1. Comment #90385 by Heathen Dan on November 25, 2007 at 1:28 am

This is good news. I hope that stem cell research wouldn't be hampered by religious crusaders anymore.

Other Comments by Heathen Dan

2. Comment #90390 by ASonOfLiberty on November 25, 2007 at 1:46 am

Stem cells are still far more effective as we do not have to figure out how to 'switch them on'. It saddens me that things like THC and stem cells are being dogged so hard by the tooth fairy bunch.

THC has been used to safely erradicate large tumars on mice in Spain, and recently scientists grew back a removed piece of a mouses leg, basically doing what the religious claim god can do yet never does in modern day, help amputees.

I wonder if this new technology will in fact divert work from stem cell research cause it will be a less blocked road. Who knows, it might even be pushed by the ID type 'scientists' as a diversion tactic.

Other Comments by ASonOfLiberty

3. Comment #90391 by Ohnhai on November 25, 2007 at 1:48 am

Good news indeed, though by the sounds of it that 'nearly indistinguishable' sounds like trouble...

is sounds like a major break though in understanding but I'm guessing that embryonic stem cell research is still gonna be the ideal for some time yet.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

4. Comment #90392 by Stu on November 25, 2007 at 1:56 am

Assuming it's worth its salt, it seems like great news - it may not be quite as effective as embryonic stem cells (which hopefully will still be worked on, but less visibly), but I would suggest that the more options for advancement that are available, the better.

But it could also knock the wind out of everyone's sails. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and now we've got a great big 'agree to disagree' which leaves us standing around going 'Err, well, so, cells then...'. I wonder (and wouldn't be surprised) if either side will contrive to continue to find something to argue about.

Other Comments by Stu

5. Comment #90405 by aparlak on November 25, 2007 at 3:31 am

Don't expect religious people be happy with this.

In my opinion what religious people oppose (consciously or not) is the scientific advance itself. They fear that all this will eventually lead to totally artificial life, even humans - and they are right!

And they also know that when this happens, all their beliefs will crumble.

Other Comments by aparlak

6. Comment #90441 by 42nd on November 25, 2007 at 6:58 am

I hate the very fact that we even had to invent some technology for the sole purpose of making morons happy. Yes, there are valid questions about ethics of stem cell research, like what if some company creates something that they know is harmful in the long run (something that, say increases strength but also gives cancer) and then get even richer by latter selling "debugger". If we give up stem cell research entirely to free market there might be trouble. Think of global warming or claims that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

However, it is just utterly retarded to claim that using stem cells delivered from skin cells is any more ethical than using them from egg cells. This whole "debate" seems to be just a smoke screen to obscure real potential problems.

Other Comments by 42nd

7. Comment #90460 by Spinoza on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am

I discussed this with a religious friend on my radio show the other day.

Essentially what it boils down to is this:

It's a great breakthrough, sure, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of aborted-fetus-stem-cells.

Fetal-stem-cells are still as morally okay to use as they always have been and should be (since the fetuses are ALREADY DEAD...).

This just gives researches a possible way around dumb laws that are hampering progress. Which is good...

Other Comments by Spinoza

8. Comment #90474 by black wolf on November 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

I look forward to the days in a few decades when any politician blabbing about how 'we' were created by some god, will meet responses from young adults who stand up and say, 'No, my friend. I know who created me, I know his name and address, and I can call him and actually hear his answers.'

Other Comments by black wolf

9. Comment #90483 by Mr DArcy on November 25, 2007 at 9:25 am

PZM presents some more evidence of ongoing knowledge. All power to the talents of those who have researched this stuff. The less mysticism that is connected to "life" the better as far as I'm concerned.

As far as I'm aware no-one is yet able to define "life", and what is the difference between it and inanimate objects. Yes, we all know the difference, but just try to define it.

The religious people think that life is some sort of spark infused into Adam and nature by God, but science seems to be at variance with this view.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

10. Comment #90488 by waxwings on November 25, 2007 at 9:57 am

I'm surprised Richard hasn't commented on this excellent breakthrough and the attendant, odious political ramifications.

Other Comments by waxwings

11. Comment #90515 by Mercer on November 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm

This is excellent. It will be interesting to see whether the built up resentment of 'stem cells' will mean that developments purely based on these adult developments will be seen as dubious by campaigners whose original problem was with the embryo issue.

Other Comments by Mercer

12. Comment #90542 by ADH on November 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm

"This is excellent. It will be interesting to see whether the built up resentment of 'stem cells' will mean that developments purely based on these adult developments will be seen as dubious by campaigners whose original problem was with the embryo issue."

Not so Mercer. No problem at all with adult stems cells. This is science at its best.

Other Comments by ADH

13. Comment #90587 by LeeLeeOne on November 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Stem cell research has been fraught with controversy. But time is endless for all of us. Eventually we ALL are affected with clinically deduced or scientifically proven genetic afflictions. Sociologic, environmental, or hereditary constructs of any affliction; be it cystic fibrosis, alzheimer's dementia, polycystic ovarian disease, schizophrenia, TB, scleroderma, synesthesia, familial colon polyps, acne rosacea, bipolar disorder, diabetes, cancer, depression, addiction, etc., this list is seemingly endless.

Stem cell research must be congratulated and encouraged.

Has anyone noticed that it seems the persons who are "knee-jerk" reactors/detractors, not only to stem cell research, but to any type of change, are those who seem either to be the least educated or, "education" aside, are those who are the least self-secure, self-reliant, and self-assured?

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

14. Comment #90590 by snoov on November 25, 2007 at 5:17 pm

It may have been the case that stem cell research has been hindered or slowed by religious folks, but isn't it the case that these new discoveries might not have happened without them?

Just wondering ...

Other Comments by snoov

15. Comment #90611 by chuckgoecke on November 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I'm ready for the full body stem cell makeover. You know, they take a cell of mine, pluripotentiate it, grow it into stem cells for all my major tissue types, heart, GI tract, nerve, etc. and inject them, in the right proportion. They float around, find their correct tissues, and six months later, I start reverse aging, and I'm back to 20 years old in 3 years. No problem, when do I sign up? Will my insurance cover this?
Chuck (reposted from Pharyngula)

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

16. Comment #90628 by Shuggy on November 25, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Interesting that the US researchers worry about the ethics of using cells from aborted foeti but not from foreskins pillaged from non-consenting babies. Thank heav^H^H^Hgoodness the Japanese researchers have shown that facial skin cells will do.

Other Comments by Shuggy

17. Comment #90633 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Despite the reason for developing it was silly to begin with, I still think this method is yet another breakthrough. Perhaps this will get the Religious Reich to stand down a bit so that our brilliant biologists can get some work done.

Of course, I wouldn't doubt if the RR decides that all cells have souls or some other rubbish.

Other Comments by jbblack

18. Comment #90635 by Shuggy on November 25, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Monty Python would have to revise the song to "Every cell is sa- cred..." You'd have to call in a priest to baptise hair and toenail clippings.

Other Comments by Shuggy

19. Comment #90747 by IPV4 on November 26, 2007 at 8:50 am

This is excellent work done by the japanese scientist but to bad the religous right as well as right wing politicians in the U.S.are already saying "I told you so".

Other Comments by IPV4

20. Comment #90757 by ridelo on November 26, 2007 at 9:20 am

If it ever becomes possible to grow a baby from a scraped-off skincell will that baby than have a soul?

Other Comments by ridelo

21. Comment #90791 by ksskidude on November 26, 2007 at 11:33 am

While great news on the stem cell front, it is merely just another avenue for scientist's to find cures. That's what it's ultimately about, finding cures to hopefully end the suffering.

Living in MO we had to vote on a Constitutional Amendment keeping all forms of ESCR legal. It was like living in the twilight zone!!! We only won by 50K votes, out of 4 million. Scary!

Other Comments by ksskidude

22. Comment #90828 by Mr DArcy on November 26, 2007 at 1:22 pm

If it ever becomes possible to grow a baby from a scraped-off skincell will that baby than have a soul?

"No" is the short answer. "Souls don't exist, or are at least unproven," is the longer answer.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

23. Comment #91011 by ridelo on November 27, 2007 at 1:00 am

To Mr DArcy: I know.
But I would like to hear the religionists standpoint.

Other Comments by ridelo

24. Comment #91287 by ronnieharper on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 am

That's a good question to ask at this website, ridelo, because it touches on a pluralistic approach to working with the concept of the soul, which is related to effectively advancing a wholly natural worldview. I am non-religious, but from a philosophical viewpoint the empiricist might read 'soul' as the word 'mind'. It would be my guess that since the creation were a baby, it would thusly have a soul, or mind.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

25. Comment #91473 by Hip_Priest on November 28, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Putting concerns about zygote ghosts to one side, surely a move away from embryonic stem cells is a positive thing purely in terms of the practicalities of harvesting the cells. There must be serious ethical questions surrounding this harvesting of eggs. I'm guessing donating eggs is a little more complicated (risky?) than giving blood? Does money pass hands?

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

26. Comment #107519 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 4, 2008 at 4:57 pm

i think the move to skin cells was to be a natural progression, the main reason is...i imagine the DNA has to match, so if you are growing a new cell, it should match your cells. now im not sure how the embryonic cells work, though i imagine they match the dna of the zygote, not the person it will be going into. resetting cells from the recipiant into a stem cell state has the advantage that the DNA is determined to match, rejection is not possible.

also if you did grow a baby from a cell, it would be a clone, not a child. this is of course not recomended. its basically asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction is generaly always prefered to asexual.

as for saying who created me, well i would ask you to call my parrents, since by all means, they created me, not some sky creature. maybe a little appriciation for the people who actually gave you some 5-6 pounds of their flesh and the mechanisms to make more for yourself eh?

but this advance just shows, while the religious reich (i like that one, imma use it more) dicks around here in the states trying to prevent anything resymboling saving peoples lives, japan is getting the head start on us. maybe if we could get across to people that they may be missing out of a multi-billion dollar industry, the politicians might make a move.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai