Embryonic stem cell research might now be more potentially viable for the UK Stem Cell Bank, which learned that samples from 150 random human embryos, far fewer than previously thought, might be able to generate materials beneficial for two thirds of the population. Embryonic stem cells can mature into various types of tissue that can potentially be used to replace “diseased or damaged tissue in conditions such as diabetes and neurodegenerative disorders.” A
Displeased opponents say "false hope" is being raised among "desperate patients". Disregarding such criticisms, many scientists welcome stem cell research from spare IVF embryos as offering the possibility of a more cost-effective and practical alternative to therapeutic cloning. The scientific team calculated that cells from 150 random embryos would be enough to provide the best possible match for 13% of recipients, a favourable level of match for 65%, and some use for as many as 85%. Surprisingly, just 10 types of specifically selected genetic material would be enough to provide a favourable level of match for 78% of recipients.
At present the UK bank contains stem cells suitable only for research. Professor Pedersen told the BBC News website that “this research tells us is that the number of lines needed to achieve a significant clinical value is in the practical realm.” Professor Pederson also said that researchers were already working from spare IVF embryos. Dr Glyn Stacey, director of the UK Stem Cell Bank, acknowledged the importance of recent findings, but admitted researchers were still “a long way away in terms of establishing the basic cell culture methods” and do not know “whether all stem cell lines will give the full range of tissues." The charity Life argues that research had shown adult stem cells preferable to embryonic stem cells fro the purposes of treating disease. Spokesman Matthew O'Gorman said: "The
2 comments:
Given the past week's revelations about the the South Koreans' research in this area, however, we should all be quite a bit more skeptical of promises of cures for human disease any time soon. If somatic stem cell nuclear transfer has in fact *not* worked in humans, this field is nowhere near as far along as had been reported/believed. . . doesn't mean it can't, or won't, happen--but from a policy standpoint, a realistic understanding of what might be possible, and when, is important information.
Kevin, a question--since it seems like you know something about the science end of this. I understand that SCNT is about where to *get* stem cells, etc.
But I also thought that the reason SCNT was seen as attractive was that it would enable the creation of stem cells that would be compatible (because genetically identical) to the cell donor--which would theoretically reduce the risk of rejection. Am I off base here?
Post a Comment