Great news, but I have this question: what possible reason or mechanism exists for assuming that an "induced" stem cell created from an already aged cell wouldn't get some of the induced damage carried along with the machinery? I can't see how this would be a 100% "reset".
Still, I imagine even a slightly pre-aged replacement organ from your own cells would be a helluva a lot better than a foreign transplant with rejection problems.

Here's another one -- if you're replacing an organ or tissue because of genetic disease, how long before the newly constructed replacement would start to fail in the same way? If triggers elsewhere in the body ar eimportnat, then it might happen sooner than later. OTOH if it would take another 50 years to start falling apart, that's surely good enough.

Yet I don't see either of these addressed in popular accounts, even speculative ones. I read about cancer questions, but not these.

[Posted by: newscaper at February 12, 2008 8:16 AM]

I really hope they have found a way to reverse the majority of the damage. The main concern when it comes to turning back the clock on our own cells is to verify that it is undamaged. This is especially problematic since in the long run, more and more (all?) cells accumulate some damage, so you'll have inconsistant deviations from a healthy archtype.

This is probably why a lot of people want to preserve their DNA early so that source can be copied, rather than the one all wartorn from living life and undergoing continual metabolism.

I would guess the best preserved cells would be those from which sex cells are created since they more than other somatic cells must avoid mutations most to avoid passing them on to future generations. We should take from there.

[Posted by: Tyciol at February 18, 2008 11:07 PM]