Posted on 11/20/2007 6:30:45 PM PST by neverdem
The news embargo now seems to have been broken on what is likely to rank as the most important development in stem cell science since the first derivation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998.
Two prominent scientific journals—Science and Cell—are each today publishing papers that demonstrate extraordinary success with a technique called “somatic cell reprogramming.” Working separately, and using slightly different methods, these two teams (one of which is led by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, the original innovator of human embryonic stem cells) have each successfully taken a regular human skin cell and transformed it into what appears to be the equivalent of an embryonic stem cell—all without the need for embryos, or eggs, or any other ethically controversial methods. The resulting cells (which they call induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells) have passed all the tests for “pluripotency” and seem to function just like embryonic stem cells. Again, they’ve done this in humans, not just in animals. Thomson’s team puts the matter plainly in the usual scientific deadpan: “The human iPS cells described here meet the defining criteria we originally proposed for human ES [embryonic stem] cells, with the significant exception that the iPS cells are not derived from embryos.” In other words: embryonic stem cells not from embryos. A "significant exception" indeed.
This is first of all an extraordinary scientific discovery—quite apart from its connection with stem cell research. It suggests a previously unimagined level of plasticity at the cellular level in human beings that will have huge implications for medical research and future therapies, and not necessarily stem cell therapies. The ability to take one cell type, insert a few genetic factors, and end up with a completely different but functional cell type will revolutionize cell biology, and get a lot of PhD level textbooks thrown in the garbage today.
And for the stem cell debate, this really could mean the end, and the best possible end: a scientific way around the ethical problem, just as responsible people on both sides of the debate have long hoped might be possible. At first some folks in Washington and elsewhere will certainly be inclined to deny it or insist human cloning or embryo-destructive research remain essential, but as these findings sink in, that view is likely to sink too. It offers a path to a win-win conclusion to what seemed like an intractable argument—you get the cells scientists have said are so valuable, and you avoid the violation of human equality and dignity that so troubles some of us. It’s not only ethically preferable, it also seems to be scientifically superior in some ways, because it’s so much easier and more direct (as British scientist Ian Wilmut noted late last week (almost breaking the story), it offers genetically matched embryonic-like stem cells, as you’d get from human cloning, but without the need for cloning or embryos; all you need is a tiny bit of skin)
This kind of outcome has been the hope behind President Bush’s stem cell policy. In fact, the President spoke about this very same technique—reprogramming skin cells—in a speech back in July of 2006, and earlier this year signed an executive order to encourage this kind of work (Thomson’s team, in fact, was supported by the NIH). He should get credit for sticking to a crucial moral principle against immense and often quite irresponsible political pressure. But it has also been the hope of a great many stem cell scientists and advocates of research who did not share the President’s view of the ethical issues, but sought this for their own good reasons. It’s the scientists’ extraordinary work—and not the politicians—that really made this possible. This is not a win for one side or the other.
In the long run, if this turns out to be as big as it seems, the embryonic stem cell episode itself may turn out to have offered the country a model of how to govern ourselves responsibly in the age of biotechnology.
Hey Herself, Eliot, Corzine, Reid, Pelouse-i, Kennedy, Webb, and all the rest of you shrill, Socialist zealots who want to destroy civilization. Touche. Game over. Nah Nah Nah Nah. You LOSE.
Liberl: “But can we still kill babies anyways?”
This is a very gracious winner, but the fact is there are lots of losers, who had hoped to find a way to overturn one of the cornerstones of western civilization, the Hippocratic Oath, and substitue their own twisted ethic upon humanity.
one again, when science is understood properly, it is not in conflict with religion.
Back when the President allowed research funding for the embryonic lines already in existence and disallowed funding for any new lines that researchers might want to ‘create’ by killing alive embryos, the conservative hope was that researchers would figure out what are the on/off triggers to genes using those existing lines. The goal would be just what is now coming to fruition, reprogramming somatic cells to play a pluripotent role in tissue generation. I wrote an essay at FR back then that had a fairly heated debate going. The President has been proven right to allow the very limited funding.
David Coppedge also pointed out “If this new approach to harvesting stem cells succeeds in generating actual treatments, doctors will have a ready supply of easily-obtainable pluripotent stem cells without the problems of teratomas and tissue rejection inherent with ES cells.”
No....un vee must kill zee babies for zee proper scientific method. If zee states takes za monies from zee peoples for za purpose of sacrificing da leetle embryos vee cannot bastardize zee process vis such skin cell nonsense... heretics....stick to zee plans nincompoops. kill zee babies you lame brains....
Does this mean Claire McCaslin and Michael J. Fox will have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh?
Lib means you never have to say you're sorry....
Please stop your self-important gloating, that is my job.
No, no, no. This just won’t be as fashionable as stem cells sucked out of a live human being’s brain. No, not at all.
You read that as gloating, huh. Should I speciously apologize?
I was up early this morning looking for links to the articles and the articles about the articles.
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/11/translation-of-induced-pluripotent.html
The bad news is that Robin Alta Charo isn’t happy,
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/11/i-want-ethics-reigns-even-with-good.html
that some people actually don’t seem to understand what happened here, and Thomson tried his best to take away the ethical high ground (he used embryonic stem cells and human fetal fibroblasts from a cell culture from a little boy aborted at 16 weeks, instead of doing the preliminary work in mice.).
Still, wow! wow! wow!
Has anyone figured out why the umbilical cord embryonic-like stem cells are “embryonic-like” but these are “embryonic stem cells”?
I wish. My guess is that they found proteins of gene expression that they use as markers. Do you know if that's true? Between the two studies they used retroviral delivery for six different genes, IIRC. 6! = 720 combinations for introducing those genes sequentally in series, IIRC.
Thanks for the links. That's tough for Charo. It's too bad she doesn't need the immunosuppressive drugs that she seems to want others to enjoy.
I’m pretty much convinced that calling these cells “embryonic” is just one more move to confuse people.
Each team used 4 genes, with overlap of two and each lab had a set of two that was different from what the other lab used.
Yamanaka’s group used Oct3/4,Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc and Thomson’s group used OCT4, SOX2, NANOG, and LIN28.
Yamanaka reported:
“We have recently found that iPS cells can be generated without Myc retroviruses, albeit with lower efficiency (M. Nakagawa, M. Koyanagi, and S.Y., unpublished data). Nonretroviral methods to introduce the remaining three factors, such as adenoviruses or cell permeable recombinant proteins, should be examined in future studies. Alternatively, one might be able to identify small molecules that can induce iPS cells, without gene transfer.”
I have the articles in pdf if anyone wants them - just FReep Mail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.