Jump to content

Talk:Stem cell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GodBwithU (talk | contribs)
14 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Stem cell/Archive 4) (bot
 
(537 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Notice|<strong>External Links to be added or removed from the [[Stem Cell]] page should be discussed [[Talk:Stem cell/External links proposals|here]]</strong>}}
{{Wikiproject MCB|importance=Top|class=GA}}
{{GA}}
{{COI editnotice}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Notable Citation|Nature Medicine}}
|action1=GAN
{{MedportalSA}}
|action1date=20:19, 25 April 2006
<!-- New posts go at the bottom-->
|action1result=listed
{{archive box|*[[Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_1|1]],[[Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_2| 2]], [[Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_3| 3]]}}
|action1oldid=50140012


|action2=GAR|action2date=19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
==Germ cell==
|action2link=Talk:Stem cell/GA1
Please either distinguish stem cell from [[germ cell]], or merge pages as appropriate. Thank you. [[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=348375351


|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Natsci
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Anatomy |importance=mid|field=micro}}
{{WikiProject Animal anatomy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Transhumanism |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|selected=yes}}
}}
{{connected contributor|Leo181|Stem cell|editedhere=yes|otherlinks=SPA for topics related to [http://www.tianhecell.com/Home_Page.html Tianhe Stem Cell Biotechnologies Inc.] and Yong Zhao}}


{{Notable Citation|Nature Medicine}}
==Help==
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(31d)
I can't seem to <s>edit</s> this, but there is some inappropriate writing at the top of the page. Someone please fix it asap. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/67.170.234.205|67.170.234.205]] ([[User talk:67.170.234.205|talk]]) 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
|archive = Talk:Stem cell/Archive %(counter)d

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
I deleted the fourth paragraph that you're probably referring to. Not only did it lack citations, it was also fairly ridiculous. [[User:Mister Congeniality|Mister Congeniality]] 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 4
The edit has been reverted and unreverted several times.
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
I have warned Lilblackmc on his talk page, but he requires further watching. [[User:Baughnie|Baughnie]] 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4

}}
== Changes to the talk page ==
{{Connected contributor (paid)

| checked = March 2016 {{u|Tagishsimon}}
I reformatted the archive box correctly since someone apparantly archived all of this talk pages conversations. I guess we can just start anew.[[User:Wikidudeman|Wikidudeman]] 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
| User1 = Dcbennett2 | U1-employer = SciWri Services | U1-client = Cellectis | U1-EH = yes | U1-banned = no | U1-otherlinks = Paid editing declared [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ADcbennett2&type=revision&diff=710412770&oldid=687656107 here]

| User2 = | U2-employer = | U2-client = | U2-EH = | U2-banned = | U2-otherlinks = }}
hey, im 13 and doing a science research assignment on stem cell cloning can anyone help me?

== Contradiction ==

[quote]# 2001-2006 - President George W. Bush is the first president to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research totaling approximately $100 Million.
# July 19, 2006 - President George W. Bush vetoes H.R. 810, a bill that would have reversed the Clinton-era law which made it illegal for Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.[/quote]

So he provides federal funding at some point in a period of five years (clarification needed), but then in 2006 he vetoes a bill that would have made it legal to do something Bush did between now and five years ago. Oh, and the sentence syntax and grammar of that last sentence that I quoted is horrible.

"July 19, 2006 - President George W. Bush vetoes H.R. 810, a bill that would have made it legal for Federal money to be used for stem cell research where the cells were derived from the destruction of an embryo. This bill, if passed, would have reversed a law in the Clinton Era (what the bill was and when it was passed would be good information to put in here) that made it illegal to do just that."

I think that's how it should be phrased. Suggestions are welcome on how it should be phrased, but it definitely should be changed. {{unsigned|68.38.242.66|10 Nov 2006 @ 7:49}}
::No. There is no contradiction in the current wording. Bush is the President that funded eSC research for the first time, starting in 2001 and continuing through 2006. That is a fact. Now, the mainstream media might act like it is not true, but it is. Also, Clinton is the President that signed the bill making it illegal to for the Feds to funds eSC research. Once again, a fact that you might not hear from current news reports. At any rate, the current wording is fine. Your proposed wording seems not only confusing but inaccurate.--[[User:Getaway|Getaway]] 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The ban was attached to the appropriations bill of 1996 by Republican Jay Dickey of Arkansas and stated:
<blockquote>The following is the text of the ban, originally authored in 1995 by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), as it appeared in NIH's fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill (H.R. 3010, Sec. 509):<br>

(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—<br>
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or<br>
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).<br>
(b) For purposes of this section, the term 'human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells
</blockquote>

:::You should be able to find the full text on the Center for Science, Technology, and Congress site at http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/index.shtml. Incidentally, there really wasn't any direct presidential involvement until Bush vetoed the stem cell research bill. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested Update - Lanza, Robert et al (January 2006) - ES cell line est. without embryo destruction ==

The article currently reads "Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo..."

I thought it might be worth updating this with a mention of the recent work by Lanza et al, "Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres" Nature magazine vol439|12 (DOI:10.1038), in which a procedure is outlined that could allow a biopsy to be taken of a blastomere that would not interfere with the development of the embryo itself. This technique is not perfect and so far (AFAIK) has not been shown to work with human ES cell lines.

I'm sure there are many people out there who know more about this than i do, i merely propose that a mention is made that techniques are under development to reduce the ethical concerns associated with ES cloning and research.

:The subsequent article on human blastomeres is more topical and I have added it to the end of the Key events section (with an appropriate citation). I agree that this recent work by [[Robert Lanza]] should be mentioned. [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
==weasel words==
"...endorses the United States Congress in providing..."

This tortured language and logic looks like an effort to placate all parties. Surely it can be made more direct. [[User:Brainhell|Brainhell]] 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


"....To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. '''This is not surprising considering that''' many nations currently have moratoria on either ES cell research or the production of new ES cell lines."

The last sentence in this section violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It implies that the failure to derive medical treatments from embryonic stem cell research is due mainly to lack of funding. This statement takes one political point of view- that of people who support funding for embryonic stem cell research. Those opposed to this view would argue that the lack of treatments developed using embryonic stem cells shows that adult stem cells have more potential for medical treatments, rather than blaming the lack of treatments on funding issues. According to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, entries should present simply the facts of the case and let the reader form his or her own opinions. The phrase "This is not surprising considering that.." is an opinion and is not necessary in understanding restrictions on embryonic stem cells in many nations. The last sentence is also missing a citation, which is recommended in Wikipedia's neutrality page.

I recommend changing the entry to:

"...To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. Many nations currently have moratoria on either ES cell research or the production of new ES cell lines.

This change removes the weasel words (This is not surprising considering...) and presents solely the facts.

== Bad Link .... I hope ==

'''''Totipotent''''' stem cells are produced from the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. Cells produced by the first few divisions of the fertilized egg cell are also totipotent. These cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.

The link for totipotent seems a bit strange; takes you to a picture of some wierd looking fellow. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

::Fixed. Thanks for spotting this. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

== Enacting laws ==

As it stands, the article states that President Bush enacted a laws regarding stem cell research. Actually, the president cannot enact laws; that falls to Congress. The president signs laws and enforces them. Perhaps what is meant is that the President issued executive orders regulating stem cell research?

==Large revert (29th November)==

I've reverted the page back to an earlier form after I noticed that an enormous chunk of what I consider to be fairly useless and unreferenced fluff on potency/plasticity definitions and adult stem cells was added to the "defining properties" section (by 71.135.184.25).

This is a GA class article, and is so because it is succinct and well referenced. The current terse potency definitions do the job quite well I think, and I think that my reversion improves the article overall.
[[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::That text was copied verbatim from [http://www.answers.com/topic/stem-cell The McGraw-Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia]. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:::All the better to revert. I agree with Dr. Aaron; when it comes to complex scientific subjects, which are nontheless high profile, succint is the magic word. [[User:LeaHazel|LeaHazel]] : [[User_talk:LeaHazel|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/LeaHazel|contribs]] 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Conflict?==
The 25 November [[Toronto Globe and Mail|G&M]] says McCulloch & Till did it "at the [[Ontario Cancer Institute]] in [[1957]]." The OCI article says it opened in [[1958]]. Can somebody explain the discrepancy? (I'm guessing they did it 1957, are now at OCI, & G&M wasn't accurate enough.) [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Oligopotent ==

There is another type of stem cell. that is oligopotent stem cells. i will find out more, but they are frequently referred to in Nature. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/84.70.9.186|84.70.9.186]] ([[User talk:84.70.9.186|talk]]) 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:I don't know if I'd say they are "frequently" referred to in [[Nature (journal)|Nature]], but the term ''oligopotent stem cells'' has definitely been adopted by a subgroup of scientists working in the stem cell field - prodominantly those working with [[haematopoietic stem cell]]s (HSCs). Note that the Wikipedia page incorrectly redirects to [[pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell]], although the page correctly calls them [[multipotent]].

:By definition, multipotent and oligopotent stem cells can [[cellular differentiation|differentiate]] into multiple cell fates. '''The concept in the HSC field is that multipotent refers to the most primordial, plastic HSCs, while more differentiated and lineage restricted cells are called oligopotent''' [[http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/ontopic/stemcells_primer.html]]. To my mind, this definition is particularly wooly and unhelpful for virtually any field outside HSC biology.

:Someone else can generate a page for [[oligopotency]] if they want; personally I want to give the least airplay to the subject as possible. I hope this rant was informative. [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 07:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

==Improving the page==

I'd like to work towards this article moving beyond the GA category. I think the first thing to do would be to '''add some more proper references''' (even if we start by looking at the [[adult stem cell]] and [[embryonic stem cell]] pages, and '''shed some of the external links'''. There is no way that that many links are necessary.

If anyone wants to make a start, that would be great, otherwise I'm going to make it one of my projects over the next few weeks. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] ([[User talk:Dr Aaron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dr Aaron|contribs]]) 06:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Oops - sorry [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::Great, I post this and the next change is to add MORE external links (yes, I'm talking about you [[User:Feverinlove]]). [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


==Antidisestablishmentarianism?==

Hey, I have great link about some japanese scientists who reverted mouse skin cells back into an embryonic-like state that then showed signs of pluropotency, along with articles for adult stem cells. However, I cannot edit this page. Here is that link, and a biased report with which you can use to get more information on somatic stem cell use, research, and breakthroughs: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL09/Japan.html http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/_pdf/601-700/LRC624.pdf#search=%22Mackay-Sim%20Stem%20cells%20
Developmental%20Dynamics%20website%22 [[User:WERK|WERK]] 07:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
::Paragraph added discussing this paper. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

==Policy on external links==
I think the external links are getting completely out of control - I recommended a few weeks ago trimming them back a bit - since then even more have been added. While external links can be useful, I think we should set some goals for what we want to achieve from the links.

* Do we want links to recent news sites - they get out of date very quickly?
* Do we want links to pro-stem cell research lobbyists? For that matter, do we want links to anti-stem cell research lobbyists?

Personally, I'm not so keen on any of them, but I'm willing to listen to convincing arguments why they should stay before starting to cut. I'll probably start sometime in the new year.

[[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

:I think the news pages should be removed from EL and restricted to citations -- leave the news reporting to [[Wikinews]]. As for pro- and anti-stem cell sites, those links probably fit better on [[stem cell controversy]], and even then, only the most notable ones. The external links section here should probably be restricted to a half-dozen or so medically oriented sites that provide details about stem cells and the research thereof. [[User:LeaHazel|LeaHazel]] : [[User_talk:LeaHazel|talk]] : [[Special:Contributions/LeaHazel|contribs]] 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


I just annihilated a bunch of the external links. A lot of the "General" links had no useful info. The "News" doesn't belong on this page. That's what Wikinews is for. Most of the "Guides" were biased. If you disagree, put them back and we can talk. The academic journals don't seem appropriate for this page. I left them for now. But I might change my mind in an hour or so and delete them as well. I agree with LeaHazel. "The external links section here should probably be restricted to a half-dozen or so medically oriented sites that provide details about stem cells and the research thereof." --[[User:Stable attractor|Stable attractor]] 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

::I agree, advocacy organisations should not be linked. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Great work - I think it looks much cleaner now! [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 01:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

== New source of stem cells found ==

These cells are reported to be an intermediate stage between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/wfub-sdn010207.php]
[[User:Brian Pearson|Brian Pearson]] 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== Pro-life or anti-abortion ==

The controversy section makes reference to pro-life. Anti-abortion is a more neutral term. Read any reputable newspaper and they'll never refer to people as pro-life or pro-choice. The [[Associated Press]] uses the terms anti-abortion and abortion rights. I feel that these are more appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm going to wait for feedback before I make the change.
:Sounds reasonable. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think it sounds reasonable. The Associated Press does not define the pro-life movement because they neither originated the movement nor are part of it. The movement defines itself as "pro-life" or as "right to life" and should be called as such, regardless of one's political views. Anti-abortion is, however, a euphemism that is intended to make it sound like the movement is against a procedure, which is patently ridiculous, and this by itself makes Wikipedia appear partisan. The right to life movement stands for the right of every human being to its own life. This is the principle behind the opposition to anything which cuts an innocent human life short, whatever the procedure may be. You can look at any number of organizations that take this position and virtually all of them have some form of "pro-life" or "right to life" in their name. [[User:24.6.123.226|24.6.123.226]] 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)C. Sand
:I disagree. We should not describe organizations as they describe themselves, we should describe them as they are. As an example, if a set of terrorists describe themselves as "freedom fighters" it would not be neutral for us to uncritically accept this description. If an organization campaigns primarily to outlaw abortion, then it is an anti-abortion organization. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::I disagree. Just because a particular organization is publically (not primarily) known for one particular campaign, does not mean they should be named as such. The only reason why pro-life is only known by most as being against abortion is because, and only because, that is the major argument today. Cloning, the death penalty, stem cell research, euthanasia, and abortion are all issues which pro-life is against. Therefore they should not be known "anti-abortion" but as pro-life; since it is the word which best descibes what a pro-life organization stands for. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/74.60.218.95|74.60.218.95]] ([[User talk:74.60.218.95|talk]]) 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:A description doesn't have to be inaccurate because it isn't a PR label. And it's inaccurate to say that the pro-life movement includes opposition to the death penalty; many if not most anti-abortionists are religious folks who separate those issues. I think a central main issue should be whether the position of the opponents is described accurately, and if the term actually encompasses the appropriate group. However, it's also vital that the terms we use can be recognized by the readers. We don't have to hew to the AP style guide, but if people understand "pro life" as being anti-abortion, there's no lack of clarity. So in this case it seems to come down to people quibbling over the connotation, not the denotation. [[User:Prestonmcconkie|Preston McConkie]] 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

== History of Stem Cell Research ==

I've never contributed to anything on Wikipedia before, so I'm not really sure how this works. However, part of the history section of the article is inaccurate. The Senate passed the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act unanimously, and the House still needs to vote under the rules. See http://olpa.od.nih.gov/tracking/109/senate_bills/session2/s-2754.asp or http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02754:@@@L&summ2=m& for more information.
--[[User:Liza4884|Liza4884]] 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

==Plants==

Plants have stem cells to! They maintain them in the [[meristem]]. Since this article isn't specifically celled animal stem cells shouldn't we have some stuff about plant stem cells in here? ([[User:Million Moments|Million_Moments]] 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

:A fair point, Million Moments. I do think the introduction does provide a good overall view of what a stem cell is ''"Stem cells are primal cells common to all multi-cellular organisms that retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division and can differentiate into a wide range of specialized cell types."'' This does cover plants, even if the remainder of the article focuses on humans and mammalian research.
:I'm not a specialized plant biologist (like yourself), although my undergrad training did cover the basics. Plants are a bit unusual as many of them can be grown from explants by [[plant tissue culture]]; tissue cuttings de-differentiate into a "stem-cell like state" from a mature cell type. This is something completely different to the concept of stem cells in the way that they are linked to human/mammalian biology & medicine.
:Still, I'd be happy to convert the '''See Also''' section into something a bit more useful then its current links to: ''"The American Society for Cell Biology & the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine"'' (Why are these so important?)
:Perhaps these links could be replaced with short sentence or two dedicated to stem cells in (1) plants, (2) lower vertebrates, and (3) invertebrates, with links to relevant articles like the [[meristem]]? I know a fair bit of muscle stem cell work has grown from work in the fruitfly, and I'm sure there is work on other biological model systems that could be linked to this page.
:[[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==(Embryonic) stem cell controversy==


a quick grammatical error to be fixed: "opponents of the pro-life movement" should be changed to "proponents of the pro-life movement"
[[User:71.192.137.124|71.192.137.124]] 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


While I don't want to get into a revert war, I'd be interested in establishing a consensus before changes are made to make the stem cell controversy specifically "embryonic". While I fully agree the vast majority of arguments and social/ethical problems with stem cell research are with embryonic cells and embryonic destruction, I don't think it is 100% of the case - hence my reversion.

The argument has spilled slightly over onto my talk page and I have left specific comments on the page of [[User talk:Shrinkshooter]].

If a consensus of Stem Cell editors (regular editors & not sockpuppets) think that the stem cell controversy should be permanently changed to "embryonic" exclusively, I'll be happy to be convinced by good argument.

Otherwise, I say let the status quo stand.

[[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:I do agree that the majority of the controversy is about using embyonic stem cells, which is what is reflected by the text in the section. However, the full page on [[Stem cell controversy]] goes over other issues that are not about the embryonic source, such as whether patents should be granted on stem cell developments and so forth. I think the terms should stand as they are (i.e. without saying embryonic), but the text in the section should include at least a sentence about non-embryonic issues to support that decision.
:-[[User:Cquan|Cquan]] 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


<!-- New posts go at the bottom-->
{{archive box|auto=yes}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
Cquan raises a good argument. I'd be satisfied to leave the article the way it is without "embryonic" specifically there as long as there was at least some mention (and the link to the stem cell controversy perhaps embedded in the paragraph mentioning it) that most of the controversy surrounds embryonic stem cells.
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Cornell_University/BIOG3500_Applied_Science_Communication_(Fall_2017)|on the course page]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Will swope|Will swope]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
However, I'd like to know why you think that controversy surrounds other aspects of stem cell research. What aspects other than embryonic stem cell research are controversial? Why are they controversial? What is the controversy surrounding these aspects? I don't want an essay or anything, but a concise and detailed description of these questions' answers would be appreciated. [[User:Shrinkshooter|shrinkshooter]] 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-08-21">21 August 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-12-12">12 December 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Clemson_University/Cell_Biology_Honors_(Fall_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Saifakramwani|Saifakramwani]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
:See my recent comments at [[Talk:Stem cell controversy]] [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
== I add telomerase info in preamble ==


Obviously this info should be here; it is main genetical (more like epigenetical, it is not about DNA code as such but about DNA demethylation of C & G which activates this riboprotein) difference between stem cell and other cells. Obviously, this is not enough, I will also add info about gametes being telomerase activated in Telomerase article and we should rework Stem cell article with cites, etc. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ZBalling|ZBalling]] ([[User talk:ZBalling#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ZBalling|contribs]]) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Additions/changes to external links==
Since this is a high volume/sensitive article, I've added a notice in the external links section to discuss all additions first on this talk page in line with a lot of the other good/featured biosciences articles. -'''[[User:Cquan|Cquan]]''' ([[User talk:Cquan|talk]], [[User:Cquan/Desk|AMA Desk]]) 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you. [[User:CyrilleDunant|CyrilleDunant]] 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
===External links proposals===
====http://www.mormoncentury.org/www/ContentPages/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=206====
I didn't read about the requirement for discussion before adding an external link abou why five senators who shared the same faith, but not the same party, decided to support federal funding for SCR. I hope this explanation will suffice.


I don't think anyone will aruge that SCR is a controversial topic, since this article contains a subsection about that very aspect. And since there are only two arguments for or against, the potential for developing treatments and the largely religious argument against embryonic stem cell research, a link to a discussion explaining why 5 percent of the senate helped turn the resulting vote is not irrelevant.


Right now there are no other links to discussions of the controversy. The explanation that was provided for deleting the reference was that it was "almost" a blog post and "too U.S.-centered." Since the subsection about the controversy is almost entirely U.S. centered, that seems an irrelevant objection. Also, if it isn't a blog, it isn't a blog. "Almost" doesn't seem a good enough reason; I don't know what the person's criteria for deciding a site is "almost" a blog. [[User:Prestonmcconkie|Preston McConkie]] 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Basically, it is not an institutional source: neither journal nor news channel. It is a personal website. Also, if you think the source is relevant to the encyclopedia, why not put it on the controversy article, where it has its place? This article tries to focus on the scientific aspects, and material pertaining to the debate tend to upset the balance established over many months.[[User:CyrilleDunant|CyrilleDunant]] 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Do not include/Disagree'''. The intro stub in this article is not framed as a US-centered debate. The basis of the debate is practically the same everywhere. It just happens that in the US, it tends to be very visible and vocal. The reasoning is the same though. I think this could be proposed as an addition to the [[Stem cell controversy]] article, but I'd rather see it as a reference for a sourced statement/information within an article rather than a bare link. There is a separate "US policy context" section in that article, so the information may fit in well there as long as the language used is NEUTRAL. Also, the source isn't really a blog, it's more of an interview or lecture as far as I can tell. However, whatever is in it should be presented as an OPINION. Also, I cannot see anything referencing why any US senators voted one way or another (Congress is mentioned once and only about someone testifying, not a vote), so there shouldn't be any representation as such. -'''[[User:Cquan|Cquan]]''' ([[User talk:Cquan|talk]], [[User:Cquan/Desk|AMA Desk]]) 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment'''. Upon a further look, this source does not represent the official positions of the U.S. senators in question, but rather it is a lecture delivered by a member of the LDS. It should NOT be used to represent the views of those members of congress. Also, [[User:Prestonmcconkie|Preston McConkie]] is practically spamming Mormon-related articles with links to this web site. -'''[[User:Cquan|Cquan]]''' ([[User talk:Cquan|talk]], [[User:Cquan/Desk|AMA Desk]]) 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I understand the rules here better, and I respect Cquan's remarks. I have re-inserted the link into the controversy part, along with an explanatory sentence, so I hope that qualifies better.
Also, I notice Cquan has accused me of spamming LDS-related articles. It's true I've been adding links to parts of that site to various LDS-related articles, but that's because I have a moment's enthusiasm regarding the site. I think it treats some of those issues pretty nicely, particularly polygamy and Blacks and the Priesthood.
As I understand spam, it means just dumping a bunch of unsolicited stuff on someone, stuff they don't want. If the link is clearly germain to the topic, I don't know why the volume of links I've placed or the fact that they go to different places on the same site should matter.
I'm brand-new to this forum, but I didn't start off with links. I started just doing minor copyediting. I'll get off this kick for mormoncentury.org pretty soon, since I've already made all the links I wanted to anyway, I've just been coming back to the ones that get deleted.
In future, I will engage in more discussion rather than just throwing stuff on. [[User:Prestonmcconkie|Preston McConkie]] 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Like I've been saying, this link/content belongs (if anywhere) on the [[Stem cell controversy]] article. The section on this article is just an excerpt and going into a specific point isn't appropriate for it. The controversy article has a section on the U.S. policy context. However, I've read the site in question and I think it's a highly biased piece that doesn't do much to back up that anything it says about the U.S. senators is credible and should be taken as anything more than opinion. Wikipedia requires reputable/reliable sources, which I don't think this qualifies as. If other editors think otherwise to the point of establishing consensus, then by all means it can be included. At this point, it's equivalent to Joe Schmo expressing an opinion (which is NOT credible enough for use as a source). -'''[[User:Cquan|Cquan]]''' ([[User talk:Cquan|talk]], [[User:Cquan/Desk|AMA Desk]]) 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


===External links removals===


==Funny things said by funny people==
Moved to [[WP:BJODN]] [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Wow...I'm...wow...speechless...wowowowow. I don't know what's worse...the content of this or the attrocious grammar/spelling. -'''[[User:Cquan|Cquan]]''' ([[User talk:Cquan|talk]], [[User:Cquan/Desk|AMA Desk]]) 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


===Amniotic fluid stem cells===
with the discovery of amniotic fluid stem cells should 3 major types be changed to 4? Also it might be nice to have a short section on them. [[User:Irate velociraptor|Irate velociraptor]] 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


== Proposed external link - Stem Cells on PBS ==


How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects?
** [http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/326 Stem Cell Gold Rush] - KQED-TV, Video & Resources
The article is rated mostly class B and has one class C. It is part of many WikiProjects which are shown. [[User:Doodlepuppy123|Doodlepuppy123]] ([[User talk:Doodlepuppy123|talk]]) 08:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


== Reference 45 is now a retracted article ==
As per the page guidelines, I submit the above for inclusion [[User:Craigrosa|Craigrosa]] 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Reference 45 at the time of writting was "Jiang Y, Jahagirdar BN, Reinhardt RL, Schwartz RE, Keene CD, Ortiz-Gonzalez XR, et al. (July 2002). "Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow". Nature. 418 (6893): 41–9. Bibcode:2002Natur.418...41J. doi:10.1038/nature00870. PMID 12077603. S2CID 47162269.".
::Looks good to me. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07653-0 -- [[User:Egon Willighagen|Egon Willighagen]] ([[User talk:Egon Willighagen|talk]]) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
==Random Question==
Hi. I am a rather biology noob, hopefully this question doesn't sound strange. I am curious as to whether it is possible for stem cell creation to one day reach a peak where we can replace animal [[Slaughterhouse]]? Forget about the economic factor for a minute. Is it theoretically possible to feed a nation with meat that was grown 100% in a lab and not killed from any animal?? I had a thought that animals would benefit greatly from this. [[User:GodBwithU|GodBwithU]] 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Um, you could grow either stem cells or non-stem cells in some sort of [[cell culture]] system for food, I guess, but it seems like a hideously expensive exercise & you would likely use animal or animal-derived products in their growth. The problem would still be the ''texture'' and the ''flavour''.
::Realistically, it would be easier to feed everyone with [[soya]] flavoured to taste like meat. I've read that the entire underdeveloped world could be easily fed using the grain the US alone feeds its livestock (not sure if that's true though). Eating meat is costsly, and in vitro meat would be even moreso. The best way to save the animals would be to go vegetarian... but I still like a good steak. [[User:Dr Aaron|Dr Aaron]] 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::So you are saying there is never going to be an answer since taste and flavor can never be produced in a lab? [[User:GodBwithU|GodBwithU]] 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:59, 17 June 2024

Former good articleStem cell was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 7, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Will swope.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saifakramwani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I add telomerase info in preamble

[edit]

Obviously this info should be here; it is main genetical (more like epigenetical, it is not about DNA code as such but about DNA demethylation of C & G which activates this riboprotein) difference between stem cell and other cells. Obviously, this is not enough, I will also add info about gametes being telomerase activated in Telomerase article and we should rework Stem cell article with cites, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBalling (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]




How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated mostly class B and has one class C. It is part of many WikiProjects which are shown. Doodlepuppy123 (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 45 is now a retracted article

[edit]

Reference 45 at the time of writting was "Jiang Y, Jahagirdar BN, Reinhardt RL, Schwartz RE, Keene CD, Ortiz-Gonzalez XR, et al. (July 2002). "Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow". Nature. 418 (6893): 41–9. Bibcode:2002Natur.418...41J. doi:10.1038/nature00870. PMID 12077603. S2CID 47162269.".

See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07653-0 -- Egon Willighagen (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stem_cell&oldid=1229598733"