My grandfather is a paraplegic, and man how much I hope this isn't just faery dust.
It's now available generically: Rituximab. There's another hack that Genentech was able to patent and approve for MS to produce Ocrelizumab, which does the same thing as Rituximab but costs an order of magnitude more. Because that's how the world of big pharma works.
In essence, wiping out your plasma cells (a.k.a. B cells or lymphocytes) seems to stop MS in its tracks. Where my neurologist would typically see 2 or 3 new lesions in any given patient per year, instead now my neurologist is seeing 2 or 3 new lesions per year in the population of all their RRMS patients who are on Rituximab (or Ocrelizumab). And it turns out the immune system can get along pretty well with all the other cells types it has, such as T cells.
Edit: that isn’t to say that this result isn’t exciting for human welfare. We’ll see if it translates…
Limpets don't even have brains, just cerebral ganglia, so it's likely it isn't really a sentient creature that has any conscious awareness of what is happening to it, but man, that scarred me. It felt like I was torturing something horribly and I knew that was not the career for me. There is no way I'd have ever been able to do that to a mouse.
I had a family member involved in a cancer research that used mice and although he admitted it was sad, he did call them heroes. Understandably, I don't think that satisfies anyone strongly aligned with animal rights. In many other sciences we've been able to use simulation as a first step, but that is still out of our reach for biological systems.
Also consider the number of really scary books/movies out there rooted in the idea of "medical utilitarianism." For one example, this issue is addressed in a show called Biohackers that I just started watching. And even in real life, people have tried to justify a lot of really sketchy stuff over the years, in the name of "the greater good".
I do not however like to view it as medical utilitarianism. The testing will happen regardless if the test subject are human or mice, because people do still want the medical cures. People are however less sad if an experiment accidentally killed a bunch of mice than if a bunch of human test subjects died. Historically people tend to use military service men as test subjects, which is why much of medical knowledge is based on test subjects of a specific gender (male) and age group (20-35). Not that long ago (~1950) people also used people with mental disabilities and orphans. Going just a decade earlier and people used prisoners and war and people deemed unwanted. Hopefully computers will one day replace the need for testing.
It is rather that this is an important experiment that can't be done any other way and can have large benefit for humans
What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?
This gives the impression that this would need to be administered before any scaring takes place. It is probably not a remedy for people with old injuries.
> the breakthrough therapy dramatically improved severely injured spinal cords in five key ways: (1) The severed extensions of neurons, called axons, regenerated; (2) scar tissue, which can create a physical barrier to regeneration and repair, significantly diminished;
My friend was in a car accident and a subwoofer that wasn't tied down ended up striking in him the back paralyzing him from the mid-back down. Years and years of heartache for both my friend, and the other friend who installed the subwoofer without tying it down.
There was a lot of things wrong that allowed this to happen, but knowing future people with injuries like my friend whom this therapy could save or alleviate makes me incredibly excited.
If scar tissue forms after an injury and blocks the area (on both sides of the nerve, I assume), like this ---x x--- . Could you then cut the scarred area away, creating "new" injury that this treatment could cure?
----x x----
---| |---
---**---
I can't find the story, but these links have info that is similar enough to be confident my memory is not too bad. http://www.rebeccaayers.co.nz/procedures-and-information/han... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_allograft
Any treatment "might" have more general applicability--but surely there is some specific direction/class of these conditions that are indicated to be more appropriate to apply the treatment to than others. I wish they'd gone in more depth here.
[0] "A microenvironment-inspired synthetic three-dimensional model for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma organoids" https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-021-01085-1
Seriously, mice are really really good at healing these injuries. You can find dozens of 'heals spinal cord injuries IN MICE' articles.
I understand there are so many precautions to take etc, but is there any kind of 'complete consent' one could sign to jump start stuff like that ?
As described, it seems as though it would work just as well for traumatic brain injury as well. Either way it would be a huge boost in the quality of life for a lot of people.
I suspect Christopher Reeve had a hand in this somehow. Creating awareness and motivation to work on this.
The real litmus test for claims of effective spinal cord repair treatments is primate testing. If you see mice and not chimps, the treatment is probably a dead end.
Not to say this research doesn't have value - I fully support continued and rigorous research in this area - but hyperbolic claims like: "it works in mice, so it should also work in humans" aren't helping the cause.
This is not a cheap process in terms of money and manpower. I think they probably have reason for confidence.
IIRC, the motor CNS in mammals is pretty similar across the board.
Now we at least have hope this might work for humans.
Do you have a viable alternative for early stage research?
It's sort of like making food and having someone at the table try to discuss the morality of the meat you're using.... Except it's every. single. time.
Lab mice are killed off everyday after experiments end even if there's nothing wrong with them. Excuse me if I don't lose any sleep over this experiment.
I have a mental debate about animal-based testing/clothes/food on a regular basis, as I do about many choices I make that have a potential moral cost. I still often make those choices, and I don’t lose sleep over it. However, I believe regularly questioning one’s own viewpoints, habits and situation is a strength.
The assumption that it’s being done simply to draw attention is an unreasonable and condescending dismissal.
It’s a feature and not a bug.
It comes off about as well as an insufferable teenager at Thanksgiving dinner. Some feature.
