Stem Cell Hype Being Reported--Finally
STEM cell research, we have long been told, should pave the way for revolutionary new treatments to help millions of patients around the world. Yet despite the years of study and debate about the potential, therapies have been slow to materialise. Lord Patel of Dunkeld, chairman of the UK National Stem Cell Network and chancellor of Dundee University, said the current signs were that research involving stem cells would lead to therapies for patients. But he said there was also a chance such treatments could prove too risky for human use.
For the last ten years, "the scientists," in order to win the political debates over ESCR and SCNT, often wildly hyped the potential for CURES! CURES! CURES! In the process, they convinced Californians--now facing a $16 billion budget deficit and tens of billions in bond debt--to borrow $300 million every year to pay for human cloning and ESC research. States vied with each other in an Oklahoma land race type scramble to throw money at Big Biotech. The focus of the media became obsessed with overturning President Bush's ESCR funding policy, to the point that it committed serial journalistic malpractice with biased reporting and a news blockade on non embryonic stem cell successes.
Well, those CURES! have not even appeared as distant silhouettes on the horizon yet, and finally, a few in the media are beginning to notice. From a story in The Scotsman:
Even the head of the UK National Stem Cell Network has now conceded that stem cell research may never deliver new treatments. Given the ethical controversy about the research--particularly the use of animal-human hybrid embryos--some have questioned whether it is worth pursuing the research any further without proof that it will actually benefit human health...
Speaking to The Scotsman, Lord Patel said it could be five to ten years before stem cell treatments were widely available, with trials starting shortly in the UK and US. "But we have to be cautious," he said. "It may not deliver therapy for anything. We may find that stem therapy is quite a risky business.
"We had a lot of hype about gene therapy, and while we still use it in some cases it did not deliver the great promise we thought it would because of the side-effects. But the promise just now is great and we must continue with the stem cell science."
Labels: ESCR Hype.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:10 AM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
I would swear that after reading certain comments recently that this story and two others suggesting some help for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's sufferers with non-embryonic stem cell is just a cruel hoax fabricated by Do No Harm.
Now that the money is out of the bag, big biotech got their haul,and the media got the political party in power that they want, maybe we'll see some more stories like these, even on American shores, much like the Atlantic saying that Dan Quayle was right-right after skewering him out of office.
This article verges on media malpractice too. It took the writer forever to differentiate between embryonic and non embryonic stem cells after leading us through several paragraphs to think the whole thing was a bust. Only later do we learn that not all stem cell research is a bust, just the embryo killing kind is. Then at the end he or she reverts back to the generic "stem cell research." No wonder people are confused. Stories like this are a welcome step towards getting the story right, but still a long way from getting it right.
But this much is clear: By hyping the potential ...
You call ESCr hype, yet your a proponent of IPSc - a process which by your own comments is essentially the same technical pathway to achieve success.
Are you also correlating IPSc as hype?
I think both of these types of stem cell research are making great progress as evident by the recent treatment of Parkinson's in mice using pluripotent cells.
I have stated that the problems with IPSCs, e.g. tumors, are very real. But the IPSCs have shot past SCNT and subsequent ESCR, with regard to tailor made, patient specific, pluripotent stem cells. Nobody is making the wild claims about near term cures that have been made scandalously over several years now for ESCR/SCNT.
Moreover, the point you refuse to see is that the debate is ethical, not scientific. The IPSCs appear to provide everything that scientists claimed they wanted from SCNT regarding reg. medicine--and without ethical contentiousness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The point of your topic was discussing the hype of ESCr as it related to its medical viability to provide cures - correct? That is what I am addressing.
IPSCs have shot past SCNT and subsequent ESCR, with regard to tailor made, patient specific, pluripotent stem cells.
What do you base this assumption from?
A donor skin cell would create virtually identical pluripotent cells whether using SCNT or IPSc. Do you disagree?
I say the resulting pluripotent cells are intrinsically the same via SCNT or IPSc. Both generate the same "patient specific" cells, both present the exact same questions for science.
What properties of pluripotent cells derived from SCNT vs IPSC do you feel are inferior?
ETHICS, not science, DS. One involves the creation and destruction of human life asexually. It also opens the door to brave new world technologies. Getting eggs for cloning also exposes women to health risks, and even loss of life.
IPSCs are a patient's own cells reprogrammed. No ethical issues.
That's not so hard.
ESCR and SCNT, often wildly hyped the potential for CURES! CURES! CURES!...Well, those CURES! have not even appeared as distant silhouettes on the horizon yet
doesnt sound your speaking to the ethics in this topic whatsoever, only to the scientific results. How is hype over clinical success a question of ethics? Its not, its a question of results from research, thats science.
You are wrong to assert that one method produces a more patient specific result, they both yield the same pluripotent cells!
If your speaking to ethics then stay on ethical subjects, when you speak of clinical results you are then speaking to the Science.
"A donor skin cell would create virtually identical pluripotent cells whether using SCNT or IPSc. Do you disagree?"
Again, DS, you miss the crucial point that SCNT combines a skin cell with an oocyte to create a new embryonic human being, who is then destroyed to obtain his or her stem cells. With iPSCs, skin cells are merely reprogrammed, without requiring the creation or destruction of any human beings.
Again, the point of this topic is that SCNT potential is HYPE according to Wesley.
Again, the point of this topic is that SCNT potential is HYPE according to Wesley.
He did not reference moral implications but practical implications for cures.
Focus and review the original topic. Have a look at the big pretty picture provided. This was not presented a moral commentary but as a scientific one.
And when presented with a specific question regarding the HYPE assertion I see retreat to the shell of moral opinion where there are no absolutes.
I understand that you think SCNT makes a person. I disagree, but thats not what Wesley was writing about.
Wesley was calling SCNT potential to cure diseases hype - and I asked him if he thought that applied to IPSc as well, and the simple question has not been answered.
Its an easy question to answer but apparently we can't confront such simple questions here, because there is no good answer to fit the anti-ESCr political agenda.
Just answer the simple question of observation...
A donor skin cell would create virtually identical pluripotent cells whether using SCNT or IPSc. Do you disagree?
Dark Swan,
Of course the reversion technique and SCNT could create "virtually" identical pluripotent cells, if it can be done through SCNT. Pluripotent stem cells can be created right now through the reversion technique giving us iPSCs. And it is cheaper, easier, more efficient and it looks like they can get about several lines from each success. And because it's so much easier, more scientists can get involved in it. It seems that this year two cloned human clones were finally created by SCNT in San Diego. We'll see if that is validated.
The word "virtually" is a key word. It's "virtually" not completely or identically. The scientists will say that it will be a close match but not exact. There will still be some DNA creeping in from the egg itself. iPSCs won't have that and seem to be the purer match. But you never know, that extra to the donor from the egg through SCNT may be more than close enough to not reject.
But morally, they are no where near identical. SCNT is going to create a unique human being/human organism. As you know that is required for SCNT to work. My Senator Harry Reid was playing with his constituents when he says that SCNT creates embryonic stem cells immediately. Creating and killing human beings is a moral problem for us. SCNT has to create a human being and kill it to get the stem cells. iPSCs will not create another human being and no killing of humans will occur.
I'm pretty sure Mr. SHS himself has on numerous times said iPSCs may have the same capacity to become tumor forming as ESCs because they are pluripotent. There's never been any doubt in my mind that he's said that. They are difficult to control because they are pluripotent. But his primary concern is moral. So is mine.
Indeed, Don: Mr. SHS has so said.
"And when presented with a specific question regarding the HYPE assertion I see retreat to the shell of moral opinion where there are no absolutes."
Speaking scientifically, adult stem cells are proving to be far easier and more practical to work with than embryonic stem cells. BUT IF WHAT YOU WANT, STILL, IS EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, then the iPSCs will do just fine. They may not work out as well as the ASCs are, but, hey, go for it.
There will still be some DNA creeping in from the egg itself. - don
That is a major misconception, one I hope the majority of reader don't make.
mtDNA does not alter nuclear DNA or the pluripotent cells derived from Theraputic cloning!
Specificity of the host egg is irrelevant in Theraputic cloning. The donor cell could be located in any number of oocytes from different women and the donor cell will yield the same dna in pluripotent cells, regardless of what host oocyte carries the donor cell.
SCNT procedures require oocyte mtDNA to interact with a foreign nucleus thats also interacting with a foreign somatic mitochondria. SCNT embryos carry somatic cell mtDNA in addition to maternal mtDNA.
mtDNA effects signaling, celluar metabolism and apoptosis, which are a factor if you are attempting to develop an organism through Reproductive cloning.
The pluripotent cells resulting from SCNT are identical in thier undifferntiated state to the DNA of the original donor cell.
but Im still waiting for Wesley to answer a question...
Wesley, do you think there is a difference in the potential of pluripotent cells derived from IPSc versus SCNT?
DS: We've discussed this before but you seem not to comprehend.
It depends what you mean by potential. It appears-and Ian Wilmut's decision to give up therapeutic cloning, and Thomson's statement about IPSCs being for all intents and purposes equivalent to ES cells--that the IPSCs could theoretically do regenerative medicine in the same manner as ESCs derived from embryos created by SCNT. And, they would appear to have the same capacity to create diseased cells and for use in drug testing.
However, and this is good, the IPSCs would not permit the kind of research on genetic engineering, fetal farming, reproductive cloning agendas that SCNT would. In my mind, this makes them excellent for ethical research and medical uses, without the risk of ethical calamity.
Thank you for answering the question.
I comprehend your moral perception as to why one method is better, as I have said several times. However, that was not the point of your topic, yours was an assertion that the physical science itself was Hype.
What I mean by 'potential' relates to your assertion - that ESC derived pluripotent cells 'potential' to treat and cure disease is hype.
You say ESCr techniques are hype and also agree that their is virtually no difference in the therapeutic scientific application of ESC derived pluripotent cells vs. ones produced via IPSc, then its rational to conclude that you feel the potential of IPSc to treat and cure disease is HYPE as well. Please explain the difference if you don't agree.
Dark Swan,
Your point doesn't show that SCNT was not hyped. IF SCNT pluripotent cells are the same as iPSCs, it only means we might be guilty of hyping those too.
The hyped statements about SCNT and ESCR are pretty clear. They were part of the last two campaigns in 2004 and 2006. SHS and then us other people in advocacy in our local areas were and bore the brunt of it. It happened. Anyone who doesn't remember it was hybernating. They over promised. They know it. That's why it is so quiet out there.
That distant rumble and thunder and mighty roaring wind that we hear is a stampede of scientists running like a pack of buffalo over to work on iPSCs because it's more efficient, cheaper and easier to do than trying to clone and kill and then grow stem cell lines from killing/cannibalizing the cloned human being.
iPSCs are here now and testing is moving ahead with less money than SCNT with its boatloads of money. Scoreboard. ESCR goose egg, ASCR 73 and still going. The money is going to go iPSCs.
I think the fact that the media is hardly reporting what would have been front page "breakthroughs" for SCNT and ESCR after the iPSC breakthroughs says something about SCNT and what they originally promised. SCNT researchers in ESCR/SCNT University Industrial Complex down south of LA LA land finally figured out how to clone. That should have been worldwide news in 4 inch block letters. KERRY AND EDWARDS RIGHT. MIRACULOUS CURES AT FINGERTIPS. CHRISTOPHER REEVE WOULD GET OUT OF WHEEL CHAIR. BUSH POLICY HARMED/KILLED/MAIMED MILLIONS, AND ETC. iPSCs killed that. Second, it looks like mice found some benefit with ESCs. That should have been sustained front page news that our political opponents should have been able to whack us with. They didn't say a word after the iPSCs. It's faded as a political issues.
I think the iPSC train has left the station and it's like trying to stop a train going down Donner Summit.
There's going to be on going attempt to keep doing ESCR and SCNT, but it sure appears that a big part of stem cell research has said good bye. What did Thomson say, it's good to have begun and ended and era. But then again, who's he?
iPSCs take away the need for SCNT. I hope they work. I hope they are not as hard to deal with as ESCs or as unproductive. I hope that if the results are so sparse that they would get over that and spend more time where real benefits, treatments, advances and even cures are taking place. As I've noted before, these non embryonic stem cell successes are not Hoaxes. If they were, Bush would have never had the woman with the newly constructed bladder from her own stem cells stand beside her. He'd have been blasted out of the water. And those Brazillians that went off of insulin for a while don't seem to be a hoax any more than the many other people who have benefitted from ASCR. The argument for SCNT is gone. There's no need to clone. There's no need to create your twin and gut him or her for his or her embryonic stem cells. I'm glad.
Mr. SHS, that was no mystery to readers of SHS. Everyone said you gave an outstanding lecture at the Reno meeting. Thanks for coming. Sorry I couldn't make it. I swear that I was NOT playing golf, and NOT watching the Masters. Thanks for coming over.
No disagreement on the ease of producing and using IPSc. Scientists will be researching them to a great extent in the future and it is a good thing. But to use your analogy, its not the only train leaving the station.
IF SCNT pluripotent cells are the same as iPSCs, it only means we might be guilty of hyping those too.
Or un-hyping in this case, the broad and bright horizon of pluripotent stem cell research.
Maybe. Maybe not. It sure seems like one train has a payload, or fuel to to make it to the next station. It doesn't seem to be the kind of train carrying researchers cannibalizing tiny human beings, and promising (hyping)miraculous cures for votes. But you never know. But maybe we do know when the lead research in all of this said that that era has come to a close.
Pluripotent research from SCNT research can never ever be bright because it's immoral.
In the meantime, those overachieving non-embryonic ethical stem cells are doing great and have a bright future.
IPSC is no more or less moral than SCNT.
IPSC has the same potential to become a person as SCNT -both are alive and contain complete genomes capable of developing into a person. Neither has the ability to bring a person to term without proper external conditions.
IPSC cells are as alive and viable organisms regardless of whether they are located in culture, in an oocyte, in an artificial womb or whatever technology the future holds.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home