Holy cow! Scientists have demonstrated that pluripotency may not be necessary to transform cells into other body tissues, meaning that “stem cells” might prove unnecessary in regenerative medicine. In mice, they transformed fibroblasts–cells that construct connective tissue –directly into functional brain cells. From the story:
In a striking demonstration of cellular flexibility, scientists have created functioning neurons from fibroblasts, without going through an intermediate pluripotent stage, according to a study published online this week in Nature. “It’s really exciting,” said molecular geneticist Mathias Treier of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and the University of Cologne in Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It shows that cells can switch their fate” without going through the pluripotent state, avoiding the potential for tumor formation. “[In] the future, with the right cocktail mix, this [might be] possible for other tissues and organs,” he added.
Please note–this is not an adult stem cell success. It is direct programming from one kind of cell directly into another. Still much work to do before it is demonstrated that the technique can be used in human clinical work–some scientists express doubts–but a great step forward. Good ethics do produce good science.
January 27th, 2010 | 6:17 pm
Wesley, anyone who knows anything about stem cell research knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising area of stem cell research.
Thanks for your work in blasting that idea out of the water:)
January 27th, 2010 | 7:18 pm
“Wesley, anyone who knows anything about stem cell research knows that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising area of stem cell research.”
Only to those with a God complex or with a strictly materialistic and utilitarian worldview.
Ethical science is still the best science. :)
January 27th, 2010 | 10:49 pm
Great, Don. While embryonic cells make promises, adult cells are making reality.
January 27th, 2010 | 10:52 pm
And if direct reprogramming works, we might not even need stem cells at all!
January 28th, 2010 | 12:59 am
College Goyle, hope you know I was mocking ESCR supporters. See my last sentence and note to Wesley. SHS, along with Do No Harm, have been advocates’ best help in dealing with ESCR/SCNT advocates.
January 28th, 2010 | 8:24 am
Wesley: It’s an amazing breakthrough — for mice. However, until mouse cells can be reprogrammed into cells that can be used by humans, there’s no reason for scientists to cease exploring all the alternatives, including ESCR.
January 28th, 2010 | 11:37 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, J. Robert Howell, Wesley J. Smith, Tissues CC, Stem Cell Blogs and others. Stem Cell Blogs said: and #8220;Direct Reprogramming: and #8221; Mouse Cells Transformed Into Brain Cells http://bit.ly/aJN5re #stemcells [...]
January 28th, 2010 | 1:05 pm
To HistoryWriter. the ends do not justify the means regarding ESCR. even if this direct programming was never figured out, we shouldn’t do ESCR, cus it’s wrong. and my bet is that this mice stuff will lead to human applications, as much animal work usually does.
January 28th, 2010 | 2:05 pm
Wesley, this study reminds me of your comment a couple years ago-it seems like eternity, that non-ESCR successes are becoming mundane because there are so many of them.
January 28th, 2010 | 4:35 pm
HW: You should know full well that animal research is the first step toward human application. Additionally, the best application of this theory in humans would be to use human cells rather than mouse cells.
January 30th, 2010 | 10:34 am
dawning: the whole adult stem cell hokum is based on the mistaken belief that a frozen fertilized egg is a “person” and consequently ESCR is akin to murder. That position is basically theological, since it has no precedent in science. It’s in the same category as UFO abductions, Elvis sightings, the dead rising and virgins having children. In short, it’s nonsense. Let’s keep the discussion scientific shall we? Scientists explore all reasonable options, not just the ones that are politically or religiously correct.
January 30th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
History Writer: Personhood isn’t a scientific concept. It is philosophical. What science can tell us is that an embryo is a human organism. It can tell us the current functioning of that organism. And it can tell us the prospective future functioning of that organism. What science can NEVER DO is tell us right from wrong. That is quite beyond its ken. Your analysis is thus, fundamentally flawed. Whether is it is moral or ethical to destroy embryos in this way is not a scientific question at all.
January 30th, 2010 | 8:37 pm
“the whole adult stem cell hokum is based on the mistaken belief that a frozen fertilized egg is a ‘person’ and consequently ESCR is akin to murder.”
You kinda sorta blew it many months ago when you suggested that the Constitution can trump scientific fact. I really don’t believe “keeping the discussion scientific” is in your best interests, HistoryWriter.
February 1st, 2010 | 6:33 am
bmmg39: My statements are completely consistent. An embryo is NOT a “person” regardless of someone’s fairy-tale philosophy, nor is it a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment.
February 1st, 2010 | 6:36 am
Wesley: I’ll make you a deal — you keep your philosophy out of my science and I’ll keep my science out of your philosophy. That way you can have serious discussions about how many angels can dance on the hea of a pin and I won’t ask you to prove that angels either exist or can dance. OK?
February 1st, 2010 | 10:35 am
History Writer: That’s a dumb thing to say. We aren’t speaking about the trite canard of how many angels. This isn’t whether the moon is made of blue cheese. Is an embryo a human organism? That is important to know because it impacts on the ethics. If it is a moon rock, different issues are presented. Science, per se, has no morality. That’s why–and every scientist this side of Mengele agrees–it must have ethical parameters. That sometimes restricts what scientists can do, e.g. the “common rule” on human subjects research and the animal welfare act. Take the philosophy out of science and you open the door to evil–as we have seen in history, about which a history writer should know.
February 1st, 2010 | 11:41 am
The issue is NOT whether an embryo is a “human organism.” DNA proves that. The issue is whether an embryo at any stage of development has legal personhood, such that it has rights that preclude its use in ESCR. Your own “human exceptionalism” arguments have already established that you have no immunity from the use of “trite canards,” so let’s be civil, shall we?
Oh, and BTW once one of the participants in an argument begins to bolster his attack on an opponent’s position with allusions to Nazism, I think it’s safe to say he’s on the losing side. The implication that scientists who disagree with your view of ethics are akin to Dr. Mengele is no different from the Al Gore/bin Laden comparison, for which you took a well-deserved lumping up in your readers’ comments.
February 1st, 2010 | 11:51 am
History Writer. And that–personhood, a concept I don’t use–isn’t a scientific issue. Hence, your assertions in this thread are nonsensical.
February 12th, 2010 | 9:45 am
HistoryWriter,
If ESCR was so good, then why do this?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012908.html
February 14th, 2010 | 1:39 am
Here’s the deal – rights come from moral duties. If an innocent person exists others have the duty not to kill that person. We abstract from that the notion of the right of that person to live. However, the right has nothing to do with the person, only others duty towards them. That being said, when does a human organism gain legal personhood? If it is placed at any point other than the very moment it becomes a human organism one has an extremely difficult time offering a reason for thaT specific time and not some other time, such as 3 weeks after the child is born.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact