Russell Turnbull, now 38, lost almost all the sight in his right eye after trying to break up a fight and being sprayed with ammonia 15 years ago. The result for him was what's known as Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency, which caused him great pain, the need for therapeutic treatment, and economic dependency. Good news for Russell is that he can put all that behind him now, after becoming one of the first recipients of a new stem cell grafting procedure, whereby healthy tissue from his left eye was implanted into his right and -- just like a video game medpack -- restored his vision to normal. For the moment, this treatment is limited to patients with at least one healthy eye, but given the pluripotent nature of stem cells, it is hoped that tissue from
elsewhere in the body could one day be used to
regenerate damaged parts, such as the cornea in this case. You may find further enlightenment in the video after the break.
posted Dec 23rd 2009 4:27AM
Thank heavens we're still allowed to do stem cell research.
@MarkAnderson
This treatment is based adult stem cells: Stem cells that are present in your regenerative tissues like bone marrow, skin etc. There is no ethnic controversy related to this research. It is often confused with embryonic stem cell research. Another application is the bone marrow transplant.
Even though it is great news, the technique in this case is pretty simple: It is a simple transplantation.
What would be better news would be the creation of a graft outside of the body with different cells, like mentioned in the article above. This is already being done with the skin, where you can grow patch of skin from the patients own cell to cure big burns.
@(Unverified)
I didnt know there was an "ethnic controversy."
@MarkAnderson I knew before I clicked on the comments that some idiot was going to say something similar. This story is about ADULT stem cells and had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. All of the major advancements in stem cell research have come from adult stem cells. Research on adult stem cells has never been restricted. You are confusing (purposely?) embryonic stem cells with adult stem cells. Research in either has never been restricted. What you have planted in your mind is the debate over research for embryonic stem being paid for by the government. And even that is in no danger of going away, despite the fact that nothing of any value has come from it.
@charles hamilton Come on man, don't be a dick. Most people don't know the difference.
@glamajamma
It seems he meant "ethical controversy".
@charles hamilton
1) As was said, don't be a dick
2) How can you say "no danger of going away", when the us ban was lifted less than a year ago. Clearly it could be banned again.
3) Are you seriously suggesting we should only research areas that have already produced commercial products? You'd have to shut down most research going on today.
@LeJay
There was only a ban on >embryonic< stemcell research, and ONLY for >government funded< institutions, and even there they allowed some of it.
.
@charles hamilton
Adult stem cell research has relied heavily on the insights gained from embryonic stem cell science. Human embryonic stem cells have been instrumental in understanding the significant differences and processes in all stem cell-like cells but they are the "gold standard" when it comes to true pluripotentiality. The fact that researchers can now generate induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from, for example, skin, that are virtually identical to embryonic stem cells derived from pre-implantation embryos means that fertilized eggs are no longer required for embryonic stem cell work. These embryos were left over from IVF procedures and would have been destroyed and all work with them is/was highly regulated. Moreover, personalized stem cells derived in this manner avoid the problem of rejection and are not limited to any given target cell type. There is a lot of work left to do to regenerate beta-islet cells, etc, but the embryonic stem cell ban for US federally funded labs from 2001-2009 simply gave non-US and non-Federally funded labs a significant lead time in regenerative medicine. It's no coincidence that the iPS cell breakthrough was made in Japan (Shinyu Yamanaka).
@charles hamilton
Actually I do know the difference. It's nice that adult stem cells can be used in this instance but, since you're calling me an idiot, you'll obviously know about the problems in terms of transdifferentiation and harvesting sufficient numbers of them to be clinically useful as well as the limited usage that they have.
Stem cell research of either kind is key to future medical advancements and that's why I'm glad we're allowed to research it even if the vast majority of funding goes into adult stem cell research because of the ridiculous moral wrangling of those who don't even understand what embryonic stem cells are used for.
Of course, embryonic stem cell research may not be a panacea but we're not actually going to know unless we research it, are we?
@MarkAnderson
Oh and I'm surprised no-one has made a joke about stem cells being able to fix British dentistry yet.
@MarkAnderson I see this has been touched on before but let me make sure it's made clear:
There was NEVER a ban on embryonic stem cell research, there was a ban on government funding for it, which has since been lifted.
@MarkAnderson Even British embryos have nasty teeth.
@chispito
And how much research gets done without funding?
Hmm?
Actually the researcher that manage to achieve advancements in adult stemcells research were not the people doing the embryonic cell stuff AFAIK, different research branch.
@LeJay Embryonic stem cell research was never banned. Federal funding of the research itself was banned, meaning new stem cell lines could not be created. The existing 60 something lines still received funding. Research continued throughout the Bush era but the public is generally not concerned with actually questioning what they are told. I am however glad the ban was lifted.
@MarkAnderson Read my post. I missed yours initially. The point is there was funding on the existing lines.... meaning there was funding.
but...but, stem cells kill BABIES! If you like stem cells you like killing babies apparently..I MEAN OBVIOUSLY.
@green or blue
you are a dumb ass!!!
did u read the article?
the stem cells were taken from tissue from his healthy eye.
before you open your mouth try to educate yourself first.
this news is amazing!!!
@EI8HT Methinks he was being sarcastic..
@EI8HT Dude, that is obviously a sarcastic remarks. Like you said yourself, before you open your mouth try to educate yourself first. :P
@Vlad Savov
if it was sarcasm then i retract, but man, if it wasn´t...
no.. not "if it was sarcasm", it definitely was. your sarcasm detector just doesn't exist.
chill. pill. please.
@EI8HT
Dude, your sarcasm detector needs some stem cell treatments...
@EI8HT
"if it was sarcasm then i retract, but man, if it wasn´t..."
It was obvious sarcasm. You were simply wrong.
@green or blue
Wow he grows babies out of his healthy eye!!?!?!
While this is fascinating news and all, and I'm glad it was posted, I don't think this falls under gadget news.
@B3astofthe3ast
of all time ...
@B3astofthe3ast
But now he can see again he can read engadget, and he can use an iphone.
Oh and since he can use both eyes he can get on the 3D tv bandwagon and start buying 3D tv's
@B3astofthe3ast
By its extreme coolness alone (you know, the fact that the blind getting to see again should be good news for us all) warrants it's being here.
This will still be used as an argument for how bad universal healthcare is.
@NakedOldGuy
Yup, you're right.
Churchill is reputed to have said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." When I see this I can't help thinking the same of the NHS, and thank goodness someone's pushing the research ... and getting funding.
Reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where he becomes paralyzed and goes in to that one clinic for like five minutes and gets healed... "WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS?"
@B3astofthe3ast - Without our eye site, how can we take advantage of the wonderful world of gadgetry?
But no, this is amazing work. Stem cells have the /chance/ to become a baby, only when placed in a womb (these stem cells were "manufactured" in a laboratory)
I'm all for stem cell research, but to each his own.
@iFargle
Thing is it shouldn't be "to each his own" in something as important as this, this should be "everyone for the best of everyone" but I guess that's just religion's place in the world, to separate and destroy.
@iFargle
"Reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where he becomes paralyzed and goes in to that one clinic for like five minutes and gets healed... "WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS?"
Who said it was not being funded ever?
The "controversy" was that TAXPAYER dollars were being used to fund research on embryo stem cells, which people were against on moral grounds.
Yeah, not something that is readily understood on the interweb, but folks aren't too keen on the money being taken out of their checks going to a private research institute to experiment on stem cells taken from a baby that's just been aborted.
No one was stopping any scientist from experimenting with their own funds.
But heeeeey who cares about morals....when you can get cool stuff in the meantime, right?
@LAY Your facts, common sense and logic have no place on the internets sir. These people are correct, because John Stewart, (or some other hack) told them so.
@LAY
Personally, I would not be as annoyed at the blocking of government funding for stem cell research if my taxes were not being used for faith based initiatives. I guess my morals are not good enough for the government to give a damn about.
@iFargle
This has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research - this was completed using adult stem cells.
What's more, funding has been there for established lines of embryonic stem cells for some time - the ban has been on creating or researching lines outside of those established ones (and only a ban on federal dollars being used for said research).
So yeah. Stem cell research is a good thing, as shown from this article - but the controversy is over new lines of embryonic stem cells, which has *nothing to do* with this article.
@iFargle
I don't think you quite understand what stem cells are.
A stem cell is a generic type of cell which can become many different types of cells. For example, a single stem cell might become a skin cell, a bone cell, a nerve cell, a muscle cell, etc.
An embryonic stem cell is taken from an embryo, which is the very earliest stages of a human's growth into an adult human being. At this stage, each of the stem cells are capable of becoming literally any type of cell. This is both the promise and the problem of embryonic stem cells.
"Adult" stem cells are from later stages of development, up to and including fully mature adults. The earliest such cells are generally harvested is upon birth (such as from the umbilical cord), though I think it's probably possible to harvest adult stem cells from pre-born babies.
The big difference with adult stem cells is that certain stem cell sources can only become certain cell types. For example, one stem cell type might be only able to become skin cells and nerve cells and can be found in the skin, while another might only be able to become muscle and cartilage cells and come from cartilage. (Note: I don't know specifically what stem cell sources can become which types of cells, therefore these examples are likely to be incorrect. I'm just trying to illustrate the general principle that adult stem cells are more limited in what types of cells they can become.)
Medically, the differences from the two are that embryonic stem cells have the (unrealized) potential to become literally any cell type. The challenge is that realizing this potential is FAR more difficult than adult stem cells because controlling what types of cells they become is more complicated. It turns out that the limitations of adult stem cells make them much simpler to control. In many (or most) cases, these stem cells automatically become the correct type of cell based on where they find themselves.
Embryonic stem cells also multiply more aggressively than adult stem cells, which is necessary for an embryo to grow into a more mature stage. (The heart starts beating at about 3 weeks and brain activity starts at about 5. That's a LOT of growth.) Scientists have encountered problems with this aggressive growth when trying to use them for treatments. The problem is getting them to stop growing so aggressively, because their uncontrolled growth leads to tumors, both cancerous and non-cancerous.
Furthermore, because embryonic stem cells come from a different donor than the recipient, they have the same issue as current organ transplants: tissue rejection by the recipient's immune system, requiring immunosuppressing drugs. Since adult stem cells can have the same donor and recipient (as demonstrated in this case), adult stem cells do not have this problem.
The big complication with adult stem cells is identifying a viable source for the needed stem cells to produce the specific type of cell needed. In other words, figuring out which parts of the body contains stem cells, and what types of cells those stem cells can become.
Another complication in adult stem cells is getting enough cells for a viable treatment. There aren't pockets of stem cells hanging out in little bags throughout our body. They're mixed in with mature specialized cells at a very low percentage. So the trick is separating the stem cells out in sufficient quantities to be useable.
Apparently scientists have been effective enough at solving these last two issues that at the last count I've heard, there are more than 70 viable treatments based on adult stem cells. This (very cool) treatment makes that 71. By comparison, embryonic stem cells have 0 viable treatments for the reasons listed above.
Ethically, embryonic stem cells have several issues.
First, harvesting embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human being. (A very, very immature human being, but one which—if allowed to grow—would grow into a fully mature human.) It's not like taking a few cells off the edges as one commenter implied. The entire organism must be destroyed.
Second, in order to generate embryos which can be harvested, a woman's eggs must be fertilized in a lab. This requires an average of 100 eggs to produce a single viable embryo. Getting these eggs requires harvesting them from women. The most viable method of getting sufficient eggs requires a woman to take fertility drugs to produce large numbers of eggs in a short time. The side effects of both these drugs and procedures can have a significant negative impact on the women making the donations, making such widespread harvesting ethically dicey at best.
Finally, the only known way around the rejection problem is to actually make a clone of the intended recipient. I'll leave it to you to consider the ethical quandry involved in that technique.
As for implanting stem cells in a womb to produce an embryo, that's just backwards. Stem cells cannot become an embryo. Even implanting embryonic stem cells in a womb will not somehow turn those cells into an embryo, let alone implanting adult stem cells.
@EWTHeckman
Wow -- I've spent a lot of time with Stem Cell folks (Through coporate networking, I've met several from a local SC bank here). You have written an amazingly accurate evaluation of the current situation.
There's a real reason that adult stem cell research is getting the research focus... And it has nothing to do with politics or any bans.
Each expert I've met is amused at the controversy out there... Both sides have made it into an issue that doesn't exist.
@mkaake I see, I see. I saw "Stem cell" and automatically thought embryonic cells. Thanks for setting my facts straight, guys, lol
@charles hamilton wrote: Your facts, common sense and logic have no place on the internets sir. These people are correct, because John Stewart, (or some other hack) told them so.
----------------------------------
It sounds as though someone just discovered something here. Hey, Charles! Welcome to the internet! lol
You've brought your ridiculous and unnecessary arguing to, of all places, an article here on Engadget about what is clearly a rather newsworthy breakthrough in stem cell research.
You can't possibly be convinced that you are informing any one here of anything, are you? You, my friend, really have no clue about the internets.... I'm afraid.
Welcome aboard, in any case! : )
wow look at you guys. Now i'm not against STEM CELL RESEARCH. I'm just against EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. They are totally different things. In this and all cases of STEM CELL THEREPY, it is not EMBRYONIC. Embryonic Stem Cell research is a total waste of money and has shown no resaults whatsoever due to its mutations and instablity. sheesh guys. calm down!
@questionexclamation
Sounds like someone has been listening too much to his preachers and too little to the actual scientists. Embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising fields of medical science.
@rocketman lalala
Science! Heresy!
/sarcasm on
Don't you know only right wing Christians love children! Democrats and liberals hate children. They only want to abort them to steal their stem cells then use them for Satanic baby barbecue eating rituals performed at Rosie O'Donnell's house at midnight!
Liberal cannot even have babies. Minorities steal babies from good republican christian families and sell them to Liberals for crack. Sarah Palin explains it all in her new book. "I can see Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck from my House."
/sarcasm off
/science and facts on
Most embryonic stem cells would come from people who would donate their unused fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. These embryos are normally desposed of after the family has happily had their children with the clinics help. Each set of parents could decided on if they would like to use their remaining embryos for the science or to pour them down the drain. Which is what is done.
/science and facts off
No embryonic stemcell research is a dud, we need normal stemcells and to convert regular cells into stemcells.
Plus there's a shitload of dumb stuff claimed about stemcell research, based on a world where people are in the know about everything they aren't, because basically what we do now is medieval, we take someone who has some issue then inject stemcells and see what happens, and if anything happens, and we don't know what the hell is going on really, it's like bloodletting or something, primitive and dumb and won't be the wonder they claim it theoretically could be because we are centuries away from understanding.
But just harvesting embryos for some medieval ritual is not something I'd call science or great, in fact I'd sooner chalk that to something the religious would do really.
And I'm an atheist but I'm against embryonic research, if they can't do it without embryos then they don't know what they are doing and then they should not be let at embryos like some insane cult.
Someone call Big Boss back from Peacewalker, we can make all the pain go away!
this is a perfect example of what this science can bring us in the
future..so what if some early fetuses are used. all u turkeys who are against it will sure jump at the first chance u get if a loved one is hurt and they told you that they could help you with stemcell medical shit..
Yeah what if a loved one trips while torturing a prisoner and pokes his own eye out?
This is great.
It's also a perfect example of why not to ride buses and especially not to get involved in other peoples concerns. Christ, who takes ammonia to a bus fight?