Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Chimeric Stem Cell Manipulation...thoughts?
- Thread starter dickfitts
- Start date
I'm all for embryonic stem cell research and application. Had we been doing this for decades, cancer treatment would involve a lot less pain and suffering and would be far more effective today. I'm all for figuring out how to regrow limbs using lizard goo. Making Griffins and centaurs seems silly, but have at it. Hybrid cow/pig meat would probably be delicious. Science is fun.
Embryonic stem cell research really hasn't been working out as well as they had hoped. It seems using a person's own stem cells is more successful. But, this is a very complex science and may take a lot more time to fully understand it.
I will not get political nor will I discuss this part as I am only stating the obvious. Embryonic stem cell research is a contentious issue wrapped in politics and religion.
Very complex science indeed. Specifically embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research, hasn't been given enough time because of......obstacles that we can't go into here. This is purely speculation but had this avenue been explored much more deeply in the last several decades, I think the world would be a different place.
I agree. I see fantastic possibilities here. If nothing else, sooner or later we're going to have to manipulate our DNA-for climate change, space travel etc. I suppose it's going to be measured in HOW we do it. Which will, most likely, be that rare human mix of incredibly kind and unthinkably horrible...
It's only "contentious" because of political and religious obstacles. If everyone could approach it from a more objectively scientific perspective it would be a lot easier to determine whether genuinely valuable progress is even possible.
True, but if a frog had wings, his ass wouldn't bump the ground every time he jumped.
And yes, you have stated the obvious. It is what it is.
I'm not going to comment on human stem-cell / non-human chimera because it is a very complex issue scientifically, ethically and philosophically. However, I have created mouse models with human gene "knock-ins" where I've replaced a mouse gene with its human ortholog in order to study metabolic, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of test compounds. I have not published on these due to propriety reasons and time constraints ( I am now retired), although I have published some of my work on knock-out models (glucokinase regulatory protein) and transgenic mice (over-expressing human glucokinase but with the mouse gene intact).
Currently, there are no substitutes for animal models in pharmacological testing, after the initial in vitro (test-tube and cell-future) testing. We have found many, many instances where even slight changes in DNA sequence, and the subsequent amino acids of the protein, initially considered to be largely immaterial, between human and rodent genes have profound differences in functionality and responsiveness to pharmaceutical intervention. The ability to have an animal model that replicates, to a certain degree hopefully somewhat better, the human situation can possibly provide a platform for drug testing that will lead to safer and more efficacious drugs, potentially, with an overall decrease in the number of animals needed for research. As an aside, the cost of animal in vivo testing is, to a first approximation, an order of magnitude greater than in vitro testing. If there was a viable model of pharmaceutical research that limited or eliminated non-human animal research, the pharmaceutical companies would adopt it immediately and completely. Unfortunately, there is no such alternative, currently, although progress is being made to lessen the use of animal models.
In the above case, I think the ethics are clearly in favor of creating these kinds of chimeric animals within the laboratory setting. They have the potential to help improve human health through developing agents for unmet medical need, while also potentially limiting the number of non-human animals needed. It would be unethical to release such animals outside the laboratory. Given the expense in scientific and technical knowledge and labor to create these animals, there is a vanishingly small chance that the developer would knowingly do so. There are repositories for frozen embryos of many of these genetically modified animals so that researchers do not have to necessarily recreate them.
I've been following the FOXP2 story with keen interest since it was first published.
Currently, there are no substitutes for animal models in pharmacological testing, after the initial in vitro (test-tube and cell-future) testing. We have found many, many instances where even slight changes in DNA sequence, and the subsequent amino acids of the protein, initially considered to be largely immaterial, between human and rodent genes have profound differences in functionality and responsiveness to pharmaceutical intervention. The ability to have an animal model that replicates, to a certain degree hopefully somewhat better, the human situation can possibly provide a platform for drug testing that will lead to safer and more efficacious drugs, potentially, with an overall decrease in the number of animals needed for research. As an aside, the cost of animal in vivo testing is, to a first approximation, an order of magnitude greater than in vitro testing. If there was a viable model of pharmaceutical research that limited or eliminated non-human animal research, the pharmaceutical companies would adopt it immediately and completely. Unfortunately, there is no such alternative, currently, although progress is being made to lessen the use of animal models.
In the above case, I think the ethics are clearly in favor of creating these kinds of chimeric animals within the laboratory setting. They have the potential to help improve human health through developing agents for unmet medical need, while also potentially limiting the number of non-human animals needed. It would be unethical to release such animals outside the laboratory. Given the expense in scientific and technical knowledge and labor to create these animals, there is a vanishingly small chance that the developer would knowingly do so. There are repositories for frozen embryos of many of these genetically modified animals so that researchers do not have to necessarily recreate them.
I've been following the FOXP2 story with keen interest since it was first published.
Sure it would; but it wouldn't need to jump any more, it could fly.
