Link Dump

So, I still got plenty of good stuff from 2007. Here are some tasty tidbits.

Media related items:
- Newsweek had an article on "Life 2.0" - the idea of creating new lifeforms based on our understanding of genetics.

- Book review of a novel on how people recover from brain damage.

- Yeh! New movie coming from DreamWorks dealing with government conspiracy and brain implants.

- Tooting our own horn, our lab was mentioned by CNet in a brief article titled "Pondering Our Cyborg Future."

Neuroinformatics
- Neural substrates of planning

- Modeling spontaneous activity (paper linked)

- Conceptual Metaphor Memory - VERY interesting look at a cognitive linguistics theory that metaphor-like associations are the primary means of experience building. Read this before going to bed.

- Neuroinformation theory video

Parkinson's

- Stem cell therapy shows promise

- How implants ease Parkinson's symptoms

- Two types of cells lost

If it has 'Bionic' in the title, it has to be good!

Researchers are reporting (also at Science Direct) some success in the creation of 'Bionic Nerves' at the University of Manchester. Reading the blurbs, there isn't much 'bionic' about it - they are cultivating fat tissue stem cells to become nerves. The initial results in animals look promising and they are already talking human trials on the very near horizon. About friggin time! Some stem cells, a little ECM, and we're talking some important real-world applications of science. (Yes, I know the picture is for sensory, and not motor nerves, but I like it!)

Here's a link to the actual study:
Adipose-derived stem cells differentiate into a Schwann cell phenotype and promote neurite outgrowth in vitro.
Kingham PJ, Kalbermatten DF, Mahay D, Armstrong SJ, Wiberg M, Terenghi G.
Exp Neurol. 2007 Oct;207(2):267-74. Epub 2007 Aug 2.

Giving

Wired has a couple articles about former motocross racer Ricky James Jr, who tried to donate his life's savings to a Geron, a company set up to perform stem cells research on spinal injury repair. The work, being done by Hans Keirstead, is being done in private industry to get around the idiotic issues (IMO) that the US government has set in place to deter stem cell research. They DO need money to complete the work, and Mr. James Jr thought he would help by donating $200,000.

Keirstead declined the offer, saying, "I explained to Ricky that these fund raisers are aimed at raising money to help people in his situation not to take from them."

I'm going to add a little controversy. Ready? Before you continue to read, I am making an argument, not taking a position. I happen to think that what Keirstead did was appropriate, but here's the other side of the coin. It can be argued that Keirstead took the easy way out, and I offer the following three points:

1) Accepting money from a person hoping that your research produces viable applications for treating their own condition makes the situation personal. You're no longer doing research to treat a condition; you're doing research to treat a person. The reality of the situation is too much.
2) Why deny money from a celebrity, especially in a situation where private funding is necessary? Why is it okay to parade Michael J. Fox around for Parkinson's research, but not accept Ricky's donation? My point is that there is a disconnect. It is easier to not deal with the media implications and attention than turn down the donation.
3) The obligatory journal paper introduction always gives the broader implications of research, but I think either many researchers aren't actually aware of the work to bring a treatment to market, or the journal reviewers have made competition for publication such that these little intro blurbs have expanded to over-generalized and over-summarized to the point where the complexity of the groundwork is lost even to other researchers. My point? Dealing with the real complexities no longer requires a couple paragraphs - it requires a ****load of work.

As I said, these aren't my views, but they underline the complexity of dealing with research on the cusp of application. These are issues any scientist looking to move into industry must deal with, and I thought I would throw them out there. Again, no offense meant, I'm just making a point. I personally applaud Keirstead for his choice, and consider it "the gentleman's approach".