First here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886974/

All I can say is this is great news - in short, by using a retrovirus to insert four new genes into human skin cells, you can "reprogram" the skin cell to act like an embryonic stem cell.

Not only should this breakthrough quell the ethical debate about using embryos, egg cells, and cloned cells for this research (no one should have a problem with altering skin cells), but it turns out that this technique actually produces cells that are preferable to stem cells generated by those other methods. The reason is that the person's own cells can be used to generate other types of body tissue, meaning that there also will be no chance of the body rejecting the tissue.

Obviously, I think this is great, but there is one bit of uneasiness I have with this: If these modified skin cells can do everything an embryonic stem cell can do (except implant in a womb) will these modified stem cells be reclassified as just another type of embryonic cell - meaning the debate rages on? Opinions welcome.

IMO they should not be reclassified as embryonic cells. In no way are they directly derived from embryonic cells. Only in the same sense that I as a whole person come originally from embryonic cells.

This is indeed wonderful news.

This is a fantastic breakthrough! The potential for improved tissue transplant alone is wonderful. If it can finally put an end to the ethical debate then even better.

I don't see how it can be re-classified as embryonic tissue. The ethical argument about using stem cells arose because embryos are stem cells, but since the opposite is not true then non-embryonic stem cells should not be a problem (they are not "potentially another human being", they're a mass of your OWN cells made to behave like stem cells).

Although... I wouldn't be too surprised if some right-wing nutter tried to claim that the reprogrammed cells are like embryos because they are stem cells.

No, that would be too crazy. The entire point about embryonic stem cells is that they come from embryos. If the same thing could be harvested off someone's skin, it's no more troubling than a blood transfusion. I hope this turns out for the best - while I considered the debate senseless before, this will make it unnecessary as well.

Well, I would like to know what these "different genetic recipes" involve before I say that the controversy is over.

Note: I am in favour of stem cell research.

It sounds promising. And here I thought Retrovirus was just something out of a wierd sci Fi show...

Well, I would like to know what these "different genetic recipes" involve before I say that the controversy is over.

I'm not sure what you're asking here Splunge, but I have to assume it's to what's inside the retrovirus. My apologies in advance if this misses your point. The retrovirus carries a four gene sequence that causes the cell to behave like an embryonic stem cell. The reason why they say there are two different recipes is that this discovery was made right around the same time by two different research teams - one in Wisconsin and the other in Japan. In both cases the retrovirus inserted four "new" genes into the cell. However, the four genes inserted were not the same. The two "recipes" had two genes in common, with the other two genes being distinct. The lead researcher from the Kyoto research team notes that if they have already discovered two different gene combinations that allow this to happen, it is likely that there are other gene combinations - "recipes" if you prefer - that will also work.

It sounds promising. And here I thought Retrovirus was just something out of a wierd sci Fi show

First off - I like the avatar. Secondly - I'm very pleased that you do not have a problem with it, as this eases my concern about how people who were opposed to stem cell research initially would react. You were firmly against stem cell research, and if you don't have a problem with it, I can only assume that others who were similarly opposed won't have a problem with it either.

I can see what HB is talking about, I think. How are the retroviruses produced? If it from embryonic stem cells then the problem still exists.

This is good news, but I thought I heard something about this almost a year ago? Maybe it was that they were working on it. Anyway, I see no real possibility that these will be reclasified as 'embryonic stem cells', though some nuts can claim anything. I am still worried about the actual research, however. Last I heard, embryonic stem cell research had a nasty habit of producing cancer instead of the intended tissue. This may just be another form of 'rejection' (eliminated by the use of the patients own tissue) or this may be a kink to work out in the experimental process, but I look forward to the end of this whole embryonic stem cell research debate.

Additionally, there's an inventor (forgot where, or where I read the article) who has been working for some time on growing organs for transplant from the patient's own tissue. Recently, one of his assistants hit on a great idea and they've managed to convert an ink-jet printer into a tissue printer that can print in 3D patterns. They have already printed several successful organs for transplant. Some of the cell types are proving difficult to culture for the printing process, however, so maybe this research can be used to overcome that problem. Need a kidney transplant, just give us a skin sample and a week. Liver, spleen, eye, nerves? No problem.

First off - I like the avatar. Secondly - I'm very pleased that you do not have a problem with it, as this eases my concern about how people who were opposed to stem cell research initially would react. You were firmly against stem cell research, and if you don't have a problem with it, I can only assume that others who were similarly opposed won't have a problem with it either.

Thanks.

My concern was about the use of cells from Embrryo, but when a Skin Cell can be doctored to do the same thing, then that shouldn't be a problem...

I don't think producing the retrovirus has anything to do with empryonic stem cells. I've never heard of anything even close to this. Mind you, I'm no expert on retroviral engineering, but I don't even see how you could, short of harvesting the required genes from them, and that assumes that such genes are there and can't be synthsized.

I can see what HB is talking about, I think. How are the retroviruses produced? If it from embryonic stem cells then the problem still exists.

I don't think I've ever been referred to as HB before. Are you calling me a pencil? :p

Anyway, I'm happy to hear that you don't have a concern at this point, Gnarff. But as I said, I still need to know more about it (as do you, I'm sure) before I can breathe easy.