Advanced Cell Technology is reporting that a very preliminary review of its ESCR-derived eye treatment shows safety and potential efficacy. From The Lancet:
Schwartz and colleagues have realised the potential to use hESCs therapeutically in human beings. Their report is preliminary, in only two patients, and with a short-term follow-up; but the results are impressive—especially considering the progressive nature of both diseases. Also of importance is that the patients were part of a phase 1 safety study, and the lowest dose was not only safe but seems to be effective for the duration of the 4-month follow-up. The investigators appropriately maintain a cautionary tone, because it is still unclear whether any of the visual improvements recorded were due to the transplanted cells or to other factors, such as the immunosuppressive drugs. It is also possible that repeated treatments will be necessary.
A few thoughts. First, it seems unusual to do a report this early in a study, particularly when the results are so preliminary. But I said to expect this kind of thing the other day when ACT got a puff piece about itself published in Nature. In other words, early touting of success before a study’s completion is consistent with ACT’s past MO of generating publicity for its work, as a search for investment. And it hasn’t always turned out positive in the end. So take this with a grain of salt.
That point aside, and more importantly: The controversy over embryonic stem cell research has always been one of ethics, not science. Even if this study ultimately doesn’t work, someday ESC might prove medically useful in the clinical setting. As I ask every anti ESCR group to which I speak, “What will you do if some ESC-based treatments prove to be efficacious and safe?” People had better think about that. Will you accept a treatment you consider to be unethical, or refuse it at the potential cost of continued illness? That could well become a conundrum that all who oppose ESCR could someday face. Similarly, medical professionals who do not wish to be part of a procedure that involved the taking of human life–as ESC therapies do in the destruction of early embryos–need to think about what they will do if these ESC-based treatments ever reach the clinic.
Medicine has become morally polyglot and ethically heterodox. The question may get down to how individuals act in the face of these potential new powers and challenges.
January 23rd, 2012 | 6:31 pm
(((“What will you do if some ESC-based treatments prove to be efficacious and safe?”)))
Just like the days of old when you men would not accept black and/or women! Don’t be silly Wesley! We gods would never give humans un-wanted bad cells!
I hear ya! That will be enough of your sarcasm sinner vic!
Peace :)
January 23rd, 2012 | 10:28 pm
just want to chime in – ACT actually doesn’t harm the embryo to derive stem cells. Destruction is not a necessity in this process anymore:
http://www.actcblog.com/2011/02/act-secures-patent-to-generate-embryonic-stem-cells-without-embryo-destruction.html
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:38 pm
Not true. That was one approach ACT chose to try and get around Bush restrictions. This human trial involves the usual ESCR embryo destructive approach.
January 24th, 2012 | 8:20 am
There is a moral principle that holds in this case: it is morally wrong to do something that is intrinsically evil in order to try to bring about a good. Even what might be deemed a “greater good.”
We do not kill human beings to harvest organs, even prisoners on death row. We do not kill human beings to harvest stem cells.
January 24th, 2012 | 10:26 am
Question:
Is non-embryo stem cell therapy available for this “treatment?”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Not sure. I know ASCs have been used with some success for many eye conditions. Don’t know if this particular one. Check http://www.stemcellresearch.org
David Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:00 am
@larry welch, no.
January 24th, 2012 | 10:27 am
Interestingly, a number of vaccines ( primarily rubella and chicken pox) were created on fetal tissue cell lines obtained from abortions– including some which were coerced by doctors, in the case of rubella. It poses a moral dilemma for Catholic parents (and others opposed to abortion).
There isn’t any definitive hlep offered from the Vatican about this but I believe there is a general thinking that, as the abortions already happened and are not ongoing to produce the vaccines, and the good of vaccination is a significant one, then it is permissable to use them.
Some parents find it impossible to do so in good conscience, however, or it becomes part of a larger group of reasons not to vaccinate.
The immediacy of an *actual* illness happening right now will be even more of a dilemma.
Big Don Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
@holyterror, “The immediacy of an *actual* illness”…sort of like the Right-To-Lifers who covertly take care of the problem when their own daughters get into “trouble…”
January 24th, 2012 | 11:47 am
I think http://www.stemcellresearch.org is out of money or its operators are busy with other things now. You can find a good deal of information there now — compliled news items linked over several years — but it hasn’t been updated in about twelve months.
January 24th, 2012 | 2:57 pm
Increasingly companies are using aborted fetal tissue to develop everything from drugs to flavor enhancers to beauty products and most are not up front about where they got their cell lines. I fear that well-meaning people who would normally not use these drugs or products will do so because they simply do not know that development was made possible by the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. I think the same will happen with embryonic stem cell therapies. Medical professionals probably won’t mention where the stem cells came from and patients won’t ask. A sign of the times.
January 25th, 2012 | 6:30 am
This is an important article. I disagree with Mr. Smith on practically everything in terms of stem cell research– but he raises a valid issue, which should be considered by both sides.
I believe embryonic stem cell research (or the induced pluripotent variety, knowledge of which sprang from escr) will one day bring cures to many illnesses or injuries currently considered incurable.
When it does, will those who previously opposed the research feel obligated to refuse its help?
I hope not. We all love our families, and if cure came for something which threatened one of our loved ones, I sincerely hope it would be accepted, regardless of our political/religious views.
The debate will continue, as is right and proper.
But may cures come in our lifetime.
best,
Don C. Reed
January 25th, 2012 | 11:03 am
How about readers actually answer the very important question posed by Smith?
“What will you do if some ESC-based treatments prove to be efficacious and safe?”
My answer: yes, I will fully accept and use when necessary FDA approved treatments obtained from harvested human ESCs
What is so difficult about this?
January 25th, 2012 | 12:45 pm
The obvious answer is “no.” I’ll stick with the treatments derived from ASCs. Looks like I won’t have to wait as long as others will, in that case.
David Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@bmmg39, fair enough.
January 25th, 2012 | 5:57 pm
I think IPSCs help clarify the moral issues for me – my problem with embryonic stem cells lies not in what they are, but how they were obtained.
I appreciate your efforts popularizing the progress being made with ASC and IPSC treatments, Wesley, but I’ve always figured that eventually there would be a working ESC treatment using cells derived from destroyed embryos. It would be great if we could avoid the temptation of having to choose between our ethics and a successful treatment, but things rarely work out that way. It’s important that we ask ourselves these questions.
Me? I will refuse any ESC treatment. It would be no different to me than refusing an organ harvested from a Chinese political prisoner. Frankly, I’d rather die.
January 29th, 2012 | 11:43 pm
I’m not even sure if I would take an organ donation anymore, since there’s controversy about brain death. So I can believe that it’s unlikely I would use a cure based on ESC. I pray I never need to make the choice.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact