and though the rules of the road have been lodged, it's only people's games that you got to dodge

[primroseburrows]

I remember hearing bout this in 2003:

Stem Cells Reverse Diabetes in Mice

I remember thinking that this was a giant breakthrough that might very well mean the beginnings of a cure for diabetes. But the weeks and months went on and on, and I didn't hear anything else. I thought back to it a lot, basically with a lot of wtf? kinds of thoughts.

So now I read this:

Canadian Scientists Reverse Diabetes in Mice

This research project is about pain receptors and their affect on insulin production. The first one was about stem cells from bone marrow.

So okay, I have a lot of questions about these two studies. Like what happened in the three years between them? I looked around some more and found out that both of these projects (studies? What do you call them?) had various researchers in common (i.e. scientists from the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine and the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ontario).

I realise that a lot of research has to be done before an official cure can be announced. What confuses me is that (at least to me) the first study sure looked like a giant step, and maybe even an actual cure. But so far I've not seen anything else, like trials on humans or any more announcements. Granted I haven't looked obsessively or anything, but still.

The second study appears to be looking at an entirely different approach to the problem. Yay for more research, and yay for good results, but my question is, what's happened in the three years between these projects? Has there been any forward motion towards human clinical trials for the stem cells? I'm not condemning, here, I'm just continuing with the wtf? Any scientist-types are welcome to 'splain, Lucy, because I don't understand.

Also, and I am griping a little here, um. Why is it that the ONLY major news source on the most recent study is the CBC? Why isn't CNN or NPR covering it? I might have missed it, but I did what I thought was a pretty good search. And I'm sorry, but I really think it's a little more newsworthy than the misbehaviour of Miss USA.

It might be my cynical little mind at work, here, but I can't help thinking about those news stories that say, "A blahblahblah jet crashed today in blahblah. There were no Americans killed."

There's no excuse for CNN or NPR (or the BBC, for that matter?) not covering the recent research results. I've seen diabetes do terrible things to people, and any good thing happening should be shouted from the highest hills. I know it's a sacrifice, America, but couldn't we wait a day or so to learn that Dubya is Happy for Pregnant Mary Cheney? *headdesk*

I couldn't find any major news source anywhere with a headline on the first study. It's probably dropped off Google in the past three years. I probably heard it on NPR originally, because that's my main US news source and I don't watch broadcast TV.


In other news,

Dear Lady Macbeth Rummy,

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out. Please use provided basin to wash the blood from your hands before you leave.

Oh, and this one's for you:

Elton John - Goodbye

No Love at All,

Me (and millions of others, say true)

P.S. Please ignore strikeout. Any comparison between you and the aforementioned lady is incongruent, because well, she developed a conscience before she checked out.

Comments

Not an expert but my take from what I know of cancer-based research processes...

[gamps-garret.livejournal.com]

The reason they haven't done anything with humans in the intervening time since the first study is the sheer number of variables they don't know enough about. From that first article, these quotes put up red flags for me:

“It suggests that there is something in the bone marrow that can stimulate the pancreatic stem cells to regenerate.”

“Bone marrow cells only go to the pancreas if it’s injured,” says Bhatia. “Something at the injury site causes the stem cells to home in to the damaged pancreas. We have no idea what that could be.”

Other studies have shown recently that bone marrow stem cells can become different kinds of cells in the body, including heart, liver, pancreas, and nerve. But these findings have been controversial. Some experiments suggest that the stem cells can themselves be turned into different types of cells, while others suggest that the change occurs because the cells fuse to form hybrid cells.

What you have are two research physicians both doing projects with the same material, coming up with separate results, and disagreeing about the course of action. Within their findings, you have two major questionable actions taking place -- "something" in bone marrow stimulates regeneration within the pancreas, but no one knows what that something is, and "something" in a damaged pancreas attracts the unknown agent within the bone marrow. It's one thing to repeat that study over and over and over again in research mice, when the animals are all healthy specimens who are treated to develop diabetes. It's another thing entirely to try it in the very complex human system with a host of other side problems that go along with human diabetes -- until there are more answers, or at least clear agreement on a possible hypothesis between the physician teams, anyway.

With the second study, it's much more likely that the treatment will be translated to a human clinical trial, because there are no variable questions within the in-mice-procedure itself. The physicians are looking at an immunology approach to treating the illness: they found a specific sensory neuron that interacts and reacts with the pancreatic islets, two concrete physical sites that they can (and have) manipulated in a variety of ways in mice, and have found that a specific kind of intervention with these two parts of the body brings about a desired result. Thus, fewer variables = less potential risk.

The researchers are now working to extend the studies to humans.

That is ALWAYS the line you want to look for in lay-reported research articles. If researchers aren't actively seeking a human-extended study themselves, there's a good reason.

Does that make sense?

Re: Not an expert but my take from what I know of cancer-based research processes...

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

It does make sense, thanks!

I figured that the subject wasn't being ignored, since some of the same researchers worked on both studies. *crosses fingers* I'm not diabetic, but I've seen people go blind and lose legs and die because of it, and I really think it's a major, major issue in world health. I'm also not criticising the studies at all, I just was curious about the wait.


Now if someone can tell me why CNN isn't running the story, I'll understand everything. *g* I mean, I know it's oh-so important that we know about Dubya's opinion on Mary Cheney's baby (I'm betting that Ms. Cheney doesn't care much what he thinks, actually, since he's talking out of both sides of his mouth) and a puppy chewing off a baby's toes, but still, you might think that they'd be able to fit it in on page five or something. :/

Re: Not an expert but my take from what I know of cancer-based research processes...

[gamps-garret.livejournal.com]

Awesome -- you're welcome. :-)

CNN tends not to run research-based medical news until it's at a lay-level that is extremely easy for the average reader/viewer to understand; this particular study is still a bit technical, I think. Once there is a clinical study in place for humans, I bet you'll see more wide-spread coverage.

Re: Not an expert but my take from what I know of cancer-based research processes...

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

The study is probably so technical in its original form that I couldn't understand it at all. But, This looks like a layperson's translation, so I wonder why CNN couldn't do something like it? Or maybe just provide a link to this. After all, the story about the baby-toes chewing puppy is an external link. ;)