Tag Archives: biology

Yet More Adult Stem Cell Advances

bLogicus has a few posts on recent advances in adult stem cell technology, namely that some Taiwanese scientists have isolated stem cells from placentas, that rats injected with human umbilical cord stem cells after having heart attacks regained nearly normal function, and Stem Cells Inc. has filed with the FDA to start a study on using adult stem cells to treat Batten disease, which affects children’s central nervous systems. To judge from Stem Cell Inc.’s website, it looks like this program would only help recover neurons destroyed by Batten’s disease, not eradicate the root cause itself.

�

Do I Get Cool Mutant Powers?

The $100 billion a year mobile phone industry asserts that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

The multi-billion dollar tobacco industry asserts that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects as a result of cigarette smoking. Since I’ve been a frequent cell phone user since 1998, I’ll be keeping my eye on this issue.

Study: Cell phones scramble DNA

Radio waves from mobile phones harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions, according to a new study majority-funded by the European Union, researchers said on Monday.

New Embryonic Stem Cell Sources

The Washington Post reports that there are two new ways to isolate embryonic stem cells. The first involves recovering useable cells from hopelessly damaged embryos that were frozen in IVF clinics. The researchers at Columbia compare this to taking organs from brain-dead patients. Of course, if one considers IVF inherently wrong, this still doesn’t get you off the hook.

The second type is trickier: there is a method of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), where the nucleus of a non-genital region of one’s body (usually a gut cell, but it can be anything other than an ovum or sperm cell) is transferred to an egg cell whose own nucleus was destroyed. The trick to getting stem cells in the second method is to somehow interfere with this procedure so that the new hybrid cell does not become an embryo, but can in fact still produce some totipotent embryonic stem cells.

I am skeptical of the second method. One, somatic cell transfer has a lot of problems. It took 227 tries to clone a sheep before Dolly was born, and she became a medical mess afterwards. Now we are supposed to take SCNT, interfere with it somehow so it doesn’t make an embryo, and think that maybe this’ll create something that we can cure things with? Secondly, the scientists claim that no embryo is made, but scientists and physicians have been retroactively redefining human life for about 30 years now in order to make abortion and destructive human research convenient. E.g., they invented the term "preembryo" so that they could make embryonic stem cell research legit because they weren’t really killing a true human being. I have yet to track down the literature on this second method, so I am still unsure of whether a complete organism (embryonic or otherwise) is in fact never created and killed by this method. Stay tuned.

Irrational and/or Pathological

I don’t have time right now to answer in full Theomorph’s latest intellectual challenge, but I’ll take a moment to react to this:

Many people have argued that we make laws against acts like murder, theft, and assault because we have no choice if we want to maintain a stable society. We have even created psychological definitions of "normal" behavior that label as antisocial and mentally ill the people who are prone to these acts. Hence, while there may be some people who privately have no moral qualms with murder, theft, or assault, the rest of us have no problem with imposing our "morality" on them, because any arguments they might make in favor of their morality would be labeled as not just irrational, but pathological.

However, most people do not consider the desire to obtain an abortion as irrational or pathological. In fact, there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.

Theo might be trying to be provocative again. If so, call me provoked. This viewpoint creeps me out and makes me shudder. Since when do two wrongs make a right? This kind of "feminism" really pisses me off. Women do not have to become men to gain equality! That is not real feminism. Real feminists seek to achieve equality (such as equal pay, equal respect, and equal rights) by embracing that which is feminine and challenging society to accept them without imposing androgyny.

If men are scum that sometimes plant seed and fail to care for what grows, we must try to stop that from happening. Whether it be by law or by education, we should seek to solve this problem, not encourage women to be just as selfish and inconsiderate. Besides, using abortion to level the playing field begs the question of whether abortion really benefits women. I’m sure Feminists for Life have a few things to say about that nonsense.

Do I think abortion is irrational? Yes. Its unsound judgment. Is it pathological? Yes. It’s a symptom of a diseased society. On a visceral level, irrespective of my faith, I am disgusted and frightened by the notion of a society that sees children as an unwanted responsibility or investment to slough off. If children outside the womb are treated as unwanted and sloughed off, the parents are charged with criminal neglect or worse, depending on the means. If medical professionals treat patients as unwanted, they’re in serious trouble, too. Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? Well, another question is being begged here.

That question is whether or not a fetus may/must be considered person and thus deserving of protection. That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion. Atheists are often quick to point out that ethics and morals need not be grounded in religion. Well, if that’s really what they believe then they shouldn’t be upset if some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning. Such reasoning exists and yet secularists still reject the pro-life movement off-hand, seemingly as though it were part of some conspiracy to construct a theocracy.

Finally, there are a lot of things that humans can be stuck with in the course of their lives. Some things can be avoided. Others can’t. Some may/should be avoided. Others shouldn’t. I have a great deal of sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, that unfortunate situation in and of itself does not secure them the right (since Theomorph objects to "giving" rights) to end a fetus’ life. That it is a life, there is no doubt. Is it a person? That’s a question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily and that supporters of abortion rights don’t seem to want answered. So long as it’s about a woman’s body, a woman’s rights, and a woman’s choice, pro-lifers look like a bunch of Puritans itching for a witch trial. I wonder how slave owners saw abolitionists.

Some Developments in Biomedicine

  • Thanks to Wired,
    I was tipped off on an article published in Nature about a type of stem
    cell that
    seems to be at the heart of the most advanced
    brain tumors in adults and children
    . It is considered stem-cell like
    since its
    chief marker, CD133, is a protein associated with embryonic nerve cells,
    and because
    it has tremendous ability to reproduce. In one dramatic experiment, 16
    of 19 mice
    injected with CD133-positive human tumor cells developed tumors. Of the
    15 that
    received tumor cells negative for CD133 markers, none developed tumors,
    though traces
    of the cells were still found in the mouse brains during dissection,
    implying that
    while these human cells could live in the mouse, they could not develop
    a tumor
    on their own. This opens a new dimension into how cancer develops (and
    where these
    so-called “stem cells” really come from), and also hints that
    a CD133
    blocker may be a new weapon against cancer. Considering that an advanced
    brain tumor
    right now is more or less a death sentence within a year, this could be
    quite important!
    Dysfunctional stem cells were previously known to be at the
    heart of leukemia
    , but this is the first solid tumor with a stem
    cell as its
    apparent source.
  • There’s some interesting Type I diabetes research where Harvard
    researcher Denise
    Faustman seems to have suppressed the autoimmune reaction against
    beta-cells in
    the pancreas which leads to insulin depletion and diabetes. What’s
    really neat is
    that beta cells seem to spontaneously regenerate when the autoimmune
    reaction is
    suppressed, promising a knock-down cure for that disease. I read about
    this on the
    NY Times, but it’s now no longer open for free access, so check out this
    blurb from
    Do
    No Harm
    about the research and Lee Iacocca’s funding initiative for
    Dr. Faustman.
  • Check out the
    Public Library of Science
    , an organization that publishes
    peer-reviewed scientific
    journals that are free to the public and entirely online.