A way found to get around the stem-cell laws?

CocheseUGA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
33 (100%)
Nicked from the Urinal-Constipation:

Cell discovery at UGA could open path to breakthroughs

By BILL HENDRICK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/26/07

One of Georgia's top research scientists said Thursday that he's discovered a way to quickly manufacture billions of a type of cell — derived from embryonic stem cells — that could grow into nerve and brain tissue, a development that could shorten by years the search for cures to debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases as well as spinal cord injuries.

University of Georgia scientist Steve Stice calls his discovery "very significant" because no one else is able to make the "progenitor neural cells" in quantities significant enough to meet the needs of researchers at pharmaceutical companies and other universities.

Stem cells are prized by researchers because of the cells' unique ability to morph into other body cells, promising to repair and rebuild damaged or diseased tissues. Neural progenitor cells, Stice said, are immature neural cells — derived from human embryonic stem cells — that can replicate themselves, or turn into one of many different types of cells in the nervous system.

Stice, a University of Georgia professor and director of the school's Regenerative Bioscience Center, said the discovery won't result in immediate treatments or the injection of regenerative cells into diseased brains. What's important, he said, is that now, "billions and billions" of these cells will be available to other scientists.

That is likely to expedite the development of future medications and treatments, possibly within just a few years, he said.

"The opportunity for others to make breakthroughs is the breakthrough," Stice said. And the potential impact "on the neural research community could be astounding," he added.

James H. Shepherd, founder and chairman of the board of the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, which treats hundreds of spinal cord and brain injury victims, said he was excited because the development "gets this limited line of approved cells into the hands of more researchers.

"There are a lot of researchers out there who have the capacity to continue to do research with the cells, but not grow or cultivate them on the front end," Shepherd said. For Shepherd Center patients, "it brightens the hope and gives it more immediacy for everyone with a disability."

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who described himself as "Steve Stice's biggest fan," said he's not surprised that the UGA scientist "is at the leading edge of technology in this area." Stice's research has "remarkably propelled Georgia into one of the major research centers in the United States."

Isakson said he has worked with Stice for the last 18 months on a Senate bill that would direct the National Institutes of Health to invest in stem cell research "derived in processes that don't destroy viable embryos."

Embryonic stem cell research has generated great religious and political controversy because embryos are destroyed when their stem cells are harvested. Stice has recently pioneered in a compromise for researchers: the taking of stem cells from imperfect embryos, incapable of becoming babies, that would be discarded by fertility clinics. That development, he said, is not involved in the latest breakthrough.

Stice said his neural stem cells were derived from one of the original embryonic stem cell lines approved by the NIH for federally funded research.

Aruna Biomedical Inc., Stice's company, has discovered how to manufacture the neural cells by the billions, he said, a major advance because only a few labs are able to make the cells, and then only in the thousands. He would not disclose how the process works.

His company has a technology licensing agreement with the UGA Research Foundation that will allow the firm to market and sell the human neural progenitor cells, with the university getting a cut. Neither Stice nor the university would discuss financial details of the deal. But Stice said it gives Aruna, founded in 2003, "an exclusive worldwide license" to develop and market the neural cells to laboratories, scientists and drug companies.

"We're going to be able to distribute a cell that has the ability to produce all the different cell types in the nervous system," Stice said. "Right now we're in production of these cells and will be working with a major distributor," which he declined to name.

He said the discovery is a first step, but a big one, in the search for brain and spinal cord diseases and injuries.

"The important point here is, before there may have been a handful of laboratories that had these cells available to them," Stice said. "Probably you can count on one hand the number of labs that have [neural progenitor] cells. Now we believe we can get these cells into the hands of tens of thousands of investigators. The more people working with these cells, the faster the treatments and cures will come. This increases exponentially the possibility of finding new cures."

David Lee, UGA vice president for research and an executive officer of the school's research foundation, said the cells derived by Stice "have the capacity to differentiate into a variety of different neural lineages. ... That makes them an excellent tool for scientists to use to discover new drugs for treatment of various neurological conditions, Parkinson's being an example."

Lee agreed with Stice that drug companies and other scientists could use the neural progenitor cells to develop medications within a few years that could help patients with brain and spinal cord problems.

Stice said the discovery will raise Georgia's image in the biomedical research world and place it among "the first states [along with California and Wisconsin] to put embryonic stem cell technology to work."

Researcher Alice Wertheim contributed to this article.

If I read it right, it's a way to get around the archaic limitation of stem-cell lines and allow more researchers access. Maybe we'll get some nerve breakthroughs this century instead of the next.

Oh yeah.....take that Tech assholes.
 
Doesn't matter: the laws prevent work on cell lines derived from stem cells. Research already doesn't work directly will stem cells - there's just not enough of them, making the process far too inefficient. This is just a new, more efficient way to create new cell lines. Actually doing research on those lines is still illegal for centers that receive government funding (which is to say essentially all of them.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Doesn't matter: the laws prevent work on cell lines derived from stem cells. Research already doesn't work directly will stem cells - there's just not enough of them, making the process far too inefficient. This is just a new, more efficient way to create new cell lines. Actually doing research on those lines is still illegal for centers that receive government funding (which is to say essentially all of them.)[/QUOTE]

If the line used was permissable by federal funds, like the article states, then the company should just need to run it by the NIH. He isn't doing anything different than the other companies that are authorized except he's able to make more of them more quickly. It seems a review process is all that is needed, unless the government decrees that only a select few people should be working on this.

There's nothing illegal about it, it just can't be used with federal funds...yet.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If the line used was permissable by federal funds, like the article states, then the company should just need to run it by the NIH. He isn't doing anything different than the other companies that are authorized except he's able to make more of them more quickly. It seems a review process is all that is needed, unless the government decrees that only a select few people should be working on this.

There's nothing illegal about it, it just can't be used with federal funds...yet.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much what I said: researching new lines of stem cells isn't illegal general, just if the facility used to do it in in any way, shape or form receives federal funds.

Again, though, the problem is that essentially ALL research facilities that exist in the US have used federal funds in some way at some point, so for all intents and purposes, such research is illegal in the US, unless some corporation feels like spending a few billion building duplicates of existing facilities (which so far, none of them have shown the slightest interest in doing.)
 
You folks do know that research using stem-cells is legal, correct?

The controversy is the desire for the government to fund (meaning your weekly tax dollars and mine) embryonic stem cell research.

The dirty little secret that for some reason everyone turns a blind eye to is that no concrete proof has been found to show that the research will provide any solid results. Which is why next to no private funds are used.

If there was evidence that there would be any sort of pay-off to throwing money into embryonic stem-cell research, big pharmaceuticals and private investors would be funding and doing the research.

Interestingly enough, earlier this month it was discovered that Amniotic Fluid stem-cells are found more effective that Embryonic and are much easier to collect, and will not harm living fetuses.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']The dirty little secret that for some reason everyone turns a blind eye to is that no concrete proof has been found to show that the research will provide any solid results. Which is why next to no private funds are used. [/quote]

Not quite true.

It's all about profit margins.

Pharma companies would much rather come up with a cheaper and more marketable pill that makes you lose weight (besides speed) or that gives rich guys a stiffy.

In fact, studies have shown that when big pharma earns greater profits, they spend the lion share on marketing rather then new research.

I'm not saying big govt is the answer either, in fact I think our only hope lies in the magnamity of the super rich minority who fund charity and the quest for the cure.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']You folks do know that research using stem-cells is legal, correct?

The controversy is the desire for the government to fund (meaning your weekly tax dollars and mine) embryonic stem cell research.

The dirty little secret that for some reason everyone turns a blind eye to is that no concrete proof has been found to show that the research will provide any solid results. Which is why next to no private funds are used.[/QUOTE]

How does that work, exactly? Can you do research that conclusively proves you're going to get results ... that you haven't actually come up with yet? If so, why doesn't research always pan out? And doesn't knowing the conclusion you're going to arrive at, like, mean you don't have to do the research, because you already have the information? :boggle:

[quote name='guinaevere']If there was evidence that there would be any sort of pay-off to throwing money into embryonic stem-cell research, big pharmaceuticals and private investors would be funding and doing the research.

Interestingly enough, earlier this month it was discovered that Amniotic Fluid stem-cells are found more effective that Embryonic and are much easier to collect, and will not harm living fetuses.[/QUOTE]

That's kind of like saying being an organ donor harms living people. They don't kill you to take 'em. It's just a matter of whether your body will be put to any use after you're gone.
 
[quote name='camoor']Pharma companies would much rather come up with a cheaper and more marketable pill that makes you lose weight (besides speed) or that gives rich guys a stiffy.[/QUOTE]

Yep. The only thing you forgot was research into more realistic fake boobies. The majority of corporate medical research money is spent on 'luxury' drugs. Not that those things are unimportant, mind you - the fake boobies especially. But if you're depending on private research to invest in life-saving treatments, you're going to be highly disappointed. The reason is simple: that sort of research costs a lot of money, tends to have limited profit potential (there's just not as many people dying of any specific disease as compared to the number of people who buy fake boobs), and often takes decades to come to market. That last one is the killer - anyone who knows anything about how corporations work knows that anything past next quarter is the same as never...

The overwhelming majority of 'real' medical research comes from public funding, especially through medical schools (most of which are public educational facilities, and even the private medical schools receive public funding to operate.) Most of it is done as private/public collaborations: the private companies donate money, the government usually matches it, and the medical schools use their interns to do most of the work (since you don't need to pay them much, if at all, since they're working for their degree/medical license.) The pharmaceutical companies get their treatments for cheap, the public gets life-saving medicines, and the medical schools get real-world experience for their students. Everyone wins.

But this system has been broken by the limits on stem cell research. Because public money can't be used for new stem cell lines (and the old lines have run their course, in terms of usefulness), medical schools can't be involved, meaning the pharmaceutical companies have lost their cheap workforce. They also can't rely on public matchings of what they spend on research. Research companies aren't getting the help they need to make the research affordable, the public isn't getting new treatments, and the medical schools aren't getting the work they want for training their students. And everyone loses. All to 'save' some random clumps of cells which are destroyed by the thousands daily anyway.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']The dirty little secret that for some reason everyone turns a blind eye to is that no concrete proof has been found to show that the research will provide any solid results. Which is why next to no private funds are used.[/QUOTE]

The dirty little proof is that nobody knows if research would pay off? Nobody knows if research would lead anywhere? Nobody knows if research would end in stupefyingly disappointing results?

In other words, the "dirty little secret" is that *research* is *research*?

Personally, I always thought the "dirty little secret" was the notion that the blastocysts used to collect the controversial stem cell lines, like any other regrigerated product, had a shelf life: as a conseuqence, their disposal/removal (that would be the part framed "destruction of life" by those foolish ne'er do wells on the right wing) is actually *inevitable*, so what's really being debated is what to do with those cells: throw 'em away, or use them for research and then throw 'em away?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']so what's really being debated is what to do with those cells: throw 'em away, or use them for research and then throw 'em away?[/quote]
I was under the impression that opponents of this research are afraid that acceptance of stem cell research would be used to (morally) justify abortions. The notion of contributing towards research for curing disease could ease the conscience of people who would agonize more, otherwise, over getting an abortion.

At a more basic level, it would also "de-sanctify" life, to "extract useful material" from the fruit of the blessed union between a man and a woman.
:mrgreen:

[quote name='trq']And doesn't knowing the conclusion you're going to arrive at, like, mean you don't have to do the research, because you already have the information?[/quote]
I think guinavere is referring to a proof of concept (POC) for the model of using stem cells to cure a disease. Before you decide to sink the resources into pursuing some new form of therapy, you can usually pursue some low-cost, short-term studies to test if the basic mechanism behind the idea works...say, in a simple in vitro model, which tests whether or not the core biochemical pathway in question can even be effected by the therapy in question.

Whether such preliminary results have been obtained for any stem cell-related therapies or not...I dunno.


[quote name='Drocket']there's just not as many people dying of any specific disease as compared to the number of people who buy fake boobs[/quote]
I dunno if that's entirely true, but as I recall, breast implants represent a very important example of litigation directly impacting medical research: after the company (or companies) got sued out of existence by breast implant patients who successfully claimed that the company could not prove that their implants did not cause ensuing health problems, there was a very pronounced shift away from any therapies which would persist in patients.

Because that court case(s) established precedent for the onus of proof being on companies/hospitals to prove that anything which remains in the patient's body for the rest of his life not being the cause of any subsequent health problems (instead of the patient having to proove the connection,) researchers are now pressured to come up with therapies which go away (break down, are absorbed into the body, etc.) over time, thus limiting litigation vulnerability.

That's quite a profound impact across the board, stemming from women wanting bigger boobs.
 
There are many different "levels" of stem cells. The fact that stem cells have the potential to provide cures for wide variety of diseases is virtually incontrovertible. After all we use bone marrow transplants (a form of stems cell) to cure leukemias and other blood disorders and bone marrow cells are the "lowest" level of stem cells since they can only give rise to red and white blood cell lines. Thus the more "upstream" the stem cell, the wider the variety of tissue can be potentially replicated with embryonic stem cells being the tip of the iceberg. The theory is sound, it's a matter of making it a reality.

Also as others have alluded to earlier, private companies are most definitely not going to spearhead any new research. Since profits are the bottom line, it's much easier to simply tweak an existing drug or nowadays simply combine two drugs into one, get a new patent and presto a "new" drug put out on the market without having to spend the billions in R&D as well as safety and efficacy trials for a treatment that may or may not pan out. The government should be making it easier, not harder to pursue new research.
 
[quote name='RBM']I was under the impression that opponents of this research are afraid that acceptance of stem cell research would be used to (morally) justify abortions. The notion of contributing towards research for curing disease could ease the conscience of people who would agonize more, otherwise, over getting an abortion.[/QUOTE]

That's the same line of nonsense that's preventing the HPV vaccine from being readily available (because it would make premarital sex more permissible). That's the kind of crap that makes me go back to my foolish argument that medicine is inherently "liberal," in the sense that it goes against "God's plan." As far as I know, only Christian scientists believe that, on the whole.
 
bread's done
Back
Top