But the methods used to reprogram cells can damage their DNA, and the iPS cells may not behave in exactly the same
way as embryonic stem cells.
Not exact matches
The act of reprogramming
cells to make them
as capable
as ones from embryos apparently can result in aberrant
cells that age and die abnormally, suggesting there is a long
way to go to prove such
cells are really like
embryonic stem cells and can find use in therapies.
In this
way they act like
embryonic stem cells and share their revolutionary therapeutic potential — and
as such, they could eliminate the need for using and then destroying human embryos.
In an advance touted
as a
way around current political logjams, scientists have said they can derive human
embryonic stem (ES)
cell lines without destroying an embryo.
In the past few months, researchers in the United States and Japan have described a promising
way of deriving
embryonic stem cells from skin
cells (of mice) without destroying embryos — the «Holy Grail of biotechnology,»
as The Times of London put it.
They view this
as a test run for creating human
embryonic stem cells in the same
way (and according to the team, South Korean biologist Hwang Woo Suk seems to have accidentally accomplished this feat while executing his famously fraudulent human cloning experiment).
Embryonic stem cells are currently being trialled
as a
way to restore vision and treat spinal injury.
For these
cells to be
as useful
as embryonic stem cells, «we have to find a
way to avoid retroviruses before application in
cell therapy», Yamanaka says,
as they could result in tumours.
Because embryos are not destroyed to create them, they have been hailed
as a
way out of the ethical dilemma posed by human
embryonic stem cells.
The discovery, by scientists at Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin - Madison, seemed to promise a
way out of the bitter debates over
embryonic -
stem -
cell research: rather than using human embryos
as a source of
stem cells, produce them from adult
cells.
* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such
as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a
way that will persist beyond their term (s),
as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over
embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)