stems cells vs pharmacists

[Ice-cream]

hey guys, just wondering whether u could give me a few ideas to help me with my assignment.

i'm really interested in stem cells and coz i'm doing studying pharmacy, i've been looking up info. to do with stem cells and how their development is going to affect pharmacists. i find that there doesn't seem to be anything beneficial to pharmacists in tissue engineering and other aspects of stem cells.

what do u guys think?

[Primarygun]

I don't know whether this is a good idea. I don't know the answer of it.

Try to investigate why xylem is put inwards while phloem is put outwards.

I think this is indeed relevant to the mechanical support.

[Bluenoise]

Well pharmaciticals promiss treatments.

Stem cells promiss cures. So I assume if you're curing ppl there is a decrease in the need for pharmacuticals. Or at least that will be the instantanous effect. In the long run I could imagine a need direction in pharmacuticals to help with controlling integration of stem cells or bolstering their effetiveness.

But definatley the most obvious outcome if stem cells prove very effective would probably be less need for drugs.

Good topic btw

[Chatha]

This is one area of science I though was obvious even before the loud noise about it. To me stem cells, in the long term, appear to be the possible replacement of pharmacy and medicine all together. Is it not really an area of medicine? perharps the reason for the long awaited discovery was those large phamarcists.

[hyebeh]

I don't know whether this is a good idea. I don't know the answer of it.

Try to investigate why xylem is put inwards while phloem is put outwards.

I think this is indeed relevant to the mechanical support.

 

i think this is a gross misinterpretation of the question... i think he meant stem cells as in pluripotent, undifferentiated cells that can potentially give rise to a multitude of different types of cells.

[hyebeh]

stem cells can never truly replace drugs because stem cells can only replace tissues destroyed by diseases while the drugs can attack the diseases themselves. If you want genetic engineering, you can genetically engineer viruses to attack different disease (cancer, bacteria, etc.) which i've always found fascinating. You can also do gene therapy to cure genetic diseases or perhaps to foil viruses by removing certain cell markers. Genetic engineering, in my opinion, is vastly more powerful than stem cell research mainly because you are stopping diseases at their source instead of repairing damage. (An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure).

[Mokele]

Genetic engineering, in my opinion, is vastly more powerful than stem cell research mainly because you are stopping diseases at their source instead of repairing damage. (An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure).

 

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, though; I recall hearing something about the use of stem cells to ferry altered DNA to the right cells in the body, possibly providing cheap and easier gene therapy. But I don't know where I heard this, so I might be mistaken.

 

Mokele

[hyebeh]

i don't think stem cells are capable of inserting DNA into cells. only viruses do that. Although stem cells with altered DNA can be inserted into target areas where they will differentiate and become healthy tissues.

[Bluenoise]

Right which could replace drugs in some cases. Introduce disease resistant stem cells along side vulnerable ones so they may take over. Might not even need to fight the diseases in this case.

 

But I definatley don't think that they'll replace drugs. They will merley find their place as a usefull tool along side other therapies. Maybe in some areas they will prodominate as the treatment of choice, but in other they will probably prove less usefull/practicle.

[hyebeh]

i think gene therapy is still the best: stopping the problem at the source instead of trying to patch holes.

[Bluenoise]

I disagree.

 

Genetic engineering is more of a preventative measure; while stem cells are used to repair damage already done. Of course prevention is nice, but not always possible.

The methods really solve two different problems for the most part.

 

Not everything is genetically based. Also even if it is and you fix the defective gene, there is no garuntee that the tissue will regrow. Very few do.

[scientistsahai]

Well I have a question too!! If the entire process can b done and done efficeintly by an embronic stem cell then y is the need for an adult stem cell research(don't consider the ethical part)

 

If the stem cell research can cure and regrow the defective tissues then why is it still not used extensively in the cure of Diabetes??

[Bluenoise]

Well I have a question too!! If the entire process can b done and done efficeintly by an embronic stem cell then y is the need for an adult stem cell research(don't consider the ethical part)

 

For the same reason as any research of course. To advance the body of scientific research. Adult stem cells act differently and therefore provide oportunities for research.

 

If the stem cell research can cure and regrow the defective tissues then why is it still not used extensively in the cure of Diabetes??

 

Because stem cell research is still in it's infancy and it will be a few years till clinical trials even begin. It is only an emerging medical technology, these things take time to develop properly and safely.

[Yggdrasil]

I think the development of stem cells will help pharmacists. With stem cells, researchers will have access to genetically identical cultures of various cell types upon which they can conduct more highly controlled pharmacological experiments. Plus, research into stem cells will undoubtedly bring great advances into our understanding of developmental processes which help identify new pharmaceuticals to treat abnormal developmental processes (i.e. cancer).

 

I do not think that stem cells will replace drugs. As stem cell technologies develop, they will be very expensive. Therefore, drugs will likely be the method of choice for treating routine symptoms. Stem cell therapy will likely be reserved for only those cases where drugs cannot effectively address the problem.

[Yggdrasil]

Sorry for the double post:

 

Well I have a question too!! If the entire process can b done and done efficeintly by an embronic stem cell then y is the need for an adult stem cell research(don't consider the ethical part)

 

One disadvantage of embryonic stem cells is that they are not genetically identical to the patient. Therefore, upon transplantation, the patient's immune system may reject the stem cells.

 

Adult stem cells would eliminate this problem as they would be extracted from the patient's own body, cultured into the appropriate cell type, and reimplanted. Under this procedure, there is little to no risk of rejection, because the stem cells are genetically identical to the patient's cells, so the immune system will not recognize them as foreign.

 

Of course, therapeutic cloning (human cloning for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells) would solve the problem of tissue rejection using embryonic stem cells. However, even if therapeutic cloning becomes scientifically and politically possible, treatment with adult stem cells (if feasible) seems like an easier approach.

[scientistsahai]

..... therapeutic cloning (human cloning for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells) .....

 

How is therapeutic cloning done ?? If a person is 80yrs old can still it b done ??

[Yggdrasil]

Therapeutic cloning is done in the same way as any other cloning process. The difference is the intended use of the cloned embryo. In therapeutic cloning, the embryo will be grown to the blastocyst stage and the stem cells will be extracted. In reproductive cloning, the embryo will be grown to the blastocyst stage then implanted in a surrogate mother so that the embryo can develop into a fetus and later a cloned baby.

 

As for the actual process, the most common method is nuclear transfer. The nucleus of a donor cell (usually a fibroblast [skin cell]) is removed and implanted into an enucleated egg cell (an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed). The embryos are then cultured and grown to the blastocyst stage, where the inner cell mass, which contains stem cells, can be removed.

 

Currently, this process is very inefficient. It has been done by a South Korean group, but "the team began with 185 eggs, produced 31 embryos and collected stem cells from 11 of those." Theoretically, the process could work for an eighty-year-old person, but the technology and expertise to make therapeutic cloning widely available is still years away.

[Bluenoise]

Just curious Yggdrasil, but what inspired you to use a little know monosaccharide like D-Gulose for your avatar?

[Nicholas]

You would think the development of drugs should come

from human biochemistry itself. Find the substance in the

body find out what it does and see if it can be used!!!

 

I know nutrition is what goes into the body. But what about

all the proteins and others the body makes? Can't we utilize

that?

 

Correct me if I am wrong. Are the pharmaceutical companies

exploring in this fashion?

[Bluenoise]

No they're not for the most part since you can't patent natural chemicals that are present in the human body. So since the discovery of these is useable by everyone, those that have invested money into the research are at an initial loss. Also to get many government grants for research you need to be able to supply 50% corporate/outside funding and since it doesn't specifically benefit anyone that is hard to achieve. I'm not saying such research isn't done and there is definatley fine research done in these areas but it is definatley underfunded.

 

On the other hand things like this are done on some level. Like insulin production for instance, natural protein produced in bacterial hosts for use in humans. There's also production of Human growth hormone, and many others.

 

Also producing a particular protien can have it's own difficulties, it may be hard to direct it to the required area of the body, proteins have limited lifespans etc.

The production/design of synthetics is often far easier... ...though admittedly often come with higher degrees of sideeffects...