Talk:Stem cell

Germ cell

Please either distinguish stem cell from germ cell, or merge pages as appropriate. Thank you. Una Smith 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a Human

What do people think of this definition? Who knows? An embryo must have both brain and heart cells present (happens three weeks after conception) to be considered a human or must have at least one cell from each organ that a healthy adult cannot live more than a 24 hour period without. I have also heard that a human is composed of three parts: body, soul and spirit. If this is true, is there a way of detecting this and if so would this change the definition of a human to be: have both heart and brain cells present and have a detectable soul/spirit?

If you ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, people may be able to answer your questions. Tim Vickers 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the scientific definition of when a new human life has begun? Unlike legal organizations which claim they do not know, science should have some scientifically sound criteria for distinguishing the new human life from other human life.71.155.241.119 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

I can't seem to edit this, but there is some inappropriate writing at the top of the page. Someone please fix it asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.234.205 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I deleted the fourth paragraph that you're probably referring to. Not only did it lack citations, it was also fairly ridiculous. Mister Congeniality 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted and unreverted several times. I have warned Lilblackmc on his talk page, but he requires further watching. Baughnie 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the talk page

I reformatted the archive box correctly since someone apparantly archived all of this talk pages conversations. I guess we can just start anew.Wikidudeman 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

1. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.242.66 (talk) 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.--Getaway 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If it was illegal for the Federal Government to provide funding for eSC prior to July 19, 2006 and yet George Bush DID provide funding for eSC prior to July 19, 2006 then there is something fishy going on. Either the wording is wrong or unclear, the facts are wrong or unclear, or George Bush broke the law by providing funding while it was illegal to provide funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.141.91 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban was attached to the appropriations bill of 1996 by Republican Jay Dickey of Arkansas and stated:

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):

(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(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)).
(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

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. 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. 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. 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. --Random Replicator 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this. 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?

Funding

Several states are competing in stem cell research. California approved spending $3 billion on stem cell research, Connecticut has a $100 million program, Illinois spent $10 million and Maryland awarded $15 million in grants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_el_ge/eln_ballot_measures

Greggar73 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Greg Sletteland

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. Dr Aaron 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That text was copied verbatim from The McGraw-Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. 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. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflict?

The 25 November 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.) Trekphiler 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict protein/lipids here: "The cell surface PROTEINS most commonly used to identify hES cells are the glycoLIPIDS SSEA3 and SSEA4 and the keratan sulfate antigens Tra-1-60 and Tra-1-81." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.180.14 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2007 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.9.186 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if I'd say they are "frequently" referred to in 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 cells (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 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 [[1]]. 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. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Aaron (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Oops - sorry 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). 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 WERK 07:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph added discussing this paper. 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.

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. LeaHazel : talk : 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." --Stable attractor 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Great work - I think it looks much cleaner now! 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. [2] 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. 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. 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. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.60.218.95 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

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. 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. --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? (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.

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" 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.

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.

-Cquan 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. shrinkshooter 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See my recent comments at Talk:Stem cell controversy Dr Aaron 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that your comments were posted closer to the start of the year and that you do actually now support the change of name but were wanting feedback from certain parties. Could you please inform us if there have been any major objections to the name change from the MCB Wikiproject. If not I will probably make the changes in the next few days. Also I would like to see something along the lines of "It is important to note that the moral objections made regarding the use of Embryonic stem cells does not apply to the use of adult stem cells. The best known use of adult stem cells is probably bone marrow transplants. This is a good example of the type of work already being done in this field that has effective results." I'm not saying this is the exact wording I would like to see, but something is absolutely required to differentiate these two very different methodologies. --Logiboy123 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No comments have been left so I have made the required changes. I have also added a quote by Prof Ian Wilmut. --Logiboy123 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Additions/changes to external links

MOVED TO ITS OWN PAGE Dr Aaron 06:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny things said by funny people

Moved to WP:BJODN 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. -Cquan (talk, 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. Irate velociraptor 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed external link - Stem Cells on PBS

• • Stem Cell Gold Rush - KQED-TV, Video & Resources

As per the page guidelines, I submit the above for inclusion Craigrosa 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. TimVickers 23:54, 1 June 2007 (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. 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. 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? GodBwithU 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not never, just that I suspect that taste and flavour will be greater hurdles than growing cells. I don't see why it has to be stem cells that are grown as "meat" - actually you would be better off growing muscle cells, as it is the muscle (and some fat) that is what is in a typical steak. Dr Aaron 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In this line: "In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a wider variety of diseases including cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other impairments and conditions."

It could be changed to In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a wider variety of diseases and impairments including cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other impairments and conditions.

Practical Uses

In this line: "After 20 years of research, there are no approved treatment or human trials using embryonic stem cells.", is not exactly telling the whole story. Animal embryonic stem cells, I believe the first being mouse, were isolated in 1981. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998 and it will be human stem cells that are used therapeutically.

The line could be changed to: " Ater 10 years of research with human embryonic stem cells, there are no approved treatment or human trials using embryonic stem cells."

Seems fair to me - why not make the change. Dr Aaron 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a licenced, commercially available treatment using mesenchymal stem cells available in the UK - for equine tendonitis. Bone marrow is harvested under sedation from the sternum of the horse, and then cultured in a commercial lab. The stem cells are then injected into the tendon lesion. The currently available data suggests that horses treated this way recover faster, and heal more fully, than those treated conservatively. See [3]. Dlh-stablelights 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is using adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. To date I do not know of a single implementation of embryonic stem cell research that has gone into any sort of treatment. Please advise data or links if I am wrong. --Logiboy123 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know those guys - they do studies on horses that were going to be put down anyway and they are entirely funded by the horse racing industry, rather than some peer-reviewed granting body. I'm sceptical of those guys and I'm not confident that they use enough good controls.

Curiously, a growing theme in cell transplantation studies is obtaining a positive prognosis without getting any significant cell engraftment, suggesting that it is the transplantation event and the subsequent pro-inflammatory response that improves repair, rather than the cells themselves contributing directly.

Finally, people are often so desperate for treatments, they are willing to take on stem cell therapies without robust evidence for their efficacy (whether in horses or say in autologous chondrocyte grafting in humans). Dr Aaron 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats how most initial trials in equine medicine work... Actually, most of the animals that have had the technique performed since it went commercial are still alive. As of October 2006, only 1 had died (of an unrelated cause), and the necropsy appeared to indicate a good repair, significanly more effective than conservative therapy. I'm not saying that this technique is perfect, nor that it is panacea - but I think a lot of the critisism of it is unfounded. In addition, the funding for a lot of equine work comes from the horse racing industry - they've got the money - and it doesn't mean the research is biased. In addition, the clinical aspect is managed by Roger Smith at the RVC, who approves of the technique. Obviously, more objective long term studies have not yet been carried out - the horses' lifespans are too long for that. However, that is no reason not to utilise the technique in the presence of good case reports and the absence of adverse reaction reports. And no, I have no commercial interest in the company. Dlh-stablelights 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There we are, just found the reference: "Stem cell therapy for tendon injuries – lessons from veterinary medicine", R Smith, BASEM Spring Meeting 2006 [4]

"for National Hunt racehorses with moderate to severe superficial digital flexor tendon injuries (n=37), 51% have returned to racing with a re­injury rate of 30% which included 3 horses which subsequently injured untreated contralateral limbs. This compares favourably with previous analyses for the same category of horse (31% return to racing, Marr et al., 1993; 56% reinjury rate for National Hunt horses, Dyson 2004)." Dlh-stablelights 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again according to that referenced document this is done utilizing adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. --Logiboy123 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vetoed Again

The US Stem cell research bill has been vetoed by Bush again.

Information about baby teeth

It is said that stem cells are in baby teeth, there is a company who will store you kids baby teeth. Is this of any use, or will it be of any use in the future. If you want more info about it you can get it at this site, fill in the form and they will email you a bunch of information about the company and the uses. * Storing baby teeth I would like to know what others think of it though.

Article suffers from an U.S.A. POV only

Despite knowing in advance what any responses will probably be like ("the English-language Wikipedia is aimed mainly at the public of English-speaking nations, mainly the United States of America", etc., this article completely ignores crucial advances attained in Europe, mentioning mainly events in the U.S. This is usual of U.S. Medical science as a whole, plagued by the "not made here" syndrome. There is another version of it, the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome. Funny enough, NIH also stands for National Institutes of Health.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a border-less, nationality-less resource. Therefore this article should be expanded to reach that goal.

I split the /* Stem Cell research key events*/ into two sections, moving the VERY scarce list of world-wide events in the article to a new "other countries" section. The feeble number of entries speaks eloquently about the article's shortcomings in this respect. Regards, --AVM 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop complaining about bias and find significant stem cell discoveries outside of the US. You state how it ignores crucial discoveries in Europe yet can't list a single one. Much of the stem cell work is international anyways since cell lines have been created in numerous contries (Sweden, Singapore, etc.)and are then used in other countries. I think drawing a line between US and international research is an imagined barrier, and bears little reflection on the realities of modern research science. -Id711 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

References to a fraction of that work in Europe has already been stored in each of the Wikipedia versions of the "Stem Cells" article in the respective languages. See, for example: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammzelle - Stammzelle (Stem cells article in the German Wikipedia). The work of translating such wealth of information into the English Wikipedia is not trivial, though. --AVM 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is fundamentally unbalanced - it is not pushing a particular point of view, and does not specifically exclude scientific discoveries outside the US. The stem cell controversy page focuses on the ethical and social issues associated with stem cells, and much of that discussion is US-centric. This page focuses on the science; the fact is that a large proportion of research and research funding originates in the US. Note that I am not a US researcher, but I still recognise this as the case.

I agree we should aspire to include as much quality science and political information as possible, regardless of national boundaries. I think User:AVM raises a good point about having a borderless, nationality-less article.

Consequently I don't particularly like the split of US and non-US material as it is making a very arbitrary split and doesn't seem very encyclopedic or international. Thus I'm tempted to revert many of your changes AVM, but I think it would be fair for me to give you and others a chance to put their 2c worth in. Dr Aaron 06:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr Aaron: I am glad that an authority of your stature is getting involved in this article's discussion. I agree with most of your comments, as I do not like that split among US and non-US materials either; I did it on purpose, aiming at highlighting the marked contrast between them. I insist: the article is lacking, as it practically does not mention any (Stem Cell research) progress at all outside the U.S.A., as if it was inexistent (and that includes Australia, too). Several sources lead me to believe that this field has advanced a lot further in the European Community than in the U.S., however I do not purport to know about those developments in enough detail to write about them in the article, and neither do I feel qualified to do so. But I did set forth the challenge for real experts like yourself to fill in the gaps. I hope that henceforth this article in this very important field may perhaps grow and improve faster, and then, when the "other countries" list has is ample enough, I can gladly help to merge both lists, if required to do so. With all due respect, --AVM 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I finally got some time to come back & take a look at the page. When I think there is a problem (and I agree with AVM there may be one with the high US-focus), I often think it is good to "quarantine" said problem. So I've put all the stuff on US funding & policy into its own section and moved the unbalanced tag there.

I actually think the best thing to do would be to create a new page on US funding & policy on stem cells (analogous to the stem cell controversy page) and push the level of detail that appears to proliferate on US policy into its own document; we can leave an appropriate precis and link. But I thought I'd wait and hear some comments before being too bold.

I think it would be the most encyclopedic if this as the main stem cell article focussed on the evidence-based research, but that's just my call as a scientist. Dr Aaron 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

History Notes in the US

The following is noted, "07 November, 2006 - The people of the U.S. state of Missouri passed Amendment 2, which allows usage of any stem cell research and therapy allowed under federal law, but prohibits human reproductive cloning." Is it not right to also say that the standard scientific definition of cloning was also changed by this amendment?

The text of the amendment states:

“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.[5]

They thus define cloning based on whether or not it is implanted (or attempted to be implanted) in a womb for the purpose of seeing the fetus to term. Somatic cell nuclear transfer ceases to be cloing, while cloning ceases to be an action of copying.

Doesn't this clash with the National Academies who wrote about cloning in their book Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002) saying, "When biologists use the word clone, they are talking specifically about DNA molecules, cells, or whole plants or animals that have the same genetic makeup"[6]? Isn't cloning copying DNA or cells or whole plants and animals, not just the intent to copy?

Isn't it still cloning (Therapuetic cloning)?[[7]] So, wouldn't it be important to note how cloning is defined in this document solely as reproductive cloning? Just some thoughts here. Resource for some information comes from a group opposed to it and cloning [8]

Protected

Any reason why? 75.75.148.44 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the history before the 27th of May this year. The amount of anon IP vandalism was pretty extreme. Tim Vickers 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. 75.75.148.44 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting an account is pretty easy and actually increases your privacy since it hides your IP address. Also lets you customise things. I recommend it! Tim Vickers 03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell breakthrough

Yahoo! News - Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos Berserkerz Crit (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
More Thomson-specific story RamenDood (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In section "Key stem cell research events" this event is listed with the Cell Journal publication by Takahashi and Yamanaka. Shouldn't the simultanous publication in Science - "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells" by Yu and Thomson et.al. - be cited as well? ToK (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

It is important not to fall into the trap to think, or lead the readers to think the research on embryonic stem cells occurs or does not occur because of potential cures that could be found.

Stem cell research is essentially fundamental research and is performed to understand the fundamental mechanisms of biology. So if one wants to study development, for example, embryonic stem cells will always be of interest, whether or not there is a "cure" potential.

The new version falls specifically into the trap and implies the research of stem cells is medical research. This is simply not so.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assertion. The third introductory paragraph in this article makes mention of the proposed usefulness of Stem Cell research. This is of course in relation to the proposed usefulness of embryonic stem cell research since adult stem cell research has proven it's effectiveness over 30 years ago. One of the major reasons, if not the primary point of Stem Cell research is to find cures for problems and diseases with the human body. To argue otherwise is patently ridiculous. Further, the fact that one of the worlds foremost experts in the field of embryonic research has rejected that field is further evidence that this is incredibly important component to be added to the article. If you seriously expect anyone to believe that the point of Embryonic stem cell research has absolutely nothing to do with the potential gains from this, then please provide the evidence for this POV. If in fact you are mistaken and the potential gains from the research is important, then please leave this portion of the article intact as it addresses this very important point. --Logiboy123 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a researcher or know any. But if you believe that stem cell research is about finding cures, you are wrong. It is as much akin to finding cures as particle physics is to building rocket engines.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to the individual researcher it might simply be about obtaining greater knowledge or whatever altruistic motive they may have. But tell that to the people who pay the bills for the research and see how quickly they pull the plug. Almost all forms of research are geared towards finding a solution of some kind. My wife went into biomedical research because she wanted to find resolutions for sickness, not just because it was interesting (although it is very interesting). --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of the individual researcher, funding is not given for the development of cures. This is what Bayer, Roche and co. do. Reasearch is done to understand mechanisms of, say cancer development, of perhaps embryogenesis, or simply get to know better the signalling pathways in hematopoiesis. This is what you get funding for. And of course this helps advancing medecine also... Somewhere down the line. Sometimes also you get funding for blue-sky research. CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hashin over a much discussed subject here but; The current section name is excessively long but I cannot see an effective way of shortening it whilst staying accurate, besides simply naming it "Controversy". Does anyone have any objections to this? --Logiboy123 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise that since it is I who wants to make the changes to the article, that the onus falls to me to justify doing so. The following are my issues with the current section: 1) The contraversy section does not differentiate for the reader that there are stem cell research efforts that do not have contraversy surrounding them. Therefore it tars all forms of research into stem cells with one brush. The readers need to know that there are other forms of research that do not contain the inherrant morality or ethics issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research.

There is no part of the research which containt inherent questions of morality. For some people certain parts of the research raise moral issues. Note also that “embryonic stem cells” are an artefact of culture, they are technically not found in nature. Only embryos at various stages of development -- and everyone of their cells becomes something very specific -- are found in nature.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The destruction/wiping/alteration of an embryo presents an inherent morality issue. This is why the mass media shows the debate constantly. Mostly when people talk about stem cell research, they are actually talking about embryonic stem cell research. This is what needs to be fixed. People need to understand there are other forms of the research. Leaving the article as it is leaves the reader with the understanding that all forms of the research are being judged as morally flawed and this simply isn't the truth. Out of all my points, this is by far the most important. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The destruction of an embryo does not present an inherent morality issue. It represents a morality issue if you so believe. About as much as eating meat presents an “inherent morality issue”. Of course the focus on so-called embryonic stem cells is due to a lot of hype and could/should be corrected. As for the media, it depends very much from where you live...CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, for to many people the destruction of an embryo during research does create a morality issue. Whilst obviously not for you, many readers will come to this site wanting to know about that issue and what causes it. Unless we specify the exact field of research involved, that confusion remains. Hence I feel it is required to add the following line to the bottom of the first paragraph "Currently the human embryonic stem cell research field is the only one to carry any sense of morality issue. Other fields such as adult stem cell research do not have this issue as it does not require the destruction of a human embryo." Or something to that effect. A nice one liner could probably do the job but I'm tired and cannot think of a short one. --Logiboy123 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What about “The specific field of human embryonic stem cell research is at the centre of an ethical debate.”? I do not like the part about the destruction of the embryos, because it is incorrect, many embryos are slated for destruction in any case, simply, they cannot be legally used by public research in the US -- they are used by the pharmaceutical industry, however.CyrilleDunant 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good but if you add that information, then it is somewhat redundant without adding a reference to the other types of research. What about "It is not the entire field of stem cell research, but the specific field of human embryonic stem cell research is at the centre of an ethical debate."? --Logiboy123 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is a heavy and inelegant sentence, but I won't fight you if you add it :) It lacks a “that” to be gramatically correct, too.CyrilleDunant 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2) There needs to be a reference to the fact that one of the worlds foremost experts in this field has decided to drop embryonic stem cell research in favour of adult stem cell research. Stating that in his expert opinion, by the time embryonic research can actually become useful, researchers will have made adult stem cell's capable of doing almost everything that they one day hope embryonic research will do.

Three points: first the Yamanaka cells have a 40% chance of developping tumours, second Wilmut is an expert in cloning, which is but a tiny aspect of possible research; third of course is that there is still a loooong way to produce “real” totipotent stem cells from the new technique.

Whilst Dr. Wilmut is and expert in cloning, considering the depth of his work, I'd say his opinion carries more weight then others. The facts remain still that embryonic research has still to produce an effective treatment for anything, whilst adult stem cell research has already done so. This is the very distinction that needs to be made. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You realise that there are less then ten actual emb. stem cell lines kept from the sixties available for public research? And you wonder why so little has been achieved with those? Out-of-context quotes from scientists are a bane from the media, and should be avoided in WP. Plus, understanding Human embryonic development has certainly made progress. And yes, at some point embryos are just a bunch of cells whose development is studied, with some success, leading to medical advances -- fertility treatment comes to mind.CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the article does mention these things in one form or another, it really does need to be succinctly in this location as well. Many readers will come to this page, read the headings and skip straight to the contraversy section. Without differentiating in a small way my two points, we risk the reader coming away with a very biased view of stem cell research as a whole. --Logiboy123 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a defect of this article that it talks too much about “cures” which indeed gives a biased view. The controversy section is best kept short, as there is a main article.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Controversy section is best kept short, not incorrectly biased and lacking information, as it currently stands. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is that some people think that it is immoral to use cells from embryos that will be put in the trashcan otherwise. That is all there is to it.CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your anaolgy is about as crass as saying "oh look, theres a dead body there, lets use it for fertilizer, after all, its dead". Whilst you might not agree with that analogy, it is roughly how many people would view your point. Your opinion whilst well informed isn't any more right then someone else who adheres to a different belief system. And thank you for clarrifying that it is indeed a contraversial issue. As a side note "some people" covers a large portion of the people on this planet. --Logiboy123 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because those embryos really do end in trash cans, whatever the whish of the family be. This is the general rule, whereas found bodies end up in the morgue, then are incinerated if not claimed. And the ashes are indeed used as fertiliser in this case. It might seem crass to say so, but it is still the truth.CyrilleDunant 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Replace the whole page.

Considering how badly written this article is. I suggest we simply copy the entire article from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Stem_cell to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.219.165 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can: AFAIK, the Creative Commons share-alike licenses are not compatible with the GFDL. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm..

for some reason why are people for and agasit stem cell research?it confuses me.what benifits are there,and are there any downsides---Danuis.5 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Key stem cell research events

I would like to add the following information to the key stem cell research events section.Kristy1980 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 - Publication of the Neural Colony-Forming Cell (NCFC) Assay as a simple assay to enumerate neural stem cells. Importantly, the assay allows discrimination between neural stem cells and neural progenitor cells.[9]

Added EL

I've added an EL, "Ethics of Stem Cell Research". As it's from the well-known Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there shouldn't be any problems with this addition.--Aldux (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of adult stem cell use

I'm not sure but is it mentioned in the article or the discussion that adult stem cell transplants don't need additional "chemotherapy" as compared to embryonic ones? I think this is pretty obvious but should be mentioned. I'm not an expert on the field, though.86.50.9.167 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I added a comment on the topic. However, there's a bit of a catch. Adult stem cells can come either from the patient or from a donor. If the cells come from the patient (an autograft), for example fat-derived cells, there is no rejection. If they come from a donor (an allograft), such as a bone marrow transplant, the risk of rejection is significant. Getwood (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new reference

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499892 This is a reference to an article about stem cells in baby teeth (an additional source for preserved stem cells to cord blood or bone marrow). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.89.2 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hwang Woo-Suk Affair and impact on stem cell research

Back in 2006, a discussion point was raised that did not garner any input; this can be found in Archive 3. First, I think it would be useful to address the comment/request made in some fashion. My main point in writing here, though, is to propose addition of a section to the "External Links" section entitled "Ethics and controversies" which would allow segregation of ethical debates from other types of additional material. There are a couple of present items that could be put into such a section, and I propose another here for consideration:

{{cite news |author=Sara Beardsley |title=Down in Flames |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=down-in-flames |work=Scientific American |publisher=Scientific American, Inc. |pages=20, 22 |date=March 2006 |accessdate=2008-07-10 |quote=At worst, says Alan Colman of ES Cell International in Singapore, "it may cause a tainting of the whole field" if the public confuses the tiny corner of research spearheaded by the Koreans with mainstream work.... |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename External Links section

I suggest that the "External Links" section be renamed "Further Reading" to better reflect the intent of the links. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Menstrual Blood

on a recent visit to a website i subscribe to,or-live.com/ i found an ad for the banking of stem cells from a 'client's' menstrual blood. the claim is made that these cells are pluripotent and share surface markers with embryonal stem cells. this service was initiated only on thursday last (07/10/08).i just wanted to direct the attention of those more knowledgable than myself to this phenomenon, as i see no mention of menstrual blood stem cells in the article. is this cutting edge, or flim-flammery, or something in between? Toyokuni3 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a few articles in reputable journals discussing multipotent cells from the menstrual blood (PMID=18522233, 18005405, 18420831) similar to other sources of mesenchymal stem cells, but in my mind this is still somewhat of a fringe area. Medical geneticist (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverse-Engineering Normal Cells Into Stem Cells?

There's a video segment about it on NOVA ScienceNOW website, and I watched it on PBS. Stem Cells Breakthrough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.176.33 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam text

Sorry, I don't know how else to report this, but somehow some spam text has found it's way into the main article:

"Stem cells can be identified by their beautiful singing voices. Stem cells are musically gifted, and through the use of sound projectors, their beautiful melodic voices can be heard at any time during the day. The music of stem cells has its roots mostly in Jazz, but classical, and rock melodies can also be heard periodically to the trained ear. "

and

"Adult stem cells, unlike their children tend to be more even tempered. As a stem cell matures, they become less tempramental, and much more easy going. One will find that it is very easy to hold a conversation with an adult stem cell, and that they are very pleasent and friendly beings. "

while somewhat humourous, they obviously don't belong - could whomever is responsible please edit them out? 158.109.1.9 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)