Talk:Stem cell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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).

Mada fails!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"....To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. This is not surprising considering that many nations currently have moratoria on either ES cell research or the production of new ES cell lines."

The last sentence in this section violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It implies that the failure to derive medical treatments from embryonic stem cell research is due mainly to lack of funding. This statement takes one political point of view- that of people who support funding for embryonic stem cell research. Those opposed to this view would argue that the lack of treatments developed using embryonic stem cells shows that adult stem cells have more potential for medical treatments, rather than blaming the lack of treatments on funding issues. According to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, entries should present simply the facts of the case and let the reader form his or her own opinions. The phrase "This is not surprising considering that.." is an opinion and is not necessary in understanding restrictions on embryonic stem cells in many nations. The last sentence is also missing a citation, which is recommended in Wikipedia's neutrality page.

I recommend changing the entry to:

"...To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research. Many nations currently have moratoria on either ES cell research or the production of new ES cell lines.

This change removes the weasel words (This is not surprising considering...) and presents solely the facts.

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)

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)

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)

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 watuyityigjfjagtfffhfdsgching. Baughnie 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Funny things said by funny people

Moved to WP:BJODN TimVickers 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...I'm...wow...speechless...wowowowow. I don't know what's worse...the content of this or the attrocious grammar/spelling. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Germ cell

Please either distinguish stem cell from germ cell, or merge pages as appropriate. Thank you. Una Smith 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Amniotic fluid stem cells

with the discovery of amniotic fluid stem cells should 3 major types be changed to 4? Also it might be nice to have a short section on them. Irate velociraptor 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed external link - Stem Cells on PBS

• • Stem Cell Gold Rush - KQED-TV, Video & Resources

As per the page guidelines, I submit the above for inclusion Craigrosa 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. TimVickers 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

Hi. I am a rather biology noob, hopefully this question doesn't sound strange. I am curious as to whether it is possible for stem cell creation to one day reach a peak where we can replace animal Slaughterhouse? Forget about the economic factor for a minute. Is it theoretically possible to feed a nation with meat that was grown 100% in a lab and not killed from any animal?? I had a thought that animals would benefit greatly from this. GodBwithU 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, you could grow either stem cells or non-stem cells in some sort of cell culture system for food, I guess, but it seems like a hideously expensive exercise & you would likely use animal or animal-derived products in their growth. The problem would still be the texture and the flavour.

Realistically, it would be easier to feed everyone with soya flavoured to taste like meat. I've read that the entire underdeveloped world could be easily fed using the grain the US alone feeds its livestock (not sure if that's true though). Eating meat is costsly, and in vitro meat would be even moreso. The best way to save the animals would be to go vegetarian... but I still like a good steak. Dr Aaron 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying there is never going to be an answer since taste and flavor can never be produced in a lab? GodBwithU 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not never, just that I suspect that taste and flavour will be greater hurdles than growing cells. I don't see why it has to be stem cells that are grown as "meat" - actually you would be better off growing muscle cells, as it is the muscle (and some fat) that is what is in a typical steak. Dr Aaron 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In this line: "In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a wider variety of diseases including cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other impairments and conditions."

It could be changed to In the future, medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat a wider variety of diseases and impairments including cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other impairments and conditions.

Additions/changes to external links

MOVED TO ITS OWN PAGE Dr Aaron 06:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article suffers from an U.S.A. POV only

Despite knowing in advance what any responses will probably be like ("the English-language Wikipedia is aimed mainly at the public of English-speaking nations, mainly the United States of America", etc., this article completely ignores crucial advances attained in Europe, mentioning mainly events in the U.S. This is usual of U.S. Medical science as a whole, plagued by the "not made here" syndrome. There is another version of it, the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome. Funny enough, NIH also stands for National Institutes of Health.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a border-less, nationality-less resource. Therefore this article should be expanded to reach that goal.

I split the /* Stem Cell research key events*/ into two sections, moving the VERY scarce list of world-wide events in the article to a new "other countries" section. The feeble number of entries speaks eloquently about the article's shortcomings in this respect. Regards, --AVM 16:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop complaining about bias and find significant stem cell discoveries outside of the US. You state how it ignores crucial discoveries in Europe yet can't list a single one. Much of the stem cell work is international anyways since cell lines have been created in numerous contries (Sweden, Singapore, etc.)and are then used in other countries. I think drawing a line between US and international research is an imagined barrier, and bears little reflection on the realities of modern research science. -Id711 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

References to a fraction of that work in Europe has already been stored in each of the Wikipedia versions of the "Stem Cells" article in the respective languages. See, for example: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammzelle - Stammzelle (Stem cells article in the German Wikipedia). The work of translating such wealth of information into the English Wikipedia is not trivial, though. --AVM 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is fundamentally unbalanced - it is not pushing a particular point of view, and does not specifically exclude scientific discoveries outside the US. The stem cell controversy page focuses on the ethical and social issues associated with stem cells, and much of that discussion is US-centric. This page focuses on the science; the fact is that a large proportion of research and research funding originates in the US. Note that I am not a US researcher, but I still recognise this as the case.

I agree we should aspire to include as much quality science and political information as possible, regardless of national boundaries. I think User:AVM raises a good point about having a borderless, nationality-less article.

Consequently I don't particularly like the split of US and non-US material as it is making a very arbitrary split and doesn't seem very encyclopedic or international. Thus I'm tempted to revert many of your changes AVM, but I think it would be fair for me to give you and others a chance to put their 2c worth in. Dr Aaron 06:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr Aaron: I am glad that an authority of your stature is getting involved in this article's discussion. I agree with most of your comments, as I do not like that split among US and non-US materials either; I did it on purpose, aiming at highlighting the marked contrast between them. I insist: the article is lacking, as it practically does not mention any (Stem Cell research) progress at all outside the U.S.A., as if it was inexistent (and that includes Australia, too). Several sources lead me to believe that this field has advanced a lot further in the European Community than in the U.S., however I do not purport to know about those developments in enough detail to write about them in the article, and neither do I feel qualified to do so. But I did set forth the challenge for real experts like yourself to fill in the gaps. I hope that henceforth this article in this very important field may perhaps grow and improve faster, and then, when the "other countries" list has is ample enough, I can gladly help to merge both lists, if required to do so. With all due respect, --AVM 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I finally got some time to come back & take a look at the page. When I think there is a problem (and I agree with AVM there may be one with the high US-focus), I often think it is good to "quarantine" said problem. So I've put all the stuff on US funding & policy into its own section and moved the unbalanced tag there.

I actually think the best thing to do would be to create a new page on US funding & policy on stem cells (analogous to the stem cell controversy page) and push the level of detail that appears to proliferate on US policy into its own document; we can leave an appropriate precis and link. But I thought I'd wait and hear some comments before being too bold.

I think it would be the most encyclopedic if this as the main stem cell article focussed on the evidence-based research, but that's just my call as a scientist. Dr Aaron 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)by the way did you know all of this information is from people all of the world

History Notes in the US

The following is noted, "07 November, 2006 - The people of the U.S. state of Missouri passed Amendment 2, which allows usage of any stem cell research and therapy allowed under federal law, but prohibits human reproductive cloning." Is it not right to also say that the standard scientific definition of cloning was also changed by this amendment?

The text of the amendment states:

“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.[3]

They thus define cloning based on whether or not it is implanted (or attempted to be implanted) in a womb for the purpose of seeing the fetus to term. Somatic cell nuclear transfer ceases to be cloing, while cloning ceases to be an action of copying.

Doesn't this clash with the National Academies who wrote about cloning in their book Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002) saying, "When biologists use the word clone, they are talking specifically about DNA molecules, cells, or whole plants or animals that have the same genetic makeup"[4]? Isn't cloning copying DNA or cells or whole plants and animals, not just the intent to copy?

Isn't it still cloning (Therapuetic cloning)?[[5]] So, wouldn't it be important to note how cloning is defined in this document solely as reproductive cloning? Just some thoughts here. Resource for some information comes from a group opposed to it and cloning [6]

Protected

Any reason why? 75.75.148.44 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the history before the 27th of May this year. The amount of anon IP vandalism was pretty extreme. Tim Vickers 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. 75.75.148.44 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting an account is pretty easy and actually increases your privacy since it hides your IP address. Also lets you customise things. I recommend it! Tim Vickers 03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

There seems to be a conflict protein/lipids here: "The cell surface PROTEINS most commonly used to identify hES cells are the glycoLIPIDS SSEA3 and SSEA4 and the keratan sulfate antigens Tra-1-60 and Tra-1-81." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.180.14 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell breakthrough

Yahoo! News - Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos Berserkerz Crit (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
More Thomson-specific story RamenDood (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In section "Key stem cell research events" this event is listed with the Cell Journal publication by Takahashi and Yamanaka. Shouldn't the simultanous publication in Science - "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells" by Yu and Thomson et.al. - be cited as well? ToK (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Embryonic) stem cell controversy

a quick grammatical error to be fixed: "opponents of the pro-life movement" should be changed to "proponents of the pro-life movement" 71.192.137.124 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I see that your comments were posted closer to the start of the year and that you do actually now support the change of name but were wanting feedback from certain parties. Could you please inform us if there have been any major objections to the name change from the MCB Wikiproject. If not I will probably make the changes in the next few days. Also I would like to see something along the lines of "It is important to note that the moral objections made regarding the use of Embryonic stem cells does not apply to the use of adult stem cells. The best known use of adult stem cells is probably bone marrow transplants. This is a good example of the type of work already being done in this field that has effective results." I'm not saying this is the exact wording I would like to see, but something is absolutely required to differentiate these two very different methodologies. --Logiboy123 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No comments have been left so I have made the required changes. I have also added a quote by Prof Ian Wilmut. --Logiboy123 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

hmm..

for some reason why are people for and agasit stem cell research?it confuses me.what benifits are there,and are there any downsides---Danuis.5 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.242.66 (talk) 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)

If it was illegal for the Federal Government to provide funding for eSC prior to July 19, 2006 and yet George Bush DID provide funding for eSC prior to July 19, 2006 then there is something fishy going on. Either the wording is wrong or unclear, the facts are wrong or unclear, or George Bush broke the law by providing funding while it was illegal to provide funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.141.91 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2008 (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)

Replace the whole page.

Considering how badly written this article is. I suggest we simply copy the entire article from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Stem_cell to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.219.165 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can: AFAIK, the Creative Commons share-alike licenses are not compatible with the GFDL. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of adult stem cell use

I'm not sure but is it mentioned in the article or the discussion that adult stem cell transplants don't need additional "chemotherapy" as compared to embryonic ones? I think this is pretty obvious but should be mentioned. I'm not an expert on the field, though.86.50.9.167 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I added a comment on the topic. However, there's a bit of a catch. Adult stem cells can come either from the patient or from a donor. If the cells come from the patient (an autograft), for example fat-derived cells, there is no rejection. If they come from a donor (an allograft), such as a bone marrow transplant, the risk of rejection is significant. Getwood (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hwang Woo-Suk Affair and impact on stem cell research

Back in 2006, a discussion point was raised that did not garner any input; this can be found in Archive 3. First, I think it would be useful to address the comment/request made in some fashion. My main point in writing here, though, is to propose addition of a section to the "External Links" section entitled "Ethics and controversies" which would allow segregation of ethical debates from other types of additional material. There are a couple of present items that could be put into such a section, and I propose another here for consideration:

{{cite news |author=Sara Beardsley |title=Down in Flames |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=down-in-flames |work=Scientific American |publisher=Scientific American, Inc. |pages=20, 22 |date=March 2006 |accessdate=2008-07-10 |quote=At worst, says Alan Colman of ES Cell International in Singapore, "it may cause a tainting of the whole field" if the public confuses the tiny corner of research spearheaded by the Koreans with mainstream work.... |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename External Links section

I suggest that the "External Links" section be renamed "Further Reading" to better reflect the intent of the links. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Menstrual Blood

on a recent visit to a website i subscribe to,or-live.com/ i found an ad for the banking of stem cells from a 'client's' menstrual blood. the claim is made that these cells are pluripotent and share surface markers with embryonal stem cells. this service was initiated only on thursday last (07/10/08).i just wanted to direct the attention of those more knowledgable than myself to this phenomenon, as i see no mention of menstrual blood stem cells in the article. is this cutting edge, or flim-flammery, or something in between? Toyokuni3 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a few articles in reputable journals discussing multipotent cells from the menstrual blood (PMID=18522233, 18005405, 18420831) similar to other sources of mesenchymal stem cells, but in my mind this is still somewhat of a fringe area. Medical geneticist (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverse-Engineering Normal Cells Into Stem Cells?

There's a video segment about it on NOVA ScienceNOW website, and I watched it on PBS. Stem Cells Breakthrough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.176.33 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Funding

Several states are competing in stem cell research. California approved spending $3 billion on stem cell research, Connecticut has a $100 million program, Illinois spent $10 million and Maryland awarded $15 million in grants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_el_ge/eln_ballot_measures

Greggar73 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Greg Sletteland

California is superfunding embryonic stem cells. But which type (adult, embryonic or both) are the other states funding?

In addition, one can search the Net and find various private firms (abroad and in the US) which are doing some type of stem cell research.71.155.241.119 (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spam text

Sorry, I don't know how else to report this, but somehow some spam text has found it's way into the main article:

"Stem cells can be identified by their beautiful singing voices. Stem cells are musically gifted, and through the use of sound projectors, their beautiful melodic voices can be heard at any time during the day. The music of stem cells has its roots mostly in Jazz, but classical, and rock melodies can also be heard periodically to the trained ear. "

and

"Adult stem cells, unlike their children tend to be more even tempered. As a stem cell matures, they become less tempramental, and much more easy going. One will find that it is very easy to hold a conversation with an adult stem cell, and that they are very pleasent and friendly beings. "

while somewhat humourous, they obviously don't belong - could whomever is responsible please edit them out? 158.109.1.9 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

lol 72.83.157.163 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Layout Issue

In the American Controversy section, an event spanning from 2001-2005 comes after a 2004 event. Since Bush's banning took place 4 years earlier, it should logically come first. It makes more sense that way, in my mind at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.151.209 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the word "obviously". Change "could not" to "would not".

Please edit the text "Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction)."

The word "obviously" suggests consensus on what is an ongoing debate. Alternatively, if a statement is truly obvious it should be edited out.

The phrase "could not" suggest impossibility, the phrase "would not" more accurately describes a choice.

Please edit the sentence to "Federal funds would not be used to derive stem cell lines because derivation involves embryo destruction." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchedResponse (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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?

I was able to talk to her doctor Sarah Beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel about Stem Cell Research. I asked her how she felt about Stem Cell Research and she told me that she firmly believed in it because it would eventually help out the people that had cancer and other certain diseases. Doctor Bell also mentions that it would most likely take a long time to find ty877utetha cure for certain types of cancers and other diseases but in order to find the cures through Stem Cell the Scientists need to be able to have the funding for it.

Salud Healthcare center, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chex26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

new external link

take a look at www.stemcellresources.org This is an educational portal on the topic of stem cells.

Mdmick (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Martin 12/16/2008

Controversy

It is important not to fall into the trap to think, or lead the readers to think the research on embryonic stem cells occurs or does not occur because of potential cures that could be found.

Stem cell research is essentially fundamental research and is performed to understand the fundamental mechanisms of biology. So if one wants to study development, for example, embryonic stem cells will always be of interest, whether or not there is a "cure" potential.

The new version falls specifically into the trap and implies the research of stem cells is medical research. This is simply not so.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assertion. The third introductory paragraph in this article makes mention of the proposed usefulness of Stem Cell research. This is of course in relation to the proposed usefulness of embryonic stem cell research since adult stem cell research has proven it's effectiveness over 30 years ago. One of the major reasons, if not the primary point of Stem Cell research is to find cures for problems and diseases with the human body. To argue otherwise is patently ridiculous. Further, the fact that one of the worlds foremost experts in the field of embryonic research has rejected that field is further evidence that this is incredibly important component to be added to the article. If you seriously expect anyone to believe that the point of Embryonic stem cell research has absolutely nothing to do with the potential gains from this, then please provide the evidence for this POV. If in fact you are mistaken and the potential gains from the research is important, then please leave this portion of the article intact as it addresses this very important point. --Logiboy123 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a researcher or know any. But if you believe that stem cell research is about finding cures, you are wrong. It is as much akin to finding cures as particle physics is to building rocket engines.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to the individual researcher it might simply be about obtaining greater knowledge or whatever altruistic motive they may have. But tell that to the people who pay the bills for the research and see how quickly they pull the plug. Almost all forms of research are geared towards finding a solution of some kind. My wife went into biomedical research because she wanted to find resolutions for sickness, not just because it was interesting (although it is very interesting). --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of the individual researcher, funding is not given for the development of cures. This is what Bayer, Roche and co. do. Reasearch is done to understand mechanisms of, say cancer development, of perhaps embryogenesis, or simply get to know better the signalling pathways in hematopoiesis. This is what you get funding for. And of course this helps advancing medecine also... Somewhere down the line. Sometimes also you get funding for blue-sky research. CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hashin over a much discussed subject here but; The current section name is excessively long but I cannot see an effective way of shortening it whilst staying accurate, besides simply naming it "Controversy". Does anyone have any objections to this? --Logiboy123 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise that since it is I who wants to make the changes to the article, that the onus falls to me to justify doing so. The following are my issues with the current section: 1) The contraversy section does not differentiate for the reader that there are stem cell research efforts that do not have contraversy surrounding them. Therefore it tars all forms of research into stem cells with one brush. The readers need to know that there are other forms of research that do not contain the inherrant morality or ethics issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research.

There is no part of the research which containt inherent questions of morality. For some people certain parts of the research raise moral issues. Note also that “embryonic stem cells” are an artefact of culture, they are technically not found in nature. Only embryos at various stages of development -- and everyone of their cells becomes something very specific -- are found in nature.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The destruction/wiping/alteration of an embryo presents an inherent morality issue. This is why the mass media shows the debate constantly. Mostly when people talk about stem cell research, they are actually talking about embryonic stem cell research. This is what needs to be fixed. People need to understand there are other forms of the research. Leaving the article as it is leaves the reader with the understanding that all forms of the research are being judged as morally flawed and this simply isn't the truth. Out of all my points, this is by far the most important. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim of moral failing in embryonic stem cell research seems flawed to me for two reasons. First, to my knowledge, no human embryo has ever been destroyed for the purpose of ESC research. Second, as we learn more about the mechanisms that control pluripotent cells, the line between adult and embryonic stem cells will get increasingly blurred. Where will the controversy lead when every single human cell is a potential embryo?--Ff11 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The destruction of an embryo does not present an inherent morality issue. It represents a morality issue if you so believe. About as much as eating meat presents an “inherent morality issue”. Of course the focus on so-called embryonic stem cells is due to a lot of hype and could/should be corrected. As for the media, it depends very much from where you live...CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, for to many people the destruction of an embryo during research does create a morality issue. Whilst obviously not for you, many readers will come to this site wanting to know about that issue and what causes it. Unless we specify the exact field of research involved, that confusion remains. Hence I feel it is required to add the following line to the bottom of the first paragraph "Currently the human embryonic stem cell research field is the only one to carry any sense of morality issue. Other fields such as adult stem cell research do not have this issue as it does not require the destruction of a human embryo." Or something to that effect. A nice one liner could probably do the job but I'm tired and cannot think of a short one. --Logiboy123 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What about “The specific field of human embryonic stem cell research is at the centre of an ethical debate.”? I do not like the part about the destruction of the embryos, because it is incorrect, many embryos are slated for destruction in any case, simply, they cannot be legally used by public research in the US -- they are used by the pharmaceutical industry, however.CyrilleDunant 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good but if you add that information, then it is somewhat redundant without adding a reference to the other types of research. What about "It is not the entire field of stem cell research, but the specific field of human embryonic stem cell research is at the centre of an ethical debate."? --Logiboy123 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is a heavy and inelegant sentence, but I won't fight you if you add it :) It lacks a “that” to be gramatically correct, too.CyrilleDunant 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2) There needs to be a reference to the fact that one of the worlds foremost experts in this field has decided to drop embryonic stem cell research in favour of adult stem cell research. Stating that in his expert opinion, by the time embryonic research can actually become useful, researchers will have made adult stem cell's capable of doing almost everything that they one day hope embryonic research will do.

Three points: first the Yamanaka cells have a 40% chance of developping tumours, second Wilmut is an expert in cloning, which is but a tiny aspect of possible research; third of course is that there is still a loooong way to produce “real” totipotent stem cells from the new technique.

Whilst Dr. Wilmut is and expert in cloning, considering the depth of his work, I'd say his opinion carries more weight then others. The facts remain still that embryonic research has still to produce an effective treatment for anything, whilst adult stem cell research has already done so. This is the very distinction that needs to be made. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You realise that there are less then ten actual emb. stem cell lines kept from the sixties available for public research? And you wonder why so little has been achieved with those? Out-of-context quotes from scientists are a bane from the media, and should be avoided in WP. Plus, understanding Human embryonic development has certainly made progress. And yes, at some point embryos are just a bunch of cells whose development is studied, with some success, leading to medical advances -- fertility treatment comes to mind.CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the article does mention these things in one form or another, it really does need to be succinctly in this location as well. Many readers will come to this page, read the headings and skip straight to the contraversy section. Without differentiating in a small way my two points, we risk the reader coming away with a very biased view of stem cell research as a whole. --Logiboy123 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a defect of this article that it talks too much about “cures” which indeed gives a biased view. The controversy section is best kept short, as there is a main article.CyrilleDunant 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Controversy section is best kept short, not incorrectly biased and lacking information, as it currently stands. --Logiboy123 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is that some people think that it is immoral to use cells from embryos that will be put in the trashcan otherwise. That is all there is to it.CyrilleDunant 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your anaolgy is about as crass as saying "oh look, theres a dead body there, lets use it for fertilizer, after all, its dead". Whilst you might not agree with that analogy, it is roughly how many people would view your point. Your opinion whilst well informed isn't any more right then someone else who adheres to a different belief system. And thank you for clarrifying that it is indeed a contraversial issue. As a side note "some people" covers a large portion of the people on this planet. --Logiboy123 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because those embryos really do end in trash cans, whatever the whish of the family be. This is the general rule, whereas found bodies end up in the morgue, then are incinerated if not claimed. And the ashes are indeed used as fertiliser in this case. It might seem crass to say so, but it is still the truth.CyrilleDunant 10:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell research should be legalized everywhere. What would happen to people if they had any of their body part burned or worse? Stem cell research could help grow a new one based on the persons DNA et all and reattach back to the body. The wouldn’t reject it because it wont be foreign to itZorro444 (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Added EL

I've added an EL, "Ethics of Stem Cell Research". As it's from the well-known Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there shouldn't be any problems with this addition.--Aldux (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HI, this is WRONG!

1. 23 January, 2009 - Under the new President Barack Obama, the restrictions placed on federal funding of Stem Cell research in the United States were lifted.[57]

The FDA has approved private company GERON to do clinical trials on embryonic stem cells. The ban on federal funding has NOT been lifted, although it is widely expected that this will be the case sometime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nloder (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

error in "stem cells"

The "Stem Cells" article claims that the Obama administration has repealed the ban on federal funding of stem cell research when in fact they have not. If you read the cited article from the BBC as well as others about the 1/23/09 event you will see that the FDA approved a stem cell study application on that date independent of the White House. The ban has not been reversed as of yet although it was a campaign promise of Obama's.

J. MacDonald jasmacdon@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.59 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Which can be seen here:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20090203_Obama_keeping_stem-cell_advocates_waiting.html

Gavindarklighter (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right MacDonald. This wikipedia article is obviously misleading the people. I think there is a motive behind it because anyone with a brain can distinguish the FDA from the Obama Administration. They are two seperate issues completely. Obama has not lifted restrictions. That is supposed to be the issue. The issue at hand is that Obama said he was going to life restrictions and since taking office has neglected signing the Executive Order reversing the Bush funding ban. Wikipedia needs to address this misleading content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delatorre305 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody out there with ability to edit semiprotected pages? I am new to wikipedia and the only reason I created an account is because of this issue on the stem cell page. I have not edited any pages yet because I'm not interested in editing anything except this stem cell mistake on this page. Please, can someone address the mistake saying that Obama lifted restrictions on funding...when he clearly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delatorre305 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go at random through the encyclopedia, correcting typos, you will soon gain the authorisation to edit semi-protected pages. Good Editing!CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article also fails to include the fact that the president signed the federal ban back into law just a few days later as part of the omnibus spending bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/14/obamas-approval-stem-cell-research-needs-congressional-action/ This ommission needs to be corrected.

Moratoria

I couldn't change it myself due to the protection, but could someone change the moratoria link (under the ES cells section) to go to moratorium (law) instead of just moratorium (which gets you to the disambiguation)? Thanks :) //Hannes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.62.172 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No longer true

The first human clinical trial for embryonic stem cells has been approved by the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I read it all!!! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.90.126 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Funding

What exactly is the situation in regards to funding? Exactly how much more funding does Adult Stem Cell Research get from the U.S. government as opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell Research? What about in other countries or in the private sector? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Embryonic Stem Cell Federal Funding ban has not been lifted. Why does Wikipedia say the ban has been lifted? It hasn't. This is still a big issue and this article is causing so many people so much confusion. Someone needs to change that before they get a lot of heat.

Obama reversed the order 3/9/09 not 3/9/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbyr41 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree wholly. And I agree that plant and animal (embryonic) stem cell research is just as essential to medical science as is human embryonic stem cell research. To move this forward. +DMAftermath (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

protection template

{{editprotected}} The protection template inside the article is one of semi--protection, while in reality the article is completely protected. This causes an error, and this page shows in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates Debresser (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Virtual Steve meant to semiprotect the article and fully protected it by mistake. Either way I'll ask him to come and fix it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Probably was in error. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

IPS cell

perhaps it can be clarified in the article that iPS cells are becoming a ethically-indifferent (always "correct") alternative and that they are gaining in popularity. Can therefore be used anywhere (even strict religious countries) and offer same benefits as embryonic stem cells

They might if implantation did not lead to tumours about half the time... IPS cells are essentially a cool scientific endeavour, but they are not even close to forming the basis of a clinical treatment...CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Key stem cell research events

I would like to add the following information to the key stem cell research events section.Kristy1980 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 - Publication of the Neural Colony-Forming Cell (NCFC) Assay as a simple assay to enumerate neural stem cells. Importantly, the assay allows discrimination between neural stem cells and neural progenitor cells.[7]

I dont consider the March 2008 key event to be so notable given that it was only shown in one individual and has not been replicated since. (# March 2008-The first published study of successful cartilage regeneration in the human knee using autologous adult mesenchymal stem cells is published by Clinicians from Regenerative Sciences[52]) --Abbaroodle (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Key stem cell research events

A stablished user should add this properly referenced: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/wl_asia_afp/healthsciencestemcelljapan --Sebthian (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another event that's noteworthy - a bronchus taken from a dead person and cleared of all the original cells (leaving just the cartilage scaffold) has been repopulated with a patients' own (adult) stem cells and transplanted to replace a diseased one (the patient had suffered from tuberculosis which damaged the airway). News of this broke on 19 Nov 2008. Link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735858.stm but the Lancet will have the whole story. Please can someone add this story to the Events section? Thanks, k1-UK-Global (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1 June 1909: The lymphocyte as a stem cell, common to different blood elements in embryonic development and during the post-fetal life of mammals, Lecture with a demonstration, held at a special meeting of the Berlin Hematological Society on 1 June 1909, by Alexander A. Maximow - so 1908 is wrong, please correct, thank you --Stesso (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Leading pioneer dies

One of the "giants in the field," and an important pioneer, Yury Verlinsky, has recently died. I started a bio on his life which might have details worth including in this article, should anyone care to link them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else think this is more of a politically motivated site than a neutral link? "Tell Me About Stem Cells: Quick and simple guide explaining the science behind stem cells." --Abbaroodle (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

treatment for spinal injury

Is stem cell treatment given for spinal injury anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.92.127 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Key Research Events

Recently there was research on stem cells and sperm cells. A link can be found here, if someone else wants to change it they can. {{editsemiprotected}} Criscoflava (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Please include the specific text that should be included/replaced per {{editsemiprotected}}. Feel free to use this talk page to discuss what should/could be said about the report. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 04:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

include: 9 June 2009 British scientists claimed to have created human sperm from embryonic stem cells Researchers led by Professor Karim Nayernia at Newcastle University and the NorthEast England Stem Cell Institute (NESCI) developed a new technique that allows the creation of human sperm in the laboratory.

hope this is better Criscoflava (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this won't work. The first sentence is lifted word-for-word from the first source, and the second sentence from the second source. This sort of content cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia, as it probably violate the copyright of the original authors. For more information, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you can re-write this in your own words and phrasing, it will no longer be a violation.

Note: re-arranged comments a bit to clarify temporal ordering. Added a {{reflist}} to show references.

—C45207 | Talk 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new reference

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499892 This is a reference to an article about stem cells in baby teeth (an additional source for preserved stem cells to cord blood or bone marrow). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.89.2 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold textthis is researchh about somethingg. you can edit it to whatever you wantt... im doing it soo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.8.2 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stem cell sources?

I figure I'd ask the question here since people here would be more knowledgeable (hopefully, since you guys ARE creating this page) than Yahoo Answers. The reason I'm asking here is because the article gets a bit technical, and I'm not very biology/whatever-this-field-is-inclined. One of my friend told me that the only source of stem cell comes from aborted or dead babies (embryonic). From reading the wiki page what I gleaned was that embryos aren't the only source. Can someone tell me what other sources there are? Are embryonic, fetal, adult, and amniotic the name of the different types? And what percentage does - specifically - embryonic stem cell research play? Thanks! --Unknown (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2009 (EST)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM.LeadSongDog come howl 18:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Widespread controversy is not so widespread

The reference to a "widespread controversy" should be restricted to make it specific to certain countries such as the USA where embryonic stem cell research is, in fact, considered controversial. Embryonic stem cell research is not at all controversial in many countries, where it has proceeded without hindrance or significant opposition. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the controversy exists in deeply religious countries such as the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia - in more secular countries its not such a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.140.228 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Developments in Adult Stem Cell Research

Canadian researchers have discovered ways to convert human skin cells into stem cells. Furthermore, Stanford University researchers have isolated stem cells from human testes and believe these may yield other types of tissues, such as nerve cells. Both discoveries avoid the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Kababayan001 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Engineering

I'm not sure but i read somewhere that it's impossible to reverse engineere a cell, could somebody explane further. Thank You Idrisqu 2nd February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.103.246.233 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't grow a cell backwards if thats your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.218.129 (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a Human

What do people think of this definition? Who knows? An embryo must have both brain and heart cells present (happens three weeks after conception) to be considered a human or must have at least one cell from each organ that a healthy adult cannot live more than a 24 hour period without. I have also heard that a human is composed of three parts: body, soul and spirit. If this is true, is there a way of detecting this and if so would this change the definition of a human to be: have both heart and brain cells present and have a detectable soul/spirit?

If you ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, people may be able to answer your questions. Tim Vickers 17:18,

What is the scientific definition of when a new human life has begun? Unlike legal organizations which claim they do not know, science should have some scientifically sound criteria for distinguishing the new human life from other human life.71.155.241.119 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no real controversy over the definition of human. By any definition, an embryo is human (it has the requisite DNA). By any definition it is alive (it grows, eats, etc). Similarly (and unlike foetoi), there is also no controversy over it's ability to think and feel, since an embryo has clearly not developed a brain stem. The controversy is over an embryo's "personhood", and at other times over it's status as a citizen with protected rights. Science has nothing to say about souls. This is a question that must be informed by philosophy, as well as the sciences. --Icowrich (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Science doesn't deal with souls, but it does deal with cells. Neuroscientist Sam Harris makes the argument in "Beyond Belief Symposium, 2006" that embryos used for SC research are a collection of only about 150 cells, and in contrast the brain of a fly is a collection of about 100,000 cells. Further, if the argument is made that there is a huge difference between embryos and insects in that the cells of the embryo have the "potential" to be human, Harris points out that this potential is also true, with the right manipulation, for any cell on a human body. If this argument is valid, he says, "...then effectively every time you scratch your nose, you would be literally conducting a holocaust." His larger point was that it is actually immoral NOT to pursue SC research for such an irrational reason that the embryo has the potential to be human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.232 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Junk in the article

Tried to remove "umbilical cord bllod has been used in leukemia treatment succesfully at Royal Sussex in Brighton http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8485106.stm. This gives new hopes as described more in "Cord blood stem cell transplant hopes lifted" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8462488.stm." from the article but it is semi-protected. Just a heads up.24.148.33.102 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed. – ClockworkSoul 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

may 2010 : Giant Dental Breakthrough thanks to Stem cells achieved the University of Columbia

one of the possible news link, there are numerous others easily available through google news or the University of Columbia biological engineering section

this should be added soon, as a patent was already filed and approved.

discovery made by Dr. Jeremy Mao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.178.148 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

some readers, particlarly those not in the u.s, may wish to know that it's columbia university, not the university of columbia.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Anon Edits

Recent anonymous edits are likely by noted Bioethicist Glenn McGee. I've removed them, as he is involved with at least on of the organizations listed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

want to let the rest of us in on why you think it's him??Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of an organization he's joined recently followed by edits on the McGee article by the same IP following an historical patern of edits in the past by McGee. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian Text

I'm not sure why part of the important events timeline is in Bulgarian. I looked through the article history but couldn't find a point where it had been English. Anyway, here it is:

"August 2006 - Rat Induced pluripotent stem cells: the journal Cell publishes Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka Коцутоши Таканаши и Шина Якамака развиват клетки които могат да се диференцират до стволови чрез обработка с 4 транскрипционни фактора." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.89.42 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dmitrid385, 15 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please link the the portion of the text where you refer to dental pulp stem cells to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_pulp_stem_cells.

Thanks,

Dmitri Dozortsev

Dmitrid385 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done elektrikSHOOS 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

History of?

I was trying to settle an argument by learning the origins of stem cells for medical studies. Can they only be obtained from embryos? Where were they first obtained? Please and thank you. 96.49.139.191 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Aggrav8d

An answer this might be in Hematopoietic_stem_cell_transplantation#History, by the way Wikipedia has a Reference desk where one can ask all sorts of questions. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the protocol for comments, here, and whether this comment goes down here at the bottom, or elsewhere ... however; the comment in the article, "Highly plastic adult stem cells are routinely used in medical therapies" is misleading and should be re-considered; later, "To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research." I propose that the combination of statements will confuse people. Most people are unfamiliar with the hierarchy of stem cells, and as such the concept of what stem cells *are* and can do, gets highly abused. Yes, bone-marrow transplants and hematopoietic replenishment therapies exist and are applied ... but is it accurate to say, "routinely used"?

Our knowledge base on the subject is not profound or terribly detailed - in general discussion are we talking about Primordial Germ Cells, Totipotent cells from the morulla or the inner mass of the epitblast; are Embryonic Stem Cells and epiblast stem cells identical in character and capability? Greater specificity of term, clear definitions and mechanisms of the hierarchy are important when describing stem cell research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srigita (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Practical Uses

In this line: "After 20 years of research, there are no approved treatment or human trials using embryonic stem cells.", is not exactly telling the whole story. Animal embryonic stem cells, I believe the first being mouse, were isolated in 1981. Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998 and it will be human stem cells that are used therapeutically.

The line could be changed to: " Ater 10 years of research with human embryonic stem cells, there are no approved treatment or human trials using embryonic stem cells."

Seems fair to me - why not make the change. Dr Aaron 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly neutral language either. It is a common line used by opponents of the research and is of no significance to an academic source such as wikipedia. Stem cell research has been largely made illegal for most of that time and as such it isn't surprising that no treatments have been approved. Do any other articles on scientific measures have lines like this? I doubt it and it's because 10-20 years isn't really a long time when dealing with science like this. Especially given the legal hurdles I just mentioned. I don't see any need for the line. Smooshable2 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At most, we can claim "After 10 years of limited research with human embryonic stem cells, there are no approved treatment or human trials using embryonic stem cells".--Ff11 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a licenced, commercially available treatment using mesenchymal stem cells available in the UK - for equine tendonitis. Bone marrow is harvested under sedation from the sternum of the horse, and then cultured in a commercial lab. The stem cells are then injected into the tendon lesion. The currently available data suggests that horses treated this way recover faster, and heal more fully, than those treated conservatively. See [8]. Dlh-stablelights 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is using adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. To date I do not know of a single implementation of embryonic stem cell research that has gone into any sort of treatment. Please advise data or links if I am wrong. --Logiboy123 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Two years, no response. In any case, has there been any embryonic stem cell research which has been performed? That seems to be hush-hush puppy music.DMAftermath (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know those guys - they do studies on horses that were going to be put down anyway and they are entirely funded by the horse racing industry, rather than some peer-reviewed granting body. I'm sceptical of those guys and I'm not confident that they use enough good controls.

Curiously, a growing theme in cell transplantation studies is obtaining a positive prognosis without getting any significant cell engraftment, suggesting that it is the transplantation event and the subsequent pro-inflammatory response that improves repair, rather than the cells themselves contributing directly.

Finally, people are often so desperate for treatments, they are willing to take on stem cell therapies without robust evidence for their efficacy (whether in horses or say in autologous chondrocyte grafting in humans). Dr Aaron 04:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats how most initial trials in equine medicine work... Actually, most of the animals that have had the technique performed since it went commercial are still alive. As of October 2006, only 1 had died (of an unrelated cause), and the necropsy appeared to indicate a good repair, significanly more effective than conservative therapy. I'm not saying that this technique is perfect, nor that it is panacea - but I think a lot of the critisism of it is unfounded. In addition, the funding for a lot of equine work comes from the horse racing industry - they've got the money - and it doesn't mean the research is biased. In addition, the clinical aspect is managed by Roger Smith at the RVC, who approves of the technique. Obviously, more objective long term studies have not yet been carried out - the horses' lifespans are too long for that. However, that is no reason not to utilise the technique in the presence of good case reports and the absence of adverse reaction reports. And no, I have no commercial interest in the company. Dlh-stablelights 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There we are, just found the reference: "Stem cell therapy for tendon injuries – lessons from veterinary medicine", R Smith, BASEM Spring Meeting 2006 [9]

"for National Hunt racehorses with moderate to severe superficial digital flexor tendon injuries (n=37), 51% have returned to racing with a re­injury rate of 30% which included 3 horses which subsequently injured untreated contralateral limbs. This compares favourably with previous analyses for the same category of horse (31% return to racing, Marr et al., 1993; 56% reinjury rate for National Hunt horses, Dyson 2004)." Dlh-stablelights 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again according to that referenced document this is done utilizing adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. --Logiboy123 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely used in the treatment of [human] patients with hematologic malignancies, but continues to be associated with severe toxicities." ~ Jerome Ritz, MD (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital; http://www.hsci.harvard.edu/node/733) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srigita (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Vetoed Again

The US Stem cell research bill has been vetoed by Bush again.

History of Stem Cell Research - proposed changes

The History of Stem Cells which ended in 1960s is being proposed to be edited to bring the information up to date to the year 2011.

The following changes are proposed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells

Stem cells can now be artificially grown and transformed into specialized cell types with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves through cell culture. Highly plastic adult stem cells are routinely used in medical therapies. Stem cells can be taken from a variety of sources, including umbilical cord blood and bone marrow. Embryonic cell lines and autologous embryonic stem cells generated through therapeutic cloning have also been proposed as promising candidates for future therapies.[9] Research into stem cells grew out of findings by Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till at the University of Toronto,[10][11] and Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. at the State University of New York, Syracuse, New York in the 1960s. In the summer of 1966 Dr. Robert O. Becker succeeded in the first in vitro artificial dedifferentiation of mature cells back to their embryonic state, in the presence of silver ions.[12] Between 1966 and 1980, Becker conducted several experiments at the State University of New York to show activation of stem cells in the presence of silver ions and their ability to enhance the rate of production of progenitor cells.[13][14] He applied this knowledge of in vivo activation of stem cells using silver ions to heal of non healing wounds, ulcers, burns, osteomyelitis and also to regenerate fingertips of adults and children in a record period of only 90 days.[15] In 2010, Pramod Vora demonstrated in vivo Nano Silver Induced Stem Cell Activation Therapy which has vastly reduced the total dependence on costly and complicated methods of harvesting and using stem cells. This has brought the common man closer to the benefits of stem cell regenerative medicine at a very reasonable and affordable cost.[16] In vivo Stem Cell Activation Therapy helps achieve five-fold accelerated healing of non healing wounds, ulcers, gangrene infected diabetic foot. This has helped regenerate the fingertips of adult and children in record period of as little as 21 days.[17] A fingernail in the human body normally grows at a steady pace which requires five to six months to replace its entire length.[18]

References: 1. ^ Illingworth, Cynthia M. 1974. Trapped fingers and amputated fingertips in children. J. Ped. Surgery 9:853-858. 2. ^ Becker RO. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company; 1985. 3. ^ Becker RO, Flick AB, Becker AJ. Iontopheretic system for stimulation of tissue healing and regeneration. United States Patent 5814094. 1996, March 28. 4. ^ Babcock MJ. Methods for measuring fingernail growth rates in nutritional studies. J Nutr. 1955;55:323-336. 5. ^ "Regeneration recipe: Pinch of pig, cell of lizard". Associated Press. MSNBC. February 19, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17171083/. Retrieved October 24, 2008. 6. ^ Goldacre, Ben (May 3, 2008). "The missing finger that never was". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/03/medicalresearch.health. 7. ^ Vora, Pramod. Fingertip Regrowth, Anti-aging Medical Therapeutics, Volume 13, Spring 2010 8. ^ Vora, Pramod. Fingertip Regeneration, Anti-aging Medical Therapeutics, Volume 14, spring 2011. 9. ^ Tuch BE (2006). "Stem cells—a clinical update". Australian Family Physician 35 (9): 719–21. PMID 16969445. 10. ^ Becker AJ, McCulloch EA, Till JE (1963). "Cytological demonstration of the clonal nature of spleen colonies derived from transplanted mouse marrow cells". Nature 197 (4866): 452–4. doi:10.1038/197452a0. PMID 13970094. 11. ^ Siminovitch L, McCulloch EA, Till JE (1963). "The distribution of colony-forming cells among spleen colonies". Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 62 (3): 327–36. doi:10.1002/jcp.1030620313. PMID 14086156. 12. ^ Becker RO. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company; 1985. 13. ^ Becker RO. Effects of electrically generated silver ions on human cells and wound healing. Electro and Magnetobiology. 2000;19:1-19. 14. ^ Becker RO. Induced dedifferentiation: a possible alternative to embryonic stem cell transplants. NeuroRehabilitation. 2002;17:23-31. 15. ^ Becker RO, Flick AB, Becker AJ. Iontopheretic system for stimulation of tissue healing and regeneration. United States Patent 5814094. 1996, March 28. 16. ^ Vora, Pramod. Nano Silver Induced Stem Cell Activation Therapy, Anti-aging Medical Therapeutics, Volume 13, spring 2010. 17. ^ Vora, Pramod. Fingertip Regeneration, Anti-aging Medical Therapeutics, Volume 14, spring 2011. 18. ^ Babcock MJ. Methods for measuring fingernail growth rates in nutritional studies. J Nutr. 1955;55:323-336.

The discussion so far:

Dear Editor, There appears to be Conflict of Interest in the submissions that I made to edit the following pages. I am therefore happy to provide drafts of the changes proposed for an Editorial Review of the matter. It is unfortunate, that I also happen to be the person who has authored these research papers. But they have been peer reviewed and accepted by A4M the world's largest organization in Anti-Aging and Regenerative Medicine, and published in their numerous volumes during the past few years. This should not make the information I am providing as "speculative" any more and anybody qualified in this subject who reads these papers should see merit in the work being done in this field. Attempt is being made to make this information public for the advancement of science and mankind. I have re-edited the information provided earlier to make it shorter and have removed any repetitions of information and kept it as neutral as I possibly could. Further help is sought to make it meet Wikipedia's guidelines and expectations. Thank you for your time, patience and assistance. Your help in finalizing the edit for this page will be very highly appreciated. Once again thanking you for your assistance. Blessings, Pramod Vora Pramod Vora (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) A few comments: 1. I could find no indication that Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics is peer-reviewed. It does not have an Eigenfactor ranking. It is unknown to PubMed. The Library of Congress has some issues (with vol. 8 the newest I could find), and the LoC does not classify it as a journal. It apparently does not even have a website. To be honest, I doubt it is a reliable source at all, and since it seems almost impossible to find a copy of the newer issues, it also seems to fail our policy on verifiability as well. If you really can speed up wound healing five-fold, I suggest publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine instead. 2. Your interpretation of Becker's results seems a lot more confident than Becker's own. I tried to look up his results on dedifferentiation, and the most I could find was this 2002 paper which says that observed effects were achieved "apparently by stimulating dedifferentiation of mature human cells." That's very vague if Becker is supposed to have demonstrated the first artificial dedifferentiation in his laboratory as early as 1966. Almost fourty years later he's still at the "apparently" stage? I also failed to find any independent recognition of this effect that is supposed to be known for decades. 3. The Illingsworth paragraph you suggest for limb regeneration is redundant to the paragraph we already have. In summary, your suggested edits seem to one-sidedly promote your own achievements despite a lack of supporting sources in the scientific literature. Becker is the best you have (and unfortunately I don't have access to Becker's book), but you stretch his results beyond recognition. Huon (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Dear Huon, Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics is not a journal but is released by A4M as a Medical Textbook Series. I said that my paper is peer reviewed by A4M. Wikipedia recognizes the existence of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine) and has a whole page devoted to it. I am happy to note that the Library of Congress has volume 8 with it. It would be best to contact A4M at http://www.worldhealth.net to verify that it is a reliable source and to verify the existence of later volumes and that they have indeed peer reviewed and accepted my papers for publication in Volume 12, 13 and 14. Here is a short note on the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine: "A4M is a non-for-profit medical society dedicated to the advancement of technology to detect, prevent, and treat aging related diseases and to promote research into methods to retard and optimize the human aging process and to prevent and treat aging related disorders. A4M is also dedicated to educating physicians, scientists and members of the public on issues of advanced preventive medicine and cutting edge biotechnologies. A4M, is now over 24,000 members strong in 105 nations. A4M has trained over 100,000 physicians at International Scientific Conferences over the past 15 years. A4M provides ongoing medical and scientific education and information services to over 500,000 healthcare professionals monthly via our on-line educational programs." I hope this information helps to establish the authenticity of The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and to peer review scientific papers. I will write a separate e-mail to Dr. Ron Klatz, M.D., President, A4M to also contact you with other relevant information to help you establish the authenticity of A4M and the good work they are doing. For more information on the late Dr. Robert O. Becker's research work please visit the following links to his published research papers and patent on my website: http://www.space-age.com/stemcell.html I will be happy to scan the relevant part of his book published in 1985 where he shows the first artificial dedifferentiation in summer of 1966 at the State University of New York, Syracuse, New York. Dedifferentiation is also talked about in his research papers whose references are already given by me. The pdf files of all these research papers and patents are available for download from my above mentioned webpage. The concept of our research work was created by Dr. Becker about 40 years back. We just carried it forward through the next 5 generations of development and put it to practical use in hospitals. The progressive photos taken are by Plastic Surgeons who are members of ISAPS and IAAPS. So the work is authenticated by other Doctors and Hospitals. Dr. Becker filed a United States Patent showing regeneration of adult fingertip way back in 1995. This patent is on my website and you can see fingertip regeneration. Yet Wikipedia page writes that the first adult fingertip regeneration was done in August 2005.(August 2005, Lee Spievack). I have also tried to correct this. You can download this patent from my website given above for your study. We also have a exclusive page on children and adult Fingertip regeneration cases done during the last few years. You can see progressive pictures taken by other Doctors who are now implementing this technology in respectable hospitals. So you see it is not my work I am promoting. I am just collecting the information form other Doctors and propagating it. The names of these doctors are mentioned under each set of photographs. Nor are we providing you stories from the media as are sometimes reported in Wikipedia. I do not understand how the media can be a source of information for an encyclopedia. Published research, duly peer reviewed, and read at scientific conferences, in my opinion, is any day a better source of information. Please study the work of the late Dr, Robert Becker and please give him the credit he richly deserves. Let me know if there is anything more I can do to help you decide if this knowledge should be made public for the benefit of mankind or should be lost into oblivion as has been the case with Dr. Rober O. Becker. Blessings, Pramod Vora Pramod Vora (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) While we do have an article on the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, that is not much of an achievement. We also have an article on the Flat Earth Society without claiming their scientific theories have any merit. And our A4M article mentions massive criticism of the organization by practically everybody not a member, including Aubrey de Grey who is himself a proponent of anti-aging medicine. If everybody from mainstream medical researchers to other anti-aging proponents has such a low opinion of A4M, they are hardly a reliable source. Furthermore, have a look at this comment about another of their publications, by Leonard Hayflick of UCSF: The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine is not a recognized scientific journal. What I find reprehensible about this 'journal' is that advertisers who publish in it can then claim there is scientific evidence to support their outrageous assertions by pointing to the publication in an alleged scientific journal. This is just one of the scathing assessments IJAAM received from the scientific community. Given that A4M still claimed it was a peer-reviewed journal, I don't think we can accept A4M's word on whether Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics is peer-reviewed. Is there any such indication independent of A4M? I have looked a little deeper into Becker's work. The most relevant patent seems to be this one, not the one you mentioned above. Here Becker explains the dedifferentiating properties of silver. There are several caveats. First of all, a patent application is not peer-reviewed. Secondly, Becker says: "The foregoing results mean to me that the electrically generated silver ion produces a transformation of tissue fibroblasts into relatively primitive cells resembling and possibly functioning like primitive cell types, e.g., hematopoietic marrow." He is extremely cautious, with formulations such as "mean to me" and "resembling and possibly functioning". If that were a research paper and not a patent application, I'd say he outlines a program for further research to confirm what he suspects. Has such additional research been carried out? I couldn't find any indication beyond the article I mentioned before, which was still in the "apparently" stage. Finally, despite renewed efforts I still found no indication that anybody else took up and confirmed Becker's work, which is rather surprising given its potential importance. Until such confirmation is available, I don't think we should emphasize Becker's work, and definitely not beyond what Becker himself says about his own level of success. As an aside, you may want to discuss your suggested changes at the corresponding articles' talk pages: Talk:Life extension, Talk:Regeneration (biology) and Talk:Stem cell. That would probably allow more interested editors than just me to see them and comment on them. Huon (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Dear Huon, Here are some after thoughts to my submissions last night. In order to truly appreciate the work done by the late Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. we must understand the following: Becker was perhaps 50 years ahead of his time. This did create a lot of problems in his career. If you happen to get your hands on his Book The Body Electric you will see it is a beautiful manuscript on Limb Regeneration. Unfortunately in 1960s, talking about limb regeneration was a “suicide mission.” People in the scientific community were not ready for it. Yet Becker pursued with his dream. Scientist did not believe mature cell could be dedifferentiated back to their embryonic state. There was strong opposition to this in the scientific community. So obviously, Robert Becker had to be very conservative in what he spoke out openly as he still wanted the scientific community to support his research. This can perhaps explain the word “apparently” on which you have laid stress in your earlier comments. Though we all know we live in a freedom of speech society, we are all subjected to only cautious speech and arbitration of speech based on what the scientific community thinks is reasonable. The choice with the researcher is to downgrade his speech and writings or not get published at all. This is the due process of peer reviewing. They tell you what to write and what they (who perhaps do not know enough about the subject) think is reasonable or not. These problems have plagued the late Dr. Becker’s career all along. I see it happening to me all the time and I have to be cautious in what I say, do and write. I am sure that Dr. Becker himself did not have the vision to see that he was the “grandfather” of stem cell work in the world and in the United States in particular. We learn to appreciate his work today when there is so much talk about Stem Cell Therapy, Regenerative Medicine and Limb Regeneration in particular. This is no longer a taboo subject of the 1960s and many prestigious universities in the United States are pursuing Limb Regeneration and the Department of Defense has provided millions of dollars in research grants for Limb Regeneration work, as it will one day help soldiers returning back from war to come back without permanent loss of limbs. Finger Regeneration is just the beginning. Just 400 hundred years back Galileo (1609) was imprisoned for life for saying that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that the Earth was just a planet revolving around the Sun. I trust the above insight will help you to take the right decisions. Blessings, Pramod VoraPramod Vora (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Huon, Thank you for pointing out the earlier patent No. 4528265 filed by the late Dr. Robert Becker in May 1982 and granted in July 1985. You can see he had to struggle for more than 3 years to get it through. They also have a team of people who scrutinize the patents filed and you have to go back and forth to explain your point of view and justification for a grant of a patent. All true scientists undergo a learning curve in their life. It only towards the end of their life that they know more about the truth, as it really exists in the universe, and have the courage to speak the truth as they have not too many more years to live. The patent I have talked about 5814094 is filed in March 1996 and granted in September 1998. This is 14 years later when Dr. Becker was much closer to the truth and also much bolder in speaking the truth. See 14 years later he did not have to struggle for 3 whole years to get a patent. The world was more ready for this information and the barriers were gradually being broken down. This later patent shows progressive pictures of the world’s first documented adult Fingertip Regeneration done in 1995 with silver ions. We must rely on what he has to say in 1995 and in his other recent research papers published as late as 2000 and 2002 (whose links are on my website) to know what he knew and wanted to say towards the end of his life. Incidentally, he passed away in 2008 at the age of 84 years. There is always criticism of all great organizations who step away from the conventional ways of the world and start something that is hard to digest in that particular time period they live in. I mentioned about the life of Galileo in my last correspondence. Again, every great organization also goes through a learning curve and may make some preliminary mistakes. What is important is to make sure that they have the right ethics and the right attitude / goals to do what is right for mankind. United States also undergoes a lot of criticism all over the world for what they do and don’t do. Does that make Untied States a bad country? People and organizations who do something extraordinary in life are always criticized. They have to learn to accept it. If you do not want criticism you should do nothing at all and nobody will look at you or pay any attention. Let us leave the controversy surrounding A4M on Wikipedia out of this discussion as we are not really wanting to modify their page. Let us focus on the scientific information given on the 3 pages we chose to edit and bring the information up to date to the year 2011. Also would the visitors to these 3 pages on Wikipedia appreciate this information and find it valuable in their understanding of science today? Trust this dialogue will help you to do what is right for mankind. Blessings, Pramod Vora Pramod Vora (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The reason for putting all this up on the talk page is a follow up to the suggestion of user Huon (talk) who recommended that I put up these proposed changes on the Talk page to allow other more interested editors to also offer their valuable comments and help to quickly reach a consensus on editing this page. The sole object of reproducing this previous discussion is to provide easy access to information on other research work done in the past so that other readers / editors are given the opportunity to quickly asses the merits of the proposed changes to bring this proposed edit to a final conclusion. An attempt is being made to bring the information on Wikipedia pages up to date for the benefit and progress of science and mankind in general.

Blessings, Pramod VoraPramod Vora (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarity issues

"Of all stem cell types, autologous harvesting involves the least risk". It's not clear to me here, but I think 'autologous bone marrow harvesting' or 'autologous harvesting from the bone marrow' would say this more clearly . This article is not for the benefit of those who already know all the material.--109.144.211.75 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2012

Please add a new production of cow meat which is developed from the stem cells. One article in "The Hindu" gives reported that cow meat is developed artificially in Lab in Netherland. Below are the detail for the same. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2920641.ece And in "The Daily Telegraph". Mourya09 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} template is used to allow non-autoconfirmed editors to make changes to semi-protected articles. The request needs to be detailed at a 'please change X to Y' level. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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 can go along with calling groups by their chosen name, but your reasoning would suggest that by definition pro-life individuals are also against war and capital punishment.--Ff11 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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 "anti-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).

If you were to describe them as they really are, you need four categories, not two. It is possible to be: pro-life/anti-choice ("pro life" groups that want to ban all abortion generally fit this category); pro-life/pro-choice (pro-choice Catholics and many moderates who see abortion as heinous, but don't want to force women to term against their will); pro-abortion/pro-choice (Think NARAL and Planned Parenthood, organizations that actively promote abortion as a moral good); and pro-abortion/anti-choice (Think China and forced abortions). Those are the categories that fit best, and that I would use. I don't, however, promote their use on Wikipedia, because it is likely to cause some confusion. A wiki must use whatever nomenclature is popularly accepted. Pro-life, in political terms, really describes pro-life/anti-choice. That is, most likely, the term that should be used.--Icowrich (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A description doesn't have to be inaccurate because it isn't a PR label. And it's inaccurate to say that the pro-life movement includes opposition to the death penalty; many if not most anti-abortionists are religious folks who separate those issues. I think a central main issue should be whether the position of the opponents is described accurately, and if the term actually encompasses the appropriate group. However, it's also vital that the terms we use can be recognized by the readers. We don't have to hew to the AP style guide, but if people understand "pro life" as being anti-abortion, there's no lack of clarity. So in this case it seems to come down to people quibbling over the connotation, not the denotation. Preston McConkie 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're looking for Abortion#Abortion debate, not Stem cell. LeadSongDog come howl 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The stem cell is there once you are conceived. It is the one thing that can specialize in many different things by making many different cells. However, because stems cells in the adult body are difficult to find, much of the stem cells tested on come from young babies and children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.130.91 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence that includes "pro-life" could easily be rephrased to refer only to those who are against stem cell research (indeed, it is almost already phrased this way), instead of needlessly referring also to those who are also against the death penalty and cloning. {!? how is that last one shortening life?} Aeonoris (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course all those who are for abortions want to show Pro-Life individuals as crazy dictators, owever, it could be easliy said that those who are "Pro-Choice" are "anti-life". It would be much better to find middle ground on both sides, such as "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice". Although I disagree that it is "Pro-Choice", I didn't realize that the babies that would've been born had the choice to be aborted. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.60.28 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose review of the following picture

The picture has the caption starting with "Pluripotent, embryonic stem cells originate as inner cell mass (ICM) cells within a blastocyst."

The picture suggests me that the adult brain is unipotent, which is false! According to Gilbert (p. 326), adult brain is multipotent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaminTietokirja (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't see how we could fix that. Isn't most of the nervous system indeed unipotent? I'd expect that's true even for most brain cells. What exactly does Gilbert say about the brain? The article currently doesn't even mention him. Huon (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Altered nuclear transfer

Perhaps mention the Altered nuclear transfer technique here aswell ? 91.182.184.168 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

we also need links to Ova bank and Sperm bank in the see also section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.184.168 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Should father cell not be mother cell?

Hi. Under the "Self-renewal" it states; "Obligatory asymmetric replication: a stem cell divides into one father cell that is identical to the original stem cell, and another daughter cell that is differentiated". Its been some time since I last read any articles about stem cells, but isn´t the term mother cell? JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Are stem cells found in all mutlicellular organisms?

I have changed the words "all multicellular organisms" in the first paragraph to simply "multicellular organisms", because I am not convinced that all multicellular organisms do have stem cells.

Do filamentous fungi have stem cells? What about very simple multicellular eukaryotes that only have a few cells.

I may well be wrong, in which case please change it back (perhaps with a citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famedog (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

This article does not have two usual chapters, Etymology and History. I hope administrator adds that to it to make the article complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathare Prabhu (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stem cell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I thank that I got lots of information but I have comments that the first researcher who created umbilical cord blood stem cell at the first time is not him (2006) He is Korean, he created umbilical cord blood stem cell before 2004. there's reference web site I hope it will be revised if that's true. The site is http://www.newlifestemcell.com/ may it be help to find true fact. thank you Could someone with edit permissions Please change the name of the first man to speak on the hypothesis of stem cells to the correct "Alexander A. Maximow"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwahwahwa (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Generalize this Article?

This article is too focused on human and mammalian stem cells, and should leave those topics to specialized articles on those topics (and stem cell therapy / research). The Plant_stem_cell article should be merged with this one so that the single topic is covered in a single article. 24.4.102.221 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Key research events section

The follow section is mostly unsourced, and what is sourced, is sourced from the research paper announcing the finding. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, since we need secondary sources saying that the event mattered - editors cannot determine that. I cut it from the article and am pasting here for discussion...

• 1908: The term "stem cell" was proposed for scientific use by the Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov (1874–1928) at congress of hematologic society in Berlin. It postulated existence of haematopoietic stem cells.
• 1960s: Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present scientific evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma and are largely ignored.
• 1963: Becker, McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing cells in mouse bone marrow.
• 1968: Bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID.
• 1978: Haematopoietic stem cells are discovered in human cord blood.
• 1981: Mouse embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass by scientists Martin Evans, Matthew Kaufman, and Gail R. Martin. Gail Martin is attributed for coining the term "Embryonic Stem Cell".
• 1992: Neural stem cells are cultured in vitro as neurospheres.
• 1995: Indian scientist Dr. B.G. Matapurkar pioneers in adult stem-cell research with clinical utilization of research in the body and neo-regeneration of tissues and organs in the body. Received International Patent from US Patent Office (USA) in 2001 (effective from 1995). Clinical utilization in human body also demonstrated and patented in 60 patients (World Journal of Surgery-1999 and 1991).
• 1997: Dr. B.G. Matapurkar's surgical technique on regeneration of tissues and organs is published. Regeneration of fallopian tube and uterus is published.
• 1997: Leukemia is shown to originate from a haematopoietic stem cell, the first direct evidence for cancer stem cells.
• 1998: James Thomson and coworkers derive the first human embryonic stem cell line at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
• 1998: John Gearhart (Johns Hopkins University) extracted germ cells from fetal gonadal tissue (primordial germ cells) before developing pluripotent stem cell lines from the original extract.
• 2000s: Several reports of adult stem cell plasticity are published.
• 2001: Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology clone first early (four- to six-cell stage) human embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells.
• 2003: Dr. Songtao Shi of NIH discovers new source of adult stem cells in children's primary teeth.
• 2004–2005: Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk claims to have created several human embryonic stem cell lines from unfertilised human oocytes. The lines were later shown to be fabricated.
• 2005: Researchers at Kingston University in England claim to have discovered a third category of stem cell, dubbed cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells (CBEs), derived from umbilical cord blood. The group claims these cells are able to differentiate into more types of tissue than adult stem cells.
• 2005: Researchers at UC Irvine's Reeve-Irvine Research Center are able to partially restore the ability of rats with paralyzed spines to walk through the injection of human neural stem cells.

Yong Zhao, University of Illinois at Chicago

• August 2006: Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka publish evidence of Induced pluripotent stem cells in mice in the journal Cell.
• October 2006: Scientists at Newcastle University in England create the first ever artificial liver cells using umbilical cord blood stem cells.
• January 2007: Scientists at Wake Forest University led by Dr. Anthony Atala and Harvard University report discovery of a new type of stem cell in amniotic fluid. This may potentially provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for use in research and therapy.
• June 2007: Research reported by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice. In the same month, scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov reports the first successful creation of a primate stem cell line through somatic cell nuclear transfer

  

  Martin Evans, a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in recognition of his gene targeting work.

• October 2007: Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans, and Oliver Smithies win the 2007 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for their work on embryonic stem cells from mice using gene targeting strategies producing genetically engineered mice (known as knockout mice) for gene research.
• November 2007: Human induced pluripotent stem cells: Two similar papers released by their respective journals prior to formal publication: in Cell by Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka, "Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors", and in Science by Junying Yu, et al., from the research group of James Thomson, "Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells": pluripotent stem cells generated from mature human fibroblasts. It is possible now to produce a stem cell from almost any other human cell instead of using embryos as needed previously, albeit the risk of tumorigenesis due to c-myc and retroviral gene transfer remains to be determined.
• January 2008: Robert Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology and UCSF create the first human embryonic stem cells without destruction of the embryo.
• January 2008: Development of human cloned blastocysts following somatic cell nuclear transfer with adult fibroblasts
• February 2008: Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult mouse liver and stomach: these iPS cells seem to be more similar to embryonic stem cells than the previously developed iPS cells and not tumorigenic, moreover genes that are required for iPS cells do not need to be inserted into specific sites, which encourages the development of non-viral reprogramming techniques.
• March 2008-The first published study of successful cartilage regeneration in the human knee using autologous adult mesenchymal stem cells is published by clinicians from Regenerative Sciences
• October 2008: Sabine Conrad and colleagues at Tübingen, Germany generate pluripotent stem cells from spermatogonial cells of adult human testis by culturing the cells in vitro under leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) supplementation.
• 30 October 2008: Embryonic-like stem cells from a single human hair.
• January 2009: Yong Zhao and colleagues confirmed the reversal of autoimmune-caused type 1 diabetes by Cord Blood-Derived Multipotent Stem Cells (CB-SCs) in an animal experiment.
• 1 March 2009: Andras Nagy, Keisuke Kaji, et al. discover a way to produce embryonic-like stem cells from normal adult cells by using a novel "wrapping" procedure to deliver specific genes to adult cells to reprogram them into stem cells without the risks of using a virus to make the change. The use of electroporation is said to allow for the temporary insertion of genes into the cell.
• 28 May 2009 Kim et al. announced that they had devised a way to manipulate skin cells to create patient specific "induced pluripotent stem cells" (iPS), claiming it to be the 'ultimate stem cell solution'.
• 11 October 2010 First trial of embryonic stem cells in humans.
• 25 October 2010: Ishikawa et al. write in the Journal of Experimental Medicine that research shows that transplanted cells that contain their new host's nuclear DNA could still be rejected by the individual's immune system due to foreign mitochondrial DNA. Tissues made from a person's stem cells could therefore be rejected, because mitochondrial genomes tend to accumulate mutations.
• 2011: Israeli scientist Inbar Friedrich Ben-Nun led a team which produced the first stem cells from endangered species, a breakthrough that could save animals in danger of extinction.
• January 2012: The human clinical trial of treating type 1 diabetes with lymphocyte modification using Cord Blood-Derived Multipotent Stem Cells (CB-SCs) achieved an improvement of C-peptide levels, reduced the median glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) values, and decreased the median daily dose of insulin in both human patient groups with and without residual beta cell function. Yong Zhao's Stem Cell Educator Therapy appears "so simple and so safe"
• October 2012: Positions of nucleosomes in mouse embryonic stem cells and the changes in their positions during differentiation to neural progenitor cells and embryonic fibroblasts are determined with single-nucleotide resolution.
• 2012: Katsuhiko Hayashi used mouse skin cells to create stem cells and then used these stem cells to create mouse eggs. These eggs were then fertilized and produced healthy baby offspring. These latter mice were able to have their own babies.
• 2013: First time lab grown meat made from muscle stem-cells has been cooked and tasted.
• 2013: First time mice adult cells were reprogrammed into stem cells in vivo.
• 2013: Scientists at Scotland's Heriot-Watt University developed a 3D printer that can produce clusters of living human embryonic stem cells, potentially allowing complete organs to be printed on demand in the future.
• 2014: Adult mouse cells reprogrammed to pluripotent stem cells using stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP); a process which involved bathing blood cells in an acid bath (pH 5.7) for 30minutes at 37 °C. A little over a month after the publication of these findings, errors were discovered and the quality of the research has been widely questioned. Further irregularities regarding the mice used have emerged as recently as June 2014.

References

Happy to discuss Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What about Alexander Maximow?

http://www.sciencepub.net/stem/stem0401/002_1432stem0401_4_6.pdf https://books.google.de/books?id=bWlXCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=alexander+maximow+discovered+1924&source=bl&ots=eah6SRYYR7&sig=sTz4icmdW7mPTGsp3k4txPChiMo&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS1rHghbTKAhXplHIKHQnlC3gQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=alexander%20maximow%20discovered%201924&f=false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_A._Maximow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:CF01:3A01:DC4:5361:BADC:BB68 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Text removal

I've removed the following text, introduced by a user with COI and thought to point to the work of scientists employed by the compan, Cellectis, employing the user. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Cellectis. Please feel free to re-insert if in your judgement the article needs the removed information, and the references are appropriate. thanks.

Recently, RNA-based reprogramming was shown to induce pluripotent stem cells from chondrocytes, indicating that iPSCs can be derived without making any alterations to a genome.

References

--Tagishsimon (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

New content

I reverted a removal done by a user with a COI that works for a private company, the contribution highlighted a major advancement made by a team of scientists of Stanford University, I really think that a private user or even an admin cannot delete a contribution that (I am writing from Europe and have no COI whatsoever) has been done by a team of scientists at Stanford in decades of scientific work, is nonprofit, and is beneficial to know for the community of wikipedia users.-- Culturalresearch (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Culturalresearch, about this and this The claim in the 2nd instance is an overt violation of WP:PROMO as well as WP:OR - the source you have brought is WP:PRIMARY and editors cannot interpret or evaluate primary sources in Wikipedia. Also, we should wait for this to be covered by a review. And in any case there are 108 papers in pubmed about stem cells and engineered niches. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a niche, it is a major finding, it is not an individual paper, it is an entire team from Stanford which I do not even personally know. What type of promotion is this? The mission of Wikipedia is to advance knowledge, and I just shared knowledge findings. Who are you to judge if this piece of information is not useful to the wikipedia community? Where is the promotion? The promotion of a free, open source, team of scientists finding? I think you should clear up your mind about what a promotion really is--Culturalresearch (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The paper is about stem cell niches. The claim that you wrote "This represents a major step towards future development of Stem cell application on therapies." is promotional of the research and unsourced/WP:OR. Promotion = saying how great it is. We get tons of that in WP when people hype basic science. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To make this more clear, here is the text you added in this dif:

Current research is looking for therapeutic strategies for diverse genetic disorders involving transplantation of autologous stem cells that have been genetically corrected ex vivo. A major challenge in such approaches is a loss of stem cell potency during culture. Recent research found the possibility of engineering an artificial niche adapted to human cells that extended the quiescence of human MuSCs in vitro and enhanced their potency in vivo. This represents a major step towards future development of Stem cell application on therapies.

References

--- Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine

Hi, looking to run a Eurostemcell editathon at the University of Edinburgh's MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine on 20th July. Can the edit protection be lifted for this page for our editors for the purpose of this event? The event page is here. Or is it a case of submitting the proposed change after our editors have drafted new text during the event? Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is usually done through WP:RPP#Current requests for reduction in protection level, although normally you'd probably want to ask Materialscientist (talk · contribs) about this first since he protected the page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Added library resources template

Hi, since this is a popular topic for student essays, I added a library resources template. If it is disliked, it can be deleted. I won't be offended. Pangurban22 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

I've requested pp. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 19 November 2016

Hi,

To make the first section clearer id suggest:

Broadly, there are two types of stem cell. Tissue stem cells are found in various places of the body and enable growth, repair and renewal of tissues and organs. Embryonic stem cells are generated in the lab from cells of the early embryo (4-6 days old depending on the organism)

As it stands, it implys that embryonic stem cells are found in mammals, which they aren't; they are grown in the lab from cells of a mammal embryo. Using the definition of self renewal, stem cells aren't found in the early embryo - they dont self renew, just differentiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endoderm (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030150358/https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS166682%2B22-Oct-2009%2BPRN20091022 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS166682+22-Oct-2009+PRN20091022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130220112912/http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2012011693-01-22-2013-1 to http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2012011693-01-22-2013-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It was a really interesting article, the stem cell I think is the great hope for people who suffer from common diseases such as diabetes. Something that blows my mind when I read that males have more adult stem cells in their bone marrow than female during their reproductive years. I also amazed by the huge number of the references. Rehab.Gharawi (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC) What about a theory that it`s all commercial scam (in a sense that certain people commercially exploit it promising a miracle) Necros2k7 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How many times (adult human) stem cells can divide?

I searched this Wikipedia article for Divide and did not find the answer at least with that search word.

I already know that ordinary non-stem adult cells can divide about 50 times, after that the telomeres become too short. (This could be perhaps prevented with telomerase enzyme, telomerase lengthens telomeres).

I also know that in many countries, if you want to donate adult stem cells, you have to be 18-40 years old AND they prefer younger people, so the donator should preferable be 18 years instead of for example 30 years. They claim the success of stem cell transplant is better the younger the donator. I have no idea why younger donators are better?

--ee1518 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)