Centerfield

The technical information I'm trying to figure out is whether such an embryonic stem cell would, if implanted in a woman's womb, develop and grow into a baby. Calling it an "embryonic" stem cell rather than just a stem cell would seem to suggest that it would.

Me, I have no problem with therapeutic cloning, in which the nucleus of your skin cell is placed into a denucleated, unfertilized egg, bathed in a calcium bath, and schocked into growing. But I know the hard core right to lifers (visit RedState to see them) consider this wrong because they consider this a (very) immature human being, because if implanted in a womb it would grow up.

For myself, I see no moral difference between this and the therapeutic cloning process. But I would like more technical details of the growth potential of these new cells.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 22, 2005 06:17 PM

Pat;
My bet is they're using the term "embryonic stem cell" to indicate an undifferentiated cell line that can be used in ways similar to other stem cell lines.

I have to admit I'm having flashbacks of that scene from Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper" where he's holding the ruler's nose hostage (they were going to clone a new one with the cells from his nose)

Posted by: c3 at August 22, 2005 06:43 PM

Yeah, that's my bet too, but I haven't seen any specifics on it. However, the News24 article says:

The hybrid cells created by the Harvard team "had the appearance, growth rate, and several key genetic characteristics of human embryonic cells," the summary of their work said.

"They also behaved like embryonic cells, differentiating into cells from each of the three main tissue types that form in a developing embryo," it said.

The articles also seem to suggest that the cells contain DNA from both the skin cell and a donor adult stem cell. The article is not precise enough to tell exactly what is going on. It seems like they mean more than just mitochondrial DNA from the donor cell, but I can't be sure. Unfortunately, the actual article does not seem available at science.com.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 22, 2005 07:17 PM

Calling it an "embryonic" stem cell rather than just a stem cell would seem to suggest that it would.

That was what caught my attention, too. Is it just because the writer is unaware that (or assumes the general public is unaware that...; or, for that matter, wishes to actively promote the view that...) there are no types of stem cells being researched other than embrionic stem cells. Posted by: Simon at August 22, 2005 07:43 PM

Here's a link to Science Blog with some of the technical details. The fusing of the cells resulted in cells with the combined DNA of the adult cells and the embryonic cells, but with the development characteristics of embryonic cells.

Posted by: Bruce at August 23, 2005 01:37 AM

I think Bruce has found the best way to describe it.

Posted by: Moderate Man at August 23, 2005 02:00 AM

I'm hopeful such research will need to treatments that improve both the quality and the quantity of individual human lives.

I wonder how much of an effect it will have on the debate. As Pat suggests, hardcore right-to-lifers are bound to make up the largest part of a group that continues to argue against virtually all advances that have any odor whatsoever of "playing God." This is bound to occur regardless of the extent to which we already do so in ways that have been largely accepted as positives, such as artificial insemination.

I guess the way it shifts the debate is conceivably by moving more people from the objectors column to the acceptors column. It doesn't really change the nature of the debate though.

Posted by: bk at August 23, 2005 09:15 AM

I think the hardcore right-to-life camp will have a very hard time getting traction in fighting this effort in a politically meaningful way, assuming that this effort is actually scientifically meaningful. Dare I say that they would be seen as being "obstructionists?"

Posted by: WHQ at August 23, 2005 09:32 AM

What Bruce said. "Embryonic" does NOT mean that the derived stem cells can be used as embryos. It means that they behave like embryo-derived stem cells, being pluripotent.

Is it just because the writer is unaware that (or assumes the general public is unaware that...; or, for that matter, wishes to actively promote the view that...)there are no types of stem cells being researched other than embrionic stem cells

Point of fact--research is being done on more than just embryonic stem cells, and has been for near forty years. As the subject of the article demonstrates. Adult stem cells have been researched since the 1960's, cord blood stem cells since the late 80's. (I have a relative who is/was heavily involved in cord blood stem cell research.) Embryonic stem cell research didn't get rolling until late '98, when a technique for isolating and growing them in the lab was developed. Wikipedia has an excellent background article here.

Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2005 10:00 AM