Never underestimate the creativity and excellence of our scientists. New research seems to have overcome the difficulties of IPSCs, allowing pluripotent stem cells to be created from normal body cells without using genes or viruses. From the story in the Washington Post:
In 2006, researchers discovered that they could coax adult cells into a state that appeared identical to embryonic stem cells, dubbed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), by activating four genes. Those cells could morph into various tissues in the same way that embryonic stem cells can. But the process involved inserting genes into cells using retroviruses, which raised the risk the cells could cause cancer. Since then, scientists have been racing to develop alternative methods. Several approaches, using chemicals or other types of viruses, have shown promise. But none has completely eliminated the safety concerns, and most have been slow and inefficient.
The new approach involves molecules known as “messenger RNA,” or mRNA, which the DNA inside cells use to create proteins they need carry out various vital functions. The researchers created mRNA molecules carrying the instructions for the cell’s machinery to produce the four key proteins needed to reprogram themselves into iPS cells.
After tinkering with the mRNA molecules in the laboratory to make signals that the cells would not destroy as dangerous invaders, the researchers found that a daily cocktail of their creations were surprisingly fast and efficient at reprogramming the cells. The approach converted the cells in about half the time of previous methods – only about 17 days – with surprising economy – up to 100 times more efficient than the standard approach.
Moreover, detailed tests indicated the cells had not experienced any disturbing changes in their DNA caused by previous methods and were virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. In addition, the researchers went one step further and showed that they could use the approach to then coax the iPS cells they created into a specific type of cell, in this case muscle cells.
I have three observations: First, this story validates President Bush’s faith in the science sector’s capacity to find ethical ways to do what scientists used to claim only ESCR could accomplish. In fact, I think Bush deserves some credit for these advances because his policy kept society focused so closely on the moral issues surrounding the embryo.
Second: Even if this advance did EVERYTHING that scientists wanted from ESCR, it won’t stop many from wanting to experiment on nascent human life. Indeed, some would look at the advance, shrug, and keep on trying to clone. Why? Because stem cell advances are not the end game. As I wrote here, they are merely the opening stanza of a much longer symphony that seeks to open the door to Brave New World technologies such as genetic engineering and enhancement, that requires cloning and experimenting on the resulting embryos to perfect.
Third: Obama should restore the Bush policy he revoked giving priority to NIH funding for non embryonic research into sources of pluripotent stem cells. But he won’t. Many among his base loathe the very idea that a human embryo would have any moral standing.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:33 pm
[...] I pointed out in a longer analysis of this story over at Secondhand Smoke: Even if this advance did EVERYTHING that scientists wanted from ESCR, it won’t stop many [...]
September 30th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Ethical Stem Cell Breakthrough! IPSCs Without Genes or Viruses » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things .. http://ow.ly/1qYjn2 [...]
September 30th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
As I discuss in a recent post on my blog (theconsternationofphilosophy.blogspot.com), this new advance raises a host of moral and legal complications; opponents of embryonic stem cell research should understand these issues, as they will be important policy questions in the years to come.
September 30th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
Just out of curiosity…
If the US do stop funding (public funding) for hESC, what do you do when countries such as the UK, who have deemed it ethical, come out with some form of advancement.
Do you use that knowledge ignoring the fact that human embryos were destroyed in the making of the research or do you restrict this information? If so, what are the ethical implications of either.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 30th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Well, we should lead the world ethically, not follow it. In China people are killed for their organs, that doesn’t mean we should. (I am not comparing the two.) I don’t believe in restricting information. I am trying to expand information here about these issues from a position of accuracy rather than spin.
Interestingly, the UK is going to cut its support for ESCR and scientists are screaming there will be a brain drain to here.
Germany has a no kill policy with regard to embryos, as does Italy. They are not withering on the vine.
September 30th, 2010 | 1:45 pm
I think we have to give it trying to get more recognition for Bush on iPSCs. The words “Bush was right” are too hard to say. Unlike Dan Quayle, none of those who ever made Bush their enemy in this will ever be able to say “he was right.” It’s not possible. Viva GW.
There’s a silver lining for John Kerry who said cures were at our finger tips if we would have elected him. Now that Bush is looking so smart, Kerry no longer has to worry that having worse grades than Bush is degrading.
September 30th, 2010 | 2:29 pm
And once again, I have to attempt to correct the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
1) IPSC’s would not have happened without ESCR. ESCR is how we figured out how to make IPSC’s. To say IPSC’s are moral and ESCR is not is nonsensical. IPSC’s are the fruit of the ESCR tree.
2) The people who generated the IPSC’s are essentially the same people who do ESCR. There are no sides. It’s the same people. They did this of their own volition, not because George W. Bush told them to. They were working on this long before he took any position on the issue.
3) ESCR is still necessary. If we manage to produce working therapies via adult cells, hooray! Eliminates a lot of medical issues, like rejection. But that’s hardly guaranteed. More importantly, we still have a lot to learn from ESCR, and I’d say everybody that actually knows something about this field agrees on that.
September 30th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
Yes, Padraig. Some of the people who worked on ESCR switched over to IPSCs. And some of them switched over for reasons of both ethics and practicality.
September 30th, 2010 | 9:01 pm
Padraig, is it unfair to distill your approach as one that argues that potential utility trumps ethical concerns? The observation that the same people who do IPSC work also work with ESCs somehow negates the possibility of a moral distinction is nonsense. When did it become impossible for any individual to mix good and bad acts? Reflection on the course of almost anyone’s day argues otherwise.
More generally, I’m genuinely interested in hearing an explanation of how success with ESCR will not generate an increased demand for the raw materials, what I’d consider a dynamic expanding the commodification of our persons. The answer may lie in details I don’t yet understand, but how his it in this case that success of a questionable means to a desirable end will not result in perpetuating need for the means?
September 30th, 2010 | 9:41 pm
“Padraig, is it unfair to distill your approach as one that argues that potential utility trumps ethical concerns?”
Yes.
September 30th, 2010 | 9:46 pm
bmm: “Yes, Padraig. Some of the people who worked on ESCR switched over to IPSCs. And some of them switched over for reasons of both ethics and practicality.”
I don’t know of anyone who “switched over” as you call it. They were already there.
Iwanaka made his IPSC breakthroughs working collegially with James Thomson.
Oh, and the people crediting W for inspiring the IPSC breakthrough should bear in mind that it happened in Japan. W had nothing to do with it.
September 30th, 2010 | 10:25 pm
Thomson and Yamanaka have each publicly expressed their moral reservations about destroying human embryos…
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 30th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
bmmg39: Ah, what do they know anyway? Yamanaka pursued IPSCs precisely because he viewed embryos under a microscope and thought of his own children.
October 1st, 2010 | 8:34 am
Matt, you do bring up some very interesting points. For now though, it seems success with non-embryonic research solves a host of moral issues, and continuing to argue that human embryos should not be destroyed because they have moral worth would tend to help down the road, since the points you bring up are also directly related to devaluing life.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:48 pm
[...] apparently not. Wesley Smith, who has studied and written on these issues for many years, provides the reason why strong advocacy of experimentation on human embryos will continue apace: Why? Because stem cell [...]
October 4th, 2010 | 12:22 am
==== First, this story validates President Bush’s faith in the science sector’s capacity to find ethical ways to do what scientists used to claim only ESCR could accomplish
Bush … a “prolifer” like his Daddy?
Maybe you’ve never read the GOP’s 1970 task force report on “Earth Resources & Population”, you don’t care that Prescott Bush was Margaret Sanger’s moneyman and it means nothing somehow that every GOP President’s marriage was a “house divided” in that all GOP first wives are pro-choice.
He was simply teeing the ball to constrain the research at the Fed level so that Jeb and his buddy Tommy in WI and Ahnold (with money from Li Ka Shing of all people) could clean up at the more profitable, personally, state level.
(as a bonus, Bush’s decision did result in a new, improved definition of human Non-Personhood which rendered the NIH’s guidelines on “human experimentation” moot and greased the wheels of the profiteering by clinics, which clinics were the Vision of GH Bush)
I cannot fathom how it is you still manage to believe Bush has a moral bone in his body. Certainly not on this issue. Eugenic control of the national human livestock has been a Family Tradition for the Bush dynasty for generations now.
October 5th, 2010 | 1:02 pm
[...] cells called induced pluripotent stem cells—have raised hopes that consensus can form around ethical techniques that are already yielding effective treatments. One Pandora’s Box that Edwards helped [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact