"Lead Into Gold:" Stem Cell Counter Attack
If anyone thought that the pro human cloners would fold up their tents and steal away after the news was released that patient-specific, pluripotent stem cells had been derived from normal skin cells, they just didn't understand how fervently some scientists and their camp followers want to clone human life--and how hopeful some are that the stem cell issue can be the vehicle that wins the culture war. Case in point: Science Live's Christopher Wanjek. who bemoans the breakthrough because it could "stifle" science. From his column:Great news, maybe. Never has such a breakthrough been so worrisome to scientists. The discovery, albeit promising, might stifle stem cell research or send it down a dead-end path, for it is now harder than ever to secure funding to study the best source of embryonic stem cells--that is, embryos.
The controversy issue isn't scientific, it is ethical. If methods of deriving pluripotent cells can be obtained in ways all can accept, it should be cause for celebration and funding. And it shouldn't stop with iPSCs--all potential alternatives should be explored.
The two teams weren't motivated by ethical reasons to look for an alternative method to produce pluripotent cells. Thomson, after all, is a pioneer of using human embryos and helped launch the research field in 1998. Rather, these scientists wanted a simpler approach, for human embryos are expensive and difficult to manipulate.Not necessarily so. Thomson said that he had real reservations about ESCR and said that anyone who didn't should think twice. Specifically Thomson stated:
"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough," he said. "I thought long and hard about whether I would do it."But back to Wanjek:
As a result of their discovery, lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research will be more challenging than ever, because politicians and the public who supports them are under the false belief that something better has come along. And it hasn't...This is highly debatable. Human SCNT hasn't worked yet. ES cells can't be used safely in humans because of tumors--which could also be problem for the new stem cells. And effort must still go into the iPSC approach.
Still, the great breakthrough has slowed the Oklahoma Land Race mentality to promote human cloning into merely a mad dash. But the promoters of "unfettered science" in Senator Specter's unfortunate term, are still adamant: They want their blank check; your money as they crush your ethical concerns underfoot.
The current federal funding freeze has already hurt U.S. research. Japan is basking in glory, and Yamanaka might win a Nobel Prize if the new technique works. America's Thomson essentially borrowed Yamanaka's technique, and his work has been supported largely with private funding.Wrong: Thomson's iPSC study was federally funded.
A brave presidential candidate will see the new results in Cell and Science, connect that to a breakthrough announced two weeks ago in Nature on monkey [cloned] embryonic stem cells, and then promise to increase funding for all kinds of embryonic stem cells to usher in an era of regenerative medicine.That kind of a blank check mentality that promotes human cloning will no longer sell. Any embryonic stem cell research needed to perfect the iPSC approach can be done with approved lines. It will be more efficient and cheaper than cloning. I think this breakthrough defangs the issue for 2008 unless something else unexpected happens.
James Thomson said the stem cell wars are over. Not yet. There are a lot of powerful folk who don't want there to be any limits. However, I do think this could be Gettysburg or Midway: the war remains but the tide may have actually turned.
Labels: Lead Into Gold: Pushback
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:03 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Continuing the theme of bait-and-switch.
Remember this?
But given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
"To start with, people need a fairy tale," said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's
Laura,
Thanks for the reminder.
This is an interesting quote from Wanjeck, "...it is now harder than ever to secure funding to study the best source of embryonic stem cells, that is, embryos."
If Wesley's quote in his NRO article that there's been about $2 billion plus given to ESCR/SCNT through private foundations, the feds and then states, is correct, I would think funding is not hard to come or else Wanjek's blank check is bigger than I thought.
There's too much money, ego and political capital invested in ESCR/SCNT to let go. Some of the pols and scientists made a spectacle of themselves trashing Bush and preying on sufferers for votes. No way they can go back now. If this stuff works, it's going to be fun to watch their reactions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The competition factor is still so strongly stated in this article. On the one hand, they want unfettered pursuit of scientific breakthrough for the benefit of all humanity. On the other hand there is a bemoaning of break throughs that happen elsewhere and the perceived failure of US scientists to keep up. If all you care about are the treaments then what do you care about who perfects them? If you are worried that other people are developing the treatments instead of you then your motives are not altruistic at all. They appear to be financial.
Mr. Smith,
A little off topic, but...what is the origin of the four genes used to reprogram the skin cells? Do they come from embryonic stem cells? I ask because of a statement James Thomson made in an interview with Alan Boyle, science editor of MSNBC:
"Well, what I hope will not happen is that everybody says, ‘See? We don’t have to do embryonic stem cell research now.’ Just like Dolly was our inspiration to do the screening in the first place, we could not have successfully done the screening without the existence of human embryonic stem cells. The Japanese group, Dr. Yamanaka’s group, used four genetic factors in mice. They had tried the same [mouse] embryonic stem cell culture with human material and it didn’t work. Then they used human embryonic stem cell conditions that had been developed at my lab and other labs. In our research, we actually used human embryonic stem cells as part of the screening process. So the research itself on human embryonic stem cells led to the next finding about pluripotent cells."
I’m not sure if he is saying that the four genes he used came from hES cells, while the Japanese team’s came from mouse ES cells, or if he was just saying that it was previous research with hES cells that allowed us to figure out which genes regulate reprogramming. If the latter, then I would think those four genes could be obtained from cells other than hES cells. If the former, then will the success of iPS cells be dependent on a continuous supply of hES cells? If so, then the moral dilemma may not be entirely over, unless, of course, scientists restricted themselves to obtaining these four genes from the federally approved lines, and those lines never run out.
Do you know the answer to these questions? I've read about 10 press releases, and even parts of the Japanese study, but cannot find the answer.
Jason
This illustrates the undeniable fact that ESCR is not primarily about science and the relief of disease and suffering, but is more about abortion. Pro-aborts are against ANYTHING that could possibly be perceived as bestowing intrinsic value on living human embryos. They want all or nothing and will spare no expense to promote their myopic, ideological agenda.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home