« Something Wrong Here | Main | Child Abuse in India »
April 11, 2007
Stem Cells and Diabetes
Excellent news here, looks like the use of stem cells can (at least if the disease is caught early) be used to rebuild the pancreas so that diabetics no longer need to inject insulin. But his little bit rather grates:
But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
Actually, Shrub doesn't currently oppose embryo stem cell research. He doesn't even oppose the use of Federal funding for such research. What he's done is refuse funding for the creation of new lines of such embryonic stem cells, an action which is, if I remember correctly, broadly in line with current proposals here.
But even leaving that aside, this research was from the patients own adult stem cells. So what the hell's that line got to do with it anyway? Is it actually mandatory to make that statement somehow, whenever stem cells are discussed?
It might also be worth noting a further fact. The phrase "most versatile" is as yet unproven. There are as yet no treatments at all that stem from (sorry) embryonic stem cells, but there are as above, some very interesting ones from adult lines. We might yet find out that adult line sare indeed more versatile, especially when we consider the subject of rejection.
April 11, 2007 in Health Care | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83468d1a869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stem Cells and Diabetes:
» Stem Cell Errors from L'Ombre de l'Olivier
Recently I wrote about how stem cell research is one of the areas that people don't grok properly. A good example of this is the coverage of the diabetes results today. The BBC and the Times both make misleading statements. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 11, 2007 1:00:19 PM
Comments
Adult stem cells -- known as "multipotent adult progenitor cells" (MAPCs) -- were identified in a 2002 paper by Catherine Verfaillie of Minnesota and were thought to be able to develop into any kind of body cell (something only thought possible with embryonic stem cells).
Unfortunately, as reported in New Scientist of 11 February, it appears that the data was severely flawed and no one has since been able to reporduce the Verfaillie team's results -- although the MAPCs have been shown to differentiate into all of the types of blood cell.
Note that that is what is happening here: the stem cells are not replacing the damaged pancreatic cells, but the rogue white cells that cause the damage in the first place.
DK
Posted by: Devil's Kitchen | Apr 11, 2007 1:08:53 PM
"There are as yet no treatments at all that stem from (sorry) embryonic stem cells"
This is innacurate. There are no approved treatments that use ESC, but there are experimental treatments that have shown great promise...specifically in repairing the spinal cord.
Tim adds: Fair enough. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: ME | Apr 11, 2007 3:40:55 PM
DK's point needs to be re-emphasized. This is not the use of "adult stem cells" as most of the public perceives them. These are not "stem cell lines" of any sort like ES cells. These are hematopoietic (blood forming) stem cells that are being given after ablation of the patient's marrow and immune system to 1. Save the patient and 2. "Re-set" the immune system so it stops attacking the pancreas cells that make insulin. There is not yet a clear ability to make ES or adult MAPCs turn into pancreatic beta cells after these have been destroyed. Treatments by "adult stem cells" are essentially all due to hematopoietic stem cells used in bone marrow transplants.
Posted by: Erik | Apr 11, 2007 7:50:00 PM
I remember a while back when Nathan Hamm was blogging exclusively about Uzbekistan, he found himself correcting so many false claims about Islam Karimov that people thought he was a Karimov supporter.
It's the same with Bush: it now seems obligatory for the European press to make a reference to Bush when talking about any subject, with the inevitable result that the reference is either not valid or obviously false. Those who start pointing out these errors end up being branded as Bush supporters.
I'm too young to say if the media was always this piss-poor in its reporting, but it sure as hell is piss-poor now.
Posted by: Tim Newman | Apr 11, 2007 11:56:02 PM
