Embryonic Stem Cell Cancer Issue Remains Unresolved
Scientists have been working on this for nearly a decade now on making ES cells capable of being used directly in therapies. They have been stymied by three primary problems; the potential for tissue rejection (which we will not get into in this post), the cells' propensity to form tumors called teratomas, and the problem of some ES cells appearing to be pre cancerous, making them very risky to inject into a living patient. With regard to the latter issue, it turns out that the healthiest appearing ES cells may be the most dangerous. From a blog entry over at Nature:Are ruddy cheeks a sign of health or a symptom of sickness? New work from Mickie Bhatia and colleagues at McMaster University suggests that, when it comes to embryonic stem cells, the very qualities researchers use to pick out a robust cell line may in fact be bestowed by precancerous transformations. "Current measurements are not capable of distinguishing the difference between great stem cells and cancer stem cells in vitro," says Bhatia.
The problem, apparently, is that abnormalities are submicroscopic and can't be determined before they transform into specific body tissues (differentiation). This could mean that the potential cancer threat--which is in addition to the teratoma tumor issue--may be very hard to solve: "This paper shows that human ES lines with submicroscopic genetic abnormalities can display altered growth and differentiation properties suggestive of premalignant change," says Martin Pera who studies embryonic stem cells at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "In other words, a normal karyotype is not necessarily a guarantee of a normal genetic makeup within a cell line."...One of the "major challenges to the field" is developing techniques that can detect rare, abnormal cells, particularly if the transformations are not due to changes in gene sequence.
If that is true, these cells may never be able to meet the potential scientists held out for therapies (which is to be distinguished from bench science use).
Also important, he says, is figuring out just how and when such cells might be dangerous. "Ultimately it may be difficult or impossible to rule out with certainty that a given culture is totally free of abnormal cells."
Note, this has nothing to do with the Bush policy or using older stem cell lines. It may be a consequence taking these cells out of their sphere of natural development in the living embryo.
What of the alternatives to ESCR? So far, IPSCs also have a teratoma problem--which is one of the signs of pluripotency--and a potential cancer problem caused by using viruses to affect the changes, although the virus issue appears well on its way to being solved. Umbilical cord blood stem cells can be tissue typed more readily than bone marrow and so far as I have seen, have no tumor issues. Adult stem cells do not exhibit tissue rejection (since they are the patient's own cells), tumor formation, or cancer, and are in many early human trials for a variety of ailments, as we have often discussed here.
Labels: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Pre Cancerous Cells. Teratomas


3 Comments:
If they'd used logic, they could have figured out at the outset that adult stem cells from the same person would work and why embryos' stem cells wouldn't. But no, they had to go the long way around the barn, using non-human animals and embryos, both of which they had not business touching in the first place. It's more work, and requires restraint, and more intelligence, to figure things out and proceed logically, and it would mean fewer jobs for researchers, fewer grants, etc. Then what would the "geniuses" who can't cut it in the lab under those standards do. Just because someone is a "scientist" or a "researcher" or a "doctor" doesn't mean they know how to think, or are even competent. Yet society seems to assume that they are, and by making that basic logical error, it starts off on a wrong premise and permits "scientists" to operate under wrong premises, which it then accepts in turn, and that's how things got to be as they are.
Lanthe -
You nailed it. People assume that a PhD means someone is smarter than the average. I know some people who are very smart in their given professions who are terrible card players because they don't have the common sense to know when to stand pat and when to fold. My best friend calls the the "Letters Syndrome" - the more letters after a person's name, the less common sense and logic that person has. It's not that the person is stupid, it's that you get used to thinking in *one* specific way, as taught in school, and don't look for alternative measures, or look at things logically before making a move. You get hyped up in your goals and forget that not every goal is attainable, or even good to attain. All that matters is doing the work and getting the results you want, no matter the means.
Normally I disagree with you on the issue of animal research - I do believe in both eating meat and in doing some animal research under humane conditions for the sake of both animals and humans - but in this case I agree with you, because logically, from the onset, it should be obvious a person's own adult stem cells would be perfect for therapy use, and an embryo's cell is not.
One of the things proponens of ESCR says is that an embryo that's the clone of a person shouldn't reject, because they have the same DNA. But logically that makes no sense, because, DNA or otherwise, the embryo *is not the same person* as the patient! Identical twins aren't the same, and they came from the same egg - essentially naturally created clones. I've seen clones of cats (cloned by breeders who want to get the most money out of an excellent specimin), and they look and act *nothing* like the "parent" they were cloned from. If a cloned cat is a completely different individual from its parent, then cloned human embryos are completely different from the parent human, and there are bound to be all kinds of problems cropping up.
You put it very properly, thank you, I agree with you completely.
Edgar Cayce showed what the human mind is capable of concerning diagnosis and healing. That there was only one of him does not excuse our scientists for not having and exercising logic. If there are answers to be found, and the human mind is such as to have afforded them the position they claim, they should not adhere to the style of thinking and research that they do. They don't think right. If they were in the habit of at least trying to do that more, they could accomplish much more, at less expense, and with more benefit to humanity. Relying on animal research does not advance us; it holds us back and does the opposite of benefitting us.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home