Matthew Kirkcaldie wrote:
> In article <B8kHd.10266$pZ4.9243 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote:
>>>Matthew Kirkcaldie wrote:
>>>>>In article <AabHd.9887$pZ4.9609 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>SCIENTISTS have successfully grown human brain cells in the
>>>>laboratory for the first time and used them to repair the
>>>>damaged brains of head-injury victims.
>>>>>>Yessss ... from a sample obtained from a CHOPSTICK that had PUSHED
>>>THROUGH SOMEONE'S EYE. They then supposedly proliferated in the
>>>patient's brain (unlike any other neuron in the cortex) and then, in a
>>>remarkable feat, restored abilities lost due to an injury. Presumably
>>>they brought those abilities with them from the other patient, or knew
>>>how to restore the missing functions in the recipient.
>>>>>>Forgive me if I remain a little sceptical.
>>>>I'm waiting to see myself, but it is an interesting report. Don't
>>be too arrogant and think that it couldn't have been done by a
>>Chinese researcher.
>> Allen, where did I even remotely indicate that I was sceptical because
> the researcher was Chinese? I find the implication very offensive.
I apologize for any such implication. Nonetheless, there is
a real tendency for some researchers to make such assumptions.
It is not necessarily a racist thing either, but can also
be a nationalistic thing or an assumption that the US or some
other western country would always be the first to achieve
such results. I find a similar sort of arrogance with open
researchers being skeptical about what secret black-budget
researchers could achieve with huge budgets and a suppression
of open research funding in an area (a radar-evading plane is
just not possible).
>> I didn't see any indication that any abilities
>>were claimed to have been transferred; that is a misrepresentation
>>of what was reported.
>> "... subsequent brain scans showed the cells had grown further and
> integrated with the patients surviving brain cells to help them recover
> abilities lost through the injury."
That is exactly my point. There is no indication that the cells
were claimed to have carried-over any abilities.
> My remarks were satirical in nature, and were intended to highlight how
> implausible it is that a transplanted, undifferentiated neuron would
> somehow take up a place in tissue which had been shaped by a lifetime of
> plasticity, and somehow help restore function. If you re-read what I
> wrote, the sentence begins with "presumably", indicating that it was NOT
> something stated in the article, and that it was also sceptical or
> satirical.
Again, that was part of my point. You assumed a sarcastic point of
view and seemingly did not consider the article worth a serious
and scientific critique. You did say "presumably," but it was so
that you could set up a straw man to knock down.
>> The chopstick incident was only reported to
>>have given the researcher his inspiration.
>> "When the stick was removed it was covered in brain material, which Zhu
> was able to grow in a culture medium." True, it doesn't indicate that
> it was used for the experiment itself - as a matter of fact the
> misinterpretation stems from a derivative report which appeared in The
> Australian on Monday, which is where I read it first, and which reported
> the chopstick incident as the source of the transplanted material. You
> weren't to know that, and I apologise for spreading further.
>>>Really, as a scientist you should be more precise.
>> How about you READ what I ACTUALLY wrote before chipping me about
> precision or racism?
>>> My interpretation is that the new
>>cells were recruited into the brain of the recipient and helped to
>>restore some lost functions.
>> How would you expect that to happen? To me it's analogous to tipping
> components into a broken television and expecting it to work again. The
> CNS is a hostile environment for neuronal proliferation and there is no
> indication that this issue was even addressed.
The brain is an amazingly adaptive organ. It is also fundamentally a
self-organizing system, unlike a television. If the new cells really
are integrated into the brain they could easily aid in re-learning
certain functions. They may well be far more plastic than the
pre-existing neurons, having been recently grown in a dish. In any
case, assuming that they do make new connections, all of those
connections are by definition new ones.
>> I remain deeply sceptical about the report.
I'm waiting to see, also.
>> Matthew.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
