| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 17:21:59
Zapped human eggs divide without sperm
19:00 01 December 2004
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Andy Coghlan
A trick that persuades human eggs to divide as if they have been fertilised could provide a source of embryonic stem cells that sidesteps ethical objections to existing techniques. It could also be deployed to improve the success rate of IVF.
“Embryos” created by the procedure do not contain any paternal chromosomes – just two sets of chromosomes from the mother – and so cannot develop into babies. This should remove the ethical objections that some people have to harvesting from donated human embryos. There are high hopes that stem cells, which can develop into many different cell types, could be used to treat a range of diseases.
The tricked eggs divide for four or five days until they reach 50 to 100 cells – the blastocyst stage. These blastocysts should in theory yield stem cells, but because they are parthenogenetic – produced from the egg only – they cannot be viewed as a potential human life, says Karl Swann of the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff, UK.
“This could eliminate one of the main sources of ethical controversy in this research,” says Bob Lanza, head of research at the cloning company Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts.
But Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, a London-based pro-life lobby group greeted the new procedure with caution. “I’d be happier if it was beyond all reasonable doubt that it could not become a human life.” She added that women must not be exploited to provide eggs.
“Spark of life”
Swann’s team tricked the eggs into dividing by injecting phospholipase C-zeta (PLC-zeta), an enzyme produced by sperm that Swann discovered two years ago with Cardiff colleague Tony Lai.
“It’s the spark of life,” says Swann, who has previously showed that the human version of the protein can trigger mouse eggs to develop into blastocysts. “It tricks the egg into thinking it has been fertilised.”
Human eggs contain two sets of chromosomes, one of which is normally jettisoned within two hours of fertilisation. Swann and his team used a standard chemical treatment to prevent this, so both sets in the parthenogenetic embryos come from the mother. The embryos appear to undergo the same changes as naturally fertilised eggs, producing waves of calcium ions across the cell every 20 to 30 minutes.
Swann hopes to be the first to harvest embryonic stem cells from human parthenogenetic blastocysts, but other scientists are trying different approaches. In 2003, a team led by David Wininger, now at Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, grew parthenogenetic human blastocysts by stimulating eggs chemically (New Scientist print edition, 26 April 2003).
His approach involves triggering a calcium wave. “We don’t have a [stem] cell line yet, but it’s only a matter of time,” Wininger told New Scientist. A similar approach has yielded stem cells from parthenogenetic monkey blastocysts.
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 08:23:54
I once lived in a place where gekkos (sp?) would crawl up the shower
walls.
 I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| VoVat |
Posted - 02/05/2005 : 10:09:08
Sasquatches make everything better!
Okay, maybe not EVERYTHING. I'm not sure I'd want one around when I was taking a shower. But forum threads? Absolutely.
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 17:19:48
don't complain about the ape. the ape's cute.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| shineoftheever |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 16:30:32
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I'm pro stem cell research, but I'm also pro-abortion (I refuse to get into the semantics game of pro-choice/pro-life), so that's probably not a big surprise.
i too am anti-semantic!  |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 16:20:43
Oh My Oh Me!
lookit! Who started this?
Erebus, I think you need some quiet time to think about what you've done young man. I have an ape thing in this thread and it's all your fault. Go sit in the corner. Go on, and next time if you've something to say, say it properly.
(thats him told)
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| VoVat |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 13:20:15
I don't congratulate anyone on anything. Praise swells heads.
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| floop |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 11:06:11
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by floop
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
And I congratulate you on your self-loathing.
i congratulate you on your smug superiority
I claim little beyond not being cloven-hoofed.
you claim to have a longer beard than me
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 11:00:19
----------------------
  |
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 10:51:05
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by floop
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
And I congratulate you on your self-loathing.
i congratulate you on your smug superiority
I claim little beyond not being cloven-hoofed.
I congratulate everybody on everything.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 10:28:37
quote:
Originally posted by floop
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
And I congratulate you on your self-loathing.
i congratulate you on your smug superiority
I claim little beyond not being cloven-hoofed. |
| floop |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 09:59:52
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
And I congratulate you on your self-loathing.
i congratulate you on your smug superiority
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 09:46:21
ach erebus it's a valid point
(Kathryn's that is)
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 09:37:43
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
And I congratulate you on your self-loathing. |
| hWolsky |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 02:34:26
We want You Big Brother and your Clones please....
"Fuck You, I'm in Tin Machine" |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 01:56:37
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
ivandivel: most research of this type isn't actually done by the medical companies though, it takes place in research labs and universities and gets picked up by drug companies when they can make it cost effective from your article: The discovery of a drug candidate is usually the result of research into the molecular basis of disease,which is done primarily in academic or government lab-
oratories. We all know the medical companies are big bads (GSK can go fuck themselves in my book, phizer too) but I don't think (in this case) it's wholly relevent. Compare the care costs of someone with a debilitating disease for the rest of their lives with the costs of a potential cure and it works out at either even or more cost effective. The big drug burdens are in those cases (imo) when they aren't really needed, but drains on services aren't really my field.
In fact, I'll pull out another example in a bit of a new technology that could revolutionize the world of cancer treatments but isn't because at the moment it isn't cost effective.
Monsieur I wholly agree in that imo if this technology is saving lives (and it so obviously is) the so called ethical restrictions placed on is (in the US in particular) crazy. The embryo issue has been the largest stumbing block for development outside of those countries that are willing to work with that fact. I think if they can create these so called ethical stem cells lacking in both parental chromosomes so that worldwide work can be done on it this is a good thing, yes?
(btw I'm looking up Octavia Butler)
Superbounder, don't rely on me for shit my friend, I'm a colosal retard.
you
me
we used to be on fire
Oh i know....
Got carried away. I don't agree it is absolutely not relevant though, given the strong ties between these companies and the universities (and the government i might add).
However, my second point is still relevant and that is what the government should spend it's money on. Then you'll have to look at the whole picture, and not just the medical problems relevant to stem cell research. How many will benefit from such research? What kind of other research will be neglected? And why is it so incredibly difficult to get funds for research on social interventions (which would save lots and lots of lives) and so easy to get funds for "medical" research? Why do we spend so much money on research and medical interventions aimed at extending life from, let's say 65 to 75, when there is so much to be done in helping people to have an ok life from 0 to 40? I think people easily forget that research in one area is always conducted at the cost of research in another area. People want to say "Yes please" to all, but they can't. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 12:21:37
Monsieur, I am happy for your family and I assume you share my
relief that your mom does not live in the States.
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| GypsyDeath |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:01:08
I feel it to be important research, which, as monsieur has said can save lifes.
I dont think there is anything wrong with researching in to something which can, and does help people.
Just for the record, im Pro - Choice on the abortion side of things.
 |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 07:56:17
I don't remember where this qoute is from, and it will probably just inflame more right vs. left wing off-topic posting, but I think it's great (paraphrase): "we have a president who would rather see a soldier die than a zygote". |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 07:39:53
PS, that's great news for the scientific community and bad news for men everywhere who are tired of hearing women preach about our increasing irrelevance. :)
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 07:34:03
I'm pro stem cell research, but I'm also pro-abortion (I refuse to get into the semantics game of pro-choice/pro-life), so that's probably not a big surprise.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 07:05:31
ivandivel: most research of this type isn't actually done by the medical companies though, it takes place in research labs and universities and gets picked up by drug companies when they can make it cost effective from your article: The discovery of a drug candidate is usually the result of research into the molecular basis of disease,which is done primarily in academic or government lab-
oratories. We all know the medical companies are big bads (GSK can go fuck themselves in my book, phizer too) but I don't think (in this case) it's wholly relevent. Compare the care costs of someone with a debilitating disease for the rest of their lives with the costs of a potential cure and it works out at either even or more cost effective. The big drug burdens are in those cases (imo) when they aren't really needed, but drains on services aren't really my field.
In fact, I'll pull out another example in a bit of a new technology that could revolutionize the world of cancer treatments but isn't because at the moment it isn't cost effective.
Monsieur I wholly agree in that imo if this technology is saving lives (and it so obviously is) the so called ethical restrictions placed on is (in the US in particular) crazy. The embryo issue has been the largest stumbing block for development outside of those countries that are willing to work with that fact. I think if they can create these so called ethical stem cells lacking in both parental chromosomes so that worldwide work can be done on it this is a good thing, yes?
(btw I'm looking up Octavia Butler)
Superbounder, don't rely on me for shit my friend, I'm a colosal retard.
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 02:28:45
Stem cell research saved my mother's life two years ago. She would have died if she had fallen ill five years earlier.
Believe me, in that kind of situation, you don't give a fuck about cells without paternal chromosomes.
By the way, parthenogenesis is nothing new, try Octavia Butler.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| ivandivel |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 02:06:47
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
I don't see what is unethical about promising medical research.
(Let the pelting by rotten vegetables begin!)
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank
You are talking about the most profitable industry in the world. Anything that can produce revenue is considered promising. What medical research in the world is not promising? Besides the obvious ethical issues involved it is also a question of what the government should spend it's money on because government spendings are the key income source for most of these companies. I regularly attend meetings with these companies where they come with their food and cool coffeecans and invitations to conferences in exotic locations, after a brief introduction to this new and promising drug that we really should try with our patients. What should we spend money on? Drugs that cost $10 000 a year pr patient (they do), surgery that extends life from 85 to 90? Or maybe spend some money to ensure that people have a decent life from 0 to 40? An apartment, maybe a job. Read this: http://www.commercialalert.org/relmanangell.pdf , which has nothing to do with stem cell research, but it might cast some light on such discussions. |
| Perk |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 23:34:47
Floop..
http://www.realdoll.com/
You didn't say a real woman.
Don't sweat the petty things
and don't pet the sweaty things |
| floop |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 21:30:04
i don't see what's unethical about actually making a woman
ist es möglich für ein quesadilla skrotum zu lecken? beim sprechen der quesadillas von LBF, ja. ja in der tatheheheheheheehehee! |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 21:09:35
go kitty go...we're all counting on you to solve the major medical crises of the 21st century. No pressure.
Irish folk-tales scare the shit out of me |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 19:40:27
haha I didn't see that.. aah southpark is funny
you
me
we used to be on fire |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 19:28:57
I'm sorry hehe but the first thing I'm thinking of is that episode of Southpark with Christopher Reeves cracking open fetuses and sucking the cells out of them until they deflate and crumple up...
__________
Godfather of nothing, ancesters of none.
Black glasses and feedback took my sense of fun.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 18:40:59
I don't see what is unethical about promising medical research.
(Let the pelting by rotten vegetables begin!)
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 17:34:46
ok.. because I can tell you are all fascinated:
"In the United States, controversy has raged about ethical public policies toward some potential sources of human stem cells for research, particularly human embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) or created through somatic cell nuclear transfer. This article critically examines the ethical and policy issues, particularly as they have emerged in the reports and recommendations of two presidentially appointed advisory bodies: The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and the President's Council on Bioethics (PCB)."
Childress J.F Human stem cell research: some controversies in bioethics and public policy Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases: Volume 32, Issue 1 , January-February 2004, Pages 100-105
"Much interest and effort has focused on the therapeutic potential of stem cell technology to treat presently intractable diseases. However, this scientific promise has been accompanied by important issues, including ethical hurdles, political policies and dilemmas concerning cell-source selection (embryonic versus adult stem cells). Although the contribution of stem cells to medical research seems enormous, many countries now face complex ethical and regulatory questions, which could represent a significant limitation to medical progress and could take years to overcome."
Gorka Orive, Rosa M. Hernández, Alicia R. Gascón, Manoli Igartua and José Luis Pedraz Controversies over stem cell research Trends in Biotechnology: Volume 21, Issue 3 , March 2003, Pages 109-112
"Therapeutic cloning is a new technology with great medical potential, particularly in the area of transplantation medicine. It involves the transfer of the nucleus of a patient's cell into an enucleated donor oocyte for the purpose of generating an embryo. This embryo is allowed to grow until the blastocyst stage, at which time stem cells can be obtained and differentiated into the tissue needed. Stem cells can also be obtained from adult tissues, as they seem to have sufficient plasticity to use for the stated purpose. A literature review was performed, and it is clear that the main controversy regarding the use of stem cells is the origin. Few people would object to their use if obtained from adult tissues; however, many oppose harvesting them from embryos in the blastocyst stage regardless of whether 1) they are obtained from surplus embryos donated by couples after assisted reproductive techniques, or 2) they are specially manufactured for research purposes. The central reason is the consideration that embryos should be treated as full humans from the moment of fertilization. This argument is also at the bottom of an older discussion regarding the validity of abortion. There is no consensus at the present time in this regard, and it is unlikely one will be forthcoming in the future. Arguments on both sides of the issue are presented, but emphasis is made on the need for using this technology for research purposes because of its potential value as a therapeutic tool."
Lisker R Ethical and legal issues in therapeutic cloning and the study of stem cells Archives of Medical Research
Volume 34, Issue 6 , November-December 2003, Pages 607-611
you
me
we used to be on fire |
