With these recommendations I’m aiming for a diverse range of content and perspectives, some of which I may not agree with, but all of which are interesting even if they are beyond research on medicine.
Prostate Organoid from Stem Cells. More organoid news.
Why Do Glowing Sharks Glow? Not exactly medicine, but a cool piece from Ed Yong.
Damn. Inquiry into duplications reveals “multiple” image problems in tumor study in Cell Stem Cell.
Comment on Proposed Framework for NIH-Wide Strategic Plan from NIGMS’ Dr. Jon Lorsch
BioPolitical Times (CG&S). The Facts Behind #CRISPRfacts and the Hype Behind CRISPR
Stanford now offering an on-line stem cell course. Check it out.
Regulation of unproven stem cell therapies – medicinal product or medical procedure? from MacGregor, Petersen, and Munsie.
NYT journalist: I am not a neutral observer–can I still be a fair reporter? The Loneliest Elephant, by Tracy Tullis on Happy the Elephant (image above).
Applicant fantasizes about visiting the study section meeting during discussion of his grant application. DrugMonkey Blog Humor.
Judge dismisses cardiac stem cell researchers’ lawsuit against Harvard Anvsera suit.
4 thoughts on “TGIF: Recommended Science & Medicine Weekend Reads”
I agree that there’s so much we don’t know about what’s really going on with the IPSC trials. Nothing should be assumed. But I have to try to be a voice for patients. Our lives are on the line. We are suffering every day. We can’t afford to stop pushing for the full truth. We need to have the hard questions asked here, the inconvenient ones that may make people uncomfortable. I know that the claim has been made that the trial was only halted because of “regulatory changes”, and I can’t even say how much I hope that this is completely accurate. But the truth is that we really do not know what’s happening. We need full transparency and ultimately, we will need independent investigations and replication. I hope everyone reading this can understand that I’m not trying to be negative– but from a patient’s point of view, this is how I have to see it.
Here’s another one.
This is even worse than what I repeatedly (in many, many posts and threads and blogs, both here and elsewhere) predicted would happen with the IPSC trials.
This is exactly the treatment I would need, but I can’t even say I’m disappointed, because I knew all along that this was going to run into problems. Too bad this doesn’t translate to picking winning Powerball numbers… Paul, I really hope that you do a very long post about this.
I kind of missed this yesterday, but the title of your article is way over the top.
To say “cancer scare” doesn’t seem supported by the facts. That’s disappointing and will confuse people.
I’m concerned about the mutations, but want to learn more before jumping to conclusions about what this means if anything functionally (which I think the New Scientist article did).
Further, we still don’t know if this genomic change was specific to IPSC-related processes or could be instead similar to the types of mutations that can crop up in hESC as well as they are grown in culture. That will be very important to determine. In short, more facts are needed to know what this means and I have also asked Dr. Takahashi to help us understand the regulatory changes that have been mentioned a few times.
Comments are closed.