Personalized medicine
is a step closer, thanks
to the development of
a new technique
A revolutionary method for
creating cells that can grow
into any type of tissue has
been developed by scientists in Japan,
potentially ushering in a new era of
personalised medicine. Researchers at
the RIKEN Center for Developmental
Biology have found that almost any
mature adult cell taken from mice can
be transformed into a pluripotent stem
cell. These are of potentially great use
in medicine since they can transform
into any kind of cell in the body.
The process, dubbed stimulustriggered
acquisition of pluripotency
(STAP), involves shocking cells with
a suitable dose of stress. Though the
exact mechanism is not yet understood,
the stress causes the cells to lose their
specific characteristics and enter a state
of pluripotency. The scientists tried
squeezing the cells, heating them and
and and starving them, but had the best results
when soaking them in a mildly acidic solution.
“It’s exciting to think about the new possibilities
these findings open up, not only in areas like
regenerative medicine, but perhaps in the study of
cellular ageing and cancer as well,” explained lead
researcher Haruko Obokata.
Pluripotent stem cells have already been created
using several different methods. One type, called
Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), can be harvested
from embryos that have been fertilised in vitro
in a lab. However, this has proved controversial
as it involves the destruction of human embryos.
Another type, induced Pluripotent Stem cells
(iPS), were produced in 2006 by a team from
Japan led by Shinya Yamanaka. They were
produced from adult cells by manipulating genetic
material. The team was later awarded the Nobel
Prize. However, the new technique has the
advantage of being much simpler, taking only half
an hour to produce the cells.
To confirm that the cells created through
the stressing process were pluripotent, and so
able to transform into other cells in the body,
the researchers tagged some of them with a
fluorescent dye and injected them into a mouse
embryo. These glowing cells spread through
the animal as it grew, proving that they were
pluripotent. The mice were then bred and
produced healthy offspring.
The next step is to attempt the process in
other mammals and ultimately humans. If
successful, doctors will be able to create stem
cells specific to each patient from a simple skin
biopsy or blood sample. Eventually, stem cells
could be used for everything from treating
spinal cord injuries and baldness to growing skin
for use in skin grafts, or even growing entire
replacement organs.
“For me the most interesting questions will be
those that gain us a deeper understanding of the
principles,” said Obokata.
homeowners insurance Claim
home insurance Claim
state farm car insurance Claim
comprehensive insurance Claim
commercial insurance Claim
cheap auto insurance Claim
cheap health insurance Claim
indemnity Claim
car insurance companies Claim
progressive quote Claim
usaa car insurance Claim
insurance near me Claim
term life insurance Claim
auto insurance near me Claim
state farm car insurance Claim
comprehensive insurance Claim
progressive home insurance Claim
house insurance Claim
progressive renters insurance Claim
state farm insurance quote Claim
metlife auto insurance Claim
best insurance companies Claim
progressive auto insurance quote Claim
cheap car insurance quotes Claim
allstate car insurance Claim
rental car insurance Claim
car insurance online Claim
liberty mutual car insurance Claim
cheap car insurance near me Claim
best auto insurance Claim
home insurance companies Claim
usaa home insurance Claim
list of car insurance companies Claim
full coverage insurance Claim
allstate insurance near me Claim
cheap insurance quotes Claim
national insurance Claim
progressive home insurance Claim
house insurance Claim
health insurance quotes Claim
ameritas dental Claim
state farm renters insurance Claim
medicare supplement plans Claim
progressive renters insurance Claim
aetna providers Claim
title insurance Claim
sr22 insurance Claim
medicare advantage plans Claim
aetna health insurance Claim
ambetter insurance Claim
umr insurance Claim
massmutual 401k Claim
private health insurance Claim
assurant renters insurance Claim
assurant insurance Claim
dental insurance plans Claim
state farm insurance quote Claim
health insurance plans Claim
workers compensation insurance Claim
geha dental Claim
metlife auto insurance Claim
boat insurance Claim
aarp insurance Claim
costco insurance Claim
flood insurance Claim
best insurance companies Claim
cheap car insurance quotes Claim
best travel insurance Claim
insurance agents near me Claim
car insurance Claim
car insurance quotes Claim
auto insurance Claim
auto insurance quotes Claim
long term care insurance Claim
auto insurance companies Claim
home insurance quotes Claim
cheap car insurance quotes Claim
affordable car insurance Claim
professional liability insurance Claim
cheap car insurance near me Claim
small business insurance Claim
vehicle insurance Claim
best auto insurance Claim
full coverage insurance Claim
motorcycle insurance quote Claim
homeowners insurance quote Claim
errors and omissions insurance Claim
general liability insurance Claim
best renters insurance Claim
cheap home insurance Claim
cheap insurance near me Claim
cheap full coverage insurance Claim
cheap life insurance Claim
Scalia: What next for the Supreme Court?
“The word ‘brilliant’ is overused,”
said Mona Charen in National
Review. But in the case of Justice
Antonin Scalia, who died a
fortnight ago, “it may be too
weak”. In his 29 years on the US
Supreme Court, Scalia used his
caustic wit and intelligence to
bring new vigour to what had
previously been the dullest of
America’s three branches of
government. His arguments didn’t
always carry the day; indeed, he
wrote more of his famously
blistering dissents than he did
of majority opinions. But by
championing the conservative
legal philosophy known as
“originalism” – which holds that
courts should be guided by the meaning of the Constitution as it
was originally written – he was hugely influential. Scalia, said
Stephen Calabresi in USA Today, was quite simply “the most
important justice in American history”.
“Good riddance,” said Paul Rosenberg on Salon.com. For all
Scalia’s charm and vaunted devotion to the “rule of law”, his
opinions were appallingly reactionary. In the infamous Citizens
United decision of 2010, he decided that when the Founders
said “free speech”, they meant money – a ruling that struck
down campaign funding limits and accelerated the corruption of
US politics. And who can forget his nakedly partisan, circular
logic in concurring with the Bush v. Gore ruling that handed
the 2000 presidential election to the Republicans? If Florida
were allowed to recount the votes of its citizens, Scalia
reasoned, it might reveal that Al Gore had won the election,
thus “casting a cloud” over the legitimacy of the rightful
president, George W. Bush.
In 2012, said Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post,
Scalia remarked that he wouldn’t retire until a Republican was
back in the White House. “I would not like to be replaced,” he
explained, “by someone who
immediately sets about undoing
everything that I’ve tried to do
for 25 years”. But that is now
a real danger. If President Obama
replaces Scalia with a left-wing
justice, the closely balanced
Supreme Court will be split 5-4
in favour of liberals, potentially
ushering in a new era of
left-wing judicial activism.
That’s why the Republicans are
quite rightly insisting that they
will block any new appointment
until after the presidential
election in November.
Get ready for what could be “the
meanest nomination battle in
modern American history”, said Jonah Goldberg in the Los
Angeles Times. It’s going to “get very ugly”. Democrats have
accused the GOP of violating a “sacred norm” by vowing to
block Obama’s Supreme Court appointee, yet they’ve done the
same in the past. But the Republicans are taking a gamble, said
Mark Joseph on Slate.com. If they win the White House, they’ll
get to choose Scalia’s successor. But what if a Democrat wins?
They could appoint a very liberal nominee, and then “no
conservative precedent would be safe”. Not the right to bear
arms enshrined in District of Colombia v. Heller, not Citizens
United, not the death penalty. Why don’t Republicans at least
consider a “compromise candidate”?
The row over Scalia’s replacement promises to add “an extra
layer of insanity” to a presidential campaign “already defined
by radicals and demagogues”, said Ross Douthat in The New
York Times. The irony is that this clash between law and
politics is exactly the kind of thing Scalia’s legal philosophy
tried to keep in check, by “promoting a more limited vision
of the Supreme Court’s role” in America. “But for his
influence, in this effort he clearly failed – and what’s about
to come will prove it.”
said Mona Charen in National
Review. But in the case of Justice
Antonin Scalia, who died a
fortnight ago, “it may be too
weak”. In his 29 years on the US
Supreme Court, Scalia used his
caustic wit and intelligence to
bring new vigour to what had
previously been the dullest of
America’s three branches of
government. His arguments didn’t
always carry the day; indeed, he
wrote more of his famously
blistering dissents than he did
of majority opinions. But by
championing the conservative
legal philosophy known as
“originalism” – which holds that
courts should be guided by the meaning of the Constitution as it
was originally written – he was hugely influential. Scalia, said
Stephen Calabresi in USA Today, was quite simply “the most
important justice in American history”.
“Good riddance,” said Paul Rosenberg on Salon.com. For all
Scalia’s charm and vaunted devotion to the “rule of law”, his
opinions were appallingly reactionary. In the infamous Citizens
United decision of 2010, he decided that when the Founders
said “free speech”, they meant money – a ruling that struck
down campaign funding limits and accelerated the corruption of
US politics. And who can forget his nakedly partisan, circular
logic in concurring with the Bush v. Gore ruling that handed
the 2000 presidential election to the Republicans? If Florida
were allowed to recount the votes of its citizens, Scalia
reasoned, it might reveal that Al Gore had won the election,
thus “casting a cloud” over the legitimacy of the rightful
president, George W. Bush.
In 2012, said Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post,
Scalia remarked that he wouldn’t retire until a Republican was
back in the White House. “I would not like to be replaced,” he
explained, “by someone who
immediately sets about undoing
everything that I’ve tried to do
for 25 years”. But that is now
a real danger. If President Obama
replaces Scalia with a left-wing
justice, the closely balanced
Supreme Court will be split 5-4
in favour of liberals, potentially
ushering in a new era of
left-wing judicial activism.
That’s why the Republicans are
quite rightly insisting that they
will block any new appointment
until after the presidential
election in November.
Get ready for what could be “the
meanest nomination battle in
modern American history”, said Jonah Goldberg in the Los
Angeles Times. It’s going to “get very ugly”. Democrats have
accused the GOP of violating a “sacred norm” by vowing to
block Obama’s Supreme Court appointee, yet they’ve done the
same in the past. But the Republicans are taking a gamble, said
Mark Joseph on Slate.com. If they win the White House, they’ll
get to choose Scalia’s successor. But what if a Democrat wins?
They could appoint a very liberal nominee, and then “no
conservative precedent would be safe”. Not the right to bear
arms enshrined in District of Colombia v. Heller, not Citizens
United, not the death penalty. Why don’t Republicans at least
consider a “compromise candidate”?
The row over Scalia’s replacement promises to add “an extra
layer of insanity” to a presidential campaign “already defined
by radicals and demagogues”, said Ross Douthat in The New
York Times. The irony is that this clash between law and
politics is exactly the kind of thing Scalia’s legal philosophy
tried to keep in check, by “promoting a more limited vision
of the Supreme Court’s role” in America. “But for his
influence, in this effort he clearly failed – and what’s about
to come will prove it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)