Chicago Tribune Editorial - Stem cell deja vu
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Stem cell deja vu
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published June 15, 2007
Congress and the president recently showed they still were stalemated over easing federal restrictions on stem cell research funding. That is disappointing. But scientists in the field aren't waiting around for the pols to settle their differences. They're making progress.
In recent weeks, researchers announced that they had reprogrammed ordinary cells from mice, dialing back their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells. That's exciting news because if it works in humans, such a method could offer a way to create a limitless supply of stem cell lines without using human embryos. And that would almost certainly skirt the ethical and moral objections of Bush and others, clearing the way for more federal funding of research that could lead to treatments or cures of heart disease, cancer, paralysis, diabetes and many other illnesses.
If all this seems familiar, it is. Last year, the same debate raged and Bush vetoed the same bill. Scientists trumpeted a series of advances that some analysts suggested might become alternatives to human embryonic stem cells.
The latest scientific research, detailed in papers released by three research teams, has rekindled speculation that science might render the whole political debate moot by the time the president leaves office.
We wish that were true. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely. Among the main reasons:
*The technical hurdles. The latest discovery summarized above comes with a series of daunting disclaimers about all the scientific hurdles that remain to be overcome before such procedures might be deemed safe and effective for humans. First, it was done in mice, not humans. No one knows if the same four genes that were used to turn back the clock in the mice cells are the same ones that will work with people. Second, two of those genes can cause cancer: 20 percent of the mice in one study died of the disease. Third, the gene is carried into the cell by means of a virus. That creates the possibility that the genes could wind up in the wrong place in the body; not a cheerful prospect.
Nevertheless, many experts believe these hurdles are surmountable in time. "These are all merely technical hurdles that are very approachable and very conquerable," with time, says Dr. Evan Snyder, director of the stem cell research center at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in California. How much time? With luck, he says, human stem cells may be cultivated by the same technique in two years. Or it could take as much as 10 years.
*The overwhelming need for human embryonic stem cells. "The embryonic stem cell is still the gold standard," Snyder says. Even if the latest method ultimately turns out to be useful, scientists say one method of producing stems almost certainly won't trump all the others.
Researchers are seeking to develop an extensive array of stem cells derived different ways because it's likely that some stem cells will work against some kinds of illnesses but not others. Some stem cells may work best at one stage of a disease but not another. It's also possible that combinations of stem cells derived in different ways could be most potent against certain illnesses.
Given the stances of many top presidential candidates on this issue, it's likely that the next president will reverse Bush's stand and allow the research more room to grow. We hope so. We've supported allowing federal funding for stem cell lines derived from thousands of embryos created in fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.
At the moment, private money is helping this field to flourish. But there's nothing that would galvanize this vital research like an infusion of federal dollars.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published June 15, 2007
Congress and the president recently showed they still were stalemated over easing federal restrictions on stem cell research funding. That is disappointing. But scientists in the field aren't waiting around for the pols to settle their differences. They're making progress.
In recent weeks, researchers announced that they had reprogrammed ordinary cells from mice, dialing back their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells. That's exciting news because if it works in humans, such a method could offer a way to create a limitless supply of stem cell lines without using human embryos. And that would almost certainly skirt the ethical and moral objections of Bush and others, clearing the way for more federal funding of research that could lead to treatments or cures of heart disease, cancer, paralysis, diabetes and many other illnesses.
If all this seems familiar, it is. Last year, the same debate raged and Bush vetoed the same bill. Scientists trumpeted a series of advances that some analysts suggested might become alternatives to human embryonic stem cells.
The latest scientific research, detailed in papers released by three research teams, has rekindled speculation that science might render the whole political debate moot by the time the president leaves office.
We wish that were true. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely. Among the main reasons:
*The technical hurdles. The latest discovery summarized above comes with a series of daunting disclaimers about all the scientific hurdles that remain to be overcome before such procedures might be deemed safe and effective for humans. First, it was done in mice, not humans. No one knows if the same four genes that were used to turn back the clock in the mice cells are the same ones that will work with people. Second, two of those genes can cause cancer: 20 percent of the mice in one study died of the disease. Third, the gene is carried into the cell by means of a virus. That creates the possibility that the genes could wind up in the wrong place in the body; not a cheerful prospect.
Nevertheless, many experts believe these hurdles are surmountable in time. "These are all merely technical hurdles that are very approachable and very conquerable," with time, says Dr. Evan Snyder, director of the stem cell research center at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in California. How much time? With luck, he says, human stem cells may be cultivated by the same technique in two years. Or it could take as much as 10 years.
*The overwhelming need for human embryonic stem cells. "The embryonic stem cell is still the gold standard," Snyder says. Even if the latest method ultimately turns out to be useful, scientists say one method of producing stems almost certainly won't trump all the others.
Researchers are seeking to develop an extensive array of stem cells derived different ways because it's likely that some stem cells will work against some kinds of illnesses but not others. Some stem cells may work best at one stage of a disease but not another. It's also possible that combinations of stem cells derived in different ways could be most potent against certain illnesses.
Given the stances of many top presidential candidates on this issue, it's likely that the next president will reverse Bush's stand and allow the research more room to grow. We hope so. We've supported allowing federal funding for stem cell lines derived from thousands of embryos created in fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.
At the moment, private money is helping this field to flourish. But there's nothing that would galvanize this vital research like an infusion of federal dollars.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home