Talk:Stem cell/Archive 3

message: The Sources summary looks like it got nuked in recent revisions. I added it back and reworked it to just have links to the various types and a brief summary. --RMann 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added back the Sources section 

message: Where would be the best place to implant a brief section in refernce to key events and dates. For example:
: On June 30, 2006, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of the Roman Catholic Church stated in an interview that all Scientists who engage in stem cell research using human embryos should be subject to excommunication. The cardinal also mentioned that stem cell researchers should be punished in the same way as women who have Abortion and doctors who perform them. Somnabot 05:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably go in the article about the stem cell controversy...CyrilleDunant 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Oarih brings up above that "the members of the committee pointed out that embryonic S.C. research can be conducted with private funds."  'Basic research' that is not going to be profitable for the private sector to pursue is normally conducted through public funding, mostly from the NIH.  
The Co-Ordinator of the Diocesan Respect Life group, Michele Morin, asserts that
:"until marketable therapeutic uses for any medical research are less than five to seven years away, sources of substantial private funding will not be widely not available. That is why the issue of government funding for ESCR is being so intensely debated. Private funding for adult stem cell projects is much more plentiful than for embryonic projects because successes have already been proven using adult cells, and private companies are more willing to invest where the hope of future profits is more certain."
--Nectarflowed 08:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Private funding of embryonic stem cell research

message: I have reverted edits by 67.4.184.80 and 67.4.175.17 to the last version [of the article] by Nectarflowed. This was to deal with likely POV-pushing through removal of large chunks of information, such as specific research documents.
To 67.4.184.80 and 67.4.175.17: Please consider registering and provide edit summaries. This allows us to more quickly understand why you were making these edits. --BesigedB (talk) 17:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolled back edits by anons 

message: The early embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are more specifically referred to as blastocysts.  While a blastocyst is technically categorized as being an embryo, it seems inaccurate to refer to the early embryos used in ESC research as embryos instead of blastocysts. A human embryo at 8 weeks can almost be distinguished from an ape embryo at the same stage of development, whereas a blastocyst, being in between 30 and 150 cells, cannot be recognized as "human in form."  Additionally, the public, largely having little background in biology, may sometimes mistakenly picture a fetus when they read "embryo," which would be a false connection.--Nectarflowed 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point.  Generally, I agree with your sentiments.  However, there are limits to your line of reasoning.  The great debate in this area of research is not, as I think we have covered on numerous occasions, between allowing stem cell research or not allowing stem cell research.  I think everyone agrees with stem cell research.  That false dichonomy was the red herring of the last election.  The real debate is between HOW we should move forward with stem cell research, do we use embryonic stem cells ("ESC") or do we use adult stem cells ("ASC") or is there a happy medium between these two choices.  Bush choose to attempt to split the baby--so to speak--by deciding to use federal funding on ALL ASC research and to use federal funding on limited ESC research (only ESC lines after April 2001).  Others would divide the between the two choices in a different place.  Since the debate is between ESC versus ASC then we are limited by the current debate by the terms that are used.  ESC has the word "embryo" in the term ESC.  The term is NOT, as conventional norm in the scientific community, referred to as Blastocyst Stem Cells ("BSC").  We need to recognize and aknowledge the accepted terminology, which limits the use the term "blastocyst."----Keetoowah 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My second point concerns some the editing that you did on the article.  I believe that you, not necessarily intentionally, deleted many references to ASC, but did not make the same number of deletions in the reference to ESC.  This is a small issue.  I agree that we should use the term "blastocysts" where we can and but not when it distorts the issues.----Keetoowah 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my removal of text did not seem unbalanced.  The text I removed was the paragraph of Kang's quotes covering some of his views on the field of research.  I think the paragraph should be left out because it seems to fall into the category of 'advocation' between ASC and ESC research, which we felt the article should avoid.  The other paragraphs in the potential treatments section are descriptions of the science used. Best, --Nectarflowed 22:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blastocysts" or "Embryos?" 

message: The definitions given in the article are contradictory. The definition in the first sentence excludes unipotent ones, but then in the first section they are listed as one type of stem cell. I suggest changing the first sentence to something like "undifferentiated cells that retain the ability to differentiate into some or all other cell types" AxelBoldt 03:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the introductory definition, in accordance with Alexboldt's suggestion, this ensures that the introductory definition accords with the definition of a pluripotent SC. Previously, these two definitions contradicted each other.--Nicholas 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The criteria used for "awareness" is faulty.  Brain activity on its own does not necessarily indicate awareness.  Additionally, the information regarding brain death does not refer to humans that are not yet born, including blastocysts, so it doesn't apply here.  --Holdek 01:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed information regarding "do blastocysts have awareness and feelings" 

message: I made the following (bolded) changes (while not logged in) which were reverted by Peterholmes.  Is there a problem with these two additions or with their phrasing?
:A blastocyst at the stage at which embryonic stem cells would be extracted is still young enough to be able to divide into two embryos, making identical twins, or in rare cases, merge with another blastocyst, even one of the opposite sex[1], to create a chimera, an individual comprised of populations of cells with two different sets of DNA. From the biological point of view, these points mean the blastocyst is not yet an individual. Blastocysts is far in development from possessing a nervous system, and thus biologically speaking do not have feelings.
In my experience, many people think the blastocyst subjects of embryonic stem cell research have human feelings, which biologically speaking is a false connection. --Nectarflowed 00:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I may have been hasty in the revert, there are a few grammar chnages needed in the second sentence.
Blastocysts are a very early developmental stage and do not possess a nervous system, and thus biologically speaking do not have feelings.
--nixie 00:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: male/female chimeras; absence of nervous system

message: I think that shortening the article is a good idea. I would go even further. I think that the introductory definition is problematic. It gives the impression that stem cell technologies are going to have a very linear innovation trajectory. In other words, it implies that the future of research is already determined. This is obviously not the case. The article, quite rightly, implies that a great deal of scientific uncertainty still exists. However, in the introductory definition we are given no sense of this. The future of such technologies is by no means certain. Anything could potentially happen with stem cell research. As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes. 
The Columbia Encyclopaedia (6th Edition: 2001) restricts itself to defining stem cells as unspecialized human or animal cells that can produce mature specialized body cells and at the same time replicate themselves. This definition is not perfect. But - at least - it doesn’t present a deterministic view of stem cell research.
It might be argued that the definition escapes such problems by saying Medical researchers believe. However the audacity of the belief, that stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease, does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage.
Many questions still remain surrounding stem cell research. Who will derive the most benefit from such technologies? Those who need it the most? Or rich people in the Western World? In this context changing the face of human disease is slightly over the top.  - CJ
:Re: "the audacity of the belief, that "stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease", does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage."
::The wording is derived from a quote from Robert Klein, chair of the supervising committee of the California_Institute_for_Regenerative_Medicine, saying that the research being done today is a "first step in changing the face of human suffering forever."  I don't think it's controversial that stem cell research has the potential to be the central factor in eventually curing a number of diseases, and even eventually contributing to changing the relationship itself that humans have with disease in general.  
:Re:"As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes."
::IMHO, "Medical researchers believe stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease by..." is pretty broad in scope and open-ended.--Nectarflowed 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear CJ:  I think that you are confused.  You are mixing science with politics.  See the whole stem cell thing is shrouded with politics.  In the last election the progressives and the liberals were trying desparately to paint President Bush as a backward burger-eating moron and everyone who even thought about voting for him as backward burger-eating morons.  So in that light they constantly stated that Bush was "against stem cell" research--which of course was NOT true.  What Bush was against was ESC research, but in politics sutle differences do NOT win elections so the liberals went overboard and stated that he was against ALL SC research.  But they could NOT leave the propaganda there, they had to really ram home their misrepresentation and make the case that Bush was trying to stop Americans from finding cures for cancer and AIDS and all types of diseases so they make up the myth that stem cell research is going to cure ALL diseases.  This way, you see, they could make the argument that Bush was not only stopping ALL SC research, but he was stopping the cure for ALL diseases--make the propaganda even more rich and bombastic.  So the myth was created that SC research can and will someday cure everything if the damn Republicans and Bush was just get out of the way and let the Democrats do it--which of course was all just election year hot air, which we Americans love so much because it quite entertaining but is 99% of the time just a whole bunch of hot air.  Remember when John Edwards stood up and stated that if John Kerry is elected then Christopher Reeve and everyone like him will get out of wheelchairs and walk!!!  Just in case you believe that I am making the whole thing up.  I actually had that quote in the Wikipedia article at one time, but I was told that to dare to quote Democrats directly was unfair and partisan and so it was censored from the article.  And that is why this article refers so often to SC research being the POTENTIAL CURE FOR ALL HUMAN CONDITIONS!!!  So my suggestion is just simply realize that this article is an outgrowth of science and politics and you can get a better understanding on why all of the polyannaish SC-research-will-cure-all talk.  You just have to accept that premise--that SC research will cure all--to live with this Wikipedia page.  That premise is like Mark 3:16, it is very hard to be a Christian without it.  That premise is the holy grail of the article and you just have to accept that religous premise or all of your work will be edited out over and over again.  Don't question that premise because remember Kerry and Edwards too are going to run again and the Democrats want to save that lame argument for the next Presidential election.-----Keetoowah 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Santa Cruz, Calif.  At least you read my rant.-----Keetoowah 13:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory definition

message: Do you think that Wikipedia should represent the voice of medical research? Or, contrarily, do you think that Wikipedia should strive to be as neutral and as independent a voice as possible? (Why is there no reference for R. Klein?)
I think that there are grounds for adding an extra sentence toward the end of the introductory definition. This sentence could represent the opinions of medical researchers, but at the same time acknowledge the scientific uncertainty that exists.
RE: Stem cells can "theoretically divide without limit" This sentence has complicated the introductory definition since it does not ring true for pluripotent stem cells. I will remove it. --Nicholas 11:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells are commonly stated to have the ability to theoretically divide without limit.  Multipotent stem cells are taken from adult organisms and have shortened telomeres, which means less growth potential, though telomeres can be extended. --Nectarflowed T 20:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could split the opening paragraph into two separate sentences? At the moment it's just one long sentence and a little difficult to read. Split that into two sentences and keep the rest of the introduction as it is? I'd be happy with that.--Nicholas 19:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. Thanks for pointing it out, CJ.--Nectarflowed T 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining a stem cell

message: The word "unipotent" seems very strange to me in the context of stem cells. Looking at the word itself, it looks like it means a cell that can develop into only one kind of cell - like monocytes that differentiate inte macrophages (slight simplification, but still). /Habj 13:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is unipotent really the same as multipotent? 

message: "Researchers in South Korea announced in November 2004 that they had successfully used multipotent cord blood (adult) stem cell treatments to enable a paralyzed woman to walk with the aid of a walker."
A thorough search of the medical literature both for general keywords (stem cells, therapy, spinal cord) and the authors' names gives no results. Check for yourself on PubMed.org.  Since the treatment is from November 2004, it could be out by now. If it is so promising and novel, why is it not published officially?
:::::::::::::It IS in PubMed:  -- --Keetoowah 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  This paragraph should not be tagged with a warning.  I have added links to the articles that described the treatment.   It was not a study anyway.  It was a treatment for ONE woman.  I have added a link to the Korea Times article that shows a picture of the woman.  The link to the Korea Times article is on the Stem Cell page, but it was moved to the bottom in the reference section during an edit war.  A truce has been called in that edit war and now maybe the link can be added back in the article without someone removing it.  You have not signed your comments.  But no warning is required.-----Keetoowah 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keetoowah, I'm glad to see you providing a reference, but I think your threat of a warning for not signing his comment may be "biting the newcomers" (see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers). And I agree: I don't know why someone would object to the Korea Times link being in the relevant section.  --Nectarflowed 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Nectarflowed:  I don't know how you know that whoever comment anonymously is a newcomer.  The comment does not indicate that it was written by a newcomer.  How do you know it was written by a newcomer?  However, be that as it may, all I stated was: "You have not signed your comments."  I was not rude or offensive.  Please explain in detail why what i stated is so horrible.  I believe that you are way, way too sensitive or are just looking for a reason to critize me.  Either way it was an unwarranted, unwelcome and unhelpful admonishment.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: How do we know that there just has not been time to get the research written up, submitted to a journal, and they are currently waiting for publication?  Since the situation has been written about in the Korea Times, London Telegraph, Agency French Press, and United Press International, why not leave in the story and give the researchers more time to get the article out there. I think that we should err on the side of giving Wikipedia readers more information instead of less.  Why is the only options:  1. research warning or 2. delete??  I would just like to understand why those are the only options.  Leaving in the citation from four legitimate sources would seem to me to be the most prudent route.-----Keetoowah 16:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked to the two researchers involved in Korea and they indicated that they have submitted an article concerning the work to the journal:  "Cell Therapy".-----Keetoowah 15:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference:  Kang KS, Kim SW, Oh YH, Yu JW, Kim KY, Park HK, Song CH, Han H. A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study. Cytotherapy 2005;7(4):368-73.  --Herb West 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the citation, Herb West.  Also, PubMed has the Cytotherapy article in its database. --- --Keetoowah 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On another follow up note, the women and the researchers are in the news again.  Please see:  2nd Stem Cell Operation Planned for Patient  Also, I noticed that whoever made the original critical comments about the Korean situation has removed their identification tags.  I guess that the warning should be people jumping to conclusions--just because something cannot be found on PubMed.  PubMed does not have every single article in the whole world, that was fallacious argument.  Just another example of overzealous ESC supporter attempting minimize the benefits of ASC.-----Keetoowah 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the October 7, 2005 issue of The Week,  University of California researchers injected stem cells from aborted human fetuses into paralyzed mice, which resulted in the mice regaining the ability to move and walk four months later.  The researchers discovered upon dissecting the mice that the stem cells regenerated not only the neurons, but also the cells of the myelin sheath, a layer of cells with which nerve fibers communicate with the brain (damage to which is often the cause of neurological injury in humans). 
That seems very likely, seeing as I posted some info on some other research in California that suggested that human ES cells injected into the mouse brain take on the characteristics of mouse neurons even down to their size. Wolf ODonnell 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Magical" Seoul treatment cannot be found on PubMed 

message: There seem to be some strange things around the International Communications Research poll.  Firstly, the poll was commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).    It seems likely the Secretariat for Pro-Life activities had pre-conceived ideas they were interested in proving, as suggested by a statement by the Deputy Director, Richard M. Doerflinger: "It is always wrong for government to promote the destruction of innocent human life."  He seems pretty committed to a point of view.
Secondly, the press release of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the poll used "a weighted sample of 1010 American adults."  They don't provide more information on how they decided to weight it.  If someone can provide insight, please do.
Thirdly, no notable news sources covered it. Even Fox News, which tends to have a focus on conservative points of view, skipped it.  A google news search reveals Yahoo News, PRnewswire, and USnewswire posting the press release from the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The press release posted on these 3 news wires was in turn mirrored by a couple of non-notable news sites.  Press releases are often made to look like news, but are not necessarily reviewed in any detail by the posting news wire.  There was also a press release issued by The National Right to Life Committee, USA that covers the poll. Lastly, there are also a couple of non-notable political sites actually writing articles about it, such as Lifenews.com, Lifesite.com, and Catholicworldnews.com.  If this poll isn't good enough for any notable news sources, not even biased ones supporting the issue, it doesn't appear to be good enough for an encylopedia.  Compare that the other polls listed have been reviewed and covered by notable news sources.  
The Pew Research Center is a non-partisan group, and there's no reason to think there's anything wrong with their data.   --Nectarflowed T 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In all due respect, Nectarflowed, people can make poll say whatever they want them to say.  They can slant the questions.  They can skew the sample.  They push toward the answer they want with tone of their voice.  There is absolutely no evidence that you have provided that backs up the premise that Catholic Bishops poll did any of those things.  By the same token, there is no absolutely no evidence that the Pew poll did any of those things. As far as I'm concerned the poll should stay in the article because I haven't seen any evidence that it was biased.  All you provided is a list different groups that covered it.  That means absolutely nothing.  So what???  As a scientist, you should know that just because certain groups covered it in the news does not provide any type of claim that the underlining results are flawed.  You did not provide any evidence or support for the argument that the results of the poll is flawed.  Please provide a scientific basis for your questioning of the poll, not a unscientific listing of the groups that picked up on it.  The strange things that I see in this discussion is a complete and total lack of focus on the actual outlining methodology of the poll by you.  Also the other strange thing that I see is your complete and total belief in the Pew poll and your lack of critical analysis of its methods and biases.  All I can tell with absolute certainity is that you don't like the results of the poll, but you can't seem to find a flaw in the methods.-----Keetoowah 01:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the poll should be included.  My listing of the sites that did cover it was just a break-down of the results of a google news search; I was showing that no notable news source covered it.  That in itself may not necessarily mean anything, but it would be better for all of us to get our hands on the poll results themselves, as all that appears to be available online is the press release from the funding group, which is a partisan group.  So, yes, I would love to be able to verify the poll's methods.  Keetoowah, do you want to look into if it's possible to get a copy of the poll results themselves?  I'd imagine they may provide such things to interested media organizations. --Nectarflowed T 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work on that.  I don't see how the Catholic Bishops are trying to hide anything.  Also, I noticed that your intellectual curiosity does not want to verify the results of the Pew poll.  Why is that?  I can only assume it is because the Pew poll results agreed with your pre-conceived notions of what the results should look like or what you wanted them to look like.  That my friend is researcher bias and as an esteemed member of the scientific community you should not be swayed by your own obvious bias and prejudice.  Therefore, as a researcher that is truly concerned about the results of this particular poll then you should take a critical look at the methodology of the Pew poll.  Can you track down the Pew poll?  Also, can you verify the results of the Pew poll?  Because unlike you I don't agree that the, as you say, there is NO reason to question the Pew poll results.  Why not??  Have you verified, from a objective, scientific basis the results of the Pew poll?  Of course not.  You just like the results and that is your subjective, non-scientific basis for your conclusion on the Pew poll.  You did not provide one piece of objective, scientific evidence to back up your complete and total support of the Pew poll.  You just stated out and out, "They (Pew) said and I believe it!!!!"  That's not scientific. Or, as you like to say, that sounds "strange" and "unusual" to me.  I see some strange things around your conclusions.  No scientific basis for your conclusion that Pew is correct.  No verification by you that Pew did the poll in an scientific way--just your blind faith that the poll was correct.  That is the "strangeness" that I see.-----Keetoowah 01:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; ideally we would have access to all three polls.  Still, the three reasons I gave that appear to cast doubt on the Bishops' poll are that (1) they made statements about what they were trying to prove with the poll, (2) they used a weighted sample without explaining how they chose to weight it (were their participants all from catholic churches?) (3) no notable news source verified it: for all we know it doesn't exist.  These arguments cannot be made against the Pew poll.  Best, Nectarflowed T 10:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear 209.178.164.254:  To make the wholesale changes that you attempted to make is going to require more detailed analysis than what you have provided.  You have made a series of conclusory statements to back up your position but you have not provided fact and evidence.  In other words, your analysis is weak.  What stories did you find????  List them, link to them, just don't expect me to believe the information that you read because you won't even mention who you are and what you basis of your thinking is based upon.  What is your reputation??  Who are your friends with PhDs?  What is their reputation???  All your comments and information is third, fourth and fifth hand and it comes from someone who will not say who they are.  Reversed.------Keetoowah 12:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ICR poll

message: The mainstream medical opinion is that stem cell research has the potential to be the future of medicine.  Note the key word here, "potential."  This means that, from the information we have now, 'this is how it looks.'  The statement does not specify that the future of medicine is going to come tomorrow, nor does it specify that SCR is guaranteed to manifest all of the potential presently observed.  Please find notable sources that indicate mainstream medical opinion is actually negative toward the potential of stem cell research.--Nectarflowed T 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
::Why should wikipedia seek to reflect "mainstream medical opinion"? 
::This is an encyclopaedia and as such it should not reflect the specific interests of a minority group.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)
:: Besides there is no "mainstream" consensus on the matter. Experts are divided over SCR.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)
:::The definition of 'mainstream' is 'the prevailing current of thought,' i.e. the majority view. See medical consensus for more information.  If you only listen to sources from the extreme political right or left, everything you hear from other sources, even mainstream science, is going to sound like it's part of a conspiracy.  To read about mainstream consensus on the matter, review the NIH FAQ.  You might also find useful their "Stem Cell Basics" chapter: What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before these potential uses will be realized?--Nectarflowed T 8 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)
Experts are divided. Even amongst the pro-embryo research lobby there is an argument over how best to procure such embryos. Should we get them from "spare" or "discarded" embryos "left over" from IVF? Or go further and clone embryos for this specific purpose - the so-called therapeutic cloning option? But while these arguments are clear all over the world, you seem to think that everything is black and white.--Nicholas 9 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
::::Yes, some issues in stem cell research are debated, but the potential applications are established and broad.  
::::#The most promising potential application is the ability to create cells and tissues for medical therapies (called cell-based therapies, or regenerative medicine), and this has the potential to profoundly change the treatments of "a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis." (NIH)  The ability to replenish any type of tissue in the human body would profoundly change most areas of medicine.  
::::#Another potential benefit is understanding the process in which stem cells transform "from a mere cluster of identical cells into the large and varied forms that comprise the human body today."  This has the potential to create treatments for "some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects," which result from errors in this process. (NIH)--Nectarflowed T 19:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conform to mainstream medical opinion

message: I don't think it's very accurate to present the ethical debate in terms of two distinct, polar opposite camps: science Vs. conservative religous people. This would seem to imply that there is no middle ground. I think you will find people that cannot be easily lumped into either of these two categories. Over time I will seek out some references for this argument.--Nicholas 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the issues in the ethical debate seem to come down to whether the person believes blastocysts have human qualities, or are just tissue.  Biologically speaking, they are undifferentiated tissue, with no capacity for feeling (which is less feeling than a hair follicle or mosquito has), so the belief that they should be protected must come from beliefs outside of science regarding blastocysts.--Nectarflowed T 21:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary Opposites 

message: would you think the Stem Cell Surgery article i've written be ideal to merge with Stem cell? How can we merge so many articles based on stem cells anyway, won't the article just be too big? - User:AMsisscorsister
:Yeah, I think that merge looks like a good idea.  It looks like that article covers details that encyclopedias more typically summarize concisely.  The present 'Treatments' section might be a good example.  Links to news articles on the subject can be provided for details like that woman's story.--Nectarflowed T 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article would benefit from some of the sections being summarized, with a tag linking to the main page for that section, as is done at United States.--Nectarflowed T 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem cell surgery 

message: "In the U.S. (the only country for which this estimate is available) one third of the population is estimated to suffer from illnesses that might be alleviated by cell transplantation technologies that use pluripotent stem cells."
After reviewing the source (and the previous discussion on this quote) I think this line needs to be removed for the following reasons.
First, the source is not objective. It's titled as a "Viewpoint"   The author is identified as representing the Alliance for Aging Research which is a Washington based political advocacy/lobbying group . I don't think the opening paragraphs of an encyclopedia article should cite the editorial opinion of an inside the beltway lobbyist. 
Second, look at the diseases that are claimed to be curable by stemcells: cardiovascular diseases, autoimmune diseases, cancers, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. The inclusion of every disease under the sun defies reason. Surely not all "cardiovascular diseases" and "autoimmune diseases" and "cancers" are amenable to stem cell research. My conclusion is that this list is not a careful reflection of scientific/medical consensus but is a laundry list of all high profile diseases which is designed to convince readers of a particular editorial viewpoint: lots of government funding should be showered on stem cell researchers. 
Third, scientists don't know what causes many of these diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. The Wikipedia article on Alzheimer's states: "Three major competing hypotheses exist to explain the cause of the disease." The Wikipedia article on Parkinson's states: "The cause of Parkinson's disease is not known." How can anyone assert that stem cells can cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's when we don't even know what causes these diseases? 
Fourth, are there no other treatments (ie drugs, surgery, gene therapy, implantable devices) for any of these diseases with more potential than stem cell therapy? Once we better understand these illnesses it's likely that we'll end up treating them with pills, not stem cells. If there are more promising avenues of research then what is the point of lumping all diseases under the rubric of stem cell therapy? What point other than political advocacy? 
The source isn't objective. The 100 million figure isn't credible. We should cite better sources than this. --Herb West 02:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--Nicholas 10:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree----Keetoowah 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Magazine quote 

message: Who is going to read the review in this week's Lancet and fact-check this article? JFW | T@lk 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet 

message: Claiming 100 diseases have been cured by adult stem cells is an overstatement. It is a stretch to claim that diseases such as diabetes and parkinsons have been cured by stem cells. Diabetes can be cured by islet transplants -- the benefit is seen immediately by restoration of blood glucose control. This is therefore not due to stem cells -- fully differentiated beta cells are responsible. Stem cells or more likely the beta cells themselves could be responsible for long term survival of the transplant by replacing beta cells that die over time, however this has not been demonstrated.
It might be useful to define what is meant by stem cell therapy. The most stringent definition may include being able to isolate, and grow the stem cells in the lab, then differentiating them to the desired cell type, followed by transplantation. This would narrow the successes greatly, and would probably then only include Genzyme's product for replacing damaged cartilage.
How best to reflect this in the article? 4.156.36.151
First of all, please sign your posts.  Second, the article does not state that adult stem cells have "cured" anything.  What is does say is successfully treated.  And that is a true statement.  There is a tremendous difference between treatment and cures. I don't see your complaint.-----Keetoowah 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the newbie mistake, i'll sign this time. The article does indeed say succesfully treated, not cured, as you observed. I would like to revise my comments to read "treated" instead of "cured". I then think my comments are relevant. I was not complaining, but merely pointing out what I understand to be the state of the art. I believe it is crucial to be as accurate as possible with this issue as we are at a critical time in a debate which may determine the future of embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. To make my view clear I believe both avenues need to be explored fully. A problem I have seen is that those opposed to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research often say that adult stem cells have treated many diseases while ESC have not. It is true that ESC have not, but human ESC have only been around for 7 years, and without much federal funding support. When you discuss the number of treated diseases it would be helpful to point out what organism this was done in; if in humans, were there controlled clinical trials to show safety and efficacy; is this treatment done routinely, etc. I think including some of these details would give readers a more accurate picture of the science. --Alandavid 01:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  adult stem cell successes? 

message: I think the information about stem-cell research in Brazil as being "recently approved" is very inaccurate.
Since 1999, the CONEP (abbr for: National Committee for Ethical Researches) has received approximately 50 projects for the therapeutic application of adult stem-cells. The positive results of such investment places Brazil in a featured position in the field, among with countries such as Germany and France. Also, Brazil is a leader in cardio-vascular research involving stem-cells, which includes studies about the Chagas disease. On July of 2005, the Ministry of Health started its biggest research in cardiology involving stem-cells, with 1,200 patients and about 40 research centres in the entire country.
The country is also a leader in stem-cell research for diseases such as diabetes and multiple-sclerosis. There are cases of patients with diabetes of type 1 in Brazil being cured after a treatment with stem-cells. --Pinnecco 09:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: The definition of stem cell in this article was cited in a commentary in Nature Medicine (11, 1026 - 1028 (2005), ref. 1). Kudos to the editors!
:Did anybody see this Nature Medicine article?  I wonder what part they cited.--17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah well done guys, the cite was in the first paragraph:  "Much about stem cells is controversial. For example, even the question 'what is a stem cell?' arouses controversy. One definition is that they are 'primal undifferentiated cells which retain the ability to differentiate into other cell types...[which] allows them to act as a repair system for the body, replenishing other cells as long as the organism is alive'.  This definition is controversial for at least two reasons..." from Perspectives on the properties of stem cells (Nature Medicine, Volume 11, p1026 - 1028, 2005) --Brendanfox 07:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article cited in ''Nature Medicine''

message: "achieved by fusing an egg cell, the nucleus (containing the genetic material: DNA) of which is removed, with a patient's cell. The fused cell produced (containing only the DNA of the patient) is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are genetically compatible with the patient, the patient's immune system will not reject differentiated cells derived from these embryonic stem cells. More commonly, they are obtained for research purposes from uncloned blastocysts, such as those discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics."
This suggests that unfertilized egg cells are the same as blastocyst cells. I suppose after you replace the nucleus there may be little difference but I would like to see accurate.
--Gbleem 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blastocyst cells or egg cells 

message: I've just finished reading the article and formed the opinion that it doesn't handle the embryonic stem cell controversy very well, so I placed the NPOV tag into the article. One example in particular is: 
"Catholics view embryonic stem cell research - not adult stem cell research though - as intrinsically evil and never to be supported since it requires the death of an innocent human life created by God.  Others do not view a blastocyst as a human being, and may instead see opposition of stem cell research as unfounded due to the suffering that new medical technologies could prevent. Many Jews,Hindus, Muslims, Humanists, Mormons, and Unitarian Universalists, liberal members of the Church of Christ, as well as a significant number of mainstream Christians are supportive of embryonic stem cell research."
I'll probably work away at it over the next few days, so just leave any comments here.  --Brendanfox 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must agree that the last sentence could be rephrased, after all, it leaves out Shintoists, some Buddhists and Confucianists... etc. However, I don't really see a NPOV violation. Wolf ODonnell 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Which Government has reported this, when did they report it. Please cite references
: I think you might have missed the reference. If you follow the links that are given you will find that this quotation is taken from the National Institutes of Health (2004). --Nicholas 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yet As Government Reports Point Out" 

message: I removed the section on spore-like cells from the article. The cited source is from 2001 so I performed a search on Web of Knowledge and found that the authors have not published any further evidence of so-called spore-like cells in the past 4 years. Since the work has not been replicated it is impossible to know whether it is accurate. The fact that the authors have not published anything further on spore-like cells in 4 years suggests to me that something is likely wrong with the findings of their first paper. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's guidelines are but IMO it's peculiar to quote any scientific primary literature in a general encyclopedia. --Herb West 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This deletion was not discussed apart from your 7 Jan comment. You also did not include an edit summary. Please await further comments before removing what appears to be bona fide material. JFW | T@lk 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: After further investigation, 14 papers cite the article discussed, of the ones I read though they mentioned that some groups have "claimed to find" spore like cells, but research presented in the paper citing the research does not confirm the research; no subsequent papers have been published by the same authors on spore like cells.--nixie 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spore-like Cells

message: *Stem Cell Protocols and Research Information
: If someone take his time to investigate, he will see that you spammed more that 20 articles with a links to molecularstation.com . The most rediculos spamming was a link to abovementioned web site plesed on disambiguation page. The articles that got spammed include but not limited by: 
Transcription (genetics) 
Enhancer
Promoter
Mammalian embryogenesis
Stem cell line
Stem cell
Vergina Sun
Bioinformatics
Arabidopsis
Drosophila melanogaster
Caenorhabditis elegans
RNA interference
Small interfering RNA
Peptide mass fingerprinting 
DNA
RNA
Protein
Proteomics
RT-PCR
Complementary DNA
Gene Ontology
DNA microarray
Splicing (genetics)
:And most of thouse links lead to simple links directories pages. Have fun. TestPilot 07:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stem Cell Research Home

message: This article should contain a section devoted to the recent controversy surrounding Hwang Woo-Suk. Such a section would contribute towards the article's representation of the social and ethical controversies that surround SCR. At the moment the article appears to gloss over the controversies with misleading information about blastocysts/embryos being (mistakenly and irrationally) viewed as "human". Not everyone who opposes eSCR maintains this position. Indeed, the article does not even give any references for this position. Can someone provide such a reference? People are rightfully concerned about SCR for a number of reasons; not least because they worry that eSCR, in particular, could result in the destruction of human embryos for profit or just blue skies research.--Nicholas 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hwang Woo-Suk]] and the representation of controversy

message: Mike May redirect here... but shouldn't, since there's no content here; and there was no mergable content in the former stub about him.  Delete the redirect?  02:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike May? 

message: I must apologise. In my haste to get rid of some vandalism, I accidentally overlooked the largest piece of vandalism of all and must have accidentally deleted a whole section of the article. How that happened I have no idea, because I could have sworn I checked the article after reverting it. 
P.S. Is there a way of banning ISP Addresses? Wolf ODonnell 11:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Apology 

message: Can I delete many of those external links and news stories? Wikipedia should be more than just a collection of external links.--Nicholas 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & Extras 

message: I've removed this section because I don't think it's appropriate for our article.  At the time of its removal, it contained a link to a single company.  An admittedly quick perusal of the company website didn't reveal anything to distinguish it from the dozens of other companies working on various aspects of stem cell therapies, and I don't want to see this article turn into a Yellow Pages listing.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.--Nicholas 22:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Businesses section 

message: Hi RJII, regarding attempts to create pluripotent stem cell lines without destroying the embryo and ACT, are you referring to this story: ? Have you noticed that these experiments were conducted using mouse embryo's? In your edit summaries you suggested that the ACT process "works" and you accused me of "censoring" your edits. I am not censoring anyone. Please don't accuse me of that. If this process "works", as you claim it does, why do scientists continue to search for alternative methods of creating embryonic stem cells? Is this because they are ignorant of the innovative work being conducted by ACT?--Nicholas 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen that article. I was just referring to the Chung, Klimananskaya, Becker, et al. study for ACT. I realized it's mouse embryo's but it's relevant research that may possibly be applied to human embryos. It looks like I forgot to mention that it was mouse embryo's though. When you deleted my entry, your edit summary just didn't make sense to me in context: "there has been various partially succesfull attempts at trying to create stem cells without destroying the embryo." So, I couldn't understand why you were deleting the information. Now I get it. RJII 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to create eSC without destroying the embryo 

message: I've removed the following material for the time being:
:{ somatic cell nuclear transfer}
:The major problem that face cell therapy ,using embryonic stem cell ,is the immune rejection. The immune system is responsible for the defense mechanisms in our body ,against all non-self cells ,or pathogens,and upon transplantation of embryonic stem cell,the immune system will recognize this cell as non-self and it will induce an immune response against this cells. In somatic cell nuclear transfer the DNA,from patient cell will be removed and inserted into the egg , after few days 5 to 7 days, the egg developped to blastocyst , after that we remove the inner cell mass containing the embryonic stem cell that match the immune system of the patient, and no rejection will occur.21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advanced technique in stem cell

message: I nominated this article for consideration as a  Good article. This article seems to be a short introduction to an important topic. (One of the purposes of the GA list is to list helpful short articles.) Moving most of controversial discussion to subarticles seems a good idea here. I made a few minor changes. Especially, I think having "sources" at the top of the "Types" section helps the readability of the article. A few things that could be done to improve the article: 
*References for "Cord blood stem cells" and a general potency reference would be nice. 
*References in the summary sections about Treatments and Controversy (from the subarticles perhaps) to further general external discussion would help. 
*This sentence in the Treatment section is redundant given the following section: "However, there still exists a great deal of social and scientific uncertainty surrounding stem cell research, which will only be overcome by gaining the acceptance of the public and through years of intensive research." The transition between these sections needs work. 
--Vir 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has reverted some minor "clean up/readability" edits that I made to this article. The editor's revert actions don't show up in the article history list. I don't see a comment here. Based on those reverts, I am wondering if this article is stable enough to retain potentially helpful edits. And, I'm having second thoughts at having recently recommended this article for good article status. Can anyone explain the source of this reverting? Thanks, --Vir 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: Hi Vir, I welcome your input. You are correct, for the sake of clarity, the Stem cell sources section (adult, embryonic & cord-blood) should indeed come before the Stem cell potency section. However, in 'the sources' section it now discusses stem cell potency without explaining the terms 'multipotent', 'pluripotent' & 'unipotent', which is confusing and requires mending. Either we rewrite 'the sources' section, removing references to potency, which to my mind is practically difficult, or we revert the section order back to what previously existed, detailing potency before sources, which we both seem to agree is unsatisfactory, what do you reckon? By the way, I've no idea what happened to the history of your edits, I've been away from the internet for the past 6 or 7 days. --Nicholas 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might also add that, in order to improve the article to good article status, the Stem cell controversy section requires more information and references.--Nicholas 10:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to downplay the issue, or to discredit your suggestion for references, but the stem cell controversy exists mainly within the US. It's not a worldwide controversial topic. CMacMillan 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CMacMillan, I'm not sure what gave you that impression since the issue of stem cell research has divided the international community. See Stem cell controversy. Over the few years a world-wide dialogue has taken place tackling SCR and the status of the human embryo. This dialogue revolves around many axis and has occurred in countries such as South Korea, Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and France, to name but a few.--Nicholas 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Before anyone reverts the section order (to include 'Stem cell sources' before 'Stem cell potency') can they please address the issues discussed here. --Nicholas 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see any edits, I added a new diagram. Is this locked or something, I see nothing to indicate that there is some sort of special status to this article Adenosine | Talk 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section order 

message: Is anyone else having problems with this article? My edits are vanishing without a trace in the history of the article. Plus, other users edits aren't appearing on my watchlist. This has been happening for the past two weeks, at least. Is anyone else having these same problems? Anyone know what's happening? --Nicholas 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made this  change, we'll see if it sticks. Ronabop 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make this change  and, although this edit appears in the article history, unlike some of my previous efforts, it hasn't saved the changes in the article itself. Should I contact an admin or something?--Nicholas 11:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, for the umpteenth time, I've tried to rearrange the 'Stem cell types' section (for reasons discussed above) and my edits are not appearing in the history of the article, nor in the article itself.--Nicholas 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your edits in the edit history, along with other edits...One of which directly affected *your* edits (see , by reversing the explanations of categorization by potency types with categorization by sources. What you are seeing as a bug may be a combination of browser/web caching *and* content disputes. Seeing as how that user  is basically a shared school IP, I think it's safe guess that maybe somebody who is still learning (or teaching?) basic biology prefers this article use categorization by source (easier to understand for somebody new to the topic) rather than by potency (which requires learning new terms).... or is such organization contested in this article? Ronabop 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, just read the above section, I guess this has been under discussion before, as one side in the debate prefers to emphasize a "multitude of sources" of stem cells, so ESCR is placed in a context of being one, or a minority source, among many, where another side often emphasizes the uniqueness of totipotent/ESCR research. Rather than a separate-but-equal solution, or first-one-than-the-other, perhaps the sources and definitions can be folded together, so that classifications by both sides in the debate are handled at the same time? For example: "Stem cells are categorized according to both their source and type, as either adult, embryonic or cord blood stem cells, and totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent or unipotent."... Then, as each term is used, it can be explained in context? (Oh, and Unipotency/the intro could use better clarification, as the intro to the article emphasizes differentiation among cell types, not cell renewal). Ronabop 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is needed is just to add a line "Stem cells are categorized according to both their source and potency." immediately after the heading "Stem Cell Types". One should be extremely impatient in order not to read the whole section on types which is less than a page. Alexei Kouprianov 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it seems as though I can no longer make edits to this article. Some of my edits are appearing in the history, but not in the article itself, and some edits are not appearing in either context. I don't know what is causing this, but I am absolutely certain that nobody is reverting my edits. Would somebody care to ammend the article according to our discussion? Thanks --Nicholas 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just tried to rearrange the sections as per this discussion and although my edits have appeared in the history of the article, they do not appear in the most current version of the article and nobody has reverted my contributions. I'm gonna have to get this sorted. I have contributed to this article more than i have contributed to any other article on wikipedia and now (all of a sudden and without explanation) I've been stopped from contributing. I've attempted to edit this article from different computers, on different I.P. addresses and still the problems continue, so it can't be software related. --Nicholas 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, my edits do not appear in the latest version of the article when I am signed in, but they do appear when I sign out.--82.38.204.99 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This wiki aint working 

message: RE: "Adult stem cells are used today in treatments for over one hundred diseases and conditions". Can someone provide a reference for this? I doubt that adult stem cell technologies are being that widely used. --Nicholas 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you could count leukemia (some of). But that doesn't count as "many". Skin in vitro growth and transplants, also.CyrilleDunant 16:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ -- Yeah, it's not "hundreds", it's currently 72. Visual Basic 5.0 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult stem cell treatments 

message: I undid some edits that messed up the headers and removed notes. Maybe I was wrong, in that case, please feel free to revert. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kim, I have reverted the article back to my previous version because the section order was muddled after recent edits (see comments above relating to 'Section Order'). I dunno who changed the section order? But your edits have been lost in the process of my reverting. --Nicholas 09:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see anything that got lost when I took the diff between my last edit and yours, so it seems it was not an issue. We might be able to clarify some of the aspects the anom's indicated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kim, it appears as though I've made a mistake. You are correct, the section order did not change inbetween our edits. I'm having problems with this Wiki, as discussed above. Edits to the article do not always appear in my watchlist and when I do visit the article it seems as though I am not viewing the most recent version. I can't explain what is happening? --Nicholas 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it just me, or does the current version of the article contain a section order that reads 'Introduction', 'Stem cell types', 'Potency', 'Treatments' and 'Controversy'? I can't tell because of the problems that we are experiencing with this article. If so, this is problematic because the 'Stem cell types' section discusses stem cell potency without defining the meaning of terms such as 'multipotent', 'pluripotent', etc. The section order should read 'Intro', 'Potency', 'Types', 'Treatments' and 'Controversy', unless someone can adapt the language to encompass the 'potency' definitions within the 'types' section. --Nicholas 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YES. I've been saying this for weeks. This Wiki aint working! --Nicholas 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todays edits 

message: This seems to have come up once or twice before on this talk page. I think we should mention that whether self-renewing cells without multidifferentiative potential are stem cells depends on who you ask :) Peter Znamenskiy 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unipotent stem cells

message: What has happened to this article? The section tackling stem cell potency has been coompletely deleted and nobody has attempted to restore it. Perhaps recent contributors would like to fix this. Otherwise, I'll simply restore the article to the previous version by myself.--Nicholas 10:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm it appears the section disappeared after one of my edits, although I definitely didn't delete it - I was actually editing a different section... I restored it but now the timeline I put together disappeared... I am getting quite fed up with this article. Has a developer looked at it? Peter Z.Talk 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't explain it. How do you contact a developer? Who are the developers? These problems are giving me sleepless nights :(--Nicholas 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't access for IRC, see , try asking someone for help on the IRC channel mentioned there. Peter Z.Talk 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Peter, i left a message with  these guys, but thus far nobody has responded. Let's see what happens. --Nicholas 09:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, has it been fixed already? --Nicholas 10:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently so, I've tried to sort out the article to reflect the current version and it seems fine. Peter Z.Talk 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stem cell potency & this Wiki isn't working

message: Since this article is discussing research that will hopfully lead to medical break throughs and cures, I think it should have a section listing the successes of Stem Cell research. I came here hoping to find that. I would put it up myself if I knew the information.--Walzmyn 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Walzmyn, if by successes of stem cell reasearch you mean discoveries on the biology stem cells, you should look into embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell articles. If you are after applications for stem cells in treatment of human disease, stem cell treatments provides a messy but broad overview. --Peter Z.Talk 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: successes

message: IMO they do not deserve their own category under sources. I think Adult stem cell would be a more suitable place to mentioned them. --Peter Z.Talk 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary tooth stem cells

message: Recent edits would seem to reinforce the ‘scientised’ interpretation of the human embryo and embryonic stem cell research. Accordingly, the human embryo is defined as being a ‘blastocyst’ and a ‘microscopic ball of cells’. The human embryo might as well be a random ball of biological matter, according to these edits. Alternatively, it might be argued that the human embryo is a potential person, an identity-in-the-making, a baby to be. By positively embracing the scientised representation, recent edits have failed to do justice to the complexity of these debates. Therefore, I have reverted the language of the section back to a previous version by myself. Issues raised by recent edits (such as the issue of “discarded” IVF embryo’s, hSCR versus eSCR, and hype) are worthy of proper discussion on the Stem cell controversy page. Nicholas 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why there is a specific article on the controversy. Plus there is not much "scientific" debate on what a blastocyst is. So I believe it is good that this article remains a technical one, but with a small introduction plus link on the debate article.CyrilleDunant 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem cell controversy 

message: Perhaps the article would be more informative if potency and source information were compared.  For example, the article doesn't state whether cord blood stem cells are pluripotent.  The cord blood article doesn't either, as far as I can tell, and I'll wager that the same is for the other articles. blahpers 04:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potency and sources 

message: Although this article does a good job describing stem cell terminology, it seems to be missing a good explanation of what a stem cell actaully is. Something like this wouls improve the article significantly.--Peta 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major gap

message: Does anyone happen to know any embryologists?  I think Embryology really needs a lot of expert attention. would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embryology 

message: Can I add a link to our journal Regenerative Medicine to the 'Peer-reviewed Journals' section. The link is http://www.futuremedicine/loi/rme --Sboisseau 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regenerative Medicine Journal 

message: Perhaps someone can provide a proper title for the topic of "chemical ( or other?) mediation of gentic expression"? a related topic. Wblakesx 01:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical mediation=

message: I found an article today on experimental stem cell injection treatment to the brain in China today.  Thought some of you might like to read it:  http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161726633907&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815   -- Adeptitus 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't specify whether it's embryonic or adult stem cells. Typical slipshod reporting. Visual Basic 5.0 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stem-cell brain surgery article