An injection of brain stem cells and peptides could cause regeneration of parts of the nervous system, possibly "resurrecting" dead people

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/03/dead-could-be-brought-back-to-life-in-groundbreaking-project/

I'm actually researching a similar field, though resurrecting dead people is probably far from actuality. Even with far simpler tissues such as skeletal muscle they struggle to produce the "real thing". Not to say that it isn't promising, though the media shouldn't extrapolate so far.

I am still in the first year of college in biochemistry so there is still much that I must first understand in order to get anywhere.. But reading things like these gives me hope that someday I can help to make such groundbreaking discoveries. Although I think we should first think about living people rather than dead people (avoiding the problem) it is still very interesting to see someone to try and take this "ressurection" approach.
Thanks for sharing this piece of information!

The premise for it is there. I'm honestly jaded as to whether it will work or not. Reason being is, for instance, within the brain regeneration, the use of stem cells E.G even natural stem cells around the periventricular area are able to reproduce a neuronal phenotype but a major problem is projection of axons into the right area. I think they may be jumping a bit far into it, though I mean you never know, sometimes things just work.

This seems like a waste of budget to me ~~
But people waste money on a lot of things.
Anyway, is it even possible to effectively form the necessary new synapses from the newly generated neurons? (hypothetically speaking)

That's another thing to think about. If indeed those stem cells can form new neurons, will they be able to create those synapses? And even scarier, if the person does come back to life, will he/she have the same memories and personality as before? It's their brain we are talking about. We might as well be "creating" a new person inside a pre-existing body...

>>5 >>6, To both your questions. Hypothetically, the answer is a solid yes, synapses should connect fine, as for maturity of cells in all aspects of regenerative medicine, that remains a challenge. The question really is, patterning and morphogenesis of new brain tissue. I.E localization, extensions of axons and aside from connections, are the connections to the right thing? Are they at the right place? etc. I believe brain function may be able to be restored to an extent in people with alzheimers for instance, as for "dead" brought back to life I highly doubt that, at least for now.

We know so little about the brain... And I agree with you. Also because we aren't really considering the conscience of the person. There is no proof of what our conscience is "made of" yet, is it? It might be a lot more than just a brain function. So I go back to what I already said: Even if the axons grew the way they should, even if the synapses are made in the right place and between the right ones.. We don't know if the "ressurected" people would be exactly the same... We go a lot beyond medical science here.

Indeed, what is life? Is it actually merely brain chemicals? We haven't fully resolved that so we have no clue, as you say, we really don't know much at all haha. We know some interesting things like why we stay awake, e.g suprachiasmic nucleus, melatonin signalling etc. Some of the neurons in that signal by histamine, thats why when you take anti-histamines you feel tired. But that's just awakeness, surely conscience is way more than simply being awake.

It's all a little freaky if you ask me...

But, hell. I'm probably just looking at the bad side of all of this. Especially after what happened a few days ago.

What happened a few days ago Navihawk?
It has a "good" side if it actually works... And I say "good" and not plain good, because if it actually works than it might mean that being alive is simply chemistry working in our brain cells. Which would be disappointing and bad for everyone that believes there's still something beyond our existence.
This is all so complicated and so incredible at the same time... :)

If they can reverse brain dead, they can reverse Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. More treatment for lethal disease. More survival rate. More humans. More destroying the planet.
I'm having mixed feelings about that.

>>11 Partially relevant to the topic; My grandmother died on Sunday, and we just had the funeral today. Chemotherapy caused further damage to her heart and resulted in congestive heart failure. The last time I saw her was only a day or two before she died.

I am really sorry for your loss. Shouldn't have asked, sorry.
I think we should try to enhance science in order to help the living and prevent these deaths, not bring people back afterwards, when it is already too late, probably... That should be our true focus.
As for Neko, I think I am kinda in your boat, for different reasons. But this "revival" thing might open way to new treatments to diseases like those two. So it might have an actual good side.

>>13 Sorry for your loss Navihawk

This is a very interesting topic, I agree with >>14 EarthK however. I hope this reserch leads to helping prevent these deaths in the first place instead of trying to bring those who have died back to life. Reviving the dead is too close to playing god.

My thoughts are with you and your family Navihawk.

Its a very interesting study, more research with stem cells can lead to so many applications and progress in medicine it is insane. But I do have to ask, what are peoples opinions on stem cells?

Answering your question CodeG56, I think stem cells should be studied further in order to completely understand their capabilities in these new therapies, as well as in other fields such as producing hormones, drugs, you name it.
The use of these cells doesn't seem wrong to me, and they have a lot of potencial to solve a lot of Humanity's problems.

but they wouldn't have the same memories or personality- they would be nothing but an empty shell

>>17
Still under debate.
Memories are believed to be stored in the cortex, so if those areas are intact, there's a chance they still retain their memories.
As for personality, that depends on a lot of areas (e.g. amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex, etc.) but I'm pretty sure the family wouldn't bother thinking about personalities when they can have their loved ones back.

>>13 I'm sorry to hear that. Sorry for your loss.

>>18 I don't think anyone really has evidence of that.

>>17, >>16 I think around, 70% of people are for the use of stem cells, including embryonic ones for treatment of disease, this controversy towards stem cells is actually from the minority. I think we have to respect both sides of the argument with this. Potential therapeutic use is great, but how about potential life? Where does one draw the line. I believe currently the line is drawn at around 14 days of development, just before formation of the primitive streak if I recall correctly. Though the development of the primitive streak really isn't much different from a JUST fertilized egg in term of potential is it? It's just a bit more developed.

There are many cells that are classified as "stem cells". If you are talking about totipotent/pluripotent cells those are likely to either be embryonic or induced stem cells. There are multipotent stem cells like hematopoietic stem cells (HSC). I think it really depends on the type of stem cell you are talking about. Though I'd assume the general public would refer to the ethically controversial stem cells I.E Embryonic stem cells (ESC).

I'm personally for adult stem cells including induced plurpipotent stem cells (iPSC), not so much embryonic. Though I prefer the idea of reprogramming, stem cells to an extent need to be researched in order to elucidate the mechanisms within the control of human development, since these mechanisms are utilized in reprogramming.

As for designing new drugs, drug screening on stem cells is seen as a big thing rather than just creating new organs. Basically personlized medicine where drug combinations can be optimized for each person, obviously this is expensive at the moment, somewhat like getting your genome sequenced.

>>19 Though if they have a different personality, are they really the same "loved one"?

>>20
I wonder. But most people wouldn't think twice about that. Not before they see the different persinality, that is.
I don't believe the "I'll love you no matter what" sentiment, but people constantly deceive themselves, so who knows.

I understand the controversial nature of the use of embryonic stem cells, but the ones I was referring to are the pluripotent cells that can be found even in adult individuals (I forget their name). I believe there is already a technique to retrace the cell's differentiation and give them back their stem cell state. Although, if it still isn't possible, than I think it would be a great investment, since we could create stem cells from any kind of cell and use them to all the benefits they have, without the controversy.

As to the "loved ones" question. I believe many people wouldn't mind getting their loved ones back even if slightly different, but I believe they could shortly regret it in a way, or find it confusing. And we also don't know how the resurrected person would react to that either... It is a new thing after all, that nobody really knows.

Also, and this is a little off topic, but Doesitcountasaname? what was/is the course you took/are taking in college? You strike me as someone that really knows a lot about this, and it kinda picked my interest in knowing exactly what you've studied. :)

>>21 This is true, they would probably take a little chance over no chance anyway.

>>22, Indeed, induced pluripotent stem cells, commonly called iPS cells. The basic way is in the 2007 Yamanaka paper using four transcription factors, known simply as Yamanaka factors since he discovered them: oct3/4, sox2, klf4 and c-Myc. Basically they are trying to express the same transcription factors in adult cells as are present in embryonic stem cells. Even though iPS cells seem to just disregard any ethics, though you can actually do some crazy "unethical" stuff with them too. Though, people are definitely using iPS cells, a LOT of labs currently use them. I think there is a more widespread use of them than people think.

The loved ones is really controversial since ANYTHING could happen, they could be a different person, they could be the same, they could just be slightly different, they may be the same with no memories, or have the same memories and different personality etc it's all very convoluted.

Yes, I have studied stem cells and regenerative medicine in the contxt of biomedical science and also did some research in cardiac reprogramming. In order to clarify, cardiac reprogramming is basically reverting the scar caused by heart attacks that eventually accumulates and causes heart failure. It's a switch in cell fate. I.E I think I stated before, skin to neurones, though in my case I converted scar tissue into heart muscle-like cells.

Essentially it's a very closely related field to stem cells. It was in a tissue engineering lab, so stem cells are just one route of engineering tissue (reprogramming is another). Though there are people who work beside us who soley work on stem cells alone, embryonic, induced etc.

>>23, That's amazing! As I said, I am still in the first year of college studying biological engineering, and tissue engineering always seemed as something I would like. Although I'm not really sure about what route I'll follow, I'll definitely want to study more about your field of work!

Back on topic... I had no idea that those induced stem cells were already being used that much. I knew they existed and that they were being tested and developed. I didn't knew that they were already being put to use. That is amazing.

But about the ethical boundaries they can cross... Well, I suppose some ethics simply have to be crossed in order for the "greater good". (I almost look like a crazy scientist now) I mean, terribly unethical stuff are clearly off-limits for everyone with common sense, but some "unethical" things might be worth doing in order, for instance, to save some lives. I don't even know what kind of "unethical" stuff I consider should be done but. Messing with stem cells for instance... I don't think it is as bad as letting people die, when they can be saved.

>>24
Ethical concerns decide your funding so you might want to start practicing sweet-talking from now.

And you should remember that most human lives are saved at the cost of other lives. The chemicals you use in labs come from plundering tropical rainforests. Countless animals are slaughtered in the name of research. Don't get too concerned about saving lives. There's no shortage of humans.

>>25 Don't get me wrong, I am also against the sacrificing everything in favor of the human race! I see myself as someone that wants to protect the world in general (hence my dollar name). Although I can't see my own species as only the number of individuals... I hopelessly believe in the good of humanity, even if it doesn't give me many reasons to sometimes.

As for the funding, I know it takes a big role in research matters, and that's another thing that annoys me. How can money be a priority over the well being of the planet? I know I sound childish... Well, this is going waaaay off topic xD

>>24 Yeah, labs use iPS cells a lot. I think MSCs are the ones currently undergoing clincal trials right now if I'm not mistaken.

>>25 >>26, as for ethics, this is true, you have to give valid reason for the use of stem cells, it's not exactly a short process either. What I mean by that is like, half a year kind of time frame. The thing is, I don't think anyone can decide how much a life is worth.

It's like saying, do you save 5 members of your family or 10 strangers, I don't think anyone could blame you for saving your family though? Do you save 5 of your family members or 10 ex murderers? Most people would say the murderers don't deserve to live and save their family, though then you are saving the less for the more.

As for ethics within science, it's usually about weighing the positives and negatives as in anything I guess. Sweet talking is all good and that though even if you do get ethics approval, whether it is really right or not is something else.

>>26 The reason why money is priority is because it is how the world works. Without money, people can't live. Furthermore, it's an investment. If they KNEW they would make money, people would invest in research, that's why people usually invest in research that is well backed by literature. If you were to go off tangent into the unknown, noone really wants to support you (Usually) because they don't know if their investment will make a return.

>>27 I agree completely on the ethics part, although we can only speak of these things objectively if we are not really that much involved. If it happens around us we will have a different opinion then what we would think if it was with a murderer, as you also said and well.

As for the financial part, I get that idea and I know that it is how the world actually works nowadays. But I think there might be brilliant ideas for new treatments, gadgets, power sources, that the wealthy people just don't invest in because it would ruin some other important guy's business.

I get that money has to be a factor. I just think that sometimes it isn't only money that's at stake, but also the "wanting profit" and not the wanting to actually advance our knowledge or improving our way of life, or anything else.

Money is needed to survive, but the way I see it, a lot of wealthy people only think about profit and anything else! I might actually pop a video, on a new thread, of a wealthy guy who actually invested almost everything he gained in science... It is already working in some good ideas. Not that they are absolutely major, but some of them are pretty important.

This discussion about ethics remind me of prefrontal leucotomy.

>>28 Speaking about ethics either subjectively or objectively depends on your personal view of the origin of ethics, but that's another topic haha.

Yeah, definitely, if rich people really did want to help advance science I'm sure their contribution would help alot. Though for many, the wanting profit is basically the driving factor right now. I don't think many invest just for the "advancing knowledge" bit. If any at all. You could throw us a link, that would be interesting.

>>29 Haha in what way?

>>30
Well, it was ethical. Until it wasn't ethical.

>>31 Indeed, though the question then is really: What determines ethics?

>>32
People, of course.
The major players are politics, laws, and religions. But occasionally there are other factors. Culture, for example.

>>33 Though, then if a society deems something unethical in our culture etc. E.G murder or rape for instance as ethical. How does one judge them? We judge them by our ethics for being wrong, but they could easily judge ours LACK of rape as wrong too.

There is nothing telling us what is "TRULY right".

>>34
Believing that there has to be one absolute truth is human fallacy, don't you think?
If you think about it, humans as a species are defective in so many ways. Some turned to religion, some turned to science, but none without exception believe that there has to be the "right" thing.

Right or wrong is invented to justify our actions (or to lessen the emotional burden, at least). There will be nothing telling us what's "truly right" simply because it's a concept of our own invention.

>>30 Here's the link to the trailer of a short film on youtube that is the opposite of rich people only wanting profit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_fYZRbyJs

>>35 As for the "truly right" thing you were discussing. The Universe is a gigantic sandbox with no ethical rules. So yeah, we humans made those ethical rules and continue to adapt them to what we think is right. Although there might actually be an ultimate true right, we still haven't achieved it. Will we ever? Hard to tell, but we might.

>>36 Thanks for the link! :)
Seems pretty cool, more people should do that, I wish I had the money to do it myself haha.

>>35 >>36
The thing is, by right and wrong being invented, we have no right to judge people for their actions. No one should be allowed to complain about human atrocities committed in the past etc.

With cultural relativism, it is impossible to judge anything as right or wrong. If so, judging people for their actions is a merely something we do for what we think is right. By actually judging their actions it then contradicts the view of cultural relativism.

My problem with this is: How then do we judge terrorists/murderers who take what their doing as good and right? Using that as an example, if cultural relativism is true, their suicide bombings is equally as "right" and "just" as lets say, a country giving aid to those in natural disasters. If this view holds true, we shouldn't complain about them murdering hundreds of people because that is perfectly right and good to them. If we oppress them for it we are basically saying their right is wrong, we are then turning from cultural relavitism to a more objective view where we have defined what is right or wrong. In the same way, they should have the right to also define our culture as wrong and thus we shouldn't complain and make a bigg fuss either when they bomb us, since both are equally "right".

Obviously, society would crumble under such a way of thinking and thus it isn't a practical way of thinking at least in my opinion. I believe that humans do have some sort of ingrained ethics.

I think the view of cultural relativism is a very modern way of thinking. I personally don't believe in it, as I think it also closely resembles the current view of tolerance which is absolute hypocrisy. (Let's be honest, people complain about people not tolerating them, though they themselves don't tolerate any other views anyway haha)

Though this has gotten quite off topic. Back on topic...a recent study (I think published a few days ago) did an experiment on stroke patients and mesenchymal stem cells (So not embryonic or induced pluripotent ones, these are the ones that have undergone the most clinical trials to date if I am correct). There was restored function to to the extent of paralysed patients being able to move again, quite interesting. Nothing too ground breaking but I think it answers a few questions about the brain and restoring function utilizing stem cells.

>>37
The topic's whatever on the table. My brain cells are gonna die without some stimulating debates.

This reminds me of when I was little. My mother would imply that she had good intentions and that I should pardon whatever shit she did. My thoughts at that time: "Dear mother, ask a terrorist the same thing, and he would say he kills people with good intention"

Society would indeed crumble if we think like that. Fitting in society is give and take after all. In exchange for protection by the community, we have to attune our wavelength to match our neighbors. Which is why anything that would disrupt that order, any member that goes against the general views, will be judged in the name of justice. If you think of it this way, the concept of society itself is a hypocrisy, but why not. Humans are hypocrites.

>>38
It's a sad thought that it's only hypocrisy. Though I think most people would condone hypocrisy, then again, that's only more hypocrisy. I'd personally rather have a standard rather than no standard. Though I guess that's my personal choices and we don't have to get into that really. If we go by cultural relativism, I guess from our perspective, the fact that we chose and developed this specific judicial system I.E all the laws we have now, we got lucky, though the same could be said if humans developed different criteria for justice. We would be revolted at a society where murder is perfectly normal, yet if we were the society where murder was normal and someone tried to change that I wonder if we would be revolted. We can't really say because we've not experienced that ourselves I guess?

In many of these types of views there is always going to be the wide gap between the practical and idealistic. The line drawn between is usually blurry one too.

>>39 Hmmm, that kind of reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. In our society burning books is like sinful, but in that society it was just a normal everyday thing and when people tried to save the books they were basically hunted down and killed for "breaking the law." (But isn't this a bit off topic from stem cells and brain regeneration? Oh well...)

>>40
Any thread I post on instantly becomes RTT.

>>39
Well, we all have different standards. What draws the line between hypocrisy is whether you admit that your stabdards are flawed in some ways. Denying inconvenient facts is also hypocrisy.

>>40 Indeed, it is a bit off topic hahaha. In that case what are your thought on stem cells and brain regeneration?

>>41 That is also true, however, you then have to determine what is truly a fact or not. There are definitely facts that do exist but whether we truly know what is a fact or not is still somewhat subject to debate. By Popperian standards, falsification I think, although not suitable for many things, is suitable for the more nebulous of topics. I don't think anyone really knows what is the real truth is anyway.

As for stem cell science, nothing really breakthrough as of the past week I think. Just more elucidation of molecular meachanisms and pathways.