November 20, 2007

Guess We Don't Need Those Embryonic Stem Cells After All

Especially since not one significant medical advance has come through their use.

Researchers in Wisconsin and Japan have turned ordinary human skin cells into what are effectively embryonic stem cells without using embryos or women's eggs -- the two hitherto essential ingredients that have embroiled the medically promising field in a long political and ethical debate.

The unencumbered ability to turn adult cells into embryonic ones capable of morphing into virtually every kind of cell or tissue, described in two scientific journal articles released today, has been the ultimate goal of researchers for years. In theory, it would allow people to grow personalized replacement parts for their bodies from a few of their own skin cells, while giving researchers a uniquely powerful means of understanding and treating diseases.

Until now, only human egg cells and embryos, both difficult to obtain and laden with legal and ethical issues, had the mysterious power to turn ordinary cells into stem cells. And until this summer, the challenge of mimicking that process in the lab seemed almost insurmountable, leading many to wonder if stem cell research would ever wrest free of its political baggage.

As news of the success by two research teams spread by e-mail, scientists seemed almost giddy at the likelihood that their field, which for its entire life has been at the center of so much debate, may suddenly become like other areas of biomedical science: appreciated, eligible for federal funding and wide open for new waves of discovery.

"These are enormously important papers," said George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the work. Like others, he spoke with stunned elation reminiscent of scientists' reactions in 1997 to the cloning of Dolly the sheep from a skin cell, the first proof that adult mammal cells could have their genetic clocks turned back.

A couple of advantages come to mind.

1) There will no longer be a need o engage in morally dubious practices to get embryonic cells.

2) Unlimited and varied cell lines will be available for experimentation.

3) Cells used will match the recipient because they will be grown from the recipient's own cells, lowering the likelihood of rejection.

I'm curious – will liberals now agree that the wanton destruction of human life for purposes of medical experimentation is no longer morally appropriate when less repulsive methods are available, allowing for both scientific research and respect for the conscience of taxpayers?

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | Comments (291) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

November 14, 2007

Avandia Health Warning

A quick FYI for my fellow diabetics.

The government slapped a prominent, though confusing, warning on the popular diabetes drug Avandia on Wednesday _ telling patients that it may, or may not, increase the risk of heart attacks.

The move is less stringent than steps Canada took last week to restrict the drug's use to hard-to-treat diabetics.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that studies are too contradictory to tell if Avandia really is riskier than other treatments for Type 2 diabetes.

So the FDA described the controversy in a black box on Avandia's label _ the most severe type of warning the agency can require _ pending further research. Unlike most black-box warnings that urge strong caution, Avandia's says, "The available data on the risk ... are inconclusive."

My doctor has switched all her patients off Avandia, from what she told me recently. I'd encourage anyone on the drug to seriously discuss the risks and benefits with their physician in order to make an informed decision.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
140kb generated in CPU 0.0879, elapsed 0.297 seconds.
58 queries taking 0.2633 seconds, 408 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.