What stupidity is this

http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2432

I must say that I completely agree with Reason's thinking, who are these people to judge what we will be able to do with an extra hundred, or two, or more years to live?  I for one won't get bored with living life.  For those that do, they are free to choose to age and die, but let me make my own choice on how long I want to live.
"Leon Kass believes humanity risks striking a similar Faustian bargain if it pursues technology that extends life spans beyond what is natural. "
What exactly is a natural life span?  Is that one where we live in caves, half starved, with no medicine and die at 25?  Is that what these people are advocating?  I really don't see the difference between pursuing the goals of further life extension and what we have already done to increase our life span.  Penicillin may be considered natural as it came from a bread mold, but what about all the antibiotics derived from it that are constantly saving peoples lives?  Should we forego their use?  What about heart surgery, or organ transplants, or even blood transfusions?  What about cholesterol lowering medications?  Where do you draw the line?
"There is no research into extending the life span thousands of years," said Richard Miller, a pathologist at the University of Michigan. "That's fantasy."
Why not?  Would that not be the natural extrapolation of where we are heading now?  I think Mr. Miller is just trying to put off the debate, and it may be fantasy now, but it won't be for long.
It is not the knowledge that we will die by some certain age that spurs us to make the most of life, Hackler says, but the awareness that we can die at any moment—and that will not change even if we are immortal.
I think this hits the nail on the head, and I hate the way people misuse the term immortal.  Immortal means without death, which we won't be, we would be ageless, which is completely different.
Determining how much ennui the average person can bear will be important if life extension ever becomes a reality, Hackler says, because extended boredom could result in prolonged unhappiness or higher incidences of suicide.
Why are people so clueless on this issue?  If you get tired of living, just stop taking the meds, or if we finally eliminate the aging issue from ourselves internally, you can choose how you want to die.  What is so wrong with that?  Why do people see choosing to end ones own life as such a bad thing if one is competent to make that choice?  Is it better to have that decision made for you?
"Even if you've seen everything, you might say 'Well, I want to go see India once again,'" he told LiveScience. "It seems there's a possibly never-ending cycle there."
If that's what someone chooses to do with their life, no matter how long it is, who has the right to deny them?
"The fact that there are still some countries that I've never been to does not ruin my life," Callahan said. "I've never been to Nepal or Antarctica but it's hard to work that up to some great tragedy of my life."
No, the great tragedy is that your life has to end at all, and until people see that as the tragedy it is, we'll be stuck right where we are right now.

Here's a link to the special report.

Heal thyself: Systems biology model reveals how cells avoid becoming cancerous

A team of researchers used new biotechnology tools to discover an elaborate system of gene control that is triggered by damage to DNA. The model could aid the development of new therapeutic agents to combat a broad spectrum of diseases, including cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and premature aging.

Read on...

Factor Isolated That Regenerates Nerve Fibers; Previously Unknown Molecule Spurs Regeneration in Optic Nerve

Researchers at Children's Hospital Boston have discovered a naturally occurring growth factor that stimulates regeneration of injured nerve fibers (axons) in the central nervous system. Under normal conditions, most axons in the mature central nervous system (which consists of the brain, spinal cord and eye) cannot regrow after injury. The previously unrecognized growth factor, called oncomodulin, is described in the May 14 online edition of Nature Neuroscience.
[...]

UK extends gene screening of embryos

They say this like it is a bad thing.  I'm all for people having the choice to have their children not carry genetic risk factors.  The ethics of this do, however, start down a slippery slope that we will have to contend with.  I'm not one of those that hold the opinion that a fertilized egg is a human "entity".  It has the potential to become one, but it is not one at that stage.  There is a line that has to be drawn somewhere for when it is no longer "right" (or ethical, however you want to say it) for abortion to be an option, but 3 days is well on the other side of it than 6 months.  I think people should be able to choose to have as much knowledge as we can give them about what their children will be like, and make a decision on their own whether that is something they want.  I also think that people should be able to "design" traits into their children when that becomes an option in the not to distant future.
I think this may also be the only route for the human species to continue biological evolution, as we have such a large population that any good or bad traits get completely diluted by the huge population mixing, and the fact that we compensate for any negative defects that aren't fatal by correction/assistance with technology (i.e. glasses, hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc).  How long would someone with 20/80 vision (what I had before LASIK) have survived without assistance 5000 years ago (not that long in evolutionary time)?  Not long I would say.  Certainly not long enough to produce offspring, and even if by some chance they did, how many could they support, not being able to see to hunt or gather food?  Our current huge population and technological advancements are contributing to genetic stagnation of the species.  I think the next evolutionary steps will be guided by our own hand, either biologically or "artificially".

15:20 10 May 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Gaia Vince
The genetic screening of embryos for a wider range of diseases, including breast, ovarian and colon cancers, has been approved by the UK’s fertility authority.
Until recently, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) only permitted tests for diseases that cause severe disability or death in childhood and have a 100% certainty of being inherited, such as cystic fibrosis. A landmark ruling in November 2004 allowed embryos to be screened for an inherited gene that confers a high risk of bowel cancer in carriers during adulthood – in their 20s and 30s.
Now the HFEA has extended the licences it grants to 10 IVF clinics to allow them to screen a cell from a 3-day-old embryo for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which carry an 80% risk of developing breast cancer; and the HNPCC gene, which is associated with an 80% risk of colon cancer.
BRCA1 also confers a 40% risk of ovarian cancer. These diseases usually do not affect people until they are in their 30s or 40s.
“Eugenic concepts"
Couples who carry the “susceptibility” genes will be able to use the test results to decide whether they want the embryo to be implanted. The move has led to criticism from disability and pro-life groups who fear that embryos will increasingly be selected according to “eugenic concepts of perfection”. They point out that disabled people often enjoy full and rewarding lives.
However, the HFEA argues that embryo selection regulations in the UK are tight and would not allow selection based on social factors. It also argues that cancers are serious and debilitating diseases and parents should be allowed to select the best health for their children.
The rules for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos vary around the world as each nation navigates its own path through the ethical debate.
In some countries, such as the US and India, embryos may be selected on the basis of gender, whereas other countries, such as Germany, have banned embryo screening for any purpose.

Spontaneous Regression of Advanced Cancer in Mice

Summary of the Current Research

Introduction:

The diagnosis of cancer consumes a large percentage of many pathologists' time. The huge variety of types of tumors that occur in people requires complex analysis to plan correct treatment and to determine a patient's prognosis. Diagnostic testing enables pathologists to learn how large a primary tumor has grown, how extensively it has spread and — most importantly — exactly what type of cancer it is.

When they think of cancer, most people assume that these various tumor types, once they occur, are inexorable in their progression unless they are successfully stopped by treatment. Pathologists often think the same way, in large part because the examples we see most often are in those patients in whom cancer has progressed to a size sufficient to be detected.

Occasional inklings from earlier laboratory studies, however, and some rare patient reports, suggest that cancer sometimes spontaneously disappears without treatment. Because such cases are extremely rare, and essentially impossible to study, many scientists have dismissed the phenomenon of "spontaneous regression" of cancer as either a mistaken diagnosis or fiction. Yet, such cases have actually been carefully documented in the past, and they certainly do happen.

Do these reports suggest that cancer cells really do not grow "in a vacuum," but are affected by control mechanisms that already exist in the body? Does cancer reach a detectable size because these controls have failed? If so, could such controls be identified, and enhanced in patients to provide new therapies? In fact, how do cancer cells actually “succeed” in patients? Do they actively inhibit protective processes that ordinarily would prevent cancer? Do cancers occur continuously during our lifetimes, yet are eliminated by internal mechanisms so that they are never seen?

The answers to such questions are the stuff of speculation, but a newly discovered mouse at Wake Forest University has shown that some of these ideas may not be so far-fetched.

Continue Reading:

• Part I: The SR/CR Mouse and Resistance to Cancer
• Part II: Speculations - What Might This Unique Mouse Tell Us About Cancer?
• Part III: Cancer in Normal Mice Can Be Cured by Treatment with Cells from Cancer-Resistant Mice
• News Articles and Related Publications
• About the Research Team

New technology enables faster, more efficient cell harvest: Cell therapy meeting study

East Hills, NY - - A new, transformative filtration-based technology for the isolation and enrichment of cells, a critical first step in the development of therapies to repair or replace diseased or damaged tissues and organs, was found to be more efficient and faster than traditional technology used for cell separation. These findings were presented today at the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) annual meeting in Berlin, Germany. The Pall Corporation (NYSE: PLL) Filter Harvest System was found to have the potential to become a valuable tool to help realize the promise of regenerative medicine, a field that scientists believe could produce significant breakthroughs in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, bone injury and many other acute and chronic conditions.
Lisa Bradbury, Ph.D., Director, R&D Cell Therapy, Pall Life Sciences, presented data comparing the Pall Filter Harvest System to a traditional open-system, density gradient, centrifuge-based method for isolation of mononuclear cells (MNC) from whole blood. The Pall Filter Harvest System was found to significantly reduce processing time; it can be performed in less than 15 minutes compared to an average processing time of about 2.5 to 4 hours with the Ficoll gradient technique. The Filter Harvest System also exhibited higher yield of MNCs for significantly better recovery (60 to 95 percent) than the Ficoll method.
The Pall Filter Harvest system can be used as a closed system that adheres to Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP), furthering the ability to comply with increasingly stringent regulations for safe, reproducible and efficacious cell products. In addition to rapid processing, the Pall system can be performed at point of use (operating room). It does not require the addition of laboratory equipment or trained technicians, as the method is easy to learn and use.
"Researchers and companies working in cell therapy expressed the need to find better and easier ways to isolate and enrich cells that result in higher cell yield, faster processing time, ease of use and are also more likely to meet future regulatory requirements," stated Judy Angelbeck, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Pall New Technologies. "Pall was able to translate its material science expertise on the interactions between media and cells based on our long-standing leadership in blood filtration to develop this new approach to cell harvesting."
The Pall system can be used to harvest cells from a broad range of biological samples including peripheral blood, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. The Company is currently working with several companies in applying its filter harvest system to the development of innovative cell-based therapies in a variety of therapeutic areas, including orthopedics.
"We are pleased that Pall technology can play a key role in the revolutionary advances now occurring in medicine by providing researchers with the tools to take novel cell therapies from the laboratory into the clinic, as part of our goal to make cell therapy safe, routine and simple," Dr. Angelbeck added.
Regenerative medicine, which includes cell therapy, is a promising area of scientific research with application in the treatment and cure of a rapidly expanding list of diseases and injuries. Scientists believe cell-based therapies could be used to repair damaged heart muscle following a heart attack, replace skin for burn victims, restore movement after a spinal cord injury and regenerate pancreatic tissue to produce insulin for people with diabetes. Regenerative medicine promises to improve health and quality of life by supporting and activating the body's natural healing abilities.

Original Article