Posted on 12/20/2004 4:42:05 PM PST by transhumanist
Genetically engineered embryonic stem cells could be a viable option to electronic cardiac pacemakers.
Since human embryonic stem cells have the capability to transform into any type of cell found in the human body, they have the potential to replace damaged cells of any type. So scientists at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland engineered, grew and developed them into heart cells. They then infused them with a gene that glows green to make them easily identifiable in the presence of other animal cells.
Of the engineered cells grown, those that beat on their own (an indication they were pacemaking cells) were inserted into guinea pig hearts, where they commenced regular beating. Days later, researchers froze out, and killed, the animal's own pacemaking cells, and conducted follow-up electrical testing that showed new beats were directed by the new cells, at slower rates than the animals' natural heart rates.
Careful experiments proved the origin of electrical signals and followed their conductions across the heart's surface -easily traced to the transplanted human heart cells because of their fluorescence.
"We've answered three very important questions," says Tian Xue, a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins. "We've shown that these humans cells survived when we put them into the animals, they were able to combine functionality with the animal's heart muscle, and they didn't create tumors for as long as we have watched."
Preferred alternative
This technique is the preferred alternative to the biological pacemaker Hopkins scientists came up with in 2002, when they reported that inserting a certain gene into heart muscle allows cells to generate a pacemaking signal.
The use of genetic engineering also represents an advance over studies by researchers at the Technion Institute in Haifa, Israel on the use of non-engineered embryonic stem cells to regulate heart activity.
Treatments such as this, however, require proof that the right cells can be acquired, segregated and controlled, so as to decrease potential for tumor development and the rejection of implanted cells.
Also, researchers don't yet know why the animal's immune systems didn't attack the foreign cells upon introduction. One hypothesis is that the cells didn't fully bond with the animal's circulatory system and, therefore, provoked no immune response. Further trials are necessary to determine whether or not this is the case, and how this circumstance could affect the long-term survival of the implanted cells.
The research is reported in the journal Circulation.
FYI and bump to read later...
Is there any reason to believe other stem cells could not be used as well? It would seem that in general autologous transfers would reduce the risks of rejection (even though rejection doesn't seem to have been a particular problem in these particular experiments, in general the risk is significant).
What if Medicare is barred by law from paying for those treatments?
Lets see, the Paralized will walk, Heart patients will run, the blind will see, and the deaf will hear.
BUT only if you let us Kill baby humans!!!!
How about these:
STEM CELLS REVERSE AGING
STEM CELLS COULD HELP MAN WALK ON WATER
STEM CELLS GIVE MAN ABILITY TO FLY
What's the plan here? Keep making all kinds of unfounded promises until we say "That's it! That's the one! NOW you've found the right reason to kill a baby!"
You would think the scientist would be embarrassed by these headlines that keep coming out each week. Medical journals are starting to sound like the Weekly World News in their desperate attempt to "sex up" the stem cell issue.
It worked in California to the tune of a few billion tax dollars. Why not!
Different types of stem cells work in different ways. The only way we will actually know what different kinds of stem cells are usable in different therapies is to experiment on them.
Fortunately, that's happening in places like California, New Jersey, Massachussetts, and perhaps soon Washington, where the states have taken the ball the Federal government has dropped.
"Now you've found the right reason to kill a baby!"
Are you seriously saying you believe the goal of embryonic stem cell research is to kill babies? I'm not getting into whether or not that is/isn't one result of such research, but- again - do you believe "dead babies" is the GOAL here?
I don't normally get into "embryonic stem cell" threads on FR for the simple reason that, no matter the various beliefs of individual FReepers, all manner of genetic research is going to occur during the near and not so near future. Like it or not, we have entered a new era - and it's not going away any time soon. Bio-technology, in which I am a big believer, is only in its infancy - as is genetic engineering. In fact, as long as bio-tech research continues in the private sector (I am opposed to Federal funding), I believe such research is far more likely to take root and succeed under an "Ownership Society" than it would under the tyrannical thumb of Dem controlled federal largesse.
Then the Chinese are going to walk all over us in this field of technology, as they're about to in quite a few others. We've got to stop turning our backs on the key technologies of the 21st Century or we're going to find ourselves on the short end of the stick on the global stage.
I think that the fact that this research is going on outside the NIH is very positive. I cannot think of anything less conducive to progress than a federal bureaucracy.
Adult stem cells have many inherent advantages over embryonic ones, including the possibility of autologous transfers (implanting one part of a person's body with cells taken from another part). Therefore, it would seem foolish to spend a large sum of money on embryonic stem cell research when the money could be spent on adult stem cell research, unless there is some reason to know that the former is significantly more likely to be productive.
I have yet to hear anyone articulate any basis whatsoever for believing that the embryonic research is more likely to yield beneficial results. Bear in mind that the question is not whether it might conceivably bear beneficial results, but whether it's more likely than adult-stem-cell research to do so.
Consequently, the only reason I can see why any knowledgeable person might favor embryonic research over adult-stem-cell research would be if the destruction of embryos was seen as desirable. Perhaps there's some other reason and I'm not seeing it. Maybe you could enlighten me.
One more reason to see Mexico!
Thank you for your answer, JanetteS. I was simply taken aback by what I thought sounded like an accusation that the goal of such research was to kill babies.
GummyIII, I did not state one way or the other what manner of stem cell research (if any) I supported. Though I am a believer in bio-tech and the possibilities of genetic engineering, I merely stated for the purpose of this thread that this manner of research was just beginning, no matter what any of us may think of this future. As for my question, I merely asked whether the Poster to whom I was responding truly believed the GOAL of embryonic research was to kill babies.
That Poster stated she did not believe the goal of such research was to kill babies. You, however, do seem to believe the GOAL of embryonic stem cell research is to kill babies. That's all I need to know.
Please re-read my original post. I never said I favored embryonic stem cell research over any other form of stem cell research. I don't know enough about the various forms of research to make a fair or honest judgment. That, I will leave to the doctors and scientists.
However, as stated, I am a believer in bio-tech and the possibilities of genetic engineering. It is coming and that, I think, is a good thing.
In the interest of truth, would you be willing to do a bit more research and reading?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.