moral
status and human rights of persons, and who decry the destruction
of such cells in this instance, are principled in their beliefs,
and their motives cannot be said to revolve around controlling
women's bodies.
People who decry abortion, but who don't base their position on the
supposed personhood of single cells, who have no problem with this
technique, might or might not be primarily motivated by the desire
to control women's bodies and lives.
However, people who claim that such cells are persons and would
limit women's reproductive choices, and yet have no problem with
destroying such cells in this instance, are being logically
inconsistent. I suspect that there will be quite a few such people,
and can't help but notice what makes the situations
different.
eoj,
Who called anyone a monster?
robc|11.20.07 @ 12:38PM|#
joe,
The strawmen is that the subset of pro-lifers who
think life begins at conception are really only opposed to abortion
because they favor the subjugation of women.
If you would use the word some instead of making
blanket statements you wouldnt be smacked around so much. All
definitive statements are wrong, including this one.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.20.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Back in 2005 Wired had an absolutely fascinating article called
How to Farm Stem Cells Without Losing Your Soul.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/stemcells.html
I'm no scientist, but I found it exciting.
The picture of the fully developed molar smack dab in the middle of
a tumor is well worth the click through.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.20.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Sorry boys, the link didn't take. So, here is the actual link to the Wired story called How To Farm Stem Cells Without Losing Your Soul.
Reinmoose|11.20.07 @ 1:02PM|#
I suspect that a lot of people who base what they support and don't support on "beliefs" are inconsistent.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.20.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Personhood is only one element of the pro-lifer's objections
to embryonic stem cell research. Uniqueness is the other
aspect.
So we can kill all of the twins? Excellent, twins weird me out.
Dustin|11.20.07 @ 1:54PM|#
joe,
As you know, the controvery over stem cells is entirely a question
of whether or not human embryos are destroyed to obtain them. The
stem cells themselves don't meet any definition of personhood, as
they're only a constituent of an already dividing embryo. Now, some
of the terminology here is a little over my head (I needed to look
up "somatic cells"), but it appears that this particular arm of
research doesn't involve anything deriving from embryos. It
therefore doesn't appear to enter the realm of metaphysical
controversy.
I mean to say here that it doesn't make sense to accuse someone of
logical inconsistency if they have no problem with this research,
since the sticking point with such individuals is whenever embryos
are involved. In this case, they aren't, and stem cells, even those
derived from embryos, aren't themselves "human" or "potentially
human," depending on your metaphysics.
My biology education stank, so I'm trying hard here to get this
right.
|11.20.07 @ 3:01PM|#
This is wonderful news. This has been weighing on me a lot,
because I do believe in the sanctity of life and that sentiment
pulls at me from both ends.
If this technique pans we won't have to make those kinds of ethical
trade-offs.
|11.20.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Dustin,
The problem comes in when people extend their definition of
personhood all the way down the fertilized zygote - a single
cell.
The Pope's opposition to in vitro fertilization is based on the
proposition that a fertilized egg in a beaker is a person.
Now, I may have gotten my biology a little messed up as well, but
as I understand it, a cell capable of dividing into somatic stems
cells can, in fact, develop into an embryo if implanted in a
uterus.
|11.20.07 @ 10:48PM|#
1. End Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
2. Ban Embryonic Stem cell research
3. ???
4. Control women
|11.22.07 @ 3:32AM|#
There was a guy on Fox news talking about this. He pointed out that the four genes that were inserted into the skin cells were "cancer genes", hence this new line of stem cells is not exactly risk free at this point.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245