102
Get our top stories
follow gizmodo
Stem Cell Treatment For Blindness Works, and Is Safe
Stem cell research, while controversial, has always been touted as the future of disease treatment. There's more evidence to support that claim, as it turns out that stem cell treatment can help cure blindness.
Stem cell research, while controversial, has always been touted as the future of disease treatment. There's more evidence to support that claim, as it turns out that stem cell treatment can help cure blindness.There are several clinical trials underway to assess how well such treatments work, but this week US-based Advanced Cell Technology announced their first results. It turns out that, four months after stem cells were injected into the eyes of two patients, the treatment seems safe, reports Medical Daily.
What's more, the team also report visual improvements in the patients. The company says that it should be able to use the treatment on patients with currently incurable blindness — like age-related macular degeneration in older patients and Stargardt's Disease.
The treatment uses the most controversial embryonic stem cells, which are manipulated in a way that allows them to grow into the types of cells that line the retina at the back of the eye. The two patients were both given an injection consisting of 50,000 retinal cells into one of their eyes.
The cells attached to the retinal membrane, and still survive four months later. The researchers have stated that the procedure seems safe, providing no signs of rejection, and results show that patients' vision improved slightly.
Although embryonic stem cell research is incredibly controversial, there is no denying that curing blindness is an extremely impressive scientific advance. [Medical Daily via Slashdot; Image: Marta Starbucks]
- Wednesday, January 25, 2012
- Tuesday, January 24, 2012
-
-
Original Page: http://gizmodo.com/5879102/stem-cell-treatment-for-blindness-works-and-is-safe
Sent from my iPadp
User action
Thread action
Because when people talk about "stem cell" research/treatment, they usually think of "embryonic stem cell" research/treatment like they're actually talking about here.
There's a couple of ways to harvest stem cells. Embryonic stem cells use non-viable human embryos, typically the surplus that are part of in vitro fertilization treatments.
If you are a person who believes a human life is created when an egg is fertilized, then you may see this as destroying human life in order to harvest stem cells.
Bypassing the whole "life/not life" conception debate, one of the arguments for the usage of embryonic stem cells is that the embryos that are used are otherwise disposed of anyway.
(Edit comment)It's about leverage. The right cannot allow ANY gain from anything that even sounds similar to abortion or in any way puts any pressure on their stance on the subject.
The abortion stance of the right is extremely shaky ethically, but is also based entirely on an ethical stance. Anything that complicates the issue in any way causes them problems, whether it actually directly has anything to so with the issue or not.
(Edit comment)Bypassing the whole "life/not life" conception debate, one of the arguments for the usage of embryonic stem cells is that the embryos that are used are otherwise disposed of anyway.
Oddly, Nazi scientist used this exact same logic to justify medical experiments on jews. "They are just going to die in the gas chambers anyway...."
Sadly, some rationalizations are not rational.
(Edit comment)except the Jews were, well, people, and embyros are, well, a pile of cells.
nice Godwin though.
(Edit comment)"Sadly, some rationalizations are not rational."
True. See Godwin's Law.
(Edit comment)Because they are people.
I think my friend monica put it well:
I find myself to be a pretty religious person, but when folks use their particular beliefs about the world to ignore basic scientific facts, it makes them sound pretty ignorant. So some clarification is necessary, I think, from a scientific perspective.
Let's talk about cells. There are 46 chromosomes in every functioning cell in the human body, all consisting of identical genetic material. That is except for the gametes, sperm and egg. With 23 chromosomes each, the sperm and egg have only half the genetic material necessary to function. On it's own, a sperm can do nothing more than simply exist; it cannot grow or replicate. A sperm, then, is not a human being. Ovum. 23 chromosomes. Pretty lonely organism itself, looking for some love every month, only to die if it doesn't find a suitable sperm. These two gametes have no other options--they either find each other or they die. And this makes sense because that was their whole purpose to begin with. But if they do combine....well! The joining of a 23 chromosome sperm to a 23 chromosome ovum results in a single celled organism consisting of 46 chromosomes, a zygote.
When combined, there is finally enough genetic information for this cell to inform and organize its own grow. And that genetic information--those 23 chromosomes each, distinctly maternal and paternal respectively--when they fuse together they create a genetic makeup that is not only genetically but also functionally different from either parent. It is not the same makeup as the mother. It is a brand new, genetically distinct, species homo sapien. (Otherwise known as a "human being".) That is science, not philosophy. And the growth that begins when the egg and sperm meet occurs INTRINSICALLY, and that's critical, because that means that the cells do it on their own. No new mother tells the baby how to grow. No part of her body does either. Its growth is directed from within itself, within the blueprint on its own genes, genes that are different from its mother's. The uterus is but a suitable environment for which this can take place, it doesn't direct the process at all. The uterus has as much to do with the growth of the baby as the crib does to an infant.
So the meeting of the sperm and the egg, it's no ordinary run in. Something absolutely incredible, from a scientific standpoint (namely the genesis of unique genetic material) has occurred. Now, we could just write this off, and say that at some other arbitrary time in development is really when life begins. But the thing is...nothing else really critical happens. After that, it just grows. If you feed it, it just keeps growing in a predictable way towards maturation and birth. And birth really doesn't change much. It's like lifting the baby out of the crib. You could say that life begins at birth, but would you really tell a 35 week mother that the thing inside her kicking and moving is not real? You could, or you could also just cut her open right then and see a fully grown baby, but that doesn't make a lot of rational sense. Life's got to begin earlier. BUT WHEN?
If it's still unclear, imagine for a moment that we decided to clone a human being. Where would we begin? With a fully grown heart stuck into an empty body? Of course not. You'd use a pipet, take a sperm and toss it in a test tube with an ovum. It would take over from there.
Everything changes when sperm meets egg. After that, smooth sailing. Logically, embryologically, it is the only option for the beginning of life. To suggest otherwise is scientifically absurd. We cannot somehow distinguish our time in the uterus from life outside of our mother in order to justify abortion. Additionally, the argument that something is "too small" to be real is just as scientifically absurd. In a society that analyzes particles and neurons and microorganisms of the smallest variety in order to continue to answer life's greatest questions about our vast and expansive universe, it seems both archaic and ignorant to use the size of a cell as an argument to dismiss its worth. Try telling a person with HIV that the virus within him/her is insignificant because it is even smaller than a human zygote. I think he/she would beg to differ.
(Edit comment)By that logic, each cell on your body that you purposefully dispose of, from every eyebrow you pluck to every nail you clip, is murder since they all grow and have 46 chromosomes each.
Try again.
(Edit comment)First, if you are cloning a human, you are not going to start with an egg and sperm, you are starting with cells that contains the full genetic details of the human you are trying to clone, not half. What you are referring to is in vitro fertilization, and is performed quite routinely.
As for when life begins, it began billions of years ago.
Embryonic Stem cells are harvested from fertilized cells created in vitro (i.e. - not from a woman's uterus, from a petri dish) after 7-10 days.
Yes, the combination of a sperm and egg does create a full set of genetic information, but we can hardly call that a viable human. If that were the case, every time when a woman ovulates after having had sex in the previous week, and a sperm combines with an ovum but the cells don't implant in her uterus, she should be having funerals for her lost offspring.
That is how ludicrous your argument sounds to those of us who aren't as 'religious' as you are.
By the way, it takes 7-10 days for the fertilized cells to reach the uterus.
(Edit comment)By that logic, if someone were to continually remove a few cells from your body over time, until there was none of you left, they wouldn't be a murderer, since, "Well, I just took a few cells each time."
Try again.
The difference is that the few cells in the embryo represent all of that organism. If you take them, you are killing that organism off.
(Edit comment)And now we've gone full circle since I believe that a zygote or very early fetus is merely the extension of the mother and is not, in and of itself a full organism.
And the journey begins again....
(Edit comment)But it DOESN'T grow independently. I grows VERY dependently as a matter of fact using only the nourishment of the entire entity to survive - and in fact sharing half of HOW it survives. This suggests that a zygote is nothing more than another organ or other extension of the greater whole until it becomes an entity separate from it's creator.
At any rate, the 46 chromosomes evidence is a straw man at best since it is a completely independent variable from independent growth. The 'AND' qualifier is simply erroneous.
In short, the argument (like most religious arguments...sorry...it's just what I perceive...) is trying to come up with solutions to validate what the OP already believes rather than adjust one's own beliefs according to what is presented.
(Edit comment)"embryo murder factory"?
WHY ARE YOU STEALING MY IDEAS. That's the name of my anti-folk hipster concept band.
(Edit comment)"In short, the argument (like most religious arguments...sorry...it's just what I perceive...) is trying to come up with solutions to validate what the OP already believes rather than adjust one's own beliefs according to what is presented."
I could not have described your argument any better (removing your religious inference, obviously). BTW, that parenthetical of your pretty much sunk you.
As far as the viability-to-determine-life goes, why am I a murderer if I remove my newborne from my house and throw it in the trash to die, but not if I do the same to an 8 month old fetus? Scientifically, if an error is to be made, shouldn't it be made conservativley? I mean, if I am wrong and life begins at birth, then no harm is really done. But if you are wrong, and life begins at conception, great harm is being done.
(Edit comment)"I mean, if I am wrong and life begins at birth, then no harm is really done." Clearly you have not talked to many pregnant teens.
Furthermore, the life changing medications that could lost through banning embryonic stem cell research can cause "great harm".
Side note: I very much believe there is a difference between a zygote and an 8 month old fetus. I don't even believe the two are comparable morally.
As for my parenthetical... I must be missing something. I don't see how it sunk me. It was me attempting to be transparent in my bias. I never claim to not have them. I simply claim to attempt to be logical despite them.
(Edit comment)