Adult Stem Cells Taken from Parkinson's Disease Patients Produce Dopamin Making Cells in Brains of Rats!
This could be the early stages of some very good news for Parkinson's patients. Two years ago SHS readers learned that human paralyzed spinal cord injury patients have had feeling restored with their own nasal mucosa stem cells--a story utterly ignored by an MSM that would have shouted the breakthrough from the rooftops if it had been done with embryonic stem cells. And now, another type of human nasal stem cells from human Parkinson's patients have dramatically improved the brain functioning of rats giving hope for an eventual Parkinson's treatment. From the story: The Griffith University study published today in the journal Stem Cells found that adult stem cells harvested from the noses of Parkinson's patients gave rise to dopamine-producing brain cells when transplanted into the brain of a rat. The debilitating symptoms of Parkinson's such as loss of muscle control are caused by degeneration of cells that produce the essential chemical dopamine in the brain...
What about the side effects we've seen with ES studies? More good news:
Project leader Professor Alan Mackay-Sim said researchers simulated Parkinson's symptoms in rats by creating lesions on one side of the brain similar to the damage Parkinson's causes in the human brain. "The lesions to one side of the brain made the rats run in circles," he said. "When stem cells from the nose of Parkinson's patients were cultured and injected into the damaged area the rats re-aquired the ability to run in a straight line. "All animals transplanted with the human cells had a dramatic reduction in the rate of rotation within just 3 weeks," he said."This provided evidence the cells had differentiated to give rise to dopamine-producing neurons influenced by being in the environment of the brain. In-vitro tests also revealed the presence of dopamine."
Now that's what I am talking about!
"Significantly, none of the transplants led to formation of tumours or teratomas in the host rats as has occurred after embryonic stem cell transplantation in a similar model. He said like all stem cells, stem cells from the olfactory nerve in the nose are 'naïve' having not yet differentiated into which sort of cells they will give rise to. "They can still be influenced by the environment they are put into. In this case we transplanted them into the brain, where they were directed to give rise to dopamine producing brain cells."
The advantage of using a patient's own cells is that, unlike stem cells from a foreign embryo, they are not rejected by the patient's immune system, so patients are free from a lifetime of potentially dangerous immuno-suppressant drug therapy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 6:40 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
That is awesome news. I'm going to bring this to the attention of my students in class today. (We've just concluded a section on stem cells and GE.)
Are there moral arguments which arise from using a pt's own cells to repair damage to themselves?
None of which I am aware. Stem cells are just cells. The ethical objection to ES cells has to do with how they are derived, not the moral value of the cells themselves.
The embryo wouldn't be so foreign if it was cloned from the patient. That's why therapeutic cloning is still being researched - the unrivalled potential of embryonic stem cells combined with the immuno-compatibility of the patient's own cells.
And fortunately, Parkinson's has already been treated by therapeutic cloning (albeit in mice): http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm1732
That would mean, of course, Joshua, that you would create a clone of the patient and then deliberately kill him/her in order to procure the stem cells. That's the gigantic ethical problem with "therapeutic" cloning.
Well, it's creating a cloned embryo from which cells will be derived (not a cloned person, with a heart, lungs and kidneys to be transplanted into the patient, as in the movie 'The Island'). There aren't really any more ethical problems with therapeutic cloning than with embryonic stem cells - although some would argue those are 'gigantic' enough.
No Joshua; It moves us further along to the instrumentalization of human life. ESCR, we were told, would only use the "leftover" embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway. The idea was since they were doomed, we might as well get some beneficial use out of them.
With cloning, you are CREATING new life for the purpose of destroying it. That is a first in human history as far as I know.
AND cloning opens up the Brave New World horrors.
So it is a big step, indeed the crucial step that most be prevented.
Therapeutic cloning is creating life for the purpose of saving another life. The destruction of the embryo is just incidental in the prevention of other deaths and further suffering.
Furthermore, if it is acceptable to create and destroy embryos in the process of achieving a pregnancy (through IVF or natural means, both of have high rates of embryo mortality), then surely it is even more acceptable to create and destroy life to save an already existing person's life. After all, we as a society place more emphasis on saving lives than creating them (otherwise doctors and nurses would have better things to do than treat patients).
What Brave New World arguments are opened up by therapeutic cloning? Reproductive cloning may have some extra moral arguments to be considered, but the therapeutic cloning doesn't have these (unless the 'slippery slope' is invoked to argue against both forms of cloning as if they were identical).
"Furthermore, if it is acceptable to create and destroy embryos in the process of achieving a pregnancy (through IVF or natural means, both of have high rates of embryo mortality), then surely it is even more acceptable to create and destroy life to save an already existing person's life."
Joshua, the embryonic human being you create with the intention of killing him/her is ALSO an "already existing person." That's the part you seem to keep missing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home