Talk:Stem cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Stem cell has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Citation This page was cited by Nature Medicine

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Archives 1, 2, 3

Contents 1 Help 2 Changes to the talk page 3 Contradiction 4 Suggested Update - Lanza, Robert et al (January 2006) - ES cell line est. without embryo destruction 5 weasel words 6 Bad Link .... I hope 7 Enacting laws 8 Large revert (29th November) 9 Conflict? 10 Oligopotent 11 Improving the page 12 Antidisestablishmentarianism? 13 Policy on external links 14 New source of stem cells found 15 Pro-life or anti-abortion 16 History of Stem Cell Research 17 Plants 18 (Embryonic) stem cell controversy

[edit] Help

I can't seem to edit this, but there is some inappropriate writing at the top of the page. Someone please fix it asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.234.205 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I deleted the fourth paragraph that you're probably referring to. Not only did it lack citations, it was also fairly ridiculous. Mister Congeniality 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted and unreverted several times. I have warned Lilblackmc on his talk page, but he requires further watching. Baughnie 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the talk page

I reformatted the archive box correctly since someone apparantly archived all of this talk pages conversations. I guess we can just start anew.Wikidudeman 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

[quote]# 2001-2006 - President George W. Bush is the first president to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research totaling approximately $100 Million.

1. July 19, 2006 - President George W. Bush vetoes H.R. 810, a bill that would have reversed the Clinton-era law which made it illegal for Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.[/quote]

So he provides federal funding at some point in a period of five years (clarification needed), but then in 2006 he vetoes a bill that would have made it legal to do something Bush did between now and five years ago. Oh, and the sentence syntax and grammar of that last sentence that I quoted is horrible.

"July 19, 2006 - President George W. Bush vetoes H.R. 810, a bill that would have made it legal for Federal money to be used for stem cell research where the cells were derived from the destruction of an embryo. This bill, if passed, would have reversed a law in the Clinton Era (what the bill was and when it was passed would be good information to put in here) that made it illegal to do just that."

I think that's how it should be phrased. Suggestions are welcome on how it should be phrased, but it definitely should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.242.66 (talk • contribs) 10 Nov 2006 @ 7:49.

No. There is no contradiction in the current wording. Bush is the President that funded eSC research for the first time, starting in 2001 and continuing through 2006. That is a fact. Now, the mainstream media might act like it is not true, but it is. Also, Clinton is the President that signed the bill making it illegal to for the Feds to funds eSC research. Once again, a fact that you might not hear from current news reports. At any rate, the current wording is fine. Your proposed wording seems not only confusing but inaccurate.--Getaway 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The ban was attached to the appropriations bill of 1996 by Republican Jay Dickey of Arkansas and stated:

The following is the text of the ban, originally authored in 1995 by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), as it appeared in NIH's fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill (H.R. 3010, Sec. 509):
(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term 'human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells

You should be able to find the full text on the Center for Science, Technology, and Congress site at http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/index.shtml. Incidentally, there really wasn't any direct presidential involvement until Bush vetoed the stem cell research bill. CMacMillan 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Update - Lanza, Robert et al (January 2006) - ES cell line est. without embryo destruction

The article currently reads "Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo..."

I thought it might be worth updating this with a mention of the recent work by Lanza et al, "Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres" Nature magazine vol439|12 (DOI:10.1038), in which a procedure is outlined that could allow a biopsy to be taken of a blastomere that would not interfere with the development of the embryo itself. This technique is not perfect and so far (AFAIK) has not been shown to work with human ES cell lines.

I'm sure there are many people out there who know more about this than i do, i merely propose that a mention is made that techniques are under development to reduce the ethical concerns associated with ES cloning and research.

The subsequent article on human blastomeres is more topical and I have added it to the end of the Key events section (with an appropriate citation). I agree that this recent work by Robert Lanza should be mentioned. Dr Aaron 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words

"...endorses the United States Congress in providing..."

This tortured language and logic looks like an effort to placate all parties. Surely it can be made more direct. Brainhell 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link .... I hope

Totipotent stem cells are produced from the fusion of an egg and sperm cell. Cells produced by the first few divisions of the fertilized egg cell are also totipotent. These cells can differentiate into embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.

The link for totipotent seems a bit strange; takes you to a picture of some wierd looking fellow. --Random Replicator 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this. TimVickers 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enacting laws

As it stands, the article states that President Bush enacted a laws regarding stem cell research. Actually, the president cannot enact laws; that falls to Congress. The president signs laws and enforces them. Perhaps what is meant is that the President issued executive orders regulating stem cell research?

[edit] Large revert (29th November)

I've reverted the page back to an earlier form after I noticed that an enormous chunk of what I consider to be fairly useless and unreferenced fluff on potency/plasticity definitions and adult stem cells was added to the "defining properties" section (by 71.135.184.25).

This is a GA class article, and is so because it is succinct and well referenced. The current terse potency definitions do the job quite well I think, and I think that my reversion improves the article overall. Dr Aaron 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That text was copied verbatim from The McGraw-Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. TimVickers 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All the better to revert. I agree with Dr. Aaron; when it comes to complex scientific subjects, which are nontheless high profile, succint is the magic word. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict?

The 25 November G&M says McCulloch & Till did it "at the Ontario Cancer Institute in 1957." The OCI article says it opened in 1958. Can somebody explain the discrepancy? (I'm guessing they did it 1957, are now at OCI, & G&M wasn't accurate enough.) Trekphiler 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oligopotent

There is another type of stem cell. that is oligopotent stem cells. i will find out more, but they are frequently referred to in Nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.9.186 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if I'd say they are "frequently" referred to in Nature, but the term oligopotent stem cells has definitely been adopted by a subgroup of scientists working in the stem cell field - prodominantly those working with haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Note that the Wikipedia page incorrectly redirects to pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell, although the page correctly calls them multipotent.

By definition, multipotent and oligopotent stem cells can differentiate into multiple cell fates. The concept in the HSC field is that multipotent refers to the most primordial, plastic HSCs, while more differentiated and lineage restricted cells are called oligopotent [[1]]. To my mind, this definition is particularly wooly and unhelpful for virtually any field outside HSC biology.

Someone else can generate a page for oligopotency if they want; personally I want to give the least airplay to the subject as possible. I hope this rant was informative. Dr Aaron 07:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the page

I'd like to work towards this article moving beyond the GA category. I think the first thing to do would be to add some more proper references (even if we start by looking at the adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell pages, and shed some of the external links. There is no way that that many links are necessary.

If anyone wants to make a start, that would be great, otherwise I'm going to make it one of my projects over the next few weeks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Aaron (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Oops - sorry Dr Aaron 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I post this and the next change is to add MORE external links (yes, I'm talking about you User:Feverinlove). Dr Aaron 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antidisestablishmentarianism?

Hey, I have great link about some japanese scientists who reverted mouse skin cells back into an embryonic-like state that then showed signs of pluropotency, along with articles for adult stem cells. However, I cannot edit this page. Here is that link, and a biased report with which you can use to get more information on somatic stem cell use, research, and breakthroughs: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL09/Japan.html http://www.lockhartreview.com.au/_pdf/601-700/LRC624.pdf#search=%22Mackay-Sim%20Stem%20cells%20 Developmental%20Dynamics%20website%22 WERK 07:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph added discussing this paper. TimVickers 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on external links

I think the external links are getting completely out of control - I recommended a few weeks ago trimming them back a bit - since then even more have been added. While external links can be useful, I think we should set some goals for what we want to achieve from the links.

• Do we want links to recent news sites - they get out of date very quickly?
• Do we want links to pro-stem cell research lobbyists? For that matter, do we want links to anti-stem cell research lobbyists?

Personally, I'm not so keen on any of them, but I'm willing to listen to convincing arguments why they should stay before starting to cut. I'll probably start sometime in the new year.

Dr Aaron 14:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the news pages should be removed from EL and restricted to citations -- leave the news reporting to Wikinews. As for pro- and anti-stem cell sites, those links probably fit better on stem cell controversy, and even then, only the most notable ones. The external links section here should probably be restricted to a half-dozen or so medically oriented sites that provide details about stem cells and the research thereof. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just annihilated a bunch of the external links. A lot of the "General" links had no useful info. The "News" doesn't belong on this page. That's what Wikinews is for. Most of the "Guides" were biased. If you disagree, put them back and we can talk. The academic journals don't seem appropriate for this page. I left them for now. But I might change my mind in an hour or so and delete them as well. I agree with LeaHazel. "The external links section here should probably be restricted to a half-dozen or so medically oriented sites that provide details about stem cells and the research thereof." --Stable attractor 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, advocacy organisations should not be linked. TimVickers 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work - I think it looks much cleaner now! Dr Aaron 01:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New source of stem cells found

These cells are reported to be an intermediate stage between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. [2] Brian Pearson 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life or anti-abortion

The controversy section makes reference to pro-life. Anti-abortion is a more neutral term. Read any reputable newspaper and they'll never refer to people as pro-life or pro-choice. The Associated Press uses the terms anti-abortion and abortion rights. I feel that these are more appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm going to wait for feedback before I make the change.

Sounds reasonable. TimVickers 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it sounds reasonable. The Associated Press does not define the pro-life movement because they neither originated the movement nor are part of it. The movement defines itself as "pro-life" or as "right to life" and should be called as such, regardless of one's political views. Anti-abortion is, however, a euphemism that is intended to make it sound like the movement is against a procedure, which is patently ridiculous, and this by itself makes Wikipedia appear partisan. The right to life movement stands for the right of every human being to its own life. This is the principle behind the opposition to anything which cuts an innocent human life short, whatever the procedure may be. You can look at any number of organizations that take this position and virtually all of them have some form of "pro-life" or "right to life" in their name. 24.6.123.226 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)C. Sand

I disagree. We should not describe organizations as they describe themselves, we should describe them as they are. As an example, if a set of terrorists describe themselves as "freedom fighters" it would not be neutral for us to uncritically accept this description. If an organization campaigns primarily to outlaw abortion, then it is an anti-abortion organization. TimVickers 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because a particular organization is publically (not primarily) known for one particular campaign, does not mean they should be named as such. The only reason why pro-life is only known by most as being against abortion is because, and only because, that is the major argument today. Cloning, the death penalty, stem cell research, euthanasia, and abortion are all issues which pro-life is against. Therefore they should not be known "anit-abortion" but as pro-life; since it is the word which best descibes what a pro-life organization stands for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.60.218.95 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History of Stem Cell Research

I've never contributed to anything on Wikipedia before, so I'm not really sure how this works. However, part of the history section of the article is inaccurate. The Senate passed the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act unanimously, and the House still needs to vote under the rules. See http://olpa.od.nih.gov/tracking/109/senate_bills/session2/s-2754.asp or http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02754:@@@L&summ2=m& for more information. --Liza4884 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plants

Plants have stem cells to! They maintain them in the meristem. Since this article isn't specifically celled animal stem cells shouldn't we have some stuff about plant stem cells in here? (Million_Moments 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

A fair point, Million Moments. I do think the introduction does provide a good overall view of what a stem cell is "Stem cells are primal cells common to all multi-cellular organisms that retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division and can differentiate into a wide range of specialized cell types." This does cover plants, even if the remainder of the article focuses on humans and mammalian research.

I'm not a specialized plant biologist (like yourself), although my undergrad training did cover the basics. Plants are a bit unusual as many of them can be grown from explants by plant tissue culture; tissue cuttings de-differentiate into a "stem-cell like state" from a mature cell type. This is something completely different to the concept of stem cells in the way that they are linked to human/mammalian biology & medicine.

Still, I'd be happy to convert the See Also section into something a bit more useful then its current links to: "The American Society for Cell Biology & the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" (Why are these so important?)

Perhaps these links could be replaced with short sentence or two dedicated to stem cells in (1) plants, (2) lower vertebrates, and (3) invertebrates, with links to relevant articles like the meristem? I know a fair bit of muscle stem cell work has grown from work in the fruitfly, and I'm sure there is work on other biological model systems that could be linked to this page.

Dr Aaron 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Embryonic) stem cell controversy

While I don't want to get into a revert war, I'd be interested in establishing a consensus before changes are made to make the stem cell controversy specifically "embryonic". While I fully agree the vast majority of arguments and social/ethical problems with stem cell research are with embryonic cells and embryonic destruction, I don't think it is 100% of the case - hence my reversion.

The argument has spilled slightly over onto my talk page and I have left specific comments on the page of User talk:Shrinkshooter.

If a consensus of Stem Cell editors (regular editors & not sockpuppets) think that the stem cell controversy should be permanently changed to "embryonic" exclusively, I'll be happy to be convinced by good argument.

Otherwise, I say let the status quo stand.

Dr Aaron 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the majority of the controversy is about using embyonic stem cells, which is what is reflected by the text in the section. However, the full page on Stem cell controversy goes over other issues that are not about the embryonic source, such as whether patents should be granted on stem cell developments and so forth. I think the terms should stand as they are (i.e. without saying embryonic), but the text in the section should include at least a sentence about non-embryonic issues to support that decision.

-Cquan 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cquan raises a good argument. I'd be satisfied to leave the article the way it is without "embryonic" specifically there as long as there was at least some mention (and the link to the stem cell controversy perhaps embedded in the paragraph mentioning it) that most of the controversy surrounds embryonic stem cells.

However, I'd like to know why you think that controversy surrounds other aspects of stem cell research. What aspects other than embryonic stem cell research are controversial? Why are they controversial? What is the controversy surrounding these aspects? I don't want an essay or anything, but a concise and detailed description of these questions' answers would be appreciated. shrinkshooter 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See my recent comments at Talk:Stem cell controversy Dr Aaron 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)