Monthly Archives: November 2007

Half empty or half full?

Posted on by
3

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the stem-cell field. First, Nature’s paper on the production of primate embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Today, the papers in Cell and Science showing that transducing human fibroblasts with four transcription factors can lead to the production of pluripotent stem cells, a feat previously achieved using mouse fibroblasts.

In the midst of all the excitement elicited by these papers, which are getting substantial global attention, I got a press release from the “”https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/index.php">Center for Genetics and Society" (CGS) that, in relation to the generation of human pluripotent cells, quoted their policy analyst Jesse Reynolds as saying:

“If these results are as promising as they appear to be, they significantly undermine the case for cloning-based stem cell research”.

Let me get this straight. Does this mean that, just because it was possible to generate human pluripotent cells after transduction of somatic cells with, not one, but four different genes, we should ponder the possibility of not pursuing cloning-based stem cell research? Well, I don’t know about that. Have we not learned any lessons from the unfortunate deaths of some participants in gene therapy trials and the fact that transduced genes have a way of inserting themselves in undesirable places?

Elsewhere on their website, in a statement the CGS issued after the production of monkey stem cells, the Center’s Associate Executive Director Marcy Darnovsky makes the following comment on the prospects of personalized treatments derived from stem cells:

“The personal-repair-kit approach to stem cell research is far-fetched. To the extent that researchers and their advocates still claim that cloning techniques will lead to personalized stem cell treatments, they should recognize that – even if these are someday technically possible – they would be enormously expensive, and thus would likely worsen our already shameful health disparities”.

Surely this argument would apply to pretty much any scientific and technological advance, wouldn’t it? Would everyone be able to afford a prosthetic leg or a full treatment schedule with an anti-tumor antibody?

I find it paradoxical that the publication of the advances I mentioned above should be accompanied by calls for less, instead of more, work on embryonic stem cells. To point to social inequalities as an argument against stem cell-based regenerative therapies is as mistaken as thinking that the transduction approach could replace research on embryonic stem cells. You can see a glass as half empty or half full, but you cannot say that, as it is only half full, we might as well empty it.

A condom conundrum

Posted on by
5

According to the Chinese press, hair ties at the markets in Dongguan are going for a song—about three cents for a bag of ten. But these bands aren’t made out of rubber; they’re recycled condoms.

The practice of recycling condoms as hair-ware is admittedly disgusting, but does it pose public health hazard? At least one person, a dermatologist at the Guangzhou Hospital of Armed Police, identified only as “Dong” seems to think so. “People could be infected with AIDS, warts or other diseases if they hold the rubber bands or strings in their mouths while weaving their hair into plaits or buns,” Dong said.

Dong may or may not be a real person. I had no luck finding the Guangzhou Hospital of Armed Police on the internet. But his misconceptions about HIV are not unique. Even in the US, some people still believe that you can “catch” AIDS by kissing or sharing a soda with an individual who has HIV.

Even my boyfriend, a science writer, was suspicious. He (mis)remembered reading that health officials had actually tested the condoms and found them teeming with harmful pathogens.

By now the story (urban legend?) has wound its way through the blogosphere and wormed its way into several reputable news sources. Repetition without critique, I’m afraid, can only lend Dong’s comments credibility.

Another setback for the fight against HIV ignorance.

Posted on behalf of Cassandra Willyard, Nature Medicine’s news intern.

Jumping through hoops

Posted on by
Reply

Similar to what happened in the US after the 9/11 attacks, the UK government has now decided to carry out security checks on foreign students going to Britain. The aim of this plan is to prevent sensitive knowledge from getting into the wrong hands.

Not surprisingly, some people are wary of this scheme, as they feel that it may deny opportunities for genuine students with no aim other than pursuing a scientific career. Others have expressed concerns about the loss of income from students whose countries pick up the tuition tab. And many more are simply concerned about the extra paperwork that both host institutions and prospective students will have to contend with.

I don’t know if the equivalent scheme in the US has been considered a success. I’m not even sure how one would measure its success. Sure, they may have caught a few malicious guys, but how many ‘false positives’ have been the victims of this paranoia? The one thing most people seem to agree on is the observation that, after prospective US students got hit by the extra security checks, many simply chose an alternative destination. As a result, some observers worry that the balance of scientific power will shift away from the US. Will a similar thing happen in Britain?

Reassuringly, the UK authorities have said that their decision-making process will be quick. But how tough will it be? Will there be many ‘false positives’ who will then have to choose a different country to do scientific research? I’m sure that other European countries, Canada, Australia and a few other nations will be very attentive in case there’s a repeat of the bonanza of students they welcomed after the US turned them down. That is, of course, until those countries decide that maybe they also should place more guards at their borders.

A Step Closer to Public Access

Posted on by
3

Each year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gets over $28 billion dollars from taxpayers. The vast majority of that money goes to fund about 200,000 researchers who annually publish more than 60,000 articles. But most of those papers are off limits to the people who pay for the research—the public.

To remedy this situation, the NIH began asking researchers in 2005 to voluntarily submit their peer-reviewed manuscripts to a database called Pubmed Central. The plea fell on deaf ears. By 2006, only 4% of the articles eligible for submission had been turned in.

Now the US government is taking action. Language in the House Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill, passed on 20 July, would require investigators to submit their papers to Pubmed Central. Those papers would be made available to the public within a year of publication. Similar language was passed in the Senate on 23 October.

The fight, however, is far from over. The provision must make it through House-Senate negotiations into a combined bill and signed into law by President Bush, who is threatening to veto.

Publishers are concerned that public access will land them in the poor house by driving away subscribers (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?). But some scientists say that public access will speed innovation by making research readily available. Several journals are already trying the open-access model, but many require the researchers to pay for publication.

What do you think? Should I have the right to curl up with a cup of tea and a free copy of that 2006 paper on restless leg syndrome I’ve been dying to read?

Posted on behalf of Cassandra Willyard, Nature Medicine’s news intern.