Advanced Cell Technology (With their laboratory right in our very own Worcester!) has come up with a way to create stem cells without hurting or destroying a human embryo.
Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only eight or so cells.
The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother’s womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.
When the embryonic stem cell argument began, many scientists speculated that it would be impossible or improbable to create stem cells without destroying an embryo that would have viable, stable cells. Apparently, this method has breached the issue.
This process was carried out by scientists at ACT and then carried out by independent scientist groups across the East Coast to assure the veracity of the process.
“The stem cells we generated were completely normal and differentiated into all the cell types of the body, including insulin-producing cells, blood cells and even beating heart cells.”
This is an extremely exciting event, and we should be proud of the men and women who laboriously solved a problem through dedication and science that would never have been solved through partisan politics and bickering.
I can only hope that this company and its employees see a big check from Uncle Sam with “Research Grant” written all over it.
… I assume embryos that are harvested but not harmed using this technique are still discarded when not used for implantation.
<
p>Isn’t it the case that before this method the harvesting still happened on embryos that were not going to be implanted and were discarded?
<
p>If so, the only thing I can see here that is different is ‘when’ the embryo’s are discarded, unless it can be said that this somehow reduces the ‘violence’ done to the embryo…, if such a term is even applicable to a group of 100 or so cells.
…count me as one who is dubious about all of these “silver bullets” promised by medical reseearch. I’ve seen too many claims by medical researchers that don’t pan out. But I don’t claim to be a biologist or a medical researcher.
<
p>That said, I wish that people who oppose embryonic stem cell research would be honest in their objection. I’ve only heard this once a few years ago, but those who oppose embryonic stem cell recearch really fear is that, if the research actually does pan out, it will result in the creation of “embryo factories” whose primary purpose is to generate embryoes for the purpose of providing stem cells. That is their real fear.
<
p>It may be the case that JoeTS’s ACT can ameliorate that fear to some extent but I would be surprised if it could completely eliminate the issue. There would still have to be embryo factories to create the stem cells.
will still exist in the form of fertility clinics. JoeTS, what are you doing to discourage that ongoing problem?
ray is very right that this is no silver bullet. nothing is going to solve every problem all at once. It’s finding different solutions and putting them all together.
<
p>If you ignore the important of a method that doesn’t kill embryos, you’re faking ignorance for the sake of spiting me. Not impressed.
i’m expanding the discussion.
<
p>as to the new method above, it may be an improvement if
–all such embryos are implanted
–enough are brought to term and beyond to prove that the method has done no permanent damage. as with test tube babies, this requires following individuals health throughout their lives. so, too soon to call it safe. best one can say is potentially safe.
The beginning of the process is identical to that used for a certain type of Preimplantation Genetic Testing that has been used in In Virto Fertilization for couples who are at risk for passing on deadly genetic conditions. The children from resulting pregnancies are already around.
but it still cant be called safe until we know such people make it through life without higher rates of medical troubles or mortality. that is, if such embryos even get implanted…
…when we’ll have answers. I can’t promise to be too coherent, though. đŸ™‚ The embryos tested in IVF clinics by this method are the exact ones that are implanted, if that was at all confusing.
… was used on embryos that were never going to be implanted, and even with the new method there are many more embryos that will not be implanted, what exactly is being ‘saved’?
…a 150-cell blastocyst is a life?
… assume that it is. The old method destroyed life that was headed for certain death anyways. The new method doesn’t, but its headed for certain death anyways also. What’s the point?
…the “embryo factories” that I was referring to would be establishments to generate embryoes for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells.
<
p>That is far different than fertility clinics, which exist to produce embryoes at least some of which will–it is hoped by those attending the clinics and paying oodles of money–be implanted.
After a quick perusal of the paper, the major difference seems to be an efficiency increase in their 2006 procedure from ~2% to over 20%. Considering the 2006 procedure had significant political critics (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/… and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08… ) I’m not certain the Pro-Life camp will be satisfied.
<
p>I’m think the choice of cell line nomenclature is more marketing-driven than anything else, which is distracting. They’ve called the cell lines NEDn, where NED stands for No Embryo Destruction, and n is a number related to the chronology of line development. I would have liked to see a more value neutral naming convention.