Trading Parkinson's for Brain Cancer

[dancingguy]

Nature has a report up about an attempt to cure Parkinson's using human embryonic stem cells (in rats)."The positive results were really remarkably strong," Goldman says. "The animals exhibited almost a complete restoration of normal function."

But there could be alarming side effects. Each stem-cell transplant also contained cells that had failed

Comments

[kennita]

"It will be several years before clinical trials of stem-cell approaches to Parkinson's disease can proceed, says Lindvall." doesn't sound like "oversold" to me. I also think that cells that can turn into 'anything' *are* a feature, once you learn to control the 'anything'. NAND gates can turn into 'anything', too, as can primary colors.

I envision the researchers eventually picking what they want to differentiate the cells into, and using some kind of sorting to filter out the ones they want. It may be a while, but certainly they ought to work on it; even if they don't reach their final goal (which I think they eventually will), good techniques and knowledge will come from the effort.

[dancingguy]

Well, if "several" == "a decade or more", then they're not overselling it. Otherwise? They've been running into this exact same problem (not everything differentiates into what you want) for at least the last 6 years, and don't have a clue how to deal with it.

When they do get a clue, it will almost assuredly come from animal embryonic stem cell research, not human.

Besides, I'm not talking about that article, I'm talking about human embryonic stem cell research proponents in general. Take, for example, this ad Michael J. Fox did for Clair McCaskill in MO. This research isn't going to help Michael J Fox, it's not coming on nearly fast enough. Pretending otherwise is definitely overselling the snake oil.

Cells that can turn into "anything" are only a "feature" when you want the cells to turn into multiple, wildly different cell types

[kennita]

Well, if "several" == "a decade or more", then they're not overselling it. Otherwise? They've been running into this exact same problem (not everything differentiates into what you want) for at least the last 6 years, and don't have a clue how to deal with it.

The article indicated they do have a clue. And they aren't saying several years to marketable product. They are saying several years before clinical trials can proceed. It can easily be more than ten years before FDA approval.

When they do get a clue, it will almost assuredly come from animal embryonic stem cell research, not human.

They're headed that way; note that the animal stem cells are grown on a scaffold of human fetal cells.

This research isn't going to help Michael J Fox, it's not coming on nearly fast enough. Pretending otherwise is definitely overselling the snake oil.We went from 0 to the moon in 10 years, and from 0 to the human genome in 5 (IIRC). Of *course* we can figure this out in the 30-40 years Michael J. Fox has left. Criminy -- he's younger than

[dancingguy]

The article indicated they do have a clue.

Then the article lied. Or your definition of "have a clue" is a lot more generous than mine. "We had to kill the rats because otherwise the results would have totally embarrassed us" does not equal "have a clue" in my book.

They are saying several years before clinical trials can proceed. It can easily be more than ten years before FDA approval.

Which is not what the pro human ESC people say in public (see Michael J. Fox stem cell ads from this election).

They're headed that way; note that the animal stem cells are grown on a scaffold of human fetal cells.

Which is insane. They're bringing up the possibility of immune reactions, and problems between incompatible hormones. For what? The ability to piss off pro-lifers?

Get it working in animals, with animal ESCs. Find the relevant genes. Then map it to humans.

We went from 0 to the moon in 10 yearsYep, and because it was a political glory shot, we then ended up leaving it

[dancingguy]

Me: Cells that can turn into "anything" are only a "feature" when you want the cells to turn into multiple, wildly different cell types.

They're a feature when you want them to be *able* to turn into multiple cell types -- for example, when you don't want to have to store, file, etc. separate containers of cells for every cell type in the body.

1: Most cell types will grow on their own, we don't need stem cells for them.
2: I don't know about you, but I don't want my new organs / brain cells coming from someone else's genome, with someone else's immune system markers. I want them coming from mine (possibly w/ some gene therapy before hand). Which means doing research on the differentiation signals, not screwing around with ESCs and hoping you get lucky.
3: Do a Yahoo news search on umbilical cord stem cells. We've got people making tiny livers (lots more work still needed) and lung cells from such stem cells. And we've got far better supply (how many live births each year?).

In short, the only existing stem cell treatments

[kennita]

OK, OK -- I am plowed under by your superior and fewer-than-mine-th-hand knowledge of the subject. My main goal is to see to it that the research isn't made illegal -- even if they haven't a clue now, it doesn't mean they won't get one. The arguments that I hear against it in the media aren't about it being dangerous or wasteful or oversold -- they're about it being immoral and impious and playing God. None of this (IMHO) is valid reason to make the research illegal. hESC may indeed be diverting valuable resources from pursuits with shorter-term benefits -- that's an argument to have in the grant-awarding room, not the law room, which is where it seems to be happening.

I might be much more willing to rail against hESC once we have a more liberal and less autocratic administration. People who want to make a law against anything they don't like Bother me.