Cancer

Quote:

Ok - what is somatic nuclear transfer?

It's what's generally referred to as cloning. You take a cell from an adult animal -- an udder cell, in Dolly's case, but it's probably not too important what sort of cell it is -- and suck the nucleus out. Then you stick the nucleus into an egg cell from another animal from which the nucleus has already been removed, do some sort of mumbo jumbo to make them compatible, then implant the egg into a surrogate mother. Course, it's easier said than done. Dolly was the only one of 277 (or so) cells that were implanted in that trial, so the success rate is a bit low. There are variations, since each species presents different challenges, but that's the general idea.

Embyronic nuclear transfer is the same basic idea, but the donor nucleus comes from an undifferentiated embryonic cell (read: stem cell). This presents far fewer challenges, but wouldn't allow you to, say, generate new nervous tissue genetically identical to the person who needs it.

(Now that I think of it, I'm not sure how cloning would be used to treat most cancers, but, like I said, I'm a neophyte.)

0 Replies

Bottom line?

Cancer research always looks "promising" on paper, when researchers are trying to obtain a grant. But...it's a whole different world in trying to find any "cure for cancer". What is "found" are methods to stop proliferation of malignant cells without killing too many normal cells.

As a cancer researcher, let me inform you of the fact that there are no "cures" for cancer. The better term might be "arrested proliferation".

0 Replies

I disagree with cloning, sure it saves lives, but I only want there too be one of me.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Stem cell research may one day prove to be a cure for all cancers (and most everything else), but the government is doing all it can to prevent it because they're afraid of cloning. Cryo-Cell Intl, traded as ccel, stores ambilical cords for a fee in anticipation of this technology.

I thought the reason for the government being against embryonic stem cell research had to do with the ethics involved regarding when life starts. Does it start at conception? Birth? Between? The idea it starts at conception is what the current American administration seems to believe if all I've read is true.

As for umbilical cord blood freezing, I understood that was done for purposes of possible future blood diseases the child may endure. For instance, with leukemia, a stem cell transfusion from that child's own umbilical cord would be ideal in replacing the diseased blood line.

Since the placenta and the umbilical used to be discarded, there isn't the same sort of ethical debate with this as with embryonic stem cells. These are two different types of stem cells. Embroynic stem cells are capable of turning into any type of body cell, whereas I believe umbilical cord blood stem cells are stem cells for blood cell lineage only.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Re: human embryonic stem cells

This is something I'm studying at the moment, and I fuylly support further research in this area, but even for an atheistic moral relativist like me there is still some cause for misgivings.

What are you studying patiodog? As in your scholastic endeavours?

Just curious...nosey even! Very Happy

0 Replies

Individual wrote:

Squeaks, we do have a cure for cancer but the reason it isn't out yet is because it is still in development and testing.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/article/0,12543,537964,00.html

That is so cool!

Regarding cloning...when I was in school, I'd never heard of it as being a means of cancer research either. (Just backing up patiodog's thoughts!)

Wilso submitted a post in another thread about the biggest weakness in cloning.

Wilso's post

A friend of mine did her research project in this area (telomeres) although I believe they were studying the aging process or something of the like and not cloning, but I would think it definitely applies.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

patiodog wrote:
Re: human embryonic stem cells

This is something I'm studying at the moment, and I fuylly support further research in this area, but even for an atheistic moral relativist like me there is still some cause for misgivings.

What are you studying patiodog? As in your scholastic endeavours?

Just curious...nosey even!

Long-term, I'm prevet, but this semester includes Embryology (or, rather, Animal Development), Genetics, and Immunology. Will have a general biology degree at the end of it -- but without having had a chance to take a course in virology, which disappoints me a bit.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

but without having had a chance to take a course in virology, which disappoints me a bit.

Ya can't squeeze it into your timetable? Are you taking microbiology as an undergrad? Or is that something you will see in your veterinarian studies?

0 Replies

Will probably take prokaryote micro this summer. That and cell biol. are probably what I'm most lacking, but it's pretty sparse all around. Really, though, my main interests lie in basic physiology, so I'm not too bummed. Viruses just fascinate the hell out of me.

0 Replies

They actually call it that? Prokaryote micro? I'm somewhat surprised they would divide it that way. I took both microbiology and medical microbiology courses and they included fungi and parasites.

What fascinates you about the virus world? I kind of find it interesting that the simpler the life form, the more favourable mutations figure into their survival, whereas with more complex life forms, mutations may result in that being's demise. Out of the microbiology world, I find the virus to be the most scary! Shocked

0 Replies

That's what they call it. Not sure why they don't just say, "Intro to Bacteriology." There are other micro courses (and, technically, my immunology course is one, though the micro side of it is really basic so far). Wisconsin seems to chop subjects up into pretty small bits.

Mainly, I just dig the SEM pics of 'em. And that they take over cells. Ingenious. Also suspect that they play an integral role in evolution, but I'm pretty ignernt on that front, too.

0 Replies

An aside to Caprice - Patiodog was a well read lucid describer of much in science before he started his recent school venture.

Another aside - PDog, this all reminds me. Back in prehistoric times when I was a lab research tech, another tech was nagging me to go on to school. (I ended up doing that, as you know, in something else, another story.) She went to either UW or WSU (I mix them up) veterinary school and curved back to the immunology field where we were techs together. It was her way of getting to be a credentialed immunologist. I should look her up on google, that hadn't occurred to me before!

Caprice, I have missed what you are involved in, though I have figured out it is a med field..

0 Replies

Quote:

It was her way of getting to be a credentialed immunologist.

Interesting way to go about it, that's for sure.

The Washington vet school is WSU (wazzu). The Wisconsin one is UW, as opposed to University of Washingon (UW), or Washington University (St. Louis) -- where at least two foreign grad students thought they were headed when they arrived in Seattle.

(And you flatter me. Never have I been lucid in my life!)

0 Replies

(Seriously, though, I'm as apt to transmit erroneous speculation as good science. Not enough respect for the forum, I s'pose.)

If I may, caprice -- where do you come by your learnin'? Professional or personal interest?

0 Replies

Wash U, as in St. Louis - one of the techs when I was first where I waz, had been part of a team who did interesting insulin research at Wash U. I've always sort of kept my eye out for that place. She was v. smart. Too bad, I mainly remember her for wearing fifties clothes, as in skirts with appliques and pumps... well, hey, I had no respect for my elders then. I am amused now.

0 Replies

When my friend was nagging me to go on was just at the cusp, when women were starting to be accepted more. When I was in college, med school admissions for women (see 1962 MCAT catalog) the numbers I saw were generally 0%, some around 1 to 2%, a few around, say 4%, and a couple of higher ones, including the Women's Med College, whatever its name was. By 1970, numbers were really zooming up. And it was around '66 or so that my friend was trying to find a way into immunology. (Context is all.)

0 Replies

Interesting. Both of my immunology profs (it was also a unit in my animal physiology course) were women in the 55-65 range. Was this a field that was more open for some reason?

0 Replies

Nah, it was very interesting to all. In my premed classes, you could almost hear the room buzz in genetics and virology re class interest in the material, and ... well, we never took immunology as such, then. I was a bacteriology major, and immunology sort of infiltrated all the zoo/bacti courses. Immunology existed before then, just not as a channel in most departments.

0 Replies

That's been one of my disappointments here, actually -- buzz. Only place I've seen a lot of other students really excited about the material was biochem. Most were positively blase in physiol, which blows my mind. I mean, all that and more is going on in your body, all the time, at unbelievable rates, and so elegantly coordinated. For instance, every time prostaglandins are mentioned, I think about what they might do -- the possibility for systemic influence that we haven't even conceived yet because they work at such minute concentrations -- and heads just bow and yawn at notebooks.

Ah, well. I was bored when I was 20, too.

0 Replies

Yah, prostaglandins interest me too...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know