"The beauty of these more primitive stem cells is that they're smart," says Dr. Steinberg, who is using both fetal and embryonic stem cells in research to treat brain injuries. "You're using some of the cells' own innate properties to decide what's best in that part of the body."
A considerable practical problem for scientists working with adult stem cells, says MIT biologist Rudolf Jaenisch, is that "we cannot grow these cells in culture" whereas "embryonic stem cells you can grow forever. They're inexhaustible."
From the article, looks like there's two sides to the research story.
And from earlier posts on FR, we know that MIT presents James Sherley in a much better light, when it suits their purposes.
Two MIT scientists win 2006 Pioneer Awards, Elizabeth A. Thomson, [MIT]News Office September 19, 2006
Two MIT faculty are among 13 scientists nationwide to receive 2006 Pioneer Awards today from the National Institutes of Health for their "highly innovative research."Professors Arup K. Chakraborty and James L. Sherley will each receive $2.5 million over five years.
Now in its third year, the Pioneer Award is a key component of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The program supports exceptionally creative scientists who take highly innovative approaches to major challenges in biomedical research.
Scientist: Racism hurt him at MIT Says key example is tenure being denied [Boston Globe]
APPEAL TO REVIEW THE TENURE CASE OF PROFESSOR JAMES SHERLEY [An online petition with interesting comments on Sherley --from those brave enough to support him]
MIT STEM CELL PROFESSOR LASHES THERAPEUTIC CLONING ,
Fear of reprisals is one reason why some scientists do not oppose therapeutic cloning says a professor at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Associate Professor James Sherley says that "I have asked the leaderships of both the American Society for Cell Biology and the International Society for Stem Cell Research to conduct anonymous on-line polls of their membership regarding their views on human embryo research. Neither has been willing to do so.
The REAL difference:
Adult stem cells would be autologous - derived from the patient, manipulated, cultured, and returned to the same patient. This is a technique, not a substance or chemical, and therefore not amenable to being patented, bottled, and sold for a gigantic profit. I don’t object to the profit, but when these researchers tout their contribution to the good of all mankind, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Embryonic stem cells are the UNholy grain for these people because if they ever do create a product from their Frankensteinian machinations they can OWN it and become insanely rich in the process. And if they quote some of these “Bio-DEATH-assists” (they call themselves bioethicists) the drug companies keep in their pockets to support their work, let me repeat - FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Some scientists now believe that small reservoirs of partially differentiated adult stem cells already exist in many parts of the body, and one plausible theory posits that many - even most - cancers originate in these stem cells. We are a long way from understanding and tapping into the potential of the human body, and we need not cannibalize our young for the purpose.
And the other side to that is that they can't grow the ESCs without contaminating them with, for example, mouse cells - which is the complaint about the previously released lines of ESCs.
“From the article, looks like there’s two sides to the research story.”
True enough, the difference being that Steinberg will be rewarded for presenting his side of the story, while Sherley, well...