adult stem cells, Bioethics, embryonic stem cells, twits, Yellow Brick Award

>Trash from Reuters on Stem Cells

>Just read the first two sentences of this article.

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Stem cells from tiny embryos can be used to restore lost hearing and vision in animals, researchers said Tuesday in what they believe is a first step toward helping people.

One team repaired hearing in guinea pigs using human bone marrow stem cells, while another grew functioning eyes in tadpoles using frog cells.

What a disgrace! The second sentence/paragraph tells us the sources of the stem cells: (mesenchymal) bone marrow stem cells, which are adult stem cells and frog cells. There are no embryos or embryonic stem cells used in either experiment.

Here is a much better article on the frog’s eye cells from pleuripotent (not embryonic) stem cells, at Science Daily:

Under normal conditions, pluripotent frog cells form only skin tissue. The scientists were able, however, to convert the pluripotent cells to retinal cells by forcing them to express the eye field transcription factor (or EFTF) genes. The reprogrammed cells formed all seven classes of retinal cells normally found in the eyes, including the retinal ganglion cells, which have axons (optic nerves) that extend to the brain.

Furthermore, these new cells eventually formed into functioning eyes. When tested, tadpoles used their induced eyes to detect light and to engage in a vision‑based behavior. The scientists also found a population of self‑renewing cells in the periphery of the induced retinas, suggesting that EFTF‑induced cells also formed adult retinal stem cells.

Click here to let the Reuters editors know they need to fix this story.

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)


2 thoughts on “>Trash from Reuters on Stem Cells

  1. >They really should have better educated their writers. Confusion adult and embryonic cells was understandable three years ago, but not today.

    Posted by Suricou Raven | December 5, 2008, 2:32 am
  2. >I'm fairly sure there's no confusion. Ms. Fox changed the headline, but not the text of the first sentence. There's also no notation about the change or why.That's just shoddy "reporting."

    Posted by | December 8, 2008, 8:15 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url




%d bloggers like this: