Are rats the future of stem cell therapies?

There's new research that indicates that it may be possible to capture basic embryonic stem cells from any mammal. And if that's the case, the political, moral, and religious firestorm built about around the use of these vital, life-saving resources might finally peter out.

It's hoped that this new formula will enable scientists to ultimately harvest rat stem cells, and then use those cells to mimic human diseases in genetically altered rats. And before you shudder in disgust about using rat anything in human research, remember that rats are incredibly similar to humans - physiologically, at least (and in other ways, too, in the case of many politicians). Rats are often used to test drugs because their physical reactions are often similar to that of people.

What makes stem cells unique is that they are not specialized; this means that they are the root or "stem" form of the cell, and can grow and develop to become ANY type of cell in your body. A stem cell could be developed into heart tissue, liver tissue - even brain tissue.

This doesn't mean that rat stem cells will be employed to curing human diseases directly - you're not about to have a doctor offering to inject you with a hypodermic needle full of rat stem cells. The goal here is to create rats that are even more similar to humans than rats already are, in order to create more accurate test subjects.

Believe it or not, this is not exactly a new development: as long ago as 1981, researchers have been genetically altering the embryonic cells of mice in order to "build" disease models for study. But the cells of rats and other animals have been elusive, and scientists have had no luck isolating them … until now.

This is critical because of the big flap over the use of more easily attained human embryonic stem cell lines. The ethical issues forever swirling around these cells have made them practically useless from a research standpoint. So any controversy-free avenue to more stem cells is critical.

The new study was done by teams of researchers working in both Scotland and the U.S., and lead author Qi-Long Ying of the University of Southern California says "the availability of true rat embryonic stem cells provides an opportunity to adapt the technology developed in the mouse to the rat."

While this new study can lead to more accurate drug testing, it may not be as controversy free as I'm suggesting: after all, I'm sure those kooks at PETA will have something to say about scientists tinkering with the stem cells of those animals. Hopefully that particular "firestorm" will be ignored as a tempest in a teapot.

Say sayonara to good Samaratins

Did you feel that? It was our society sliding a little closer to the abyss. Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan who pulled an injured passenger out of a wrecked car could be sued by that passenger.

This twisted ruling represents the death of that state's law, which says that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency car at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."

But now the court says that Lisa Torti can be civilly liable for the permanent spinal damage suffered by Alexandra Van Horn, the passenger she dragged from that car wreck. Van Horn is now a paraplegic, and claims her condition is Torti's fault - and Van Horn wants to sue; the fact that Torti believed she was saving Van Horn's life seems not to matter to Van Horn - or to the court.

In a decision that could only be rendered by a group of lawyers, the court ruled with Van Horn, claiming that the original state statute only applies to people providing "emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency." Torti's rescue of Van Horn from the car wreck doesn't count.

Nice, huh? It's true: no good deed goes unpunished.

If there's any true justice in this world - and I'm growing increasingly doubtful that there is - Van Horn will lose her lawsuit against Torti when it goes to court this coming summer. I'm hoping for a quick and unanimous decision in Torti's favor.

But regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, I'm sure that by ruling with Van Horn, the California Supreme Court has already done plenty of damage; you can be sure that people in that state - and all over the country - will be sure to think twice next time they see a chance to help someone in need. And I bet many of these people will decide that it's safer to just look the other way.

You can thank a lawyer for that.