“The metric academics need to hit is “good enough,” and after that, “better than good enough,” if time permits. Forget that the word perfect exists. Otherwise, one can sink endless amounts of time into a project long after the scientific mission was accomplished. One good-enough paper that got submitted is worth an infinite number of perfect papers that don’t exist.”

— Iterate toward perfection - Matt Might.

  7:09 pm  |   August 16 2010  

In no particular order…

• Cycling to work next year feels like a real possibility
• I need a brief ‘Regenerative Medicine for Dummies’ pitch to tell people what I do.
• Cambridge is still one of my favorite places
• A weekend away from a computer screen is great for my eyes
• Real people are excellent
• My fencing has improve dramatically in the last six months, but I still suck
• My sister is amazing.

  9:59 pm  |   July 12 2010  

“You are joining a special profession. Doctors and scientists, we are all in the survival business, but we are also in the mortality business. Our successes will always be restricted by the limits of knowledge and human capability, by the inevitability of suffering and death. Meaning comes from each of us finding ways to help people and communities make the most of what is known and cope with what is not. This will take science. It will take art. It will take innovation. It will take ambition. And it will take humility. But the fantastic thing is: This is what you get to do.”

— Atul Gawande, speaking to the graduating class at Stanford’s School of Medicine (via haunted).

  11:44 pm  |   June 24 2010   |  4 notes  

T-34 days and counting to Roche Continents at the Salzburg Festival.

  2:43 am  |   June 24 2010   |  1 note  

“I love science, and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awed by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and reinvigorate it.”

— Robert Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (via @sciencegoddess)

  1:19 am  |   April 20 2010   |  5 notes  

berezina asked: How serious is the problem of stem cells developing into tumors rather than the desired tissue? Also, is there any way to chemically deactivate stem cells without affecting ordinary cells?

“How serious is the problem of stem cells developing into tumors rather than the desired tissue?”

The regulators take it very seriously, and this is why commercial stem cell therapies are still a long way from the market. By ensuring that cell populations are strictly defined and that pluripotent cell types are removed this risk is likely controllable.

The big fear for cell therapies derived from pluripotent cells (both embryonic and iPS) is teratoma formation. These are tumours with tissue or organ components resembling derivatives of all three germ layers—essentially big balls of hair, teeth, bone, and even eyes. Adult stem cell populations, from sources such as the bone marrow, can only form a smaller range of tissues and hence the tumour risk is lower.

The first commercial (rather than experimental/cowboy) stem cell treatments are likely to be progenitor cell populations derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Let’s take the example of Geron’s GRNOPC1, an hESC derived therapy for spinal cord injury, soon to start Phase 1 clinical trials. GRNOPC1 composed of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells derived from hESCs. The progenitors mature to form glial cells, which can replace the damaged myelin sheath, ‘re-insulating’ the neurons in the wound site restoring their function.

The progenitors have been shown to spread to fill the extent of the wound site. However, once they reach an area of healthy tissue they stop their migration. The cell population used is extensively defined to ensure that only the progenitors, and not any undifferentiated hESCs make it into the product, reducing the risk of teratoma. Trial patients will be subjected to a 15 year follow up. No one is taking any chances with hESC derived products, just one of the reasons why therapies are still a long way from the market.

“Is there any way to chemically deactivate stem cells without affecting ordinary cells?”

Possibly. This is the focus of much research in cancer cell biology.

Understanding how stem cells work will provide critical breakthroughs in understanding cancer cell biology. The key features of a stem cell is that it divide to form multiple cell types including copies of itself, and can go on doing so forever. Those last two features—self-replication and immortality—perfectly describe a cancer cell. By understanding which mechanisms and gene expressions control these functions, in both stem cell and cancer models, we may be able to find that elusive ‘off-switch’. Cures for common cancers are a real possibility.

  8:10 pm  |   March 2 2010  

I’d love to hear your thoughts or questions about my area of research?

  4:20 pm  |   March 2 2010  

GPOYW — Returned sober from lab christmas meal to work on presentation for tomorrow. Roll on three weeks of freedom starting in 18 hours time!

  10:59 pm  |   December 16 2009   |  1 note  

“Lord, grant me the strength to massage the data I can, the serenity to accept the data I can’t, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

— Twitter / @boscoh

  6:01 pm  |   December 9 2009   |  2 notes  

The great whiteboard of doom has been brought in to finish this sucker of a literature review off. T minus 12 days.

  6:32 pm  |   December 5 2009