This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Last I heard, there was basically one therapy dervied from adult stem cells, that had many applications. To my understanding, the problem in getting more therapies from adult cells is that they are limited in what they can become. The problem with embryonic cells is controlling what they can become. Which problem seems like a more fruitful avenue for research, changing what the cells can do, or controlling what they already do naturally?
One Brow,There are now ways of making embryonic stem cells from adult cells. The controversy has therefore become a non-issue for future therapies (those in the pipeline from old tech may still be one or the other).The issue still has voice because the scientifically unsophisticated still use stem cells as a proxy for the abortion debate.
William,Do you have any links to that research? I would love to that in my pocket for future discussion!
There are dozens of articles, and the oldest I can find is here: 1999 article but the journal Stem Cells has much more detail, including the current issues (reflecting what you said as partly true) with telemeres and oncogenes in fetalized adult cells.
Post a Comment