Comments on: Diabetics Cured with Stem Cells. But What Kind? http://www.bloggernews.net/15913 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:54:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Doug Payton http://www.bloggernews.net/15913#comment-12693 Doug Payton Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:45:03 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15913#comment-12693 Thanks for the information. Very helpful. My main point is that the media do indeed have an agenda in this and, I'd contend, many other, issues, and have no problem slanting their coverage to try to advance it. This is just another in a long line of blatant advocacy journalism that those on the Left fail to note while throwing hissy fits over Fox News. Embryonic stem cell research, which is occurring despite what these media consumers have been led to believe, may have contributed to it, but it was adult stem cells that were the source of the treatment, something the article entirely glosses over, and indeed obfuscates. And, as comments to the article suggest, this form of advocacy journalism works, unfortunately. Fair and balanced it ain't. Thanks for the information. Very helpful. My main point is that the media do indeed have an agenda in this and, I’d contend, many other, issues, and have no problem slanting their coverage to try to advance it. This is just another in a long line of blatant advocacy journalism that those on the Left fail to note while throwing hissy fits over Fox News. Embryonic stem cell research, which is occurring despite what these media consumers have been led to believe, may have contributed to it, but it was adult stem cells that were the source of the treatment, something the article entirely glosses over, and indeed obfuscates.

And, as comments to the article suggest, this form of advocacy journalism works, unfortunately. Fair and balanced it ain’t.

]]> By: Adrian Liston http://www.bloggernews.net/15913#comment-12660 Adrian Liston Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:01:12 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15913#comment-12660 *sigh* if it helps, I can give you a brief primer on stem cell research for the next time you blog on it. The research above was done by manipulating adult stem cells using techniques learnt from embryonic stem cells (as you would have seen if you had read the primary source, rather than substandard media on the work). Adult stem cells can potentially be derived from the patient being treated, therefore they have the same HLA and minor histocompatability antigens. Embryonic stem cells are derived from a third party to the patient, and therefore there will be at least a degree of mismatch, requiring immunosuppression. Therefore, every serious researcher wants to use adult stem cells as a therapeutic. Unfortunately, adult stem cells are very difficult to manipulate, because we don't yet understand how to undifferentiate and redifferentiate them. The best way to study how to use adult stem cells is to study embryonic stem cells, which are much easier to manipulate. All of the tricks we have found to use on adult stem cells have come by studying embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is not either-or - we require embryonic stem cells to understand the biology of adult stem cells, and then adult stem cells for therapeutics. Medical scientists have to get ethical clearance for everything they do. It would be far easier for them to work on adult stem cells only, the problem is (and this is the only reason why they work on embryonic stem cells) you just can't do much of the basic research without using embryonic stem cells. This research was a success for the basic science of embryonic stem cells and the applied science of adult stem cells. Trying to turn it into a competition for political/religious purposes demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of medical science. BTW, your comments on following the money are incorrect - both embryonic and adult stem cell technology can be (and have been) patented, and both are being worked on commercially for the reasons I stated above. *sigh* if it helps, I can give you a brief primer on stem cell research for the next time you blog on it.

The research above was done by manipulating adult stem cells using techniques learnt from embryonic stem cells (as you would have seen if you had read the primary source, rather than substandard media on the work). Adult stem cells can potentially be derived from the patient being treated, therefore they have the same HLA and minor histocompatability antigens. Embryonic stem cells are derived from a third party to the patient, and therefore there will be at least a degree of mismatch, requiring immunosuppression. Therefore, every serious researcher wants to use adult stem cells as a therapeutic. Unfortunately, adult stem cells are very difficult to manipulate, because we don’t yet understand how to undifferentiate and redifferentiate them. The best way to study how to use adult stem cells is to study embryonic stem cells, which are much easier to manipulate. All of the tricks we have found to use on adult stem cells have come by studying embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is not either-or - we require embryonic stem cells to understand the biology of adult stem cells, and then adult stem cells for therapeutics.

Medical scientists have to get ethical clearance for everything they do. It would be far easier for them to work on adult stem cells only, the problem is (and this is the only reason why they work on embryonic stem cells) you just can’t do much of the basic research without using embryonic stem cells. This research was a success for the basic science of embryonic stem cells and the applied science of adult stem cells. Trying to turn it into a competition for political/religious purposes demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of medical science.

BTW, your comments on following the money are incorrect - both embryonic and adult stem cell technology can be (and have been) patented, and both are being worked on commercially for the reasons I stated above.

]]>