Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Bone Marrow Can Grow New Brain Cells 128

Posted by timothy from the where's-my-marrow-spoon? dept.
ActMatrix writes: "Scientists at Stanford and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have demonstrated that stem cells in bone marrow can produce neurons that replace dead brain cells, similar to the way our bodies constantly replenish skin cells. What isn't certain yet is whether these new brain cells make functional neural connections. If they do, it's possible that doctors will some day use marrow transplants to treat brain disorders. What's especially cool is how they discovered this. In one case, mice whose natural bone marrow was killed by radiation were injected in the tail with marrow containing a phosphorescent protein. When the mice were killed later, parts of their brains glowed in the dark. =) Article with some more details from CNN here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bone Marrow Can Grow New Brain Cells More

Bone Marrow Can Grow New Brain Cells

Comments Filter:

  • HAHA (Score:1)

    by vipw ( 228 )
    thank you, i was about to do a post with random bolds myself :)

  • No no no, you're missing the point...

    Ever watch National Geographic, when lions are hunting a herd of wildebeest? The herd of wildebeest is only as quick as its slowest members, which is why the lions attack the slow and weak, improving the overall efficiency of the herd.

    Now we all know that pot kills brain cells, but wouldn't the same logic apply? Wouldn't it go after the slow and weak brain cells first? Wouldn't this increase the overall efficiency of the brain?

    This would explain why your brain churns out such great ideas when you're stoned :)

    - Adam



  • ...the "smartest" thing Cliff EVER said on Cheers!
    One afternoon at Cheers, Cliff Clavin was explaining the Buffalo
    Theory to his buddy Norm. And here's how it went:

    "Well ya see Norm, it's like this.... A herd of buffalo can only
    move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it
    is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first.
    This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because
    the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by
    the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way,
    the human braincan only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.
    Excessive intake of alcohol, as we all know, kills brain cells, but
    naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In
    this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain
    cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's
    why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
  • I probably could have worded my previous post a bit better... oh well..

    Of course overpopulation is really only a problem in 3rd world countries. Does that make it a problem that the rest of us shouldn't worry about? We developed nations like to help developing nations by curing their diseases and keeping their babies alive. But frankly, they don't know how to deal with it. They don't have enough resources to sustain those people when they stay alive! We're not really helping them by doing this unless we they are also able to have enough resources available to them.

    And I'm not saying medical technology shouldn't advance, but that it needs to be balanced with the state of the world. Sure, it might seem nice to be able to stop everyone from dying as an infant. But in light of the current state of the world, is that really a good thing??

    And this is maybe a bit off-topic, but the main medical advance that really disgusts me is reproductive medicine. Mainly technology we use now to induce pregnancies. We have all these people now who can't have children, so they have treatments to allow them to get pregnant. Then when they have half a dozen fertile fetuses, they won't allow any of them to be aborted! Then they have the nerve to say that it's a God given miracle! Give me a break! If you believe there's a God, then you must believe God was the one who made you infertile to begin with! You should've gone with his decision the first time if you're not capable of deciding to abort some of the fetuses after you defile God's temple by changing your body!

    And I'm not necessarily against medicine that will enhance the quality of life. Sure, allowing someone with Parkinson's disease to lead a normal life is great. Curing Alzheimers would be nice. But being able to keep a 90 year old person alive on life support for a year in a hospital bed? Is that an accomplishment we should really be proud of?

    The whole killing each other argument I made was worded pretty poorly.. very poorly actually.. I was trying to get at the fact that our overpopulation will eventually make our ecosystem unliveable. And this will, in a way, be us killing each other.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • Kiss the Blade said:
    "The medical technology we have already is quite good enough, thank you, without sacrificing our ehtics in our lust for immortality."

    I would say that medical technology has gone too far. People are living too long, people that would normally die from their genetic diseases live on to produce children, and people who should be recipients of the Darwin Award are kept alive to produce children. We are breaking the system. What happened to survival of the fittest? Medical technology has created an over polluted gene pool. People who should be dieing are passing on their bad genes to the next generation, instead of taking their diseases to their grave never to be seen from again.

    Let's not forget over population! Medical technology has decreased infant mortality and increased life expectancy rates too much. Not enough people are ever going to use proper family planning, and old people are just going to keep getting older. There's always going to be too many children. The elderly will keep increasing. I know nobody wants to lose their little baby brother, or see their grandparents die, but frankly our race is doomed unless we find some fantastic new way to utilize the resources we currently have. And this would have to be implemented worldwide in order to work, not just in the US or EU. We give medical technology to third world countries, but we don't help them utilize their resources! It's just not going to happen.

    Maybe I'm just too sadistic, but I think the world needs another plague or something similar to get us back into order.

    And no, this post is not meant to be funny, or to be a troll. I truly believe we are fucked.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • From where I'm looking, it seems that we're driving ourselves extinct! The #1 killer of humans is, well, humans. Other than natural diseases and what not, the only thing that regularly kills humans is humans.

    So, get rid of those natural diseases you say. But those natural diseases and what not is what keeps our population in check. When we start defeating those natural diseases, our population explodes. And this is exactly what's happening. There's simply too god damn many of us. We're destroying ourselves.

    You say you'd rather be guiding your own destiny than have nothing guide it. But what's happening is short sighted, money grubbing assholes are running all our destinies. Destroying the balance of our ecosystem to make a quick buck. I'd rather have nothing guiding it.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • Shoeboy (not posting anonymously ^_^ ) said:
    "There's no moral difference between change due to evolution and change due to scientific treatments."

    Uhm.. I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Change due to evolution is something we don't control. It's something that happens naturally. It has nothing to do with morality.

    Scientific treatments are the exact opposite. We control what we do to ourselves with science. Any changes that happen are changes that we did to ourselves. This has everything to do with morality.

    This isn't even getting into the whole argument about whether we even have the knowledge required to properly alter our own evolution. Who the fuck are we to say that we know how we should evolve, when it's been working pretty damn good without our intervention for the past few eons. I would like to say the now cliche "We shouldn't play God," but i shouldn't say that since I don't think there is a God.. I'll instead just say "We shouldn't play Nature." There's sooo much we will never know about the ecosystem as a whole. We will never really know enough to where we can intelligently control our own evolution without royally fucking it all up.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • This would also involve finding a destination that would actually be livable or at least harvestable. There's more to resources than just precious metals. Terraforming is all fine and dandy, but it's going to stay in the realms of science fiction for quite a while. Probably a lot longer than practical interplanetary travel.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • Exhibit A is meant as a result of Exhibit B. The world is overpopulated, as a result of humans. This in turn is causing many human deaths. Not nearly enough to counterbalance the overpopulation however. The overpopulation is resulting in a destroyed ecosystem, which is in turn killing humans.

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • "survival of the fittest... If that sentence is not pure nazism, then we didn't read the same history book!"

    Geez! Nazi's were not about survival of the fittest at all! They were about systematic destruction of anyone besides their "Aryan Race." Nothing to do with who is the "fittest."

    And regarding your statement about people living on medicine who contributed to society... I'm not against letting them live so much, as letting them reproduce! We don't need their genes!

    Fear my low SlashID! (bidding starts at $500)
  • Humanity is different.
    Did I predict this one or did I predict it?

    Sapience is one thing. Tool-using beyond a primitive stage is another. These are not minor or trivial differences.
    Yeah, and they're subjective differences. What about back in the day when humanity was primitive in it's tool use? No problem for your kind, you'll just refine your definition of primitive so that it always falls somewhere between us and the chimps and then argue that the sapiens sapiens subspecies dates from after we reached that level of tech. Your special pleading is nonsense.

    The fact that we can *consider* eating our own young to be wrong shows that we have a sense of morality -- not the weird, abstract UberChristian kind, but the kind that keeps us from doing something, not because it would hurt us, but because it would be *wrong*.
    But given training, could we raise humans that belived it to be okay to eat weak and deformed offspring? If so, how does that make your "morallity" anything other than a dominant meme set? If you couldn't, and human being will naturally be averse to offspring eating, then how is it different from the parenting instincts of emporer penguins? Hint - the fact that we can rationalize our instincts doesn't make them more special or valuable.
    --Shoeboy
  • Exhibit A: Human beings are killing each other off at such a rate that extinction is approaching.
    From where I'm looking, it seems that we're driving ourselves extinct! The #1 killer of humans is, well, humans. Other than natural diseases and what not, the only thing that regularly kills humans is humans.

    Exhibit B: The world is overpopulated.
    And this is exactly what's happening. There's simply too god damn many of us.

    Can anyone spot the contradiction here?
    Sorry Leto, but I think turning into a sandworm has affected your brain.
    --Shoeboy
  • Of course, you completely ignore the fact that as far as technology gores, things are changing faster than they ever have.
  • Ummmm... Sorry.

    On what do you base your claim? If its biblical then you should know that methusula lived to be 900+. But, according to modern history, a person whom just died recently lived to be 122. And I believe there was a man in Japan that lived to be 127.

    Heres some proof, if you want it.

    http://detnews.com/1997/obits/9708/04/08040139.htm

  • our race is doomed unless we find some fantastic new way to utilize the resources we currently have

    Or we need to develop pratical interplanetary travel so as to increase the reasources available to us.
  • Canadians, I'm told, are required to carry a bible into warfare. Just like Canadian hotels are required to have a bible in every room. I don't understand, don't say it's right or wrong, it just seems to be. (Though I am inclined to think it's a tad narrow minded by catering only to the beliefs of Canadian Christians)

    We do have gregarious references to "Our Lord" in our legislation, the removal of which was brought up on numerous occasions but has never followed through.

  • shhh, stop that...

    it not nice to explain to joke, if they didnt get it the first time maybe they will next lifetime...

    crowley may have been a Troll but he was a classly one.. most of the time.


    nmarshall

    The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
  • The term "bonehead" will refer to someone who's smart now?

    Earl
  • Sigh... I remember when people at least put some *effort* into their trolls.

    Oh, no, wait, I don't.

    Capitalizing 'Human Beings'?! A reference to 'the very basis of humanity' in the second sentence?!What ever happened to actually trying to fool people?

    grendel drago
  • Err... why not? Do you mean "shouldn't"? Or is there some kind of point you're trying to make?

    grendel drago
  • Shoeboy never posts anonymously, that's just his sig.
  • will we be counting intelligence in Lumen?

    //rdj
  • This discovery is certainly an inportant one. With regeneration of the brain and spinal cord cells, people who have been delt an unlucky hand of cards can now find new funtionality with their bodies. Only thing is, it would really suck to be those mice. Have your marrow killed off by raditaion, then have new marrow injected in your tail, only to be killed off later. I like the idea of curing humans, but I only hope one day computers will grow advanced enough that we can fully simulate human body conditions instead of killing off tens of millions of animals every year. I'll get off my podeum now :)
  • I guess that some moderator have made a mistake. I'm not OFFTOPIC !
    Maybe a little Troll, but definitely not OT.
    The post wanted to be a joke. But OT ??

    Somebody help!
  • i bet you support abortion. right? 1 human is not worth 1,000,000 of any other animal
  • Ergblah.

    In short, the answer is yes. You couple up a virus with the GFP (green florescing protein) DNA (or RNA) sequence, get the virus to target specifcially your epethelial cells (not sure how to do that, probably some epethialial specific protein) and then infect you. Assuming the virus evades your immune system, and the resulting changes in your cells proteins don't cause your immune system to freak out and decide to digest your entire skin (I think GFP at this level would cause the immune system to decide it was "self") you would have green glowing skin. (Under the appropriate light, probably UV if I remember correctly.)

    Of course, when you shed, you'd leave behind a train of GFP, so everyone would know where you had been, who you had touched, etc... but hey, that's the price you pay for green glowing skin.

    Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
  • Shotgun first brain transplant!

  • Most of you have been easily duped. All blood cells, including white blood cells and (macrophages)the cells that gobble up invading organisms and other debris), come from the bone marrow after birth (before that they come from the liver). Some bone marrow stem cells naturally mature into macrophages, which then migrate and mature further into specialized macrophages, localized to certain regions of the body. In the brain, these specialized macrophages are called microglia. So, bone marrow cells are constantly maturing and migrating to the brain and central nervous system to become microglia and patrol those regions. Concluding that these tagged cells are neurons without reporting any other neuronal specific markers is ludicrous and would be thrown out of any peer-reviewed journal.---Glen Otero, Ph.D. "Bad Boy of Immunology"
  • This research is all going towards me becoming the worlds smartest person and world domination!

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by vvk ( 95314 )
    I wonder how animal-rights activists view these developments.

    Does this mean that in order to find if it really works where are going to slice open a few humans (there are enough of them arround -just like mice- anyway) to see a gif of glowing human frontal-lobes shining through the eye sockets :)

  • Glow-in-the-dark mouse brains will outsell Tickle Me Elmo, Pokemon, AND Cabbage Patch dolls this Christmas, mark my words.

    If only I could come up with a catchy name...

    -Legion

  • Now, if only we could somehow use this on George W. Bush

    I'll volunteer to examine his brains later to see if they glow.

    (disclaimer in case he wins the lawsuits and motions and is elected President by the Patent Office during the new American Democratic cycle: it's a joke)

    -Legion

  • Good and bad are like up and down

    What goes good must come bad? Sounds good to me!



    -HobophobE
  • i was thinking this same thing when reading the article, but there the amount of added neurons will probably be insignificant to the number you already have - cells aren't very big(relativly speaking, of course).

    another consideration is brain development. you basically have the brain you have now based on what parts got used most frequently between the ages of 1 and 5, during this time neurons connect and disconnect based on what kind of simulation patterns they get. this self-arranging behavior is that which they are trying to take advantage with the leach neuron experiments (i'm too lazy to hunt down the link, some karma whore i am! haha). the implications are that if you weren't using your brain for new things constantly, these new neurons probably (this is my somewhat informed theory.. perhaps someone could elaborate?) wouldn't make good/useful connections.

    it's certainly interesting for us biology students though!:
    • extract stem cells
    • inject stem cells
    • stimulate brain
    • get smart!



    C:\>ls
    bad command or file name
    C:\>uptime
  • Does this mean I can grow myself a new brain out of dog food? Full of marrowbone jelly and meaty goodness...
  • Or inserting foreign pig organs into our body? I will not tolerate any foreign pig organs in my body.

    Only American pigs need apply.

  • Mommy! Mommy! Can I have a glow-in-the-dark-brain for chrismass too?! oh please! oh please! oh please!

    -
  • It seems that if you were to take a perfectly healthy person, whose brain cells have not died, you could use this to just add more neurons. Sounds good to me. Brains for everybody!
  • This doesn't seem incredibly on topic. Would you mind evaluating in context for the sake of us mortals? What does this have to do with neuron generation? -Fred
  • Did you notice the part they say "When the mice were killed later..."

    Isn't there a better way to do this, one that doesn't kill cute little mice?

    Why don't we use slashdot trolls instead. (And no I'm not eligible for the task)

  • So, in theory, once this is implemented, I could sneak into the factory where they make hair-regrowing cells, and add some fluorescent protein to their big tanks of protozoa. Glow-in-the-dark hair! Yowzat!

  • This is neat stuff. Perhaps the transplantation of basic cells (like marrow stem cells in this case) will become the wave of the future.

    This sort of thing has already been done with with Parkinson's disease with some success. Cell transplantation into the pancreas is also one of the cures (yes, a real cure) in the work for diabetes.

    I'm always excited when we learn that previously uncurable, unfixable problems suddenly can be patched up no problem. Lots of docs out there will still tell you that nervous tissue does not regenerate under any condition
  • The BUSH administration is urging all swinging singles to impregnate as many shagadelic girls as possible in order to increase deposits to the "Slashdot Aborted Foetus Bank for Aging Geeks".

    In short, shag wildly now so you're sure to get a compatible foetus later when you really need it (Altzeimers,too much X, Microsoft 2K).

  • Then where would you draw the line? Should we stop any form of health care since curing someone's ailments "is a step toward immortality," is it not?

    Virtually all of the cures for disease and common ailments have been the result of experiments and studies that are an example of "a step toward immortality," in your own words.

  • Relax, you're just a humanist.

    Consider this:
    Do you feel bad that your ancestors were bacteria?
    Do you make an effort to remember your bacterial heritage?
    What about your anthropoidian heritage?

    Did it not occur to you that biological evolution has carried us as far as we are going to go? Why should we not use our technology to continue where nature left off? I can understand that people will be naturally paranoid about eugenics for a long time due to certain nutbags...*cough*Hitler*cough... but if we are capable of improving upon ourselves, why shouldn't we? It's not like someone is going to put a gun to YOUR head and tell you that you have to be implanted with a pig's spleen or some such nonsense. From my point of view, status quo thinking like that is how discrimination came to be. Look at that guy, he has cybernetic eyes. Look at that girl, she has an mp3 player in her arm. Look at that guy, he's black. Beliefs that limit future possibilities are death. The human body is not sacred, it's not perfect, and being human means recognizing your instinct for self preservation. It is only natural that if we have the means to better ourselves with some artificial tweaking, we would do it.

    Default Dennis Miller disclaimer here
  • I was going to make stupid comments about increasing excess substance use, but golly if you lurkers didn't get to it before me. Good for you!


  • I know that this sounds fantastic, but if this technique could be used to regenerate spinal cord tissue, then why wouldn't we be able to perform full brain transplants. Imagine if we could "grow" new bodies for those whose bodies have severe genetic defects, and then transfer their brain to the new, geneticly pure body. We could then graft the bone marrow to the spinal cord to make the necessary connections to the brain. Viola! The little kid down the street who has muscular dystrophy can now go outside to play with all the other kids.


    --------------------------------------

  • The sad thing is that there were probably people like you, saying the exact same things duing the plagues of the 14th century. How exactly do they attack the vary basis of humanity? What's wrong with a technique that could possibly cure neural diseases such as Parkinson's Disease? The idea of humanity is just that. It's an idea. Meaning it only exists in your head. Just because we might have a pig valve implanted in our heart or any number of other medical techniques based on animals does not make us any less than who we really are. In fact, I would venture to say that would make us even more human, as we would be even more unique than the rest. Furthermore, I simply cannot see where it would compromise our morals to employ medical technology discovered in animals or technology that employs the use of parts from animals. Because after all, like Shoeboy said, we as human beings, homo sapiens, are nothing more than animals ourselves. Our intelligence makes us no different from the common house cat in that respect.


    --------------------------------------

  • I would like to say the now cliche "We shouldn't play God," but i shouldn't say that since I don't think there is a God

    But if we play God, then would there not be a god? In which case it would be alright for you to use the cliche. But then that would also mean that the vast majority of society would end up worshiping themselves because they are playing God and yet also worship God. But then, how is this any differnt from society today? A large portion of society seems to be a bunch of self-worshiping pricks. What a coincidence that they also seem to be among the most religously adament of society.

    [Let me apologize now for offending anybody. Years of living in the bible belt of America have left me with a very jaded attitude of religion.]


    --------------------------------------

  • And by the way there is a fair number of physically challenged people living on medicine to sustain their life who have contributed considerably to technology, art or entreat associations.

    I believe Stephen Hawking(sp?) would be the supreme example of this. He has contributed possibly as much to the science of physics as did Albert Einstein. And yet he is among the most physically challenged of our society.

    Further more getting back to the survival of the fittest notion. Who's to say that we aren't more fit simply because of our ability to produce medicines that can help us to sustain life for just a little bit longer?


    --------------------------------------

  • That's a very good point. With the current pace of medical progression however, we will have to answer more and more of these questions as time goes on. And I belive that as medical technology progresses, so will our ethical values change. Would it really be murder if the body was specifically grown for another individual? By today's standards yes, but who knows how long it will be before such an act is not seen as murder.


    --------------------------------------

  • Well, if one-click shopping is patentable, I am sure this is, too. I am sure someone will try to patent it. That would be proof of just how much the patent system in the US helps citizens.
  • We don't live anymore in caves and don't go hunting with our bare hands to get food. We don't need to be able to outrun a Grizzly or fight without medicine all virii and infections we come across. If you believe that survival of the fittest still appies to humankind, don't go to the pharmacy or call the doctor next time you're sick!

    If anybody tried to live in a cave right now, I would hardly call them fit for the environment they are in. - That's what's meant with the term, not survival of the strongest, or healthiest, or the stupidest...

    Now humans are excellent at fitting in, in almost all situations, we even have the power to go the moon and survive there (for a few days at least)! Now many other species can do that?

    The point is, that humans are excellent at adapting [themselves to] environments, and so yes, survival of the fittest still applies to humans: if they don't fit their environments one of them changes, and in this particular case, it's the humans that are changeing, which is, in my view a lot better than the the changing of the environment that has been going on the last 150 year or so...

  • Now, if only we could somehow use this on George W. Bush...
  • This is sorta strange..my friend MattH [matthoppes.org] and I were just having an arguement about braincells growing back this afternoon. He was trying to feed me some line about cellular phones causing braincell depletion in small children...and I told him that now they learned braincells can grow back, so I wouldn't care if a small child used a cell phone (though I can't think of a good reason for them too) and he was telling me that braincells never grew back...I argued that I had seen some article in a magzine about it and how that could possibly prevent the onset of alzheimers disease....then I just got an email from him telling me to look at this article (admitting his dumbness. :) couldn't be a better time for it :)

    See the man behind "fjordboy" [peterswift.org]

  • Well, buddy, I don't know about you, but I ain't so selfless as to let myself die just so's I kin be in accordance with your "cultural heat-death" hypothesis. Why?

    1) Replenishment of brain cells might do something to reverse or otherwise alter the tendency of folks to get more and more set in their ways and opinions as they age--it may invalidate the "old dog/new tricks" axiom.

    2) In a lot of cases, social failures have come about through folks' failure to keep their history in mind and act accordingly, not the other way around. 3) Until someone credible tells me different, I'm going by the 'death-is-permanent-and-absolute-with-no-continuin g-existence-of-any-kind' idea, and acting accordingly. Combine that with the fact that I'm the selfish bastard posited by the 'laws' of economics, I'm damned well going to live as long as I find tolerable.

    However, I'm open-minded enough to accept the beliefs of others, so, if you want to get out of the way for others, I won't stop you in the swift and efficient execution of your "solemn duty."

  • What are you talking about I broke the second law of thermodynamics yesterday... You should have seen it... all the clutter on the floor of my room got up and moved to it's proper place... it was incredible... Just like Fantasia... sorry just screwing around
  • an offtopic post in an open forum! oh the humanity! what ever shall we do?
  • Body factories where doctors call up Hey guys I need a liver here some of the pateints bone marrow one week ok he has that much time.
  • Does this mean we can all drink more?? Who cares if they die... they'll grow back!!!

    -andy
  • The main advantage is that this method would avoid having to use fetal cells. That means less reluctance and larger supply.
  • Parkinsons, perhaps ALheimers, some mental illnesses
    are due to chemical absences or imbalances.
    This method might be able to help those.
  • Who the fuck are we to say that we know how we should evolve, when it's been working pretty damn good without our intervention for the past few eons. I would like to say the now cliche "We shouldn't play God," but i shouldn't say that since I don't think there is a God.. I'll instead just say "We shouldn't play Nature."
    Newsflash ace: We are part of nature. We're animals and what we instinctively do (make and use tools) is natural. Let's keep in mind that "Nature" isn't trying to better us or keep us alive. Nature doesn't give a shit about the evolution of humanity and natural process may drive us extinct. You say that nature has worked okay so far - true enough, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. Nature has driven plenty of species extinct (dinosaurs anyone) and given our own a few hard knocks (black death).
    I'd rather be guiding my own destiny than having nothing guide it.
    --Shoeboy
  • Ok, this humanist crap needs to go. Human beings are animals. Humanity isn't an identity, it's a species.

    It's no less moral for a human to eat a pheasant than it is for a hawk to do so. There's no moral difference between change due to evolution and change due to scientific treatments.

    I congratulate you on your lack of sentimental religious idiocy, but I wonder how you justify believing in this sort of special pleading for humanity with your logical refusal to believe in god and the tooth fairy.
    I know what you're going to say: "But Shoeboy, humanity is special and therefore special pleading is ok." Poppycock! Everything is special if you want to think about it that way. Dogs are special due to thousands of unique attributes that make them different from wolves and Volkswagen Beetles. The Matterhorn is special - there's no other chunk of rock quite like it.

    Nature is no more concerned about eroding our precious humanity than it is about eroding the Matterhorn - why should we be any different.

    You know what separates natural laws from moral laws? Natural laws are based on reality, moral laws are based on fantasy. Try an expiriment: break the second commandment - now try breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. See what I mean?

    Good and bad are like up and down - outdated concepts born of ignorance. Just as you can't be sure what up and down mean on a spherical earth, you can never bew sure you're acting morally. The theiving clergy make a fortune of this dillemma.

    Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. The only way to be happy is to do what you feel like doing and be damned to morallity and consequences.

    --Shoeboy
  • Well, as stem cells have been found in human brains and they grow into neurons -- these injected ones might simply do the same, whatever that is. However, these injected stem cells were in the bloodstream. I don't know if they were able to cross into the brain and connect normally.
  • One of the things you are getting at is the "lifeboat principle" - that attempting to save everyone sinks the boat and everyone drowns. I agree with this, as immoral as some may consider it. Helping 3rd world countries survive prior to responsible breeding is paramount to cultural and economic suicide, I believe.

    As for giving fertility pills for the sake of having children, I think there is a certain amount of satisfaction in ones life, particularly women, in being the bearer of life. It's probably an instinctive (or cultural) desire, so very hard to curb.

    Interestingly, I believe that the abolition of contraceptives of the Roman Catholic church is precisely the type of thing that would irk you. :) And I totally agree with that - we don't need more Roman Catholics who believe that contraceptives are wrong having children who are Roman Catholic and believing contraceptives are wrong in any practical scheme of overpopulation control. It's a great economic argument, however, for producing more Roman Catholics ...

    Of all the fundamental rights we have outlined, I think we really lack the one true freedom: the freedom to die. It's a very controversial topic, but I believe that dying with dignity is better than growing old, weary, and a burden to your loved ones - it is better to be remembered for your strength and gifts to those around you, not your needs to take for mere survival. I completely agree with you - there is a point where burden and suffering outweigh the value of life itself.

  • The fact that we can *consider* eating our own young to be wrong shows that we have a sense of morality

    No, it shows that we can be trained to believe that infanticide is wrong. Anthropological history shows that this was not always the case. In point, many tribes sacrificed children when they were born out of wedlock, of the wrong sex, born into bondage, etc., etc. There is no absolute morality. We don't do things "wrong" because we've been brainwashed to think that these things are wrong and we've closed our minds to the real truth that there is no right and wrong, only perceived right and wrong.
  • ::sigh:: Ok, let's have a look-see.

    Overpopulation and killing each other. Now, overpopulation is a problem, according to WHO, in 3rd world countries. 1st world countries actually tend to have *decreasing* populations. Our mortality+emmigration rates are higher than birth+immigration rates. So overpopulation is no excuse to curb the examination of the problem of diseases. Also a problem is the forthcoming pandemic that spreads like wild fire over the airlines to every nook and cranny on earth that will likely kill everyone - if unprepared we will likely degenerate to tribal survivors.

    Second, us killing each other is a result of religious conflicts 99% of the time, according to UNESCO. Not resource conflicts. Not overpopulation. (Although they would make excellent instigators) I won't even go here: it is almost academic to accept Christianity as the exclusive source of the acceptance and condonement of the rape of nature (God will forgive, we commit no sins that go unforgiven, we are not responsible for our actions, etc., etc., etc.) That's a common argument, not necessarily my own, but it's also quite true, sadly.

  • C'mon kiss. You usually put some more work into your trolls than that. Since this is really just a cut'n'paste version of your last one, i won't bother shooting it down. It just isn't sporting...
  • Wow, this is *great* news. Now I can drink all I want and not worry(like I did before) about killing brain cells, since they can be replaced! It's about time Science came up with something *I* can use.
  • the Germans carried Nietzsche's text like Canadians do the Bible

    Woah. Like Canadians do the Bible? When did Canada become so religious? I don't think we're nearly as religious as our American neighbours. We certainly don't have the same amount of "Bible thumpers". Look at the general public reaction to the fact that Stockwell Day is a young-earth creationist.

    Of course, there's a lot of variation based on where you are in geography (a la US). Admittedly, I'm from Quebec, where religion took a very sharp nosedive somewhere in 60's. So, I come from the least religious part of the country.

    S
  • First off, you didn't post anonymously.

    Anyway...

    Humanity is different. Sapience is one thing. Tool-using beyond a primitive stage is another. These are not minor or trivial differences.

    The fact that we can *consider* eating our own young to be wrong shows that we have a sense of morality -- not the weird, abstract UberChristian kind, but the kind that keeps us from doing something, not because it would hurt us, but because it would be *wrong*.

    grendel drago
  • In theory - they could do this...

    Back in the late 60's-early 70's Time-Life published a set of books: Time-Life Science series (or some such). Many topics relating to science, both research and applied, were explored (a very fascinating one deals with Water). These books may still be found in used books stores all over.

    Photos tended to be the high point of these books - most had the quality of Life magazine photos (I assume because they used the same photographers). In short, these books were of rather high quality.

    One particular book in the series dealt with the Brain, discussing a variety of subjects related to this organ: learning, memory, vision - even AI and machine intelligence were discussed. There were photos and captions throughout showing the brain and how it worked (according to 1960's science). One particularly disturbing photo:

    A couple of lab monkeys (rhesus, I believe) were being used for experiments regarding the brain (I can't remember what - probably brain activity or stimulus). Under anesthesia, these monkeys had their skulls, just above the browline, sawed completely off, exposing the top half of their brains. In place of the skull, an acrylic "dome" was attached (it looked molded to match the monkey's heads) to the bone "shelf", screwed down with stainless steel screws.

    Essentially, the brains of the monkeys became "viewable". I imagine the monkeys were given anti-inflammatory medicine (and possible other pain killers), and probably a healthy dose of antibiotics for infection prevention. At least, I hope they were - though I have wondered whether that would have skewed any results, and whether they were given nothing to help any pain or infection...

    I have only seen this picture in that particular book - nowhere else (I speculate that it may have appeared in either a Time or Life magazine of the period, but I have not located such an issue). Nothing was ever said further about the monkeys, such as what was learned or how long they "lived" in that condition.

    It is a very macabre picture - disturbing in a primal way. Not an APCA moment, assuredly!

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • or do other people think that mice with glowing brains are cool ? now you need to modify them to be transparant ... the ultimate geek pet ?
    mvg,
    Kris "dJOEK" Vandecruys
  • I happen to work with these cells in a reseach lab at Johns Hopkins. Beyond neurons, researchers have claimed these cells can become
    - Fat Cells
    - Cartilage Cells
    - Bone Cells
    - Muscle Cells (smooth, skeletal and cardiac)

    The ability to produce new caridac muscle cells is also particularly important, as like neurons, they cannot be repaired or naturally replaced in adults. With a reliable source of Cardiac muscle cells heart failure, a disease millions of people develop each year, could possibly be cured.

    If you are curious about reading more, try out these urls:

    [osiristx.com]
    A nice graphical depiction from a biotech company.

    [nih.gov]
    An Importance Science Article (Requires account for full text access.)

    Additionally, [osiristx.com]
    Osiris Theraputics is a biotech company which is doing work on these cells.

  • That'd be just my luck - I go in to a clinic to get a new load of neurons, but they all turn into fat cells instead...
  • I was born with cerebral palsy due to being born 3 months premature. So my brain, due to this damage sustained by this early birth, doesn't really communicate well with my body. While a have a mild case compared to some, I can walk reasonably well after 5 operations, and have little difficulty otherwise, it would be nice to be "normal". To counter some of the this is evil or unnatural postings. I believe in God, but I believe in man as well. Man has the power to change his surroundings and even himself to a large extent. Science is not inherently evil , but it can be put to evil uses.This research can be used to help millions with real problems. It's all in how you use the knowledge, not the knowledge itself. Things to keep in mind, these are mice, not people and the article says the scientists involved are not sure what this means. Don't view this as an excuse to drink and do drugs with the view that I can replace my brain cells when they are gone.(Yes, I understand these statements are meant as jokes.) Science can't fix everything, though it may someday.
  • There is a book called "The Body Electric: Electromagnetism & the Foundation of Life" by Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden that talks about Dr. Becker's experiments with regeneration in reptiles and mammals.

    IIRC, one of the reasons lower reptiles can regenerate limbs is because their blood cells still contain DNA in their nucleus. When a frog, for example, loses a limb, the blood cells undifferentiate and then redifferentiate to become bone, nerves, muscle, and skin cells. Absolutely amazing.

    Mammal blood cells are "more efficient" and don't contain any DNA, but stem cells are blood cells before they differeniate and lose their DNA so that, in theory, they can redifferentiate into nerve cells! Or bone or muscle or skin! In theory at least.

    The most interesting thing is that this book was first published over 20 years ago and it's only now that I've begun reading about using stem cells in medical treatment. I can't help but think, what took them so long?

    In all honesty, although it is a fascinating book, the last quarter of it is a rant against the medical research establishment in general and, IMO, detracts from the credibility of the author.

    ---
    Disclaimer, I am not a biochemist.
  • Since this seems to be part of some natural healing mechanism, could it be manipulated for use in replacing damaged nerves in the spinal cord?

    An injection of marrow derived stem cells into the spine is far more elegant then any bionic solution we could ever develope. (though this is not to say I don't want implant technology to be researched, I've got a shopping list of implants as long as any other geek on /.)

    NightHawk

    Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.

  • I mean, why do you need to grow more braincells? And how did they figure out that... errr... How did they... get ummmm.... wait, what was the article about again?


  • So someday people might actually be more bone-headed than they are now!?! What are they thinking? ;-)


    --

  • This reminds me of some cool photos I saw of a human ear growing on a mouse's back.

    But really, what is the degree of dehumanization that we suffer from scientific advance? Were we made less "human" when Jenner worked on smallpox or Salk established preventive measures against polio? I would dare say that, regardless of how a person sees scientific advance currently, they would dare not declare that they wish to go back to the day when outbreaks and plagues cost hundreds of thousands of lives annually and kept the average lifespan around age 35.

    So what about now? Science is necessarily dispassionate in its advance and this is its strength. And if science moves objectively and empirically toward a solution to nervous damange that involves transplantation or whatever, then so be it.

    And in 20 years, I'll bet nobody will complain that grandma got 15 more good years to spend with her family because of an effective treatment discovered for stroke that some people back then thought was scary and dehumanizing.
  • Good point.

    I've often been afraid that, because I carry a leather wallet, I might grow horns and develop three more stomachs.

    Same thing with feather pillows. It makes me shudder to think that at any moment I might start craving sunflower seeds.
  • Does this mean we can all drink more?? Who cares if they die... they'll grow back!!!

    Erm, not exactly. The new cells, once they've converted from marrow, would probably not retain lost memories or abilities. I think at best it would offer a chance to re-learn what you lost, whether it is your own name or how to control your bowels. But exactly how that stuff is encoded in the first place is pretty mysterious, so it's hard to say.

    Plus, I would imagine that the marrow would have to come from yourself or (2nd best option) a close relative. Donating marrow is, or at least used to be, an extremely painful procedure. If you really want to go through that in order to attain new levels of drunkeness, go right ahead.


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • New born babies haven't grown their skulls yet, they can be used as torches - obviously bigger brains -> brighter light. It gives new meaning to the phrase 'he's a bright boy!'
  • The human body is only a shell. Humanity exists because of what you may call a ghost or a soul. It is being sentient that makes us human. No other animal is sentient on this planet.

    By being sentient, we have created medical technology that allows humans who might otherwise die, to continue their influence on others.

    Suppose that Stephen Hawking were about to die from ALS, would you not want a medical treatment that could restore his ability to exist, so that he may continue unraveling the secrets of the universe?

    As it takes several petabytes of information to hold the contents of the brain in a computer, in addition to the fact that we have not been able to figure out how the brain stores that information so that we may be able to retrieve it, we can't preserve a person who's about to die but has not completed 'their life's work'.

    Immortality certainly has philsophical implications (although i wouldn't say ethical) - If you have seen Robin William's 'Bicentennial Man', that movie addresses such philosophical issues.

    I don't see how using xenografts degrade humanity - they actually are better than allografts because instead of using another human's organs, youre using an animal. If you had 1 month to live due to congestive heart failure would you rather receive a heart transplant from your dead sibling/parent or would rather receive a pig heart?
  • "And if it's true, that plastic is not degradable, well! the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the Earth plus plastic."

    -- George Carlin


    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • To be more inline with the story, you should say: pots don't kill brain cells bone-head.
  • It is attitudes such as these that allowed Hitler to gain power.

    Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. The only way to be happy is to do what you feel like doing and be damned to morallity and consequences.

    I'm sure ol' Adolf would have agreed! This is Slashdot's dirty secret out in the open now. Libertarianism leads to Fascism - one is only a stones throw away from the other, despite appearances to the contrary.

    Your combination of technofetishism and fascism repulses me, although I imagine the average Slashdotter finds it quite attractive.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

  • I feel that science is increasingly attacking our identities as Human Beings. Advances such as these seem to attack the very basis of humanity. How long before they are grafting mouse ears onto humans? Or inserting foreign pig organs into our body?

    I would say that we need to take a step back and consider very carefully what we are doing and what we wish to achieve. Surely advances such as these take something away from us? Most right thinking people don't wantto be immortal. The medical technology we have already is quite good enough, thank you, without sacrificing our ethics in our lust for immortality.

    I would like to see this research kept on hold, until we can guarrantee that Human Beings will not have to sacrifice their morality to benefit.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

  • Re:what wonderful news for potheads! (Score:3)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Monday December 04, 2000 @03:31AM (#585050) Homepage
    Read the FAQ [sumeria.net].

  • Re:You make me ill... (Score:3)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @01:57PM (#585051) Journal
    This is somewhat of an interesting topic. Foremost, there is nihilism - the idea that everything is meaningless, and that any fiction "virtue in faith":Christianity or "virtue in reason":Socrates overlaying that meaninglessness is an abstraction that takes us away from reality.

    Note: Descarte believed in the other extreme - absolute reason, "I think, therefore I am", and thus eveything is at my beck and call for exploitation. Environmentalists love Descarte.

    And although it is true that this nihilism - belief in underlying meaningless - is often associated with Nietzsche (and in particular his sister) and the rise of the Nazi's - the Germans carried Nietzsche's text like Canadians do the Bible - it is a far cry from the only use of the idea of nihilism. In fact, the most popular religion in the world - Buddhism - necessitates the acceptance of nihilism prior to nirvana. So the Nazi argument is quite moot, and there is at least one valid, popular, and "cheerful" interpretation to this nihilism without resorting to Nazi arguments.

    Not only that, but perhaps the only undeniable interpretations of existence account for nihilism. Unfortunately there is a fairly open interpretation to what I've written, but there are quite a few books on this (particularly regarding Nietzsche, Buddhism, and combinations of those two). Just thought this might interest you.

    B

  • what wonderful news for potheads! (Score:3)

    by mr_gerbik ( 122036 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @12:53PM (#585052)
    can I smoke bone marrow to counteract killing my brain cells?

    -gerbik

  • Major use - regeneration of nerves (Score:3)

    by abhinavnath ( 157483 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @01:25PM (#585053)
    I think that the major use of grafting bone marrow cells would be in cases of spinal cord damage - even if a small section of nerve tissue was damaged beyond repair, a bone marrow graft could be induced to replace it. This avoids the loss-of-data issues theoretically possible with grafting into the brain. Networking is also a lot simpler in the spinal cord an the brain. If bone marrow cells can replace brain cells, they also ought to be able to replace spinal cord cells (both being part of the CNS, with lots of shared cellular architecture).

    OTOH, reflexes controlled by that section of cord would be useless - a small price to pay, IMHO.
  • Thanks man! This is part of what I was trying to say.

    So you agree with this *u****i*?
    Come on KtB, you were complaining about nazism two posts ago, and now you agree with ideas like survival of the fittest... If that sentence is not pure nazism, then we didn't read the same history book!

    And by the way there is a fair number of physically challenged people living on medicine to sustain their life who have contributed considerably to technology, art or entreat associations. Should you have killed them / let them die because they were not fitted enough according to your rules? What about their fantatic brain power, love or creativity?

    We don't live anymore in caves and don't go hunting with our bare hands to get food. We don't need to be able to outrun a Grizzly or fight without medicine all virii and infections we come across.

    If you believe that survival of the fittest still appies to humankind, don't go to the pharmacy or call the doctor next time you're sick!

  • Re:You Nazi! (Score:4)

    by Shoeboy ( 16224 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @01:36PM (#585055) Homepage
    Wow, you just ended the arguement by calling me a nazi.
    By the time honored standards established in usenet, I proclaim myself the victor.
    Try articulating well reasoned arguements rather than ad hominem attacks if you want to convince.
    --Shoeboy

  • Get it to the patent office, quick! (Score:4)

    by electricmonk ( 169355 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @02:01PM (#585056) Homepage
    Maybe we can use this wonderful advance in medicine to help out the poor, unfortunate people in the US Patent Office, who seem to be in urgent need of this procedure...

  • Missing the point (Score:4)

    by update() ( 217397 ) on Sunday December 03, 2000 @01:53PM (#585057) Homepage
    I haven't seen the Science paper yet, but I suspect that both the CNN article and people here are missing the main point. The key line is "The researchers said the finding suggests that converting bone marrow cells into brain neurons may be part of a previously unknown natural healing action the body uses to replace failed brain cells. "

    It's not so much that we'll be injecting bone marrow into our brains before finals but that there may be an unknown mechanism for generating neurons. If it can be studied and understood (maybe using stem cells as a model) that raises the possibility of drugs that can accelerate that mechanism to speed recovery from brain damage.

  • Science in CNN is always interesting. Time to go to the primary source to figure out what is actually going on.
    To examine whether bone marrow-derived cells could give rise to cells in the brain, adult marrow was harvested from transgenic mice (8 to 10 weeks of age) that ubiquitously expressed enhanced green fluorescent protein (GFP) (13). GFP-expressing (GFP+) bone marrow was administered by tail vein injection (6 × 106 nucleated cells per recipient) into lethally irradiated, isogenic adult (8- to 10-week-old) recipients (14). Brains harvested several months after the transplant (post-transplant) and examined by light microscopy revealed the presence of GFP+ cells throughout the CNS, including the olfactory bulb, hippocampus, cortical areas, and cerebellum. No cells expressed detectable GFP in five age-matched bone marrow recipients (controls) transplanted with marrow that was not genetically engineered to express GFP. Thus, bone marrow-derived GFP+ cells were clearly present in the brain.
    Unfortuanatly, the mere precense of green florescing protein doesn't conclusively demonstrate that the bone-marrow cells have become neurons. I submit that if you were to look at cells throughout the body, you would have found differentiated stem cells glowing throughout the entire mouse. Nicely however, this data isn't shown, or even elluded to.

    However, what does begin to demonstrate that the bone-marrow cells actually became neuronal cells is the staining process, where you stain for neuronal proteins. Of course, B cells have a nasty habit of trapping free neuronal proteins, so you would have to control for that, but that can be overcome. Course, one would really like to see a protein affinity study to conclusively demonstrate that the cells are actually neuronal, but I'm not a neurologist, so I won't digress.

    Merzey's work deals more elegantly with the problem by not dealing with GPF at all and instead heading straight for genetic material, by using male stem cells in a female mice. (XY instead of XX, trivial to find Y using staining microscopy) This cleans up most of the nastyness of the GPF.

    In addition Merzy deals with the differentiation of neuronal cells much more effectively, convicing me at least that these stem cells actually became neuronal cells, rather than just leaking out into the brain accidental like. Of course, the real trick now is to figure out what got the cells to become neurons.

    I'm going to guess that it only works in stem cells, and occurs because of the influence of neuronal proteins on neurons affects the differentiation of cells that can actually change fate into something that suits their environment. (Ie, have a non-locked (non-genetic) path determination). Probably just the proteins that turned the neurons into neurons in the first place continue to act on cells that through some strange occurence end up in the range of those proteins

    Oh yeah... for those of you who are actually interested, here is the links to the articles. Turning Blood into Brain: Cells Bearing Neuronal Antigens Generated in Vivo from Bone Marrow [sciencemag.org] and From Marrow to Brain: Expression of Neuronal Phenotypes in Adult Mice [sciencemag.org].
    Science 290:1779 and Science 290:1775 respectively.

    Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close