What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them So Our Benevolent Seed Overlords have invited me to discuss a variety of biotech topics, and this week it's stem cells. Since I'm not a stem cell researcher, I'll pass on the questions about feasibility of other stem cell lines--all I will do is agree with the majority of experts who argue that, currently, the most promising technologies are still based on embryonic stem cells.
But there are several implications in these questions about the intersection of embryonic stem cell research and politics that should be mentioned:
Are there any problems that have come to light as a result of the Bush Administration's stance on stem cell research they [that?] you think will play out differently with the Obama administration?
And:
....Do you think inaccurate information regarding stem cell research affects ethical and moral positions on stem cell research? Do you think there is a connection between education and attitudes about whether or not embryonic stem cell research should occur?
And:
....what future do you see for the controversy surrounding stem cells- will new technologies allow scientists to bypass the ethical oppositions, or will they continue to struggle for legal support?
I think it's safe to say that the new administration will be very different from Little Lord Pontchartrain's, if for no other reason than the embryonic stem cell prohibitions stemmed (pun intended) from an executive order. This doesn't need to go through Congress; in fact, a Republican-controlled Congress nearly overturned a veto of legislation crafted to annul the executive order, so there just isn't that much opposition.
Onto the next question. I am far less sanguine than many at ScienceBlogs about the possibility of education to change people's minds on issues like this. People, too often, are rationalizing, not rational. For those bothered by embryonic stem cell research, opposition to this research stems from a much larger agenda regarding abortion and the role of women in society. To change such deep seated beliefs typically requires a personal (not abstract) trauma that alters a worldview. After all, as Michael Kinsley noted, if this debate were evidence-based, embryonic stem cell research wouldn't be the problem, in vitro fertilization would be:
...although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.
This brings me to the final question. The problem I have with this question is "ethical opposition." Even among the theopolitical right, there is a split over the use of embryonic stem cells (an aside: there are few spectacles less edifying than a debate between Orrin Hatch and Sam Brownback). There is a broad consensus in favor of embryonic stem cell research. At some point, with any issue (and keep in mind that 28% of the U.S. public could not correctly answer a question about the earth revolving around the sun), you won't be able to convince everyone (see above), so you just have to go ahead and do it. There will be opposition to stem cell research, even if it leads to proven cures, although hopefully it will decrease. The Coalition of the Sane just needs to get it done; the (good) results will speak for themselves.
Politics
Medicine & Health
Comments
The Stem Cell Controversy
By Roger M. Nocera, M.D.
docrn@antiagingtoday.com
The embryonic stem cell (ESC)-therapy debate centers on the ethical issues of destroying a potential human life of early stage human embryos, which has not really been a discussion of medical science but of faith, beliefs and religion. President Bush halted government funding of any new ESC-lines when he took office. President Obama will lift this ban early in his first term as president. If president Obama knew the medical and scientific truth about stem cell research he would not lift this ban. The correct resolution of the stem cell debate lies in the scientific medical discoveries that have occurred just after the Bush ban took effect, during which we have learned that adult stem cells (ASCs) are far more effective, much safer and cheaper to develop than ESCs. Despite what scientists have claimed, in fact, ESCs offer no advantages and many profound disadvantages compared to ASCs medically speaking. It's not even a close race. It?s what they call ? ?a no brainer?. Moreover, the cost of developing ESCs for therapy will be exponentially greater than the cost of using ASCs.
Only public education can save us now from the problems that will occur if we continue our present ESC approach to stem cell therapy development. Our health care cost crisis could be completely solved if we choose ASCs for therapy development, while it will worsen profoundly if we go the ESC route. President Obama, like most Americans is not aware of the scientific facts involved in the stem cell debate, in which there is much at stake for all of our children, our grandchildren, and us. Since Obama is clearly intelligent enough to understand the medical realities about stem cells we have to assume he, like most other Americans is getting inferior expert opinions on the subject. I fear we Americans are about to be bamboozled yet again, by experts, as in the case of the unregulated mortgage securities, which caused our current economic calamity.
Here are the facts.
The human egg and sperm fuse into one cell called a zygote, which produces the first batch of ESCs. These ESCs produce cells in a cascade of cellular development until in the end all 220 adult cell types are produced. Included in these 220 adult cells are adult stem cells (ASCs) that we have recently discovered heal the human body from cradle to grave. Scientists have learned that biochemicals called cytokines are the triggers to these cellular changes in the developing embryo. So by soaking ESCs in different cytokine-soup recipes in just the right sequences they will be able, theoretically, to get ESCs to produce any cell type needed.
Currently we have profound unresolved problems with ESCs. We know that ESCs: produce cancers, don?t heal diseased tissues very well and are rejected by the immune system of any patient they are injected into unless large doses of dangerous immune-suppressive drugs are also given. ESC-scientists are hoping that if they can soak their ESCs in just the right types and sequences of cytokine soup recipes, imitating nature all the way, they will end up someday with a stem cell that will heal injured tissues, not cause tumors, and not be rejected by the patient?s immune system before healing can occur. This research to create such a wonderful stem cell from ESCs by the sequenced cytokine soup method is going to eventually work, no doubt. However, it is going to cost huge amounts of money. This cost will eventually be passed on to consumers, as are all medical development costs. There are already many earned intellectual properties and patents relating to the types and kinds of cytokine soup recipes and procedures involved in these ESC transformations. There will be many more. Each one adds to the cost of production.
Now here?s the rub. All this research on ESCs is entirely unnecessary. When ESC scientists finish this research they will have made exactly precisely what we already have, allogeneic ASCs, except these new ASCs that are made from ESCs will cost a fortune. These allogeneic ASCs that we already have: don?t cause tumors, heal diseases better than any ESC, and have the ability to heal before immune rejection takes place, and are obtained at one day of age, so that they are as youthful and robust as any ESC. These stem cells that we already have actually come from ESCs via the natural cascade of cytokine exposure that occurs in the normal developing fetus and are taken from the umbilical cord blood and/or the placenta after the birthing of a normal healthy baby without doing any harm to the infant whatsoever. Yet, we are going to study nature to see which cytokines it uses to make ASCs so we can make them ourselves in the laboratory at far greater cost. Brilliant. Something tells me there are financial rather than medical and scientific considerations at play here. We are going to pay through the nose for intellectual property and patent fees to make something we already exactly have. Since ASCs are used for therapy very much as they exist already in nature, most patents are unnecessary. Moreover, by using the cytokine soak method we can multiply and grow these allogeneic ASCs from thousands into trillions of cells, cheaply making enough stem cells to treat everyone in the world who needs them very inexpensively. This is great news for consumers who desperately need a break from the ever-spiraling cost of medical healthcare. Obama has the health care cost crisis solution right under his nose, but is being denied ability to see it because of dreadfully bad expert advice that is probably financially motivated. He is going to be upset when he finds out, and he will find out eventually, that he has been duped by personal-agenda motivated ?medical authorities?.
The latest ESC scheme has sidestepped the ethical argument by creating an ESC from a normal skin cell instead of an embryo. This man-made ESC will never be a viable treatment option because of cost. In order to make these ESCs, which still have all the tumor and immunity problems of normal ESCs, a highly trained cell biologist must meticulously take the nucleus out of a skin cell and place it into an egg cell, by hand, under extreme microscopic conditions for each and every patient to be treated. Since this is such a highly skilled, labor-intensive process the costs of production will never decrease to an affordable level.
In conclusion, the right-to-life folks have been saying, in effect, that even though ASCs are not as powerful as ESCs, we should choose them nonetheless because it is more ethical to do so. Well, the right-to-life folks are very wrong about that. ASCs are not an inferior substitute for ESCs. Allogeneic ASCs are superior in every way imaginable to ESCs medically. ESC-therapy research should stop, not because it is immoral, but because it is profoundly inferior and flawed in comparison to ASCs medically.
Posted by: Roger M. Nocera, M.D. | November 30, 2008 12:01 PM
Several fallacies (only "left over," frozen ivf embryos will be used, embryonic stem cells show the most potential, Bush cut off funding for stem cells.)
Why do we hear over and over that researchers need to buy oocytes, that more eggs and new embryos are needed?
Why have Melton and others who once made the news for creating new embryos to develop new stem cell lines, turned to research on induced pluripotent stem cells?
And finally: Bush did not stop funding - he made funding available for the first time. Clinton's administration was limited by the Dickey amendment -- but promised to pay for stem cells from embryos already destroyed, without allocating any funds.
Posted by: Beverly Nuckols | December 1, 2008 12:05 AM
Interesting that the commenteer brigade knows so much more than the original writer.
But we shall excuse him since he confesses up front he knows little. But he, like the sheep he criticizes, goes with the "experts" who want nothing but your tax money for cures which NO ONE really believes will ever come.
Mike: Use your noodle. You don't need to be a scientist to know that Bush has NOTHING to do with the lack of success your "experts" blame on him. When you buy into that nonsense (and you do) you are saying that the 90% of embryonic "scientists" around the world NOT affected by Bush are all morons who have accomplished absolutely nothing in ten years and don't have Bush to blame. How many billions will we have to spend on absolutely needless research before we wake up to the hoax?
Posted by: Don Margolis | December 2, 2008 3:56 AM
Don,
human embryonic stem cell research is either prohibited or severely limited in Germany, Austria, Italy, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands. Other than Sweden, the UK, and Israel, there is no governmental support for human embryonic stem cell research--and that support began in 2005.
That just might have something to do with the lack of success. And in animal models, Israeli researchers two years ago, successfully treated juvenile diabetes. That sounds promising to me.
Next time, if you're going to flame, at the very least, don't do it while shilling for a company.
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | December 2, 2008 12:23 PM
Hello,
Very interesting article, Stem Cells are here for you now. I would like to introduce you to the World’s First Stem Cell Enhancer. It is proved by Science and Medical Teams in a Peer Review study. www.adultstemcellsrelease.com . Please take the tour and down load the study. Adult stem Cells can become any organ, tissue, or muscle in the body. After taking 1 gram of StemEnhance your body releases 3 to 4 million adult stem cells, into the blood stream. This is the body’s natural way to renew, refresh, and rejuvenate itself. We are unleashing a whole new system of the body that has always been there. This is an all natural botanical extract for everyone.
http://naturalwellnessandhealth.blogspot.com/
http://www.stemtechchat.com/video/intro092006/CDrapeau-Intro1a.html
www.rmumme.stemtechbiz.com
Ray Mumme
raymumme@gmail.com
314-488-4454
Posted by: ray mumme | December 2, 2008 9:42 PM
Mad, you made Don's point by listing all the countries that restrict embryonic stem cell research, often more severely than the US does. President Bush, who first supported money for embryonic stem cell research in 2001, has not limited stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise. (BTW, several models have used adult stem cells in animals to "cure" diabetes. )
Did y'all notice that the European Union has refused to patent WARF's technique for developing embryonic stem cells - the EU won't patent biotech that depends on the destruction of human embryos.
Posted by: Beverly Nuckols | December 3, 2008 8:04 AM
Wow, that was some pretty potent resistance that popped up quickly. Are these folks paid to look for the opportunity?
The argument that since we (some groups somewhere anyway) have been working on this for a few years and have found nothing, we might as well give up is a fundamentally ID creationist type of policy: It's too complicated so just accept that god did it and don't keep doing research. It's not like digging a ditch.
Saying that shrub did not hinder research is almost certainly false. He limited funding to those labs that would only work with limited cell lines. Sounds like a hindrance to me.
If Nancy Reagan couldn't sway the government to move it's lazy ass over to support unfettered stem cell research, that had to be some pretty deep fundie money pushing back. Damn shame.
Posted by: Mike | December 3, 2008 12:44 PM
Google news search is my source for alerts on "news" about stem cells. That's how I stay up with actual news and the rants like yours, Mike.
I believe it's more useful to actually engage people who disagree with me. I assume other people think for themselves, that their motives are consistent with their idea of what's best for other people and some notion of the importance of learning about issues.
Don't you?
Posted by: Beverly Nuckols | December 9, 2008 12:54 PM
Excellent post and very informative on this breakthrough in medicine.
Over 100 years ago, a Russian histologist suggested stem cells be applied for scientific research. They are the human body’s equivalent of a generator, as they can renew, regenerate, and replicate under the right conditions.
The apex of cellular therapy and regenerative/reparative medicine has been reborn after an 8 year moratorium that basically halted federal funding for stem cell research with most states in the U.S.
Now the NIH can award grants to scientists involved with biomedical research involving stem cell therapy.
While never banned, stem cell research had limited funding during this time. And this was unfortunate, because there are several likely uses of stem cells.
These uses include the replacement of tissues in the human body, as well as repairing cell types that are defective. Also, stem cells can deliver genetic therapies that are needed.
ESCs are totiplotent if obtained from the morula which is a pre-blastocyst stage. Normally, the stem cells are acquired from the blastocyst itself. From this source, the stem cells can be any cell in the human body except for the placenta.
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from a 4 day old embryo called a blastocyst, and are pluripotent from this source. The blastocyst contains about 100 cells, and is not suitable at this stage for implantation into the uterine wall.
The inner core of the blastocyst has about 20 cells, and this is where stem cells are obtained.
These cells are unspecialized cells that can be developed or morphed into the over 200 cells available in the human body through differentiation, as ESCs are undifferentiated by nature.
As such, they can become any human cell, as long as they are prevented from clumping or crowding together when explanted into cultures as they are propagated. After stem cells are cultured, they are moved to what are called stem lines.
Positive results from stem cell therapy are seen usually within a month, and patients can request another treatment about 6 months after the first treatment presently. This stem cell paradigm of therapy addresses the etiology of a disease state, instead of focusing on the symptoms only.
Until recently, ESCs were believed to be most beneficial instead of the adult stem cell alternative (ASC). However ASCs (somatic stem cells) now can be coerced into differentiation through plasticity (trans-differentiation).
Thanks to molecular biology, four transcription factors control the transfer of genetic information from DNA to RNAS to regulate gene expression. So ASCs can have the same beneficial qualities as ESCs.
In the past, viral vectors and exotic genes interfered with the purity of ASCs. Now ASCs are re-programmed using plasmids instead of viruses and oncogenes that can become detrimental for the patient treated.
So now, ASCs can safely become induced pluripotent cells with the same potential as ESCs. As a result, the ASCs are free of genetic artifacts that potentially can interfere with transgene sequences.
They are capable of, and are able to renew and reproduce with minimal effort. Human blood can be reproduced with stem cells under the right conditions.
SCT can also be used to investigate disease states for better treatment options. Disease-specific stem cell lines, which are those cells that are pluripotent and are created with the same genetic errors of certain diseases, are studied for this reason.
So there clearly is a huge potential for stem cell-based therapies. The first FDA approved clinical trial occurred early in 2009. This human trial will involve evaluating primarily the safety of ESCs designed to be used as treatment for spinal cord injury patients. The trial was submitted by Geron Corp.
Pfizer, the largest drug company, has implemented stem cell research, as they are an asset to drug discovery by creating within the organization a regenerative medicine unit. Other large pharma companies are implemented similar research protocols for the same reasons.
Geron Corp. in California is the world’s leading esc developer, and financed researchers at Univ. of Wisconsin, who isolated the first human esc in 1998.
Some believe ethical restraints are needed regarding the use of ESCs for therapeutic reasons. Yet they improve the quality of life of those with devastating diseases which involves suffering without any relief.
So stem cell therapy and research may be the most right and ethical thing to do for such patients.
Embryos are acquired from fertility clinics (IVFs) that have thousands routinely stored and are abnormally fertilized. This means that they could never go on to become a human, and would be destroyed otherwise.
Ironically, one could argue it is inappropriate to discard what may be valuable and ethical for others, potentially.
Most couples with frozen embryos would gladly give them to such research, surveys have concluded.
These embryos are believed by many to not be morally equivalent to human life, but only have the potential for life. And they are used for therapeutic cloning, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, and not reproductive cloning.
Ten states have banned this cloning out of ignorance, it seems. Bioethic principles, which are beneficience, or physician-centered decisions, as well as non-maleficence, which is first do no harm, are not corrupted.
Furthermore, autonomy, which is the patient’s right to determine their health, and justice or fairness remain intact.
Stem cells should be utilized for those terminally ill as well, many believe. Many are seeking stem cell therapy overseas due to restrictions in the U.S. presently.
Dan Abshear
Posted by: Dan | March 28, 2009 5:09 PM