Embryonic stem cells cure AMD

[it5five]

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6122757.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164)

British scientists have discovered a cure for age-related macular degeneration using embryonic stem cells. There are 14 million sufferers in Europe alone.

I can only imagine where we'd be today if research using these stem cells wasn't banned for the last eight years in the US.

[pseudobrit]

I've known people who suffered and it was so sad watching it progress. It gives you a sinking feeling in your gut to think a cure could be available today.

[.Andy]

Ooh I'll have to read this paper. Needless to say if it's true and *if* it matures it will be one of the great medical breakthroughs. It'd be great to definitively cross AMD off the list of diseases out there.

[SactoGuy18]

However, given the highly successful research using adult stem cells, it won't take very long to do the same results using adult stem cells within a few years.

[.Andy]

However, given the highly successful research using adult stem cells, it won't take very long to do the same results using adult stem cells within a few years.
Adult and embryonic stem cells aren't synonymous. Basic things like harvesting/growing enough adult stem cells is still a significant hurdle to their use. Although some factions are dead against embryonic stem cells, the fact remains that they will likely be better for some therapies whereas adult stem cells will likely be better for others. Utilising both for research and/or therapies will result in the greatest medical gain.

[chrmjenkins]

They've also reversed the effects of muscular dystrophy in dogs with gene therapy.

http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=279
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22327/

It's exciting to see all of these advances in muscular disorders. A classmate of mine in high school had it, and I know there were countless times where he couldn't be a normal kid because his muscles wouldn't allow it.

I can only imagine where we'd be today if research using these stem cells wasn't banned for the last eight years in the US.

The research hasn't been banned. There was simply a mandate to prevent federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Obama rescinded this mandate, but the actual practice of it hasn't changed, IIRC.

[obeygiant]

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6122757.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164)

British scientists have discovered a cure for age-related macular degeneration using embryonic stem cells. There are 14 million sufferers in Europe alone.

I can only imagine where we'd be today if research using these stem cells wasn't banned for the last eight years in the US.

Why? Are British scientists less apt than American scientists? :p

[Pittsax]

Okay, the fact that they haven't cited an actual research article is troubling. Also, this was done in rats, not in humans. Big difference. Until I see the actual science behind these claims, I'm going to remain skeptical.

As for the embryonic/adult stem cell issue, one of the big limits of adult stem cells is that they usually only make cells from the tissue they were harvested from. While there MAY be adult stem cells in the eye (I actually study them), we are a long way off from doing anything useful with them.

[BigHungry04]

Stem Cells cured Advanced Micro Devices? Awesome! :D

[FX120]

I can only imagine where we'd be today if research using these stem cells wasn't banned for the last eight years in the US.
When was it banned?

[SactoGuy18]

Interestingly, research done outside the USA on embryonic stem cells in South Korea and Europe didn't produce much until very recently. Meanwhile, I know of over 100 different medical therapies done with adult stem cells, including recent ones for Parkinson's disease.

[.Andy]

Interestingly, research done outside the USA on embryonic stem cells in South Korea and Europe didn't produce much until very recently. Meanwhile, I know of over 100 different medical therapies done with adult stem cells, including recent ones for Parkinson's disease.
I'm sensing a theme with your posts SactoGuy. You deal with nothing more than vague generalities to try and present adult stem cells as superior across the board to embryonic stem cells. The reality of the research is very different to how you present it.....

[Don't panic]

They've also reversed the effects of muscular dystrophy in dogs with gene therapy.

http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=279
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22327/

It's exciting to see all of these advances in muscular disorders. A classmate of mine in high school had it, and I know there were countless times where he couldn't be a normal kid because his muscles wouldn't allow it.


It is very exciting (splicing FTW!). and this approach is the real thing (although it's not gene therapy, it's antisense technology).
The unfortunate part that it will work only for a fraction of patients because it is strictly dependent on the precise mutations they carry. obviously it starts with the most common genetic lesions, but moving to the rare ones might prove very difficult from an economical/regulatory point of view.
At some point (soon) the FDA will have to change the way they work to accommodate the way new technology works and can/can't be tested.

[Eanair]

Okay, the fact that they haven't cited an actual research article is troubling. Also, this was done in rats, not in humans. Big difference. Until I see the actual science behind these claims, I'm going to remain skeptical.



He at least has a review out. I know it's not an original research publication, which would be preferable, but at least it's something. Perhaps the article is in press? Though I assume the article would say that if it were true, with the name of the journal the article would be appearing in. *shrugs*

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9H-4PF1WCY-2&_user=907668&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000047781&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=907668&md5=4995766c12dc44f006f817dca1f68d49

Abstract:

In this review we examine the potential of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) for use in the treatment of retinal diseases involving photoreceptors and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). We outline the ontogenesis of target retinal cell types (RPE, rods and cones) and discuss how an understanding of developmental processes can inform our manipulation of ESCs in vitro. Due to their potential for cellular therapy, special emphasis is placed upon the derivation and culture of human embryonic stem cells (HESCs) and their differentiation towards a retinal phenotype. In terms of achieving this goal, we suggest that much of the success to date reflects permissive in vitro environments provided by established protocols for HESC derivation, propagation and neural differentiation. In addition, we summarise key factors that may be important for enhancing efficiency of retinal cell-type derivation from HESCs. The retina is an amenable component of the central nervous system (CNS) and as such, diseases of this structure provide a realistic target for the application of HESC-derived cellular therapy to the CNS. In order to further this goal, the second component of our review focuses on the cellular and molecular cues within retinal environments that may influence the survival and behaviour of transplanted cells. Our analysis considers both the potential barriers to transplant integration in the retina itself together with the remodelling in host visual centres that is known to accompany retinal dystrophy.

[it5five]

When was it banned?

It was banned in all but name when the Bush administration cut off federal funding for the research. It was just another part of his anti-science agenda.

[chrmjenkins]

It was banned in all but name when the Bush administration cut off federal funding for the research. It was just another part of his anti-science agenda.

In other words, it wasn't banned. While federal funding is important, there was nothing stopping private funding from going to the cause. Even state funding can happen, and it did.

This is an extremely old blog post, but it gets the point across:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34993.html

Ronald Bailey | August 24, 2005

In August 2001, President George Bush limited federal spending on human embryonic stem-cell research to stem-cell lines derived before that date. President Bush said that he was restricting federal support for research to those lines because he did not want to "encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." So far only 22 stem-cell lines qualify for federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research, and the National Institutes of Health provided only $24.3 million last year for such research. It's impossible to tell what the level of federal funding for such research would be now in the absence of the administration's restrictions, because it is impossible to know how many good solid research proposals those restrictions have deterred from even being submitted.

However, these federal funding restrictions have provoked an outpouring of state initiatives for research funding for stem-cell research. So far four states have put taxpayer dollars behind human embryonic stem-cell research. The 800 pound gorilla in the stem cell funding arena is California. Last November, California voters passed $3 billion initiative that created the new California Institute of Regenerative Medicine that aims to fund stem-cell research at $300 million annually for the next ten years. That is more than 12 times higher than current federal funding. California will not only be outspending the U.S. Federal government; it will be trouncing whole countries on stem-cell research funding. For example, the United Kingdom has plans to spend $175 million per year on stem-cell research. In 2002, the Australian government awarded the Australia Stem Cell Centre with $43.55 million over four years. And the research of South Korean scientists who have recently been making breakthroughs in cloning human embryonic stem cells has been supported by about $11 million in government grants.

The other three states that have ponied up for stem-cell research are New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois. New Jersey has allocated $150 million to construct a new stem-cell research center, and Governor Richard Codey is proposing a November 2006 referendum to ask voters to authorize $230 million to fund the research. Connecticut has passed legislation authorizing $100 million in spending on both adult and embryonic stem-cell research over the next 10 years. In Illinois, Governor Rod Blagojevich moved $10 million of state public health research funding to establish a new stem-cell research institute called the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute. This was in lieu of a much more ambitious plan by state Comptroller Dan Hynes, who proposed a $1 billion referendum to create an Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute that would have dispensed $100 million a year in research grants and loans over the next 10 years. The proposal would have been funded by a 6 percent tax on face-lifts, Botox injections and other cosmetic procedures.

Many other states are mulling over various proposals to fund stem-cell research. In Massachusetts, legislators are expected to introduce a bill proposing that the state spend $100 million on stem-cell research. In North Carolina, a bill proposing to use $10 million from the state's tobacco settlement proceeds to fund stem-cell research has been introduced in the state legislature. Even in the president's home state, the Texas House of Representatives approved selling $41.1 million in bonds to build a stem-cell research facility at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. (Gov. Rick Perry says that he is against spending taxpayer money on research that ends human life.) In March, legislation was introduced in the New York State Assembly to create the New York State Institute for stem-cell research and Regenerative Medicine with annual funding of $100 million. The Maryland House of Representatives approved a bill allocating $23 million to a stem-cell research Fund--the bill died in the state Senate. A bill creating the Pennsylvania stem-cell research Council that would disburse the research funding created through a $500 million bond initiative paid for by a 2 percent tax on medical devices and diagnostic equipment has been introduced in the Pennsylvania State House.

Setting aside commercial efforts like those of the Geron Corporation, private funding for academic stem-cell research is also rising. For example, the Starr Foundation is providing $50 million over three years for human embryonic stem-cell research at three New York City medical institutions, including the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. The Harvard University Stem Cell Institute is seeking $100 million in private funding. The University of California, Los Angeles announced the establishment of its Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine with $20 million in funding over the next 5 years. Stanford University announced the creation of $120 million Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine in 2002. Former Intel CEO Andy Grove gave the University of California in San Francisco a matching grant of $5 million to start its Developmental and Stem Cell Biology Program. In 2001, an anonymous donor gave Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore a $58.5 million gift to launch an Institute for Cell Engineering. The University of Minnesota has set up a Stem Cell Institute with a $15 million capital grant. In 2004, an a grateful patient pledged $25 million over the next ten years to finance stem-cell research at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

Given all of these sources of funding for stem-cell research, it's a real question whether or not researchers need the Feds at this point. And one more deliciously ironic thought: It's just possible that, by imposing his funding restrictions and spurring so many independent initiatives, President Bush has actually caused the creation of more embryonic stem cell lines than would have been produced with federal funding.

[.Andy]

In other words, it wasn't banned. While federal funding is important, there was nothing stopping private funding from going to the cause. Even state funding can happen, and it did.
The problem is that it wasn't just about federal funding to drive the experiments. It was about federal funding fullstop. If you have a lab that was in the past partly set up with federal funding you couldn't do ESC research. If you had any equipment that was purchased with federal funding you couldn't do ESC research. You couldn't even send things like DNA for sequencing if the equipment was paid for by a grant. If you had any employees that were paid with fellowships or federal grants you couldn't do any ESC research. So in practice if you were ever a lab to be supported by federal funding ever (most labs), you were in murky waters no matter where the money came from to drive the experiments. In short to get into ESC research (or to continue it) one has to come up with the money to set up and staff and a whole new laboratory. Something that would run into many millions of dollars just to get it off the ground. The vast majority of research groups don't have that type of money. Or that amount of time. It was practically a ban on ESC research.

[chrmjenkins]

The problem is that it wasn't just about federal funding to drive the experiments. It was about federal funding fullstop. If you have a lab that was in the past partly set up with federal funding you couldn't do ESC research. If you had any equipment that was purchased with federal funding you couldn't do ESC research. You couldn't even send things like DNA for sequencing if the equipment was paid for by a grant. If you had any employees that were paid with fellowships or federal grants you couldn't do any ESC research. So in practice if you were ever a lab to be supported by federal funding ever (most labs), you were in murky waters no matter where the money came from to drive the experiments. In short to get into ESC research (or to continue it) one has to come up with the money to set up and staff and a whole new laboratory. Something that would run into many millions of dollars just to get it off the ground. The vast majority of research groups don't have that type of money. Or that amount of time. It was practically a ban on ESC research.

That would just forestall the efforts (although by several years). Clearly, the states and private enterprise took the initiative to fill the gaps, it was just set back by several years because of all those things being grandfathered in, if you will. For practical purposes, it would have converted ESC centers to ASC centers I imagine (I'd be interested to see data on this). Still, I won't deny the strength of the impact it had.

[.Andy]

That would just forestall the efforts (although by several years).
This is true unfortutely the nature of research makes the implications far more severe. Research is a collaborative effort. Very few scientists or research institutions work alone or can afford to work in isolation (both financially and productively). Lets take the very basic task of DNA sequencing or microarray analysis. Both require specialised machines and facilities and workers that cost many millions of dollars to set up and run. In most cases a researchers will send off such analysis to be done by centres that have been set up and supported with federal funding. They have a massive throughput and can keep the costs down. They can't be used. Hence for ESC all these facilities have to be replicated. The throughput will be smaller so it will be more expensive. It's just repolicating facilities and wasting money on additonal services that aren't actually required.

In practice what it achieved was isolating stem cell researchers, costing countless millions of dollars that could be spent on actual research, and severly hindered progress. The whole idea of "It's OK as long as it's using private money" is in no way an ethical or moral position. All it is is political fence-sitting. It was a defacto ban that ultimately drove researchers off shore. Ultimately the only people to suffer are those who treatments will come too late.

[iJohnHenry]

When was it banned?

It was banned in all but name when the Bush administration cut off federal funding for the research. It was just another part of his anti-science agenda.

Actually, I believe that 'future' stem cell lines were banned from Federal funding.

They had to make-do with the 21 lines being researched at the time. They were all adult lines, effectively prohibiting funding of embryonic cell lines.

[McGarvels]

Sorry SactoGuy, you're completely wrong. I've been working in the stem cell field for over 8 years now, first workign with adult HSC (Hematopoietic stem cells) for BMT (bone marrow transplants) and mostly in the embryonic stem cell field at the City of Hope in Duarte. I believe that what you are referring to are iPS cells. What you most likely don't know (almost guarantee actually) is that those "adult stem cells" are actually induced into pluripotent cells using retroviruses and activating genes (Oct 3/4 and others). Sorry, but there is no way that the FDA will ever allow any cells being induced using retroviral therapy. Not going to happen...ever. Trust me. As far as, hESC, there are several treatments that will be out there soon. Look up Geron. Enough said. and good night :D