The Chimera rears its head – to speak?

Stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. ESC. With all the blabbing, intelligent and otherwise, surrounding this scientific phenomenon, should we care? Is it really a scientific venue of great promise or just a flash point for political talking-heads? Being of the scientific inclination, I lean to the former, yet not with as much unwavering support as some. If restrictions were more relaxed here in the US, would researchers be closer to breakthroughs that could actually be used in humans? Perhaps. Would Muhammad Ali be mounting a comeback in the ring following his cure of Parkinson’s? Highly Doubtful.

The concerns that have engulfed the public’s debate on this topic are many. It is often burdened by semantics, and as such has been a rallying cry for the all consuming abortion debate. Paragraphs, articles, books, and series of texts could be devoted to the science and the ethics that surround ESC, and I won’t even try to scratch the surface here. But tangential to this topic is an equally interesting, if somewhat more unsettling issue that has remained for the most part, until recently, under the public’s radar…

Working within the already restrictive policies dictated by the Bush administration, the question remains how we get stem cell technology (embryonic or adult for that matter) translated into effective medical therapy. It is here where the topic begins to rear its head, thanks to the way research regulations are currently constructed, whether they are federally mandated by congress, the FDA, or the NIH. I’ll digress here for a bit of background before the punch line. As it stands now, in order for any type of medicine / therapy / procedure to get to the bedside or clinic, it has to go through exhaustive research; first at the laboratory bench, then in animal models, and then through a final progression in human subjects. This is not only a very timely endeavor; it is a costly one as well. For some perspective, estimates for the cost of bringing a single drug to market range from $100-$500 million dollars. Any way you cut it its going to be expensive. To bring us back, most of the stem cell debate has focused on the beginning and end of the process. Is it justifiable to sacrifice/harvest an embryo for research purposes, for the potential the technology has to drastically affect the face of human disease as we know it? Yet somewhere in the middle, in the realm of stems cells practical application, a new topic of interest arises. The question surrounds the use of stem cells in animal models (particularly for research on neuro-degenerative disease) and how this research raises some new and interesting questions about another portion of the ‘means’ we may have to use to achieve our ‘stem cell end’.

The transfer of tissues and genetic information between species is nothing new, as gene splicing/transfer and xenoplantation have all been in practice for some time (mammal enzymes inserted into bacteria, porcine heart valves into human patients are just two examples), and while met with some resistance, it never reached the fervor that now surrounds ESCs.

But what if we were to reverse the exchange? What if rather than Bob Johnson getting a new chimp heart, the chimp received the heart from Mr. Johnson? Or more accurately what about whether or not human stem cells would be sufficient for organ repair rather than complete transplant in animals (taken of course within the context of human clinical research). Do any new objections come into play once the pluripotent stem cells are on the table? If the chimp survives an experiment where it received human stem cells to repair damaged cardiac tissue, is it fundamentally different now that it has human and primate cells functioning harmoniously? Perhaps not. But what if the organs in this example were changed? What if the stem cells being exchanged were to be directed down the path of neuro-differentiation? Would an exchange of Mr. Johnson’s stem cells for the sake of neuro-repair in the chimp be TOO sufficient? What if some of those cells are able to constitute novel behaviors, structures, or even thoughts? Are ANY changes objectionable? Is this action/research inherently corrupt thanks to what a certain Dr. Leon Kass would refer to as the “Yuck Factor?” Or is there a threshold that we could try to create?

Now I agree that conceptually this seems Dr. Moreauian. Yet if we are to take this technology seriously (which I think we should) and demand of it’s efficacy like we have demanded of all our other past and current therapies (again, I think yes), then it is a concept we must ponder. With animal trials already being published that show that the injection of same species stem cells to damaged neurological tissue can lead to some degree of regeneration (http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15124028), and tests already being done where human stem cells are introduced into mice, I don’t think it preposterous to think a time will come soon where we sit on the precipice of a species debate not seen since Scopes. It needs to be decided what risks we are willing to take to possibly engender another species with the one quality of life we can call unmistakably human - self-consciousness.

That, and how good ol’ Mojo will be at taking out the garbage…

Written by Erin O'Tool, but posted by S-DOT-Business because Erin forgot his password or something.

The Onion Man

There was a man named Joe Garden and it was a fine name for him because like a garden he was florid and fecund only instead of leaves and carrots his fruit was the joyful fruit of laughter and i never knew him when he wasn't making us all laugh at ourselves and all the other things that surrounded us. His fruit was as delicious as an onion and he grew these onions as quickly as a thought and gave them to us without our ever asking. Once when there was a Presidential election Joe made buttons and we pinned them on and they said "Vote Joe" and that made me laugh too. I never voted but later, after they elected someone else, Joe made the buttons instead into part of his campaign to fill one of the late night TV slots when they needed to replace the host. And that also seemed fine because it was much the same job as being President and Joe seemed maybe even better suited for it.


(more below)

Non Prophet

it doesn't seem to me that it would be very difficult to prophecy. all you have to do is know how things work. for instance i can say that a great harm will come to a great many people and be just as sure as i am in saying winter will come, or spring. and if anyone notices that after i said it some many people did come to a great harm he may want to know how i knew it was going to happen and perhaps even did i have something to do with making it that way. and the way to dispel suspicion would be too show that i really have no power and the only reason i could be sure the findings matched the forecast was the size of the sample. much harder is to predict details like which horse will come in first in which race. so prophets like to be vague about things such as dates. but another hard thing is to make anyone believe what you're saying or even to find someone who will believe. that's why alarm is the number one item on the soothsayer's list.everything else he'll get to once you've already begun to listen.

Want Higher Soccer Scores?

Everyone, they speculate, would be dying to watch professional and college soccer in america if only the game begat more of that thrilling calibratory scoring. Higher scores! they say as though the real demand were not Higher ratings!

Well I have an answer. And it's a wonder no one thought of it sooner. When the offensive movements cease at the end of a soccer play, the present rules tend to reward the defense with ball possession. How about, rather than immediately turning the ball over, giving the offensive team four tries to get to the goal in whatever combination of pass attempts or breakaways they can manage, wile accumulating position accumulating on the field. At each stopped ball, whether boundary violation or stalemate, until the fateful fourth attempt, give the ball back to the offense. Teach them persistence. But also teach them the stakes should they lose that possession, afforded four tries. They suffer four full uninterrupted tries by the other team, a particularly impossible and humiliating assignment.

Should this suggestion not fulfill the scoring demands, there are happily many further adjustments available that might add the the accumulated scores of both teams and thus, advertising revenue:

1. Increase scoring reward. Instead of one point a goal, offer five or six.
2. Expand the goal. Take an example from Rugby. Allow players to score by simply diving over the endline.
2(a). Since an endline-wide goal would make airborne kicks exponentially easier, goals scored through the air would only count within the designated boundaries as usual. But shucks the offense deserves a chance to get between the posts without an upper limit or any one getting in the way of the ball. So get rid of the crossbar and raise the goal higher than a man can leap. Since this is only a half advantage, give the score a three.
3. Interceptions still count as turnovers. But players who achieve them must instantly leave the field.
4. As an added incentive for crossing the endline (and promoting higher scoring), offer an extra point for a kicking exhibition after the score.

O wait! That's football. Well I hear it's big in Europe. Let's give football a chance.

Dude, Listen To This...

So I'm waiting for the train yea?

You know. I've been at Luke's and I'm at the Logan Square Blue Line stop. I want to get on the train that's headed south. Because I live two stops south of Luke. And we all know that late at night the train only comes every half-hour.

And it's late at night and shit. So to pass the time, I bang out a rhythm on a metal pedestal. It's not really a pedestal, but a sort of metal easle that holds up a map of the system--a map of the train system with the blue and the brown and the red and the purple and the green and the yellow,...did I say blue? Cause it's on there too.

Anyway, I sing and at the same time bang on a garbage can in rhythm. Over the loud speaker I'm told to stop. And I'm wearing a pair of Levis Strauss jeans ("low loose bootcut") from Target and a black "Chicago Blues Festival" T-shirt and white Hanes socks and Nike "Cortez" sneakers and "Banana Republic" boxer-shorts. They're not actually "boxer's shorts", but underwear. Oh, and I'm wearing a collared shirt that buttons up. It's from The Gap. An ex-girlfriend bought it for me.

And so I'm told to stop, and I stop. Then I start banging again on the garbage can, and the rhythm is groovy in that you can groove to it. It's not a new rhythm, but it's a rhythm that grabs me by the throat and I can't stop. And then I hear the "Boo-doo" chime that normally introduces an official CTA statement. And the voice asks something like, "Do you want to be arrested for banging on a garbage can?" And I think, "Yes I want to be arrested for banging on a garbage can." But I stop with the rhythm and then the train comes and then I go home.

Testing Email Post

If this works I've discovered a way to email posts direct to the journal.
Check it out check checkitout...

and so forth

Ain't no mo to it?

From Ward Harkavy, The Village Voice:

It's terrible that those people—so far, a total of 37 [now at least 50]—died in London today. But there are other kinds of terror and other deaths happening in other parts of the world. And Western governments and corporations—more and more these days, that's one and the same—have done little to stop the slaughter in the [Democractic Republic of Congo]. In fact, the greed of Westerners has kept most of the continent destabilized. But, see, that's great for the financial markets, because the plundering by Western firms has gone on unabated and unchallenged for so long and oil firms, among others, are continuing to extract huge profits from the continent. Don't upset that apple cart. Hence, what's known in only some quarters as the African World War.