SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Secondhand Smoke
Archives

Categories

Monthly


« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Saturday, February 13, 2010, 12:59 PM
Wesley J. Smith

The argument over embryonic stem cell research–and it’s first cousin and real agenda, human cloning research–has always been an ethics debate, not a science debate. But that doesn’t mean that scientific efforts to find ethical “alternatives’ to ESCR should not be engaged. That is one reason why the ubiquitous adult stem cell successes in early human trials are so important, they show that good science is often good ethics.

Despite the great advances in the adult stem cell field–so notable that the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, founded to fund ESCR/cloning research now mostly funds ASC studies–many scientists continue to insist that “pluripotency”, the ability to become any cell in the body, remains the most important attribute for regenerative medical therapies and other scientific uses. That is why induced pluripotent stem cells made such a splash: They offered pluripotency by transforming differentiated cells, e.g., skin, hair follicles, etc.–into pluripotent stem cells.

Some hoped that the IPSCs could do everything that ESCs could do. But that may not be true. A recent study reported that IPSCs are less efficient than ESCs. From the story:

In the study, the research team grew both types of cells into precursor types of various organ tissues. The embryonic cells grew about 1,000 times more readily than the induced cells, which displayed, “significantly increased apoptosis (cell death), severely limited growth and expansion capability, as well as a substantially decreased hematopoietic (blood cell) colony forming capability,” according to the study. Retina cells grown from the induced cells began aging after one generation. “The mechanisms behind the slower growth and early cellular (aging) observed here are unknown,” says the study.

This isn’t determinative, of course. Research continues. New techniques of creating IPSCs continue to be invented. In mice, cells have now been directly reprogrammed from one type to another without going through the stem cell stage. Adult stem cells continue their impressive advances in treating the most serious human ailments. And ESCs still are not approved for human trials due to safety concerns–which holds true of IPSCs, since pluripotency is hard to control and can lead to tumors.

But regardless of how the research ultimately turns out, always remember that the controversy is over ethics, not science.  Even if adult stem cells ultimately don’t meet their seeming current promise and IPSCs don’t pan out, that won’t change.

4 Comments

    David
    February 13th, 2010 | 5:12 pm

    Good science is often good ethics?

    I guess that means the discovery of ESCs is “bad” science since it’s “unthetical”? I guess ESCs, like an interventionist god, probably don’t exist.

    I therefore say we should publish any enzyme x-ray crystallography structure that’s been heterologously expressed in E. coli – regardless of resolution, R^2 value, or the question trying to be answered – because it’s ethical to work in E. coli it is, therefore, “good” science.

    By the way, Einsteins, we should all read the paper. It wasn’t done in mice. It was done in vitro. Holy cow. Osiris help this species, we are a dumb bunch.
    (hint, it was published in Nature)

    If one can’t tell the difference between a cell and an organism, what in the name of Ra makes them a reliable source of medical or scientific analysis?

    Funny how one should laud strict peer-review standards. This means scientists were correct for condemning Sternberg’s slight-of-hand.

    It’s always nice to see the light, right?

    bmmg39
    February 13th, 2010 | 6:28 pm

    David, did you miss Wesley’s point completely? He stated that the ethical argument against ESCR can stand on its own two feet just fine independent from the practical arguments against ESCR (which, by the way, are still going strong).

    Robert Lanza’s name is connected to this, Wesley. Can anyone trust this news item worth a damn?

    Wesley J. Smith Reply:

    I know Lanza is involved, but the journal it is in has a great deal of respect. Peer reviewed, don’t you know!

    Charlie
    February 13th, 2010 | 8:42 pm

    I don’t understand why more attention isn’t given to pluripotent stem cells from amniotic fluid: they multiply just as quickly in culture, are readily available, and don’t grow into cancer cells.
    Plus, they are doing amazing things:

    http://www.wfubmc.edu/Research/WFIRM/A-Record-of-Firsts.htm

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact