November 21, 2007...7:40 am
The Six Degrees of Stem Cell Research
This post is part of today’s Google News. See my comment in SFGate, USA Today and the San Jose Mercury News (registration required).
by Christopher Scott
The news that scientists have made human embryonic-like cells by reprogramming skin cells shouldn’t overshadow the fact that these exciting results rely on, and will continue to rely on, our understanding of human embryonic stem cells. The guild of stem cell biology is agnostic to cell type: it makes no distinctions among adult, embryonic and now “induced pluripotent stem cells.”
In order to utilize our knowledge for future therapies, discoveries from every corner of biology must be freely shared and fully employed. The genes used by these labs are present in human embryonic stem cells: an instance of how one area of biology informs another. One of the lead reprogramming experts, James Thomson, is known for his discoveries with human embryonic stem cells. And, this week’s report about cloning monkey cells is a major step towards making custom-matched embryonic stem cell lines for research and medicine. Not surprisingly, Dr. Thomson trained at the same Oregon institute that reported the monkey cloning discovery.
The interrelatedness of these discoveries, and the histories behind them, is testament to why we must freely pursue all avenues of stem cell research.
4 Comments
November 21, 2007 at 12:34 am
I am a layman. I did see and respond (with these same thoughts below) to the post of Nov. 14, which seems to address my questions. Here is my worry about stem cells - genes, etc.
If you take a gene from one position in the DNA chain and introduce it into another, does this represent a man-made mutation? In other words, if certain genes are the result of adaptation - read natural selection - to specific stimuli in the human environment, how does this abrupt change affect the human organism? We are told that it takes generations for each mutation to manifest itself. Yet here the scientists (”engineers?”
are producing mutations “instantly.” Wouldn’t the other genes in the rest of the DNA chain have to adjust? How does the rest of the organism react to such a sudden change? How does this relate to the “bettering” (”quickening” in the biblical sense” 
or “worsening” of the human condition in response to the application of drugs and other medical approaches?
Does one have to “replace” the “old” genes with the “new” ones? In the absence of natural selection, how is this achieved? What is the linkage between the “new” genes and the gestational or regenerative processes of the biological structure’s ability to construct anew? Do the scientists mean they can inject these genes and somehow they will produce a “corrected” DNA helix? Is this a sub-microscopic surgery technique? Or is this something that has to be done in a “petri dish” style, and then implanted into the human biological organism once “it” reaches a specific growth stage?
Am I making any sense?
November 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Oy! Many reporters calling today.
Carl’s questions are a bit outside the scope of TSC. But scientists can make mutations (small changes in DNA sequence) and also can splice genes (aka recombinant DNA or genetic engineering). The example in TSC’s Gene Therapy and Stem Cells is a new kind of gene splicing. It’s done with cells in the laboratory. In “gene transfer” clinical trials, the cells with the new genes are transplanted into human volunteers. Here’s a place to go for more information: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/therapy/genetherapy
Nice one Bob: “…people that support the ethical route have for years been saying that embryonic stem cells offer no cures and is over hyped, so why should they support this new synthetic type of embryonic stem cell?”
November 21, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Congrats on the recognition, Chris, and well said.
January 3, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I totally agree with you Chris! the opportunity of reprogramming skin cells, not only shows that as Spinoza used to say ,fear is linked to ignorance, but the more we know, the more exiting is the research in terms of the plasticity of possibles! this technique might also accomodate those who have an essentialist vision on human nature , because it is all about artificiality and not manipulating “life” ! Only symbolic representations are wrinkled! but a very important work of vulgarisation still needs to be made, to allow fear to be replaced by the joy of imagining the future…..as the song used to say!
happy new year!
Mylène baum
Leave a Reply