Medicare Part E For All-Single Payer: Scientists Can Now Grow Functioning Liver From Stem Cells

Scientists have promised a lot of regenerative medicine will come from stem cells, but so far progress has been fairly slow: they can stimualte regrowth of heart tissue, make incredibly expesnive artifical blood, or—at best—construct a short piece of vein. Now, though, scientists are claiming they can grow functional liver.
Nature reports that a team of scientists from Japan has presented its works at a conference, and it's incredible. In fact, George Daley, director of the stem-cell transplantation program at the Boston Children's Hospital in Massachusetts, told Nature that "it blew [his] mind." Wow.
The researchers used stem cells created from human skin cells, then placed the cells on growth plates in a specially designed culture medium. Over the course of nine days, the cells started producing chemicals that a typical liver cell, otherwise known as a hepatocyte, would produce. They then added endothelial and mesenchymal cells—which form parts of blood vessels and other structural tissues within the body—to the mix, in the hope that they would be incorporated and begin to help the cells develop a structure akin to the liver.
The result was amazing: two days later, the researchers found the cells assembled into a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional lump. That lump was almost identical to something known as a liver bud—an early stage of liver development. From Nature's report:

"The tissue lacks bile ducts, and the hepatocytes do not form neat plates as they do in a real liver. In that sense, while it does to some degree recapitulate embryonic growth, it does not match the process as faithfully as the optic cup recently reported by another Japanese researcher. But the tissue does have blood vessels that proved functional when it was transplanted under the skin of a mouse. Genetic tests show that the tissue expresses many of the genes expressed in real liver. And, when transferred to the mouse, the tissue was able to metabolize some drugs that human livers metabolize but mouse livers normally cannot. "

While it's not perfect, it's the first time anyone has successfully created part of a functional human organ from stem cells produced from human skin. If scientists hadn't quite managed to deliver on the promise of stem cells so far, they have now. [Nature]
Image by Spirit-Fire under Creative Commons license

Contact Jamie Condliffe:

Discussions

Can we get everyone who is against stem cell research to now either get on board or sign a waiver that neither they nor their ancestors will ever accept the benefits of such research?

no one is against this research. The stem cells here came from skin cells which is completely non controversial and gets full funding here.
It is the stem cells pulled from fetuses (no clue if i spelt that right) which were controvertial. From what I can tell fetal stem cells aren't as promising any more, primarily becuase most people don't have fetal stem cells left from when they were a baby (some do if their parents had their cord blood frozen).
These cells can be derived from someones own skin cells, making them unlikely to be rejected.

promoted by xwsxlogan

Exactly. Get over it, furturist. The entire so-called "controversy" was over Embryonic stem cells, which are absolutely useless. All of the valid, important, and USEFUL research being done with stem cells are with ADULT stem cells... Not embryonic. But a bunch of morons in the debate screamed and whined and moaned that government money MUST be used to pursue embryonic stem cell research. People opposed to aborting fetuses just to harvest thier stem cells objected - because they dont' want taxpayer money going (A) into a useless line of research and (B) to fund abortions they are morally opposed to.
Get your terminology right. No group ever opposed adult stem cell research. The controversy was for embryonic stem cells - and it turns out the people opposing embryonic stem cells were absolutely, 100% correct in thier assessment. Even MJF has been forced to abandon his platform of embryonic cell research because after years and millions of dollars they concluded it was a dead-end science. You know - exactly what opponents told them over a decade ago but they just wouldn't listen...
[nation.foxnews.com]

promoted by xwsxlogan

I'm not sure if you're American or not, but stem cells in the south here means "killin' babies." To be fair to futurist, even when research says "stem cells from skin NOT babies," people are still going to have a shit fit and be opposed to it.
While I, and I would dare say most of the readers on this site, understand that stem cell research is far beyond the fetus stem cell stage, people are still going to argue that you're playing god. You just can't win.

Did you just cite fox news as an attempt to convince futurist ANYTHING about SCIENCE?! Shame on you.

i love that the guy that got all heated about this topic linked a reference to fox news. They're right in the differences between adult and embryonic stem cell research, however there were plenty of people crying about it just because the word "abortion" was being thrown around in the debates.

Exactly, like i replied to the OP -- the term "abortion" was thrown around so much during the original debate that most people associate it with stem cell research in it's entirety. And there was no way to really know that it was dead-end research at the time -- the fox news article that @Nathan_Fisk linked is from this month -_-

promoted by xwsxlogan

This is the field of study that I'm going into after I finish grad school, so it always fascinates me to listen to what people say on these boards. I can assure you that fox news is not a credible source for anything to do with advancements in science, specifically "controversial" ones.
I've learned over the years that people will always complain about how we find a treatment until they need that treatment.

in all fairness, making adult stem cells took nearly a decade to figure out. In that decade, the lack of funding for fetal stemcells means that we lost a decade of research on manipulating stem cells because we didn't have enough to experiment on. If that funding hadn't been blocked then the advances from fetal stem cells made in that lost decade could have been applied to the adult stem cells of today (which from this article, we are only just learning how to manipulate).

i don't care what ignorant southerners think, they are on the wrong side of history on nearly every issue and time will show them the error of their ways (the same way Jim Crow is now universally regarded as unfair and wrong).

promoted by xwsxlogan

FYI Fox news actually does good reporting work, just like Aljazeera. They both fail misreably in the editorial and opinion sections though where they are completely biased (and in my opinion wrong).

promoted by xwsxlogan

It's an article about Michael J. Fox. Who cares who wrote it? The quotes speak for themselves.

You miss the point. Stem cell research is still controversial, because of the general lack of knowledge. I was providing an example to prove this point.

this kind of research has no restrictions on funding so regardless of what some people might think the controversy which mattered (the cutting of funds to some research) doesn't effect this

I could make a great report on a fashion show, but that doesn't mean the information is correct. There's a difference between doing good reporting work and presenting knowledgeable articles.

thats what i mean though, if you read an article on an event on fox news the facts are all there, and from time to time they will be presented better with more clarify than other news networks. however the commentary on those facts, and the analysis that follows are garabge

look at things like Fast and Furious, which is a clear issue and should be investigated (shoudl it lead to contempt for the AG? probably not but that is the analysis pushing for it). the fact that we were selling guns to cartels and not tracking them adequately is a huge story and no one else covered it.

promoted by saintandrewsfall

That's where you're wrong. Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush, etc. will all tell you no one else is covering a story...this is a tactic that makes it look like they are doing "good reporting" when in fact, it's simply not true. Additionally, they want to support their other motive of making you think that there's a "liberal media bias" a catch phrase they LOVE to throw around...also, not true.
Look, I don't think anyone (left or right) should watch biased "news." This includes MSNBC and Fox News. Also, it's not just the "opinions." I watched Fox's "news" reports and read their website articles. There's biased there too in not only what they choose to cover, but how they cover it. I think Rachel Madow and Hannity need to be taken off the airwaves.
BTW, I did a super quick search and came up with three news outlets that are covering the gun/cartel thing. Huffington Post, Forbes, Wired, and Bloomberg....
[www.huffingtonpost.com]
[www.forbes.com]
[www.wired.com]
[www.bloomberg.com]

a few points:
I think all news outlets are biased (my preferred news source is CNN but I agree with most of their analysis so it doesn't really enlighten much, where fox on the other hand shows me what the teapartiers are thinking)
Regarding the gun runner story, its not that no one else is covering it (its been mentioned on almost every news outlet) its that no one else is harping on it. It is a big deal, we sold guns to drug cartels, we didn't track them, people got killed with those guns. People should lose their jobs over a screw up like that but CNN and MSNBC have pretty much dropped the story (they never really ran with it in the first place).
I will completely admit that the only reason Fox is harping on this is becuase it looks bad for the democratic administration but that doesn't discredit the fact that it is a valid story and should be pursued.

Edited by A tortoise named Hubert at 06/21/12 3:15 PM

promoted by saintandrewsfall

"Harping" is such a subjective term. Regardless, you hit the nail on the head when you said that they want to make the administration look bad. That fact, and that fact only, is their only purpose for "harping" on this story. But again, this doesn't mean good journalism because what you're implying is that no one else is covering this story enough or is choosing to gloss over it. Both not true.
The Huffington Post link I posted early specifically mentions how Obama used some questionable power in this case...and it's considered a progressive news outlet. So, like you said, it is a valid story; however it IS being pursued and covered fully by many news outlets. Fox is pouring it on to make Obama look really bad....which benefits their biased goal or preventing his re-election. Remember, intense coverage does not equal more factually accurate and/or that others are not covering the story enough. Simple as that.
On a semi-related note, a friend on mine argued that because Fox News was the most watched cable news network, it must be correct. In other words, popular = correct. You can easily see this is a flawed argument without me having to explain it.

mentioning something briefly, and having an article on it appear on your website is different from mentioning something frequently and having it as a headline on your website.
While I am an Obama suporter, this news story deserves front page attention until it is resolved through and independent investigation and someone is held accountable.

promoted by saintandrewsfall

I 100% agree! However, the simple point I'm making is that Fox News is not the one and only organization covering this story completely. Plenty of others are as well. I don't feel short changed, misinformed, or wanting more info about Fast and Furious after reading about it on others news sites.
If that were the case (Fox News being the only one), even hardcore liberals would start watching Fox News for reasons other than to see what the "enemy" is saying. This is simply not happening. Plus, with FN's history, even if they were the only one (which it seems like you're inferring) how can I take their word for anything with their spin-ful past? They have no creditability.

you do realize that none of hte news orgs you linked to have wide distribution 24/7 tv channels (which is what most people get their news from.

promoted by saintandrewsfall

True, but those were very quick web searches, not DVR-ing news reports. Even so, I'm sure actual TV channels like BBC and CNN are covering it completely, just maybe not as much as FN (which we discussed their motives previously). Another way to put that is that CNN, BBC, etc. isn't holding anything back with regards to this story.
Additionally, more and more people get their news online, which is why print is struggling so much.

My point is this: on TV, and online (on the web page for CCN and for Fox) in regard to this one very specific story, fox has consitently had it as a headline. Front page online and talking point once every half hour on TV.
CNN hasn't in fact CNN didn't have a story on their front page about it for almost the entire congressional investigation until the contemp deicison and the now subsequent full house vote. Even right now, if you go to CNN, you have to go down to the politics section and there are a few links for articles on the contempt proceedings where Fox has a huge front page banner.
I believe this good coverage by fox is politically modivated but it doesn't change the fact that it is good coverage.

promoted by saintandrewsfall

"I believe this good coverage by fox is politically modivated but it doesn't change the fact that it is good coverage." Fair enough. I'm glad you recognize it's politically motivated coverage.
Just remember my point, which is Fox's coverage (no matter how extensive or "front page") also has no credibility since it's a biased news organization. Don't confuse this with Fox New is always wrong or is incapable of delivering real news. It's just means that people like myself, who are aware of their bias, will avoid their coverage period. Think crying wolf....

remember the boy who cried wolf was eventually right. I always find it better to listen with a healthy dose of skepticism then have my own bias force me to turn a blind eye all together

Edited by A tortoise named Hubert at 06/22/12 12:57 PM