Both adult and embryonic stem cell research needed
The various types of stem cell research continue to be a hot topic throughout the region. More than a year ago in March 2008, Prairie Fire presented the first essay in our discussion of stem cell research, and we had hoped that a requested differing point of view would materialize contemporaneously or shortly thereafter. Alas, it was never received, but we would welcome any contributions by physicians or scientists active in these fields of research. We are still inclined to continue our policy of not accepting essays from the paid advocacy staff of organizations on either side of this debate.
By Shane G. Smith, Ph.D., and Steven Teitelbaum, M.D.
Nebraska has certainly captured the attention of patients and medical researchers around the nation. With the Obama administration loosening federal strictures on science of all kinds, Nebraskans―like citizens in many other states―must now decide whether your contribution to our national pursuit of new treatments and cures will include advances made possible by embryonic stem cell research. Welcome to the forefront of the debate, and good luck.
As you build toward consensus, Nebraskans must work from a common foundation of accurate, unbiased science. There really is no other way to understand what you are choosing, or perhaps, what you are missing.
Predictably, Nebraska’s debate has been poisoned by those who want to make it seem as if embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and has no potential to provide treatments for diseases and injuries. This simply is not true.
The truth is that an overwhelming majority of scientists and medical organizations agree that adult and embryonic stem cells have their own distinct characteristics and their own therapeutic potential. Put simply, adult stem cells, derived from a limited number of tissues, particularly bone marrow, are useful in treating some blood disorders. It will be critically important to evaluate the clinical utility of other types of adult stem cells. However, the limited capacity of adult stem cells to produce a wide range of mature cells compromises their therapeutic potential. Yet embryonic stem cells have the innate capacity to become virtually any cell in the body, and may give rise to a range of healthy cells that can repair tissues damaged by disease or injury.
Perhaps this is why, after years of social dialogue, there is strong national support for embryonic stem cell research that spans political and religious boundaries. An honest view of this science tends to bring that kind of clarity.
Research opponents who selectively emphasize adult stem cell studies perpetuate an argument that has already been exposed as relying on misrepresentations of published scientific papers. We direct the careful reader to a letter that we co-authored entitled “Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?,” and published in the journal Science on July 28, 2006.
The apparent origin of the notion that one kind of stem cell research obviates the need for the other is a reference list generated by David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at the Family Research Council, who advises opponents of embryonic stem cell research. This list is currently posted on the Web site for the group DoNoHarm.
A review of those references revealed that the DoNoHarm list included many unverified reports, including a newspaper article and anecdotal testimony given before a Congressional committee. Where the list incorporated peer-reviewed research articles, it frequently distorted the nature of the treatment under study.
For example, drug infusion trials cited as evidence for a working adult stem cell therapy for Parkinson’s disease do not demonstrate any contribution of stem cell activity to the apparent improvements in Parkinson’s patients. A careful reading of the cited papers indicated that stem cell activity was not even studied.
Many other references showed that the therapeutic potential of a given adult stem cell treatment remains inconclusive (e.g., heart disease), nonexistent (e.g., breast cancer) or is absurd (e.g., bone marrow transplantation as a treatment for hair loss).
In other words, the DoNoHarm list actually demonstrates the converse of that group’s assertion.
The truth is that adult stem cells are an important component of our medical arsenal against blood-borne diseases like leukemia and many anemias. But there simply is no scientific basis for the claim that adult stem cell treatments are currently in general use to treat a wide range of human illnesses.
Nonetheless, these false and misleading claims continue to distort political debate on this issue.
On May 4, 2006, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) asserted: “I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells.”1
And in a press release dated May 9, 2009, Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) said: “Adult stem cell research is good science that is now helping to save American lives… Adult stem cell research, which uses umbilical cord blood, skin, and bone marrow, has yielded at least 73 successful clinical treatments for chronic conditions.”2
Inaccurate arguments like these mislead laypeople, minimize the needs of patients and give pseudointellectual cover to those who foist political obstacles upon embryonic stem cell researchers. They also fuel the proliferation of dangerous “stem cell treatment clinics” in other countries, which unconscionably exploit desperate patients with debilitating diseases.
The truth is that the misrepresentation of scientific evidence compounds a deceitful effort to infuse politics into our research labs so that responsible scientists cannot advance toward new treatments from across the full spectrum of stem cell biology.
Other states like Missouri, Michigan and California have soundly rejected these false and misleading claims. We trust that Nebraska will do the same.
Notes
1. Brownback, Sen. Sam, statement in “152 Congressional Record S4005-06,” daily edition, May 4, 2006.
2. Fortenberry, Rep. Jeff, news release on “President’s Embryonic Stem Cell Support Is Bailout of Bad Science,” (accessed on Oct. 13, 2009).
Related Story:
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Yahoo
To W. Don & Editor: I guess I haven't been diligent in picking up a Prairie Fire every month. I missed March, 2008 when there was a request for submission of an article on unethical medical research by scientists/physicians engaged in research? Was some group contacted and asked to provide a counter opinion? Sorry if any of us in our coalition were asked and did not follow through. I have forwarded this Prairie Fire to my compatriots and while too late to weigh in before the Nov. 20th Regents' meeting on the subject; perhaps a later submission will be accepted. I would state that your policy of not allowing those who are paid by advocacy groups on either side to write might include Dr. James Turpen in March, 2008 on staff at UNMC. While not an advocacy group, UNMC certainly has a position that advocates one side over the other.
The difficulty of 'accurate, unbiased science' is that it takes into account only scientific facts. There is more to life than facts; that is why there are ethics boards. Embryonic stem cells may have great potential, but this fact alone cannot be what determines their ethical use. Should science be both accurate and unbiased? Absolutetly! If it were not, science would not be able to help us as it does. But the world of science resides within the greater world of human experience. Any debate on embryonic stem cell research is not complete unless it involves more than scientific facts. Namely, ethics must always play a part. This article is severely deficient in this regard.
Post new comment