More Bad Science Reporting on Cloning
I grow weary: Science journalists should report science matters accurately, without spin and the usual hype seen in the ESCR/human cloning debates. Alas, we don't see much of that in this report, byline Dave Mosher of LiveScience. The story is about Ian Wilmut, the veterinarian who supervised the cloning of Dolly the sheep, who, since his animal cloning enterprise went belly up has been driven to clone human life. Wilmut wants to create human/animal chimera embryos by using SCNT with human DNA and animal eggs.
But this post isn't about that issue, it is about imprecise reporting. From the story:
Wilmut proposes that scientists take a DNA-packed nucleus from a diseased person's cell, then slip it into an animal egg from which the nucleus has been removed. About one times out of eight, a clump of human embryonic stem cells should grow. Once the clump is large enough, medical researchers could test experimental drugs on the cells without destroying a single human embryo.First, why should it work one time out of eight? Despite thousands of attempts, scientists still haven't been able to clone human embryos and obtain stem cells from them using human eggs. Moreover, it is simply disingenuous to claim that a "clump of human embryonic stem cells" would grow. If the technique worked--a big if--the result would be an embryo that would be about 99% human. It would not be a clump of stem cells and it would raise ethical issues that would be unique in human history.
The reporter also fails to note that Wilmut has been making a lot of claims of late about the benefits of human cloning research. He asserts in this article that chimera embryos could lead to vastly in creased drug testing because it could avoid having to test the products in mice. Perhaps. But given the failure of human cloning so far, and in light of Wilmut's increasingly anything goes pronouncements, such as now supporting reproductive cloning in some cases, and considering his expressed desire to engage in unethical medical testing of unsafe embryonic stem cells on dying people, Wilmut's assertions should be looked at with at least some skepticism. Alas, too often the science press these days act more like star-struck fans than true journalists.
Labels: Biotechnology. Media Bias.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:22 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
I will address your post piece-wise.
1. 1/8 success. See Munsie, M.J., Michalska, A.E., O'Brien, C.M., Trounson, A.O., Pera, M.F. & Mountford, P.S. Isolation of pluripotent embryonic stem cells from reprogrammed adult mouse somatic cell nuclei. Curr. Biol. 24, 989–992 (2000). SCNT can produce a viable embryo roughly 16% of the time, according to this study. I used 1/8 as other studies have more conservative numbers in terms of measuring success. Human nuclei to animal egg success rate data is of course lacking, because this is what Wilmut is pushing for with his Nature commentary. Bear in mind fertility clinics routinely test human sperm on hamster eggs prior to IVF (see his commentary for more on this).
2. Ethics. I note in the article that ethical problems wouldn't be completely set aside, and Wilmut also acknowledges this presumption. It's absolutely risky, which is why it's an interesting position for Wilmut to take.
3. Wilmut's agenda. I did not report on this for the sake of keeping the article at a digestible length. In addition, divulging Wilmut's major public announcements would have added little value to the mix as he has already performed the "blasphemy," at least is some peoples' eyes, of cloning a sheep. That is enough to speak for the type of scientist he is and where he would like the fields he is involved with to go.
4. Star-struck. My mission as a journalist is to report stories for the intellectually curious, whether they are controversial or not--a majority of the time they are not (at least to most people). In this case, the story was inherently controversial, and I fully accepted that prior to taking the assignment. It is not my job to work my own skepticism into a news piece--it is my job to collect the opinions of experts and report their interpretations. In this case, the experts I spoke to were silent on the issue or, in the case of Kevin Eggan, supported Wilmut's research push. As a human I can't deny my own bias, but I do my best to avoid it.
Dave: Thank you for writing.
The mouse study has no basis for human work. Mice can be cloned and gested to birth. Human cloning hasn't been done successfully, at least not to the stage that ES cells could be obtained. To accept the one in eight figure without at least a caveat, such as "even though human cloning has yet to lead to the derivation of ES cells" is to swallow Wilmut's claim whole and not inform the reader that it might not go as planned.
Ethics: You called the chimeric embryo a "clump of embryonic stem cells," which is not what it is. It, if it works, would be a living organism that would be almost totally human, ergo the ethical issue.
I didn't expect a full recitation of Wilmut's history. And I appreciate the need to keep things manageable, but his "ethical credentials," are, to say the least, controversial. It might have been worth a sentence or two.
I wasn't referring to you specifically as "star struck," but noting the general absence of rigorous exploration of how science reporters generally swallow what "the scientists" tell them without looking deeper. The many assertions of Advanced Cell Technology that have been reported with a straight face and without reference to their poor track record for accuracy in their press releases is the template I was addressing.
As for collecting the opinions of the experts, there are plenty who could have given you a different view. A shame they weren't contacted.
Thanks again for stopping by.
My pleasure.
To understand the inherent challenges of actually reporting on subjects like this, which almost always infuriate someone, try imagine writing your own version of the story without introducing your personal bias... it may sound easy, but first you have to get one of those countless experts to go on the record. It took me three days and 20ish phone calls and 15ish e-mails to get just one, and I know how to query sources for a quick turnaround.
Believe me when I say no one handles this topic lightly, not journalists nor readers nor sources, as I'm sure you're already aware. But I personally believe it has to be in public discourse, which is why I take assignments like these.
Didn't Advanced Cell Technology grow a human clone to eight cells or something a few years ago? I remember they said they did it just to be first, and that the embryo stopped dividing on its own rather than them stopping the experiment. Was that all a hoax too? How do you know it has been tried thousands of times? Who has tried it besides ACT and the Korean scientist?
And I have no problem referring to that clump of cells as a clump of cells. A person is not conceived until it is conceived of as a person, and if someone put human DNA in a cow egg, the last thing we would want to do is insist that it be implanted in a woman's uterus. It should be flushed down the drain. Even if it were done using a human egg, and even if it wasn't a clone but was unique genetically modified DNA, it should not be considered (conceived of) as a human being. It should be flushed. It is scary to think that all a person has to do is go ahead and create an engineered embryo and pro-lifers are suddenly going to be the ones insisting that it be implanted.
Dave: Thanks. I understand. But it so often seems that the skeptical side is vastly under covered.
Dave, cool of you to participate in this discussion of your article, thanks. Next, how about a new article on Dr. Richard Scott and his efforts pursuing stem-cell derived gametes for same-sex conception. This field of embryonic stem-cell research is underreported, and I'd like to know if Scott still feels it is now just a year or three away.
John: ACT claimed the feat, but it was never proved. It was deemed not an important achievement. I wrote about that when ACT was in the news for allegedly having obtained ES cell lines without destroying embryos, when they did no such thing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home