Writing in the journal Cell on Wednesday, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston said they identified these cells in mice, then demonstrated that they can transform into the contracting cardiac muscle cells and the smooth muscle and endothelial cells that make up blood vessels...
These findings, the researchers said, could move scientists nearer to being able to use stem-cell therapies to regenerate tissues to repair congenital heart defects in children and damage caused by heart attacks in adults. They stressed, however, that they were not yet anywhere close to that goal.
More interesting is that the researchers used embryonic stem cells for this research. Apparently, journalists are now gun shy about identifying which stem cells are used in research, since we don't find this out until the eighth paragraph:
Chien noted that both studies involved the use of mouse embryonic stem cells, and said greater emphasis was needed on exploring the potential of human embryonic stem cells for repairing damaged hearts. He said it is probable the qualities seen in the mouse cells would be present in human cells, too.
"These studies together make a compelling case for unlocking the potential of embryonic stem cells," Chien said in an interview.
Compare and contrast that statement to what was said in this story in which we find that non-embryonic stem cells help dogs with dystrophy:
The study was published online Wednesday by the journal Nature. It used stem cells taken from the affected dogs or other dogs, rather than from embryos. For human use, the idea of using such "adult" stem cells from humans would avoid the controversial method of destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells.
What? No quote from a researcher about how we should "unlock the potential" of stem cells which are not embryonic? I wonder why that is?
Were you unaware that there are a great many possible uses for embryonic stem cells? And that non-embryonic stem cells are mostly useless?
ReplyDeleteWere you aware that there hasn't been a single cure, therapy, etc. found from embryonic stem cells? And that virtually every breakthrough has been through non-embryonic stem cells?
ReplyDeleteSharon, were you aware that medical research is funded by the federal government, and that if they will not provide funds, that such research will not be done? Researchers haven't been permitted to use embryonic stem cells, even though many embryos are destroyed every year.
ReplyDeletekaethe,
ReplyDeleteWere you aware that medical research is also funded by private sources as well as the government and that if one supports embryonic stem cell research one should put one's money where one's mouth is?
Researchers haven't been permitted to use embryonic stem cells, even though many embryos are destroyed every year.
kaethe, I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from lying. Here's the facts:
--Based on 2002 data, one study reports that private sector research and development in stem cells was being conducted by approximately 1000 scientists in over 30 firms. Aggregate spending was estimated at $208 million.1 Geron Corporation alone reported that it spent more than $70 million on stem cell research by September 2003.
--In the Stem Cell Business News Guide to Stem Cell Companies (Feb 2003), 61 U.S. and international companies are listed as pursuing some form of research or therapeutic product development involving stem cells. For example, Geron Corp. has announced plans to seek FDA approval to pursue human trials.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040714b.html