Don’t give up on human stem cells - December 18, 2007
American scientists are urging the country not to abandon human stem cells in the wake of the recent successes in cell reprogramming. Worried by proclamations from some that these successes ‘prove right’ the current US administration’s tough-line on stem cell and cloning work, the researchers have gone on the offensive.
Since the recent announcement of successful reprogramming, editorials carrying statements such as “[r]arely has a president - so vilified for a moral stance - been so thoroughly vindicated” have been springing up across the United States. Now the fightback seems to be gearing up.
Key to their argument is the fact that ‘reprogrammed’ cells – where instead of obtaining stem cells from an embryo ‘induced pluripotent stem cells’ are created from adult human skin – are not yet safe for clinical use.
“For doing basic research on human cells, IPS as a method has won - it's huge. But for the ultimate goal of getting cells into a patient, it's a lot less clear. These cells may never be useful for direct therapy,” says George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital Boston, in the Boston Globe.
Douglas A. Melton, codirector of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, is even firmer, saying: “It will never be approved [by the FDA] to put these cells in a patient.”
See also
Follow up of the Globe piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education: Harvard Pledges to Continue Research Into Embryonic Stem Cells
Follow up in Wired: Cloning Still Holds Stem Cell Key, Say Leading Harvard Researchers
Previous post on the topic from Wired in November: Too Soon to Give Up on Embryonic Stem Cells
Comments
These quotes were made prior to Dr. Yamanaka by-passing using the cancer-causing gene (c-Myc) or the successful treatment of muscular dystrophy in dogs.
It would be nice if the same criteria for usefulness were used for embryonic stem cells and SCNT as those used at any competators.
For example, Dr. Melton knows full well that "ES cells, unlike adult stem cells, cannot be used directly in therapy because they cause cancer. Indeed, one laboratory test for ES cells is to inject them into mice and analyse the teratoma (a tumour formed of foetal tissue) that arises." "Mother of All Cells", Scientific American, July 2005.
As well as the fact that SCNT has not been successful in humans and," Cloned animals have unpredictable problems with gene expression ... This problem is neither predictable and can be triggered throughout the life of the cloned organism" SCIENCE V. 293 10 Aug 2001, p. 1098
Furthermore, there is no instance of SCNT being used to treat anything (unless the 'embryo' is grown to the stage of at least the equivalent of a 5-month human fetus before harvesting it's cells).
Yet, Harvard insists on putting women's lives at risk to acquire eggs for this folly. (Parthenogenesis, on the other hand, is practically easy - and only requires 2 eggs.)
Perhaps it is their love of cannibalizing politicians, but Americans have become emotionally attatched to embryonic stem cells, even to the detriment of science (both sides, here).
No one has asked for a ban on embryonic stem cell research - despite the real fact that THEY are unlikely to be used in therapy due to tumerogenesis and subject rejection.
But, you'd never know it listening to the press.
Posted by: Minerva | December 18, 2007 03:48 PM