Debate over? Scientists turn adult skin cells into embryonic stem cells; Update: Blame Bush?
posted at 10:09 am on November 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The good news: No egg or embryo required. The bad news: No more campaign ads featuring Jim Caviezel speaking Aramaic.
The dream of doing in a lab dish what an egg cell does naturally began to come true in June, when [Shinya] Yamanaka’s team identified four genes in mouse skin cells that, when operating together, can turn countless other genes on and off in just the right pattern to transform skin cells so that they are almost indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells. He put copies of those four genes into retroviruses, Trojan horse-like viruses that insert their genetic payloads into the DNA of cells they infect. Once infected by the engineered viruses, the skin cells took on virtually all the characteristics embryonic ones.
Because the rejuvenated cells did not come from embryos and behave slightly differently than embryonic stem cells, Yamanaka named them “induced pluripotent stem cells,” or “ips” cells (pluripotent means “able to become virtually every kind of cell”).
He immediately tried the same technique on human skin cells, but failed repeatedly. What he did not realize, he said, was that the process takes weeks in human cells, compared to just days in mouse cells. After waiting several days for signs of colonies, he had been making the mistake of throwing his cultures out in frustration.
“We were not patient enough,” he said.
Ultimately, he found he could get about ten ips cell colonies from every 50,000 skin cells, an acceptable efficiency given how easy it is to grow thousands of skin cells from a tiny sample. He coaxed the ips cells to become nerve cells, beating heart cells and other major cell types. And he showed that they were exact genetic matches to the skin cells they came from, suggesting that tissues or organs grown from them could be transplanted into the person who donated the skin cells and not be rejected.
James Thomson, the American scientist who first isolated embryonic stem cells in 1998, was working concurrently with (and independent of) Yamanaka on the same task and got the same result — although two of the four skin-cell genes he used were different from Yamanaka’s, suggesting there may be various combinations that can do the job. There’s a minor problem left to solve insofar as retroviruses, the delivery mechanism for the transformative genes, apparently can cause cancer, but they don’t think that’ll be a tough nut to crack. Quoth a spokesman from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has already been briefed on the findings: “All the Catholic scientists and ethicists at the conference … had no moral problem with it at all.”
Next stop: Artificial selection!
Update: Jonah Goldberg makes a point I’m seeing in the comments here too.
What I find fascinating about this — indeed, what I find fascinating about the role of technology generally (I’ve long wanted to write a big think piece on this) — is how necessity is not only the mother of invention, it’s the father of immorality.
Because President Bush wisely placed limitations on one scientific path, scientists needed to come up with another route to the same goal. It now sounds like they found it. Huzzahs to everyone (Memo to the Communications Director: Bush should give a speech on this taking his share of the credit).
It assumes too much to think there are no ethical scientists who wouldn’t have explored this avenue on their own without Bush’s decision to limit funding. But that decision surely accelerated the process.
Anyone know how long, precisely, they’ve been working in this vein? The Times’s report refers to the work as “laborious” but I can’t find any dates in either their story or WaPo’s.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I thought the breakthrough came back in Jan via amniotic fluid?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700674.html
Zetterson on November 20, 2007 at 10:15 AM
This is old news. I covered it back in June.
Nethicus on November 20, 2007 at 10:16 AM
The left wont be happy until we set up farms for tissue harvesting.
Preferably free-range.
TheSitRep on November 20, 2007 at 10:19 AM
lol sitrep
trailortrash on November 20, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Excellent. (See here for more deep thoughts.)
Vizzini on November 20, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Or Marty McFly
Weight of Glory on November 20, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Btw, you had one helluva scoop, Nethicus. Good to see both papers reaffirmed the science’s promise.
Vizzini on November 20, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Does this mean that GWB was right?
sweeper on November 20, 2007 at 10:36 AM
But, but Ben Affleck said…
Tony737 on November 20, 2007 at 10:41 AM
That’s a very good question. No, he wasn’t “right” exactly, because he couldn’t have known for sure. But he was informed by his faith. Thank God?
JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 10:42 AM
The huge advantages here is the cells are immunologically competent for therapeutic application and we are not destroying human life.
Valiant on November 20, 2007 at 10:43 AM
This is pretty amazing.
Do you think that the embryonic stem cell crowd will be satisfied, or will they want to continue researching with embryonic stem cells?
nailinmyeye on November 20, 2007 at 10:44 AM
This is an awful development!
Do we really want senators from New England to have a never ending supply of cirrhosis-free livers?
liberrocky on November 20, 2007 at 10:45 AM
On a serious note: No
They will still lobby for tax dollars, because the science was always secondary.
sweeper on November 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
If this is true then ‘real’ ‘true’ cloning is on the way.
also
Pro-Choicers trying to come up with talking points on to way this isn’t as good in 5 4 3 . .
- The Cat
P.S. Now if I could just find a way to accelerate growth I’ll be able to have my own Jessica Alba Triplets.
P.P.S. Yeah I said it before, but one can not talk about Jessica Alba enough.
MirCat on November 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I tend to agree - I guess we will see.
nailinmyeye on November 20, 2007 at 10:53 AM
It’s great news for all of those people waiting for kidney transplants and liver transplants and heart and lung transplants. This is great news indeed.
ThackerAgency on November 20, 2007 at 10:59 AM
There has been very little on this scientific breakthrough in the MSM because, IMO, it scuttles one of the “needs” for massive amounts of abortions.
Labamigo on November 20, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Most will be greatful for this development because many on the side of embryonic stem cell research were moderates. If you look at the polls the stem cell issue was a huge loser for Republicans because most independents fell in line with the embryonic stem cell crowd. However, the radical left will be undeterred, which I’m sure to many here will not come as much of a surprise. That’s a good thing though because once again the liberals will just be exposed as the illogical fools they are.
What this does, though, is takes a wedge issue out of the hands of the Democrats. The political dynamic here is similar to what is going to happen as things continue to improve on the ground in Iraq. The Republicans are going to find themselves on the obvious right side of 3 major issues: Illegal immigration, WOT and stem cell research. So long as the Iraq war continues to improve the Republican party will become very attractive to independents. That leaves the Dems with what? The economy? Not sure if any of you noticed but the Dems are economic morons who believe the collapsing European Socialist model is the ideal economic vision. Hmm, how shall I say this? How about, Bring - It - On!
Zetterson on November 20, 2007 at 11:05 AM
This skin cell research is new. There is also the “placenta” research - further along.
Not that is will matter though. The media will barely mention this or any other alternatives until after the election, and then only if the Democrats win.
Agrippa2k on November 20, 2007 at 11:09 AM
As a molecular biologist, I should probably point out that even if we can reliably de-differentiate adult cells into embryonic ones, the leftover eggs and embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures that were previously used as source material will still be generated and eventually destroyed. The only difference is that they won’t be used for research.
Scientists will always prefer to use traditionally generated embryos because it’s much, much cheaper and more reliable than generating the cells artificially. I should also mention that the “minor problem” that Allah mentions the researchers dismissing is not particularly minor.
sublime on November 20, 2007 at 11:11 AM
This is fantastic news, and proof of the existence of innovation within the scientific community. Because of Bush’s unwavering moral stance, a MAJOR scientific breakthrough has happened.
Matticus Finch on November 20, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Thanks for the info Sublime. What do you think about stem cells extracted from Amniotic fluid?
Zetterson on November 20, 2007 at 11:18 AM
For basic research, yes. Stick with the animal models. For clinical applications, this is a huge breakthrough.
Valiant on November 20, 2007 at 11:18 AM
This has gotta really hurt the baby killing agenda of the left.
Buzzy on November 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
President Bush’s religious stance led to a biological discovery in Japan?
Blacklake on November 20, 2007 at 11:20 AM
OK. Good shot. Me laughee long time. ;-)
This is a terrible waste IMNSHO. Given the options of discarding life or using it beneficially, I don’t have any compunction about supporting the use of these eggs/embryos for research.
Still…early days…and this is the kind of good science that should be allowed to prosper in the private sector.
Ochlan on November 20, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Stem cell issue neutralized…check.
NYT article about improved security situation in Baghdad…check.
Moonbat heads exploding…
Bill C on November 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM
…Satan skating to work…check
Ochlan on November 20, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I am going to miss the Caviezel ads; his Aramaic is excellent.
As for the “free range tissue donors”, does anyone know how it pays? I like the range, and I have more tissue than I know what to do with…win, win.
Jaibones on November 20, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Since the technology has the potential to save, extend, and enrich lives, thus contributing to higher energy consumption and global warming, all right-thinking people will have to oppose it.
CK MacLeod on November 20, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Wait. Bush didn’t stop embryonic stem cell research. He just prevented my tax dollars from being used for this research, right?
So, the free market wins again.
-FatOldGuy
Fogpig on November 20, 2007 at 12:01 PM
To be honest I don’t believe that a single fertilized egg or a layer of embryonic cells on a petri dish should be viewed in the same way as a developing embryo, but I might be in the minority in thinking that here. Cells that slough off into the amniotic fluid would never be generating an embryo under normal conditions so I don’t see the objection to using them for research.
sublime on November 20, 2007 at 12:03 PM
To Sublime: some people are against the practice of IVF simply because it does create embryos only to destroy them. The research argument — they’re there already, so let’s use ‘em! — is just another way to further dehumanize fertilized embryos.
Anyway, this is fantastic news. I always hoped adult stem cells or some related alternative would prove to be far more viable and ethically sound than the embryonic approach, and this further validates that belief.
Jared White on November 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Great, just don’t make me pay for it.
sweeper on November 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Bingo!!!
right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 12:21 PM
This cancer-causing aspect of embryonic stem cells has been a major drawback to their use. It seems that adult stem cells don’t have this problem. They’ve been coaxed to differentiate into most every kind of cell. They’re being used today to cure/relieve a hundred different ailments.
Number of cures from adults stem cells: 100+ & no cancer risk
Number of cures from embryonic stem cells: still zero & virtually certain to get cancer.
jdpaz on November 20, 2007 at 12:27 PM
So what am I supposed to do now with all this freakin’ embryonic stem cell stock?
km on November 20, 2007 at 12:28 PM
We have a use now for left-over frozen embryos—Snowflakes.
jdpaz on November 20, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I believe my next sentence referred to the _private sector_
Ochlan on November 20, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Does anybody remember the whole dust-up was over FUNDING the stem cell research?
commonsensehoosier on November 20, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Statement by the Press Secretary:
President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today. By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries.
President Bush was the first president to make federal funds available for human embryonic stem cell research — and his policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos. In July 2006, the President highlighted research into the possibility of reprogramming adult skin cells into pluripotent stem cells without intruding on human embryos or eggs. The President’s Executive Order issued in June 2007 was intended to accelerate precisely the kind of research being reported today. One of the studies announced today was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health operating under the President’s stem cell policy.
The President believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life. We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way.
# # #
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/print/20071120-5.html
bnelson44 on November 20, 2007 at 12:53 PM
The problem with this whole issue is that it’s really two separate issues, and tied to the political nuke of abortion.
Stem cell research - I’m all for it. Most “social conservatives” are not.
Government funded stem cell research - no way, and this is where true conservatives can all agree, and need to stand firm against the nanny state with a wallet full of bribes.
peski on November 20, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Sign me up. A new cure for E.D.
saiga on November 20, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Yay! I can start smoking and drinking heavily! Anybody want a used liver? Oh and since going blind is not an issue…well.
ronsfi on November 20, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I think this is great news, although I think the battle over embryonic stem cells is far from over. The pro-embryonic stem-cell forces, embarrassed by this comeuppance, will invent some sort of BS reason why embryonic stem cell research is all the more important, and will get some greedy politicians and enough gullible people in the public to believe said BS reason.
Enjoy this good news, but don’t let that stop you from continuing the fight. This isn’t the war, it’s just one battle.
thirteen28 on November 20, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Probably not, since the objectification of human life is one of the Left’s goals. Make life a “thing” to be traded, instead of a gift.
crazy_legs on November 20, 2007 at 1:22 PM
If you elect President Bush to a third term, Christopher Reeve will rise from the dead and start walking!
Dudley Smith on November 20, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I’d love to see a justification of how this isn’t awesome.
I mean, they did this with skin cells. The skin is the largest organ any animal has. Collecting 50,000 skin cells from a human is a joke. Of couse, I imagine the skin cells would have to be alive for this to work, so it might hurt a bit.
BKennedy on November 20, 2007 at 1:38 PM
More and more reasons that there’s gonna be a long prayer before dinner on Thursday.
TexasDan on November 20, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Wait, shouldn’t that be “…the father of MORALITY?”
It was Bush’s edict that drove the development of this life-saving (or to put it more precisely: murder-preventing) technique.
I would say the father of immorality is not necessity, but expediency. If you have absolutely no choice but to kill someone, it’s self-defense; but if you kill someone for the sake of convenience, then that is an atrocity.
In recent years, the heavy and brutish hand of the government has been used more and more often to excuse and even support social decay. What we see here is something rare in this day and age: public morality actually being engendered by the only corporeal force in the Universe capable of such a feat: the law.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM
All along, adult stem cells and other alternatives to harvesting embryos, were the only things promising… which was half of the objection to embryonic stem cell research. LIARS promised cures for diseases, etc. right around the corner if we’d just let them get a taste of those sweet embryos, but there was no scientific basis for such wildly optimistic thinking.
See this list from July, of promising studies being done on adult stem cells, and UNpromising studies being done on embryonic stem cells:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070719a
***********
Now, here’s the important thing to remember - The “embryonic” debate will not end here, and you’ll see that the goals of those who push it are anything but noble. I promise you. Just remember I said it. Everyone is treating this day like it can be an end to the fight over embryonic stem cells, but that’s because they’re assuming there was an honest debate to begin with and the “scientists” were just trying to find the best way, but that’s simply not the case.
RightWinged on November 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Don’t eat the soylent green!
peacenprosperity on November 20, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Ignoring all ethical, moral and political implications here….
I thought the whole point of stem cell research is to develop pluripotent cells that are a genetic match to a patient. If this has essentially been accomplished then future research needs to be on how to turn that into actual treatments or organ replacements. What is the point of studying embrionic stem stells if this has already been accomplished by other means? I dont get it at all.
Resolute on November 20, 2007 at 7:49 PM
But…but…but…WE DON’T NEED THESE! Adult stem cells will do everything, they’re way better and the usefulness of pluripotent stem cells is totally unproven! Plus, TUMORS!!!
Or at least that’s what I’ve been hearing for several years now.
Bravo to Dr. Yamanaka and Co. I love science.
Pablo on November 20, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Quoting Goldberg:
Japan doesn’t operate under those restrictions, nor does the rest of the world, including privately funded US reaearchers. Those apply only to NIH research funding. Nice conjecture, but it’s wrong.
In fact, it’s almost a mirror image of what we often hear from the left. All things do not flow from George Bush, good or bad. Medically and scientifically, the really big deal here is that this is an autologous process which will eliminate problems with rejection.
Pablo on November 20, 2007 at 8:47 PM
thirteen28,
Yeah, like James Thomson, the lead researcher on the Wisconsin end of this project:
What a leftist tool he is, huh? Baby killing nazi bastard….
Pablo on November 20, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Why in the Hell do they have to be exactly the same? This is called RESEARCH; what that means is that we don’t know what results we’ll get from working on either type of stem cell. So, of course, even if the skin-derived stem cells are different from baby-derived stem cells, they’re as likely as not to end up yielding BETTER results.
These things are forced to convert - which is halfway to the goal you’re looking for. When you have a potential goldmine like that, what kind of idiot would keep fixating on naturally occurring cells that are a step BACKWARD from that?
But it sounds like this ghoul never even stopped for a second to consider the obvious. It’s because these freaks are too emotionally invested in thinking of the corpses of unborn babies as some sort of Unholy Grail.
Liberal orthodoxy and scientific research are mutually exclusive; open-mindedness and reason are two qualities that liberals entirely lack.
logis on November 20, 2007 at 9:50 PM
You know you’re talking about one of the guys responsible for this new breakthrough, don’t you, logis?
And yet, the source of the excitement surrounding this breakthrough is that they’re so much the same. Pluripotency is why. In this field of research, cells that you can coax into becoming any type of tissue are that Unholy Grail. Unless of course you’re dying of something they can fix, or are in the business of saving the lives of such people, in which case they’re pretty freaking awesome. Or you’re just selfish. Unless they’re this new version, in which case it might be OK for you to live.
I think you mean “never to be born babies”. You know, the ones that have never existed outside of a petri dish. The ones that have never been inside of a woman, nor gestated for a minute. But sure, it’s way more moral to throw them in an incinerator. It must be, right? How is that, by the way?
Pablo on November 21, 2007 at 4:40 AM
I can’t speak for what the voices inside your head are telling you, but no. Of course if I MEANT to weasel-word, then I would have done so. It’s not like rationalization takes some huge amount of effort.
Oh, crap; I knew this was going to devolve into a purely theological argument at some point. Oh well, look: of course I’m not saying that your version of “morality” is “right” or “wrong.” Only that it is entirely arbitrary and self-serving.
Your God tells you that making a baby for the express purpose of killing it is just a little bit “immoral.” But then He says that making a baby for the express purpose of scientific experimentation is perfectly “moral” after less than one minute of gestation. Or maybe four months, or nine months, or whatever; because maybe today your God told you that a new number would suddenly become “evil.”
I know this science stuff is awfully complicated for you purely theological types. But everyone over the age of five years old has always referred to a certain act as “making babies,” even thought you can’t actually SEE the baby for some time after that act is performed.
Now, I’m not going to traumatize you with any details about that act itself. But suffice it to say that once you start playing with the act of making babies - whether you use a petri dish, or any other sort of artificial womb - then you can no longer keep trusting those Voices inside your head who define “morality” for you. Because you’ve stopped worshipping your God, and you’ve started trying to BE your God. And there is absolutely no way that anything good can ever come out of that.
logis on November 21, 2007 at 10:17 AM
No, what you’re saying is that you can’t answer the question. And my interest isn’t self serving because my daughter is already dead. I’d just like for the next people to step into those shoes to have an answer that we didn’t have.
Actually, I think that’s your God talking and that’s between you and Him. Because I’m not talking about that at all.
No, I’m really not theological at all. And I’ve been volunteering with the NCI for the last 7 years because of the science, not religion.
Yeah, that act is f*cking, and it generally isn’t performed in a lab, except after hours. Which is what we’re talking about with embryos created for IVF.
You couldn’t possibly traumatize me, but you’re doing a fine job of ignoring reality and screeching.
But if you will, since you just failed to, please explain why destroying IVF embryos outright is more moral that saving lives with them, through science.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 12:29 AM
BTW, on the day that a petri dish gives birth, you can bring that argument. Until then, it’s fantastic bullsh*t, driven not by science, but by your ideology. Suck on that for a while.
There’s no such thing as an artificial womb.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 12:40 AM