For years mankind has dreamed of emulating some other species. Rejuvenation of appendages has long been a dream. A surgeon normally takes out a longer section of vein than is needed for a heart bypass. The Bristol team (research, by Paolo Madeddu, Professor of Experimental Cardiovascluar Medicine and his team in the Bristol Heart Institute (BHI) at the University of Bristol, is published in the journal Circulation.) successfully isolated stem cells from leftover veins that patients had agreed to donate. In tests in mice, the cells proved able to stimulate new blood vessels to grow into injured leg muscles. Professor Madeddu and his team are now beginning to investigate whether the cells can help the heart to recover from a heart attack.
However, the stem cell usage remains pretty much in the research field with a lot of 'if'. Click here.
Unfortunately, from the year 2000 to 2008, GW Bush, President of the United States, chose to put the views of religious zealots before scientific study so that there was essentially a moratorium on productive research, slowing the field down for those years. Additionally, many top scientists moved out of the United States to places where they could continue their research, further slowing down gains here.
"Professor Peter Weissberg, Medical Director of the BHF, said: "Repairing a damaged heart is the holy grail for heart patients. The discovery that cells taken from patients' own blood vessels may be able to stimulate new blood vessels to grow in damaged tissues is a very encouraging and important advance. It brings the possibility of 'cell therapy' for damaged hearts one step closer and, importantly, if the chemical messages produced by the cells can be identified, it is possible that drugs could be developed to achieve the same end."
To read the article from which this was extracted, click here
Some of you reading this blog may even live long enough to be recipients of what is being learned...others of us will likely not.
Showing posts with label stem cell research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stem cell research. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WHY GOVERNMENT RESEARCH IS SO IMPORTANT
The simple difference between governmental research and private company research is the freedom to be without conflict of interest. If you are doing research for a pharmaceutical company whose survival depends on profit, it is difficult to consider the researchers free of conflict of interest since it will add to their personal wealth in the long run by salary, bonus, longer life and security to the corporation, or whatever.
When GW Bush put personal religious beliefs before the medical survival of fellow human beings, it made clear how little he understood his mandate to do his best for American citizens as a whole. We listen to many non-scientists speak about how we don't need umbilical cord or neo-natal stem cells or cells from in vitro fertilized ovum which will likely be thrown away if not utilized. But, if you listen to the scientists doing the research, you understand that it closes the door on complete research. It would be inaccurate to say that no scientists are swayed by their own personal religious beliefs, either. Thus it is very difficult for the average layman to be able to reach objective conclusions...a problem with all the man-on-the-street interviews to which we are subjected when there is no news, for fill-in material since the media has to fill the air, presumably to keep the audience from flipping to another channel by which they would lose their place in the ratings.
Not only are we assaulted today and overwhelmed with stuff to read or absorb visually on TV, details to handle, etc. but we are inundated everywhere now that there is so much opportunity for people to express their opinions to an wide audience, with lots of things that sounds sensible but are probably not.
Bruce G. Charltona, The Corresponding Author, Editor-in-Chief wrote an editorial on: Invisible colleges, private patronage and commercial profits versus public goods, government funding and ‘crowding-out’: Terence Kealey on the motivations and incentives driving science. A summary of an article (the whole can be purchased online): "What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable.What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable."
When GW Bush put personal religious beliefs before the medical survival of fellow human beings, it made clear how little he understood his mandate to do his best for American citizens as a whole. We listen to many non-scientists speak about how we don't need umbilical cord or neo-natal stem cells or cells from in vitro fertilized ovum which will likely be thrown away if not utilized. But, if you listen to the scientists doing the research, you understand that it closes the door on complete research. It would be inaccurate to say that no scientists are swayed by their own personal religious beliefs, either. Thus it is very difficult for the average layman to be able to reach objective conclusions...a problem with all the man-on-the-street interviews to which we are subjected when there is no news, for fill-in material since the media has to fill the air, presumably to keep the audience from flipping to another channel by which they would lose their place in the ratings.
Not only are we assaulted today and overwhelmed with stuff to read or absorb visually on TV, details to handle, etc. but we are inundated everywhere now that there is so much opportunity for people to express their opinions to an wide audience, with lots of things that sounds sensible but are probably not.
Bruce G. Charltona, The Corresponding Author, Editor-in-Chief wrote an editorial on: Invisible colleges, private patronage and commercial profits versus public goods, government funding and ‘crowding-out’: Terence Kealey on the motivations and incentives driving science. A summary of an article (the whole can be purchased online): "What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable.What kind of a thing is science and how does it work? [Kealey T. Sex, science and profits: In a recent book (Sex, science and profits: how people evolved to make money. London: William Heinemann; 2008) (p. 455)] Terence Kealey argues persuasively that the motivations driving science are widely misunderstood. Science is often assumed to be useful to the public but an economic loser for the scientist and his or her paymasters – in other words, science is supposed to be a ‘public good’. The public good argument is used to support large-scale government funding of science, on the basis that if government does not fund science it will not be funded adequately. But Kealey argues that most science is profitable to commercial organizations, and other types of worthwhile science will be supported by private patronage. Yet excessive government funding tends to ‘crowd-out’ potential private sources of funding – both by replacing and by deterring private investment. And scientists are not primarily motivated by money, but instead by striving for status within the ‘invisible college’ of active researchers in their field. Kealey’s take-home message is that overall and in the long-term, science neither requires nor benefits from government funding. Scientific research would be better-served by private funding from commercial organizations that are seeking profit, combined with patronage from charities and foundations that regard science as intrinsically valuable."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)