Turning Stem Cell Lemons into Lemonade
Posted by Jesse Reynolds April 16, 2007
Biopolitical Times
In recent years, I've tracked a change in the publicly-stated justifications for research cloning made by advocates and scientists. The practice was originally touted as a way to make patient-specific stem cell lines in order to avoid immune system rejection. In the last two or three years, the stated reasoning has evolved to cite its potential to create disease-specific stem cell lines in order to simply study diseases. Are we now witnessing a similar shift in justifications in run-of-the-mill embryonic stem cell research?
The top story in today's San Francisco Chronicle describes new research in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) indicates that the replacement of degenerated cells with new cells from stem cells will not address the cause of the damage to the tissue. Because it would treat a manifestation but not the root of the disease, such cellular therapy may be a dead end.
But according the article's author, headline writer ("Stem Cell Research Opens New Doors"), and presumably, the researchers, this doesn't decrease the imperative for embryonic stem cell research:
The top story in today's San Francisco Chronicle describes new research in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) indicates that the replacement of degenerated cells with new cells from stem cells will not address the cause of the damage to the tissue. Because it would treat a manifestation but not the root of the disease, such cellular therapy may be a dead end.
But according the article's author, headline writer ("Stem Cell Research Opens New Doors"), and presumably, the researchers, this doesn't decrease the imperative for embryonic stem cell research:
One argument for stem cell research is that it might generate fresh replacement cells for those destroyed by such horrific diseases as ALS, the paralyzing nervous system disorder popularly known as Lou Gehrig's disease.One prominent researcher even uses the opportunity to plug research cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer:
The latest research suggests those predictions might be unrealistic: Replacing cells that die off in a disease still leaves open the question of why the cells died in the first place, which is the critical issue in any autoimmune disease, or degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.
The findings may be the most dramatic example yet of the idea that stem cells are more valuable as a "disease model" -- used to study disease -- rather than a simple source of replacement parts....
Cell replacement therapy may never happen. But stem cell biologists insist it's hardly a failure if they ultimately achieve success along a different pathway.
We need to learn more about the mechanisms of these neurodegenerative diseases. This underscores why we're so excited about somatic cell nuclear transfer, which will allow us to make disease-specific cell lines.I don't mean to imply that embryonic stem cell research and research cloning don't hold potential for reducing human suffering. But it's critical that science policy be informed by science. Thus, how scientists communicate the potential of a controversial technique must be realistic, clear, and honest.