Posted by Cockney Robin | Will a scientific breakthrough permit scientists to alter ordinary
human skin cells so that they "take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells"? According to this article, two landmark papers released on Tuesday report on the success of two different laboratories in reprogramming the skin cells of mice. (SPI via Memeorandum) Both groups reported creating cells that behaved like skin cells in a variety of tests. (SPI) "The "direct
reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and
practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem
cells by cloning embryos," declares API science editor Malcolm Ritter. (SPI) Since so many Americans, and especially George W. Bush, believe that every stem's cell's sacred, let us pray.
In the meantime, scientists are excited:
"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone - the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.
"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.
"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it." (SPI)
As with everything else in this vale of tears, there is a catch Embryonic stem cells, unlike other stem cells, can be turned into any other kind of cell.(SPI) The theory is that they could be cloned to produce cells that genetically match the donor's, so that transplant tissue could be created to treat diseases without fear that the tissue would be rejected. (SPI)
To create the stem-cell-like cells requires a disruption of the cells' DNA, creating the potential for creating cancer, meaning that these cells can't be used to create transplant tissue to treat disease. Yes, I'd call that a catch all right. But there is a bright side: experts think they may be able to avoid this "byproduct" of the technique used in creating stem-cell-like cells.(SPI)
And in any case, cloning transplant from embryonic stem cells appears to be far in the future. The more immediate benefits to medicine come from research using embryonic stem cells.(SPI) Which created a boatload of ethical problems for people whose faith gives them access to information denied to the rest of us. Just to sidestep the questions about whether embryos are invested or infested with human souls (a point which I refuse to consider), getting unfertilized eggs from human donors presents the question of whether the woman should be paid for them. (SPI)
And then of course, cloning requires the eggs to be used to make embryos from which stem cells can be harvested, which destroys the embryos. (SPI) Those who have faith that an embryo is equivalent to a fetus aren't having this, no matter how many full-fledged human beings continue to die of illnesses that embryonic stem cell research might be able to alleviate. In other words, their beliefs---which many do not share---are directly responsible for any delays in research that might prevent someone from dying horribly of Alzheimer's in the manner of a relative of mine who finally, and after great mental suffering, shuffled off her mortal coil last year.
So it is with great relief that I read the carefully tempered enthusiasm of one Richard Doerflinger, "deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." (SPI) ""I think this is something that would be readily acceptable to Catholics,"" he said. (SPI) I'm delighted to hear that, because otherwise the Catholic Church---which naturally knows more than all the scientists in the world--- would plant a giant boot right on the neck of any further scientific developments.
Not that every scientist is convinced that reprogramming skin cells will prove to be a substitute for embryonic stem cell cloning in every instance.
Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem. Nor is it clear just how direct reprogramming works, or whether that approach mimics what happens in cloning, he noted.
So the cloning approach still has much to offer, he said. (SPI)
At National Review Online, a Cornerite---who must not have read all the way down to the bottom of the article--- weighs in with some of the standard pious bollocks one sees being offered up by people of faith as if it were equivalent to the purest reason. The article is called "A Stem Cell Win-Win." Mark that.
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. (A Stem Cell Win-Win)
The "some of us" who are "troubled" being the virtuous folks with a direct line to God and an absolute conviction that it is all right for them to restrict scientific advances that the rest of us would like to see because they know or "know" that God would not approve.
And of course it wouldn't be The Corner without a little---by their standards, admittedly, a very little--- gloating:
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.(A Stem Cell Win-Win)
Being English, I'm afraid I can't give credit for the abject bloody nonsense that made the discovery necessary. On the other hand, it isn't as if a backward attitude toward stem cell research is limited to Americans. There are opponents on both sides of the Atlantic. Americans are just more ingenuous about attributing their opposition to their religious faith/personal superstitions.
Memeorandum has discussion on The New York Times article here.
For some grade-A bollocks on the subject read this article. Seriously, it will make you shake your head in wonderment. See right wingers patting themselves on the back and dork dancing around all over the shop at the "moral" "victory" of having forced science to come up with a solution to an "ethical" dilemma created by their personal superstitions.
PS. Damozel, one of this blog's administrators and a God-botherer herself, wishes to disengage herself from the anti-religion tenor of this posting, while generally agreeing with me on the essential ludicrousness of the whole underlying "controversy."
*NOTE: use of a photograph pursuant to a Creative Commons license does NOT indicate that its creator endorses any views expressed in this or any BN-Politics article.
Climate Change: Ending an Irrelevant Argument
Scientist Withdraws Paper to Prevent Misuse by Creationists
Elderly Nobel Laureate Demonstrates Selective Nature of Intelligence
More on Gore and Media Memes: Did "A Gaggle of Journalists" Misreport the "9 Errors" Case?
Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos (Seattle Post Intelligencer)
Comments