It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adult stem-cell therapy fails crucial tests

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Adult stem-cell therapy fails crucial tests


www.newscientist.com

It's been a bad few weeks for stem cell clinical trials. First Geron of Menlo Park, California, was forced to put a pioneering trial of human embryonic stem cells on hold because of safety concerns. Now Osiris Therapeutics of Columbia, Maryland, is reeling from the failure of large trials of its adult stem cells, known as Prochymal.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Stem cell research
Schwarzenegger Endorses $3 billion to back Stem Cell Research!
Stem cells 'could restore vision'




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Stem cell research has expectations of great cures for nearly everything. However, the results of recent research have been very disappointing. Spectacular failure: "a serious complication of bone marrow transplants in which immune cells from the graft start to attack the recipient's own tissues. The stem cells were supposed to migrate to sites of inflammation and help repair the damaged tissues."

Anything of political importance about this?

Schwarzenegger and California are supporting SS research at a time when California is highly in debt and funds could be better used.

Obama has been a big supporter of stem cell research.

GW Bush was highly criticized by liberals for his lack of support.

Why doesn't government stay out of the laboratory and let science decide where research should be done? Always a better idea!

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Agreed. Especially when the half-wits in DC couldn't find integrity in a dictionary.

Science has their own problem of not whether they "can" do something, but "should" they do something.

It doesn't need the inept hands of Washington in the lab as well.

This goes into the issue of government trying to legislate ethics.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
It was my understanding that the government is involved because they seem to be the ones doing the research and then give it to the companies to refine it so the companies get the credit and money for developing it. Ofcourse the companies have to pay for the funding of studies and all that but that is usually the price they have to pay. Anyway, I did read that they did some stem research on eyes and it seems to have helped some people who were blind to see. Maybe not 100 pct but a goodly amount of sight. At least they got that far. Hopefully they will continue with the research and hopefully they will find more things to apply it to. Yes it might take some time but its better than not having it al all.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Good points!

Science began by finding promising prospects for stem cells. So where do you find good stem cells, why of course, human embryonic materials, ie. afterbirth. But lawmakers felt obliged to step in and say no we can't do that, it would be immmoral (afterbirths for goodness sakes, we can't use afterbirths!)

Then embryonic stem cell research produced a bunch of failures and we forgot about that. Then science found promising prospects in adult stem cells. So lawmakers wanted to appropriate billions of government dollars into that, but with a bunch of conditions and restrictions, of course! And I'm sure union requirements as well!

And now we are having a string of failures in adult stem cells and government has egg on its face again.

I think we can be assured that if the pharma companies saw or see promise in stem cells they have the money and will invest. That is assuming Obama is not successful in taking or limiting their profits so they still have money to invest.

And BTW if big pharmacy is making such huge and obscene profits as Obama alleges why not go put all your 401K into Merk or Pfizer or the pharma of your choice? The answer is that they are no more profitable than other publicly held companies and are not that great an investment.
So why is Obama always harping about big Pharma?

But that is another thread.

And no I don't own, work for or invest in any of them.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join