Pro ESCR Advocates Try to Walk Back Stem Cell Hype
The New York Times is totally in the thrall of Big Biotech. On its news and editorial pages, it has served loyally as a cheer leader for ESCR and human cloning. Toward this end, it has repeatedly ignored significant adult stem cell research advances while often hyping the potential of ESCR to cure almost any disease known to man. (I know. That is hyperbole, but only slightly so.)
Now, having hyped ES cells to the hilt, apparently Big Biotech is trying to walk its way back from the brink. According to this Times story, stem cells as modalities for therapies are not their most likely benefit, but rather, the promotion of basic research.
After years of stating that stem cells will turn into any cell in the body and thereby cure Parkinson's and other diseases, scientists are beginning to admit, in Ira Gershwin's immortal words, "It ain't necessarily so." This quote from the story is a real hoot: "Many researchers now see human embryonic stem cells as part of a long-term research program, with any sort of cell therapy being at least 5 or 10 years off. That projection shows a gap between scientists' views and those of the public and of people for whom the overriding purpose of research with human embryonic stem cells is to generate cells that can restore damaged tissues."
That "gap" was created intentionally by ESCR propagandists to win a political debate. It played on the desperate desires of people for "cures." It was shameless politicization of science.
And what about the continual assertion that ES cells are superior to adult stem cells because "they can become any cell in the body." That assertion has not been scientifically substantiated, as this quote from the story admits: "Making the embryonic stem cells convert in the laboratory into specialized types--like liver or heart cells--is not straightforward or predictable. Cells that look and behave like human muscle--activating neurons can be generated with just a couple of chemical signals. But some cells, like the insulin-making cells of the pancreas, have proved extremely hard to grow."
But what about the pure research potential? Sure, it is there. But is it enough to overcome the profound ethical problem with destroying human life and transforming it into a mere natural resource ripe for the harvest? After all, the potential for near-term cures was what convinced many people to set aside their qualms over destroying embryos.
This story tells a far more balanced story and good for Nicolas Wade for writing it and the NYT for publishing it. But I will bet that within a day or two the Times and other papers (think Kansas City Star!) go right back to repeating the same old ESCR mantras.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:26 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
This from a faithful reader:
"Wesley,
I think he is also making a subtle case for human cloning.
'The idea is to take a cell from a patient, convert it to embryonic form, and then make the embryonic cell mature into the type that goes awry in the patient’s disease, whether it be a dopamine-producing cell for Parkinson’s disease or an insulin-making cell for diabetes.
'Somewhere down this developmental path, the basic cause of the disease may emerge, and be available for study in a dish of cells. The diseased cells should also provide an excellent means of screening thousands of chemicals for new drugs.'"
Me: My correspondent nailed it. ESCR is a gateway to human cloning, first to the stem cell stage, and then to fetal farming. Eventually, reproductive cloning and genetic engineering, once doing so would be considered "safe."
It depends on what "convert it to embryonic stem cell" means. If they are dedifferentiating to a pleuripotent, but not totipotent embryonic stem cell, then the research would be ethical.
The report in Cell this month promises that this sort of dedifferentiation is close.
For readers who may not know: Liefethics.org is discussing early research in which a mouse's cell was reverted back to an embryonic, pluripotent state. The term "convert it into an embryonic form, and then make the cell mature," seems clearly to me to refer to making a cloned embryo, maturing it to the blastocyst stage, and then deriving ES cells, e.g., therapeutic cloning.
I think half of it is dishonesty on the part of the media and the other half is simply lazy reporting. They wrote in 2001 that adult stem cells simply aren't as good as embryonic ones, which are "our only hope." So, since then, whenever the topic is reintroduced, they cut and paste inaccurate information from their archived articles, click "send," and then head to the sandwich shop.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home