Spinal Confusion

Novel stem cell technology leads to better spinal cord repair

2006-04-28T16:55:00.000-04:00

The University of Rochester and Baylor University recently published a paper on a new approach to treating paralysis. They tested three sets of rats: untreated rats acted as controls, while the experimental groups consisted of those receiving transplants of undifferentiated embryonic stem cells or an embryonic derivative, named GDAs.

In order to prove beneficial, either of the two experimental groups had to show some improvement over the control group. The rats treated with undifferentiated embryonic stem cells showed no improvements, but those receiving GDA transplants demonstrated substantial recovery.

What are GDAs, you ask? Researchers start with embryonic stem cells and encourage them to differentiate into a cell type known as glial-restricted precursors, or GRPs. These GRPs are further differentiated into glial-restricted precursor derived astrocytes (GDAs), or GDAs.

Now, hopefully you'll be reading this and cringe at the use of embryonic stem cells (after all, I write this blog for people who oppose their use), but that's not really so important.

GRPs can be obtained from adult stem cells, too. Theoretically, these GDAs should be derivable from adult-derived GRPs.

The adult- and embryo-derived GDAs may share a common gene expression profile, or they may not. If they do, adult-derived GDAs should be as functional as their embryonic counterparts. If not, a differential analysis will show which genes are not common and allow researchers to pinpoint the genes that need to be expressed (or, conversely, repressed) to grant the adult-derived cells the power of the embryonic-derived GDAs.

More interestingly, if the effects are mediated by a select protein or two (remember: genes code for proteins), researchers can work on developing synthesized versions of these proteins and use these to mimic the effects, doing away with cells (adult or embryonic) entirely.

Isn't science wonderful?

Safety or "Gimme!"?

2006-04-06T18:13:00.000-04:00

A new story is out about a woman who lost her sight receiving a chip implant and regaining the ability to "see," if only in a crude manner. The article mentions that the surgery was performed in Portugal, with the final paragraph mentioning "[t]he surgery is not yet performed in the United States" due to some minor, seemingly unimportant issues.

A small thing called "safety" appears to be the primary concern. The neurosurgeon performing the surgery works in the US, but has no clinical trial registered at the national clinical trial database about this procedure.

This raises an interesting pair of questions: Should doctors who officially work in the US be legally allowed to ferry patients (who can come up with the exorbitant fee) to remote locations to perform untested, unproven therapies for them? If so, would it not be better to just allow them to take place inside the United States?

My gut says no, but what would happen if it was allowed? Let's play with the assumption that it was perfectly cool to do just that. What could happen?

For fun, let's narrow this allowance to only those suffering from untreatable diseases, disorders, and injuries to undergo proposed embryonic stem cell-based therapies. Everyone who reads the media knows *ahem* that ESCs can cure everything short of death itself. (This last point, it should be noted, is disputed. The former is too, but not quite as often.)

Editorializing over, back to the point.

The modern Hippocratic Oath no longer includes a provision to "do no harm," so let's say the FDA makes the above allowance.

A random physician, we'll call him Dr. Redar, sets up shop in the US and begins offering ESC-based therapies to help those suffering from paralysis. Dr. Redar is inundated with requests from wealthy individuals who want to be first. Rummaging through the submitted MRIs and medical history of these people, he stumbles upon a recently injured quadriplegic whose MRIs show a high degree of compression.

"Decompression will help this guy out, regardless of whether the ESCs do," the kind doctor says. "My first surgery needs to show impressive results to grab others' interest, so this guy looks like the perfect marketing device!"

The surgery, including decompression, is performed and the patient improves as Dr. Redar anticipated. The results are trumpeted throughout the media, bringing Redar more clients than he could have hoped for. Three months later, he has treated 35patients and only two more have demonstrated any significant improvements.

One of the patients decides she was scammed and decides to take Redar to court, but no lawyer will take her case. "Remember that release of liability form you signed? There was a clause in there stating you understood that, due to a lack of credible prior human studies, the therapy does not carry with it any promises."

Three months more pass and there's an uh-oh: a patient dies as a result of... well, the doctor really doesn't know. The lack of regulation allowed the doctor to move forward without maintaining strict, complete documentation of each client.

The media grabs this story and runs with it. "ESC-based therapy kills patient" is the headline on most major news outlets for an extended period of time. Similar to the Jesse Gelsinger situation, private entitites would shy away from funding research into this young field, further delaying any benefit ESC-based therapies may one day bring to patients.

Oops?

An attempt to help could backfire in such a devastating disaster. Granted, death is an extreme example and is possible with any procedure -- proven or not -- but the risk of damaging the field is too great.

Another problem would be that, even if the treatment worked, the uncontrolled environment it was produced under would not allow insurances to cover it for others. This would prevent widespread adoption of the treatment, adding further delays for patients in need.

All-in-all, it's a bad deal. As Robin Williams said in Aladdin, "it's not a pretty picture. I don't like doing it!"

Personally, I'll wait for structured trials that have defined safety protocols. Losing what ability I have to breathe independently would truly suck.

Stem Cell Innovations Produces Human Pluripotent Stem Cells; Cells Eligible for Use in Government Funded Laboratories

2006-03-29T20:15:00.000-05:00

This looks interesting.

Stem Cell Innovations Produces Human Pluripotent Stem Cells; Cells Eligible for Use in Government Funded Laboratories
3/29/2006 6:41:00 AM EST

Dr. James H. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer of Stem Cell Innovations, Inc. (OTCBB: SCLL), will present data today at the Keystone Symposium on Stem Cells in Vancouver demonstrating that the Company has produced multiple lines of human pluripotent stem cells. Because these cells are derived from fetal tissue, not early embryos, they are eligible for use in laboratories funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Stem cells are cells that can produce additional stem cells as well as one or more other types of cells. Pluripotent stem cells can develop into most, if not all, of the tissues of the organism. To date, two types of mammalian stem cells have been shown to be truly pluripotent: the well-known embryonic stem cells (ES cells), which are cultured from very early embryos and are patented by the University of Wisconsin, and the lesser-known embryonic germ cells (EG cells), which are developed from fetal gonadal tissue. EG cells were originally developed by Dr. Brigid Hogan and have been patented and licensed exclusively to Amphioxus Cell Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, but have been used in only a few laboratories because of the difficult nature of their isolation and growth. While the widespread use of ES cells has been hampered by ethical issues and government funding limitations, Congressional legislation treats fetal tissue differently. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has stated that research involving the derivation and use of EG cells may be conducted with Federal support (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf).

In his presentation at the Symposium, Dr. Kelly will present data demonstrating that Company scientists were able to overcome many of the problems inherent in the production of EG cells. First, the Company's cell lines are able to maintain their undifferentiated state and normal chromosome complement. Second, the Company is able to produce its cell lines without feeder layers (layers of foreign cells used as an environment to grow the stem cells which can complicate the process and result in contamination of the stem cells). Finally, the Company is able to efficiently develop multiple lines, the first step in creating banks of cells that can be matched to patients in cell therapies.

Hematopoietic Stem Cells Fail to Transdifferentiate into Neurons

2006-03-25T16:04:00.000-05:00

Ouch!

Researchers in Sweden have a paper out in Stem Cells that tries (keyword: tries) to put the kibosh on the transdifferentiation hopes. They took purified hematopoietic (blood-forming) stem cells and cultured them in neural differentiation medium.

Culturing embryonic stem cells in said medium causes them to develop toward a neural fate, so these researchers were checking to see if the same culturing medium would cause adult stem cells to transform into a neural type. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't work. But it's not all that bad.

Truly.

Previous studies that have shown transdifferentiation failed to use pure populations of hematopoietic stem cells, meaning they were "contaminated" by a variety of non-hematopoietic stem cells. There is a very strong possibility that these "contaminating" cells contributed to the observed transdifferentiation.

The reason? In newts, regeneration occurs naturally. Slice off their leg, they'll grow a new one. Really, really cool stuff. If humans could do this, it would be even cooler. But they can't.

Or can they?

Regeneration in newts is made possible by their native satellite cell population. Humans have a similar population of cells that help regenerate damaged skeletal muscle tissue. If it's damaged, the satellite cells move into action. These satellite cells also contribute to wound healing.

Regeneration in humans is, therefore, possible. It is limited, however, by its environment. By correctly manipulating the environment (to allow for transdifferentiation or redifferentiation), it is very likely that the regenerative abilities of humans can be enhanced to promote complete limb regeneration. Amputees would no longer be forced to rely on prosthetic limbs.

Transdifferentiation probably is not directly possible in humans, but if coaxed along through the proper series of steps, it can (or should) be possible. (If transdifferentiation occurs through a series of steps, I believe it's more commonly referred to as redifferentiation, but it's the same thing.)

This is cool stuff. Let me tell you.

Nuclear Reprogramming

2006-03-24T17:12:00.000-05:00

Gee, you wait a few hours and someone beats you to the punch.

Rebecca over at Mary Meets Dolly blogged about a Technology Review article out today entitled Nuclear Reprogramming. She knows her stuff, so give her a read and then come back.

Allrighty then. So you now have some idea about what's being proposed. Essentially, deriving embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying an embryo. The Holy Grail, if you will.

All these weird terms are thrown out at you -- Cdx2, Nanog, ANT, PGD -- and I plan on skipping those today. Because, really, they're just clutter.

Today, we're going to discuss cell biology and, hopefully, we're going to do so in a way that a fifth grader can understand. So, please, forget everything you know about a cell for the duration of this entry. When you're done, you'll thank me.

Biology Made Easy

If you ask someone what a cell is, you'll get different answers from different people.

Gaming enthusiasts will delight you with tales of the new processor powering the PlayStation 3. Stephen King fans will reminisce of the bars that could not contain Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption. Those who have sat through a biology class will tell you that a cell is the basic unit of life.

They would all be right. I'm going to offer you a different definition.

A cell is a component of life that contains a nucleus and cytoplasm, and organelles that help it function. A cell's functioned is defined primarily by two things: the genes expressed in its nucleus, and the proteins floating around in the cell.

Lower estimates put the number of genes in the human body right around 25,000. This makes the number of unique genetic expression profiles almost impossible to consider. It gets even more complicated, but we're going to keep things simple and say that there are only 4 genes -- A, B, C, and D.

Each of these genes can be expressed -- turned on -- or not -- turned off -- giving us 16 distinct genetic profiles. (A, AB, ABC, ABCD, ABD, AC, ACD, AD, B, BC, BCD, BD, C, CD, D, [none])

Each of these profiles will cause the cell to perform a different function. AB, as an example, would function as a zygote; ABC an embryonic stem cell; ACD a neural stem cell; AD a neuron; and so on and so forth.

I hope you're still with me, because here's the cool part -- scientists can add and delete genes in the laboratory. Say CD is a skin cell. By adding the A gene, the cell would become a neural stem cell. By deleting C from this neural stem cell, the cell becomes a neuron.

More interestingly, scientists could take a skin cell (CD), delete the D, add an A and a B and -- bingo! -- an embryonic stem cell (ABC). All without creating an embryo.

That's the power of nuclear reprogramming. This is the future of science.

This is the stuff that makes me drool.

Why Must Though Forsake Me, Bloomberg?

2006-03-23T07:20:00.000-05:00

Bloomberg has a semi-decent piece up describing the current state of embryonic stem cell bills in Congress. If you have been following the issue, you may be able to understand what they're saying. If you haven't, good luck.

But that's why I'm here, to clarify these issues in my normal cheerful way. Let's begin.

Bush has prohibited federal funding for any research using material from newly created human embryos since 2001. While Frist has promised to bring a measure before the Senate to overturn Bush's ban, a plan to begin debate this month has been stalled.

Scientists inject embryonic cells with genetic material, creating regenerative tissue that in theory could be implanted in patients to cure diseases from Parkinson's to juvenile diabetes. The Republican Party's evangelical Christian base is opposed to the research because human embryos are destroyed in the process.

There's a subtle segway here that isn't explicitly clear.

The first paragraph accurately describes Bush's 2001 ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cells, but it is incomplete. Bush's ban only relates to ESCs derived in a manner in which an embryo is destroyed. One proven "alternative" method to obtain embryonic stem cells comes from Kevin Eggan. In 2005, he fused an adult cell with an ESC, which produced a "cloned" ESC -- all without creating or destroying an embryo. Research using these ESCs would be eligible for federal funding.

Now the segway, and the inaccuracies. Bloomberg reports that the Evangelical Christian base opposes this method. In actuality, they do not. Those who are against expanding Bush's restrictions oppose it because they are against detroying embryos.

The procedure Bloomberg describes does not rely on the destruction of embryos, so I have to think they meant transferring an adult nucleus into an enucleated egg, in which case an embryo is created. Evangelicals do, largely, oppose this.

The article goes on to discuss the political maneuverings of various Senators about this issue. Sam Brownback (R-KS) wants a week long discussion on bioethics where opponents can introduce legislation to block expansion of the research, and he thinks he has the 51 votes necessary to do so. Tom Harkin (D-IA) thinks, when push comes to shove, a number of fence-sitting Republicans will vote in favor of expansion.

Senator Frist (R-TN), staying consistent with his previous statements, said he would like to consider "a range of bills and amendments" when the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act comes to the floor for a vote. I am (no surprise) hoping the Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act is one of those bills.

LifeNews Exploiting Dana Reeve's Death

2006-03-17T14:04:00.000-05:00

Tim Quayle, writing for LifeNews.com, mourns the fact that the mainstream media (allegedly) omitted the fact that Dana Reeve supported stem cell research.

The national media was full of broken hearts last week when Dana Reeve died at 44, after nearly a decade of caring for disabled “Superman” star Christopher Reeve. It was obvious from the coverage that this woman had won hearts and made friendships in the media elite. But something strange happened in all the laudatory waves of coverage. Someone shrunk her activism.

It’s common for reporting on embryo-destroying stem cell research to leave out the embryo-destroying part. But the tear-stained accounts of Reeve’s sudden end often left out the words “stem cell” as well.

My guess is this guy doesn't consult Google. From a post I made elsewhere last Saturday:

Google News currently returns 1690 results for dana-reeve.

201 results reference her support of stem cell research.

Only 3 results reference her work toward passing the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act.

Stem Cells - mentioned once in every (approximately) 8.5 stories.

CRPA - mentioned once in every (approximately) 563 stories.

Tim Quayle appears saddened that the media outlets he sampled placed her support for a cure for paralysis over her support for ESC research, but he goes on to use her death to promote his agenda. No matter what you think of someone's opinions, it is rather tacky, and uncool, to use their death to lecture people.

Tim, learn some tact. In my opinion, your spiel does harm to the Pro-Life community. Those who carefully picked over her words to push their agenda, intentionally omitting facts that don't fit their preconceived perceptions, do the same to their respective agendas.

To the best of my knowledge, Dana Reeve's primary focus was on improving the Quality of Life of people until the day a cure arrives. Not stem cells, and not a cure for paralysis -- although they were an important focus.

She wanted people to live with a decent Quality of Life -- and that's something everyone should respect.

Therapeutic Regeneration?

2006-03-16T17:46:00.000-05:00

PhD or not, this guy's obviously tapped the crack pipe a time or two too many. His terms are all wrong.

In attempting to redefine therapeutic cloning ("therapeutic regeneration"), he equates SCNT with deriving cells from IVF embryos.

Uh, no.

For therapeutic regeneration, these cells can be derived from the ample numbers of embryos that will otherwise be discarded by in-vitro fertilization clinics across the nation.

He claims that generic bans on cloning in certain states forbid derivation of embryonic stem cells from to-be-discarded IVF embryos, which is clearly untrue.

Although a few states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio) have authorized therapeutic regeneration research using stem cells, many more states (including Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Michigan) have passed severely restrictive statutes that prohibit "cloning" research, without making the critically important distinction between reproductive and therapeutic purposes. As a result, research that uses embryos to establish stem cell lines is prohibited, even though these embryos are obtained with the express consent of the donors, and if not used are otherwise destined to be discarded.

Cloning bans prohibit cloning. Derivation of embryonic stem cell lines does not require cloning, so these prohibitions in no way prohibit ESC line derivation. Other laws may, but it is not the ones who ban cloning.

I think this would totally blow up in proponent's faces if they tried to use it. Instead of making things easier, propagating this blatant disinformation would make things much more difficult.

Frightening.

South Korea Revokes Hwang's Stem Cell License

2006-03-16T10:39:00.000-05:00

SEOUL, March 16 (Reuters) - South Korea revoked the research licence of disgraced stem cell scientist Hwang Woo-suk on Thursday, saying he had not published a credible paper on the subject within the allotted time frame to deserve one.

I wish I could say I feel sorry for him.

Welcome Readers of Wired News!

2006-03-09T11:26:00.000-05:00

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all readers visiting from Wired News. My blog is a little hectic right now with respect to comments, as they were disabled for a while. From now on, they will be turned on.

Thank you for visiting, and feel free to contact me at se-wired@comcast.net if you have any comments. :)

Dana Reeve Dies

2006-03-07T08:58:00.000-05:00

SHORT HILLS, N.J. -- Actress Dana Reeve, who fought for better treatments and possible cures for paralysis through the Christopher Reeve Foundation, named for her late actor-husband, has died. The Associated Press reports that she was 44, while CNN reports she was 45.

Reeve died late Monday at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Medical Center of lung cancer, said Sean Dougherty, a spokesman for the foundation. Survivors include a teenage son, Will, and two stepchildren, Matthew and Alexandra.

"On behalf of the entire board of directors and staff of the Christopher Reeve Foundation, we are extremely saddened by the death of Dana Reeve, whose grace and courage under the most difficult of circumstances was a source of comfort and inspiration to all of us," Kathy Lewis, president and CEO of the foundation, said in a statement.

Reeve had announced on Aug. 9 that she had lung cancer.

Christopher Reeve, the one-time Hollywood "Superman" turned activist for spinal cord research after a horse-riding accident, died Oct. 10, 2004.

Dana Reeve was a constant companion and supporter of her husband during his long ordeal and his work for a cure for spinal cord injuries.

She was chairwoman of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, which funds research on paralysis and works to improve the life of the disabled. To date, it has awarded $55 million in research grants and $7.5 million in quality of life grants.

She was performing in the Broadway-bound play "Brooklyn Boy" in California when she had to streak home to reach her husband's bedside before he died. She gave up the role for the New York run.

Reeve also served on the boards of The Williamstown Theatre Festival, The Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey, TechHealth, and The Reeve-Irvine Center for Spinal Cord Research and as an advisory board member to the National Family Caregivers Association.

She received numerous awards for her work, including the Shining Example Award from Proctor & Gamble in 1998, an American Image Award from the AAFA in 2003. In 2005, the American Cancer Society named her Mother of the Year.

She is also survived by her father, Dr. Charles Morosini, and sisters Deborah Morosini and Adrienne Morosini Heilman.

It's too sad for words.

At this time, no plans for a funeral have been announced. For those who care to do so, donations may be made in Dana's memory to the Christopher Reeve Foundation, 636 Morris Turnpike, Short Hills, New Jersey 07078 or online at www.ChristopherReeve.org

Altered Nuclear Transfer - Not So Ethical?

2006-03-04T16:57:00.000-05:00

Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) is one of the procedures Congressman Roscoe Bartlett spoke of when addressing methods of funding research into "ethical methods of deriving embryonic stem cells." But, for those who oppose SCNT, is it really ethical?

Let's take a closer look.

ANT describes a general concept for performing an altered form of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT); thus the name. As we know, SCNT involves replacing the nucleus of an egg cell with one from an adult cell and stimulating it with electricity, tricking the cell into believing it is fertilized.

The NT-product, or clone, then attempts to do ... something. Essentially, whatever the instructions in the cytoplasm tell it to do. Scientists hope that they can use SCNT to make a cell that functions as a zygote, developing into a morula and eventually a blastocyst. It is at this point that scientists will attempt to extract the embryonic stem cells, destroying the blastocyst in the process.

ANT is SCNT, with a small difference: a modification is made to either the egg's cytoplasm or the donor cell's nucleus to prevent an embryo from developing. (Some would say, ANT is SCNT with the aim of creating a "developmentally disabled" embryo. The difference in terminology is philisophical, so please choose the definition you prefer and continue. I am not saying which is right or wrong.)

The most prominent proponent of ANT is Stanford Bioethicist William Hurlbut. The best known proposed implementation of ANT is through silencing the expression of a gene known as Cdx2. In mice, this gene contributes to the formation of the trophectoderm, or outer "shell" of the blastocyst. Silencing this gene does not interfere with the formation of the blastocyst's inner cell mass (ICM), which is what scientists extract to obtain embryonic stem cells.

So far, this all sounds like it could be pretty kosher. If you prevent the formation of the trophectoderm, you interfere with the integrity of the embryo. If you disrupt the embryo's integrity, it's not really an embryo. Right?

Well, the trophectoderm later forms the placenta. The placenta, of course, is necessary for the embryo to implant into the uterus. The placenta is, effectively, the feeding tube that allows nutrients and oxygen to pass from the mother to the embryo (and later to the fetus). Silencing Cdx2, basically, starves the embryo of the nourishment it needs to further develop into a fetus.

If a person believes a zygote is a life, I see no reason why they should support this method.

Fortunately, the vast majority of those who support this method only support it conditionally. They specify that they only support such research in animal models, in an attempt to see if it works.

Interestingly, William Hurlburt himself does not believe that silencing Cdx2 is necessarily the "holy grail". Writing in Wired, Clive Thompson reported:

For his part, Hurlbut is particularly incensed that his detractors keep oversimplifying his proposal. They maintain that the experiment on mice - knocking out CDX2 - wouldn't work in humans. Hurlbut insists he's never claimed it would. He says he cited CDX2 only as an example of what's possible; in humans, he suspects, you'd need to knock out some other gene, and only experiments will figure out which one.

This paragraph, particularly the last sentence, should raise major concerns for Catholics. In order to validate the technique in humans, experimentation on embryos would be required. Pope Benedict XVI recently indicated that such research should never be performed (the understood exception being that it can be conducted if the aim of the research is to save the life of the embryo), which throws up a significant hurdle.

Now, all this doesn't mean ANT is a bad idea. One implementation of ANT could propose to alter the egg's cytoplasm so that it directly reprograms the donor nucleus so that the cell becomes an embryonic stem cell.

This version would still face one ethical drawback: it would still rely on women to donate their eggs. Could women be pressured to undergo ovarian hyperstimulation to donate eggs? You bet. Would they? In some instances, it's hard to say they wouldn't be.

Is forcing women to donate eggs really that big of a deal, when the potential benefits are so great? Aside from the potential side effects, I guess it's a personal decision. Personally? I say it is.

Well, I guess that's it for tonight. Thanks for reading!

Recent Congressional Action

2006-03-03T11:53:00.000-05:00

Not much stem cell related discussion has transpired in Congress so far this year, but pro-life Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD) gave an okay speech on alternative methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells for research. I say it was only "okay" because it was given during a night of speeches, with no discussion following the speech. Without discussion, nothing is usually learned.

I will have more to say on the actual content of his speech later on, but I just wanted to point it out for now to my lovely readers. Some of the ideas he proposed were crap (altered nuclear transfer; deriving stem cells from organismically dead embryos; single blastomere approach), while others were great (dedifferentiation).

I'm not biased or anything. <g>

On another note, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) recently signed on as a cosponsor to the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (SCREA). Menendez was selected by outgoing Senator John Corzine (elected as Governor of New Jersey) as his replacement, so this does not come as a surprise.

His support of the SCREA means the Senate is only 25 (confirmed) votes shy of overriding a Presidential Veto. The House of Representatives, by comparison, is still over 80 (confirmed) votes away from this goal.

60 Minutes, Amended

2006-02-27T16:45:00.000-05:00

I emailed my piece to 60 Minutes last night while being extremely annoyed at the horrible job they did at correctly articulating the therapy Geron hopes to begin trials on in early 2007. In so doing, I neglected to provide specific instances of why 60 Minutes' reference bothered me so.

To clarify, I thought that the story was, overall, a good one; I am always happy to see cure-focused research get positive exposure. Dr. Keirstead is a very charismatic speaker and a brilliant researcher. Suzanne Short gave a good performance, explaining that, for a high level quadriplegic, something as simple as the ability to transfer oneself to and from bed would dramatically improve her level of independence and quality of life.

But, there's that one part that grated on my nerves. And it happened early.

Pending FDA approval, correspondent Ed Bradley reports that would make him the first scientist in the United States to transplant embryonic stem cells into humans.

First, and I must make this clear: No sane scientist would ever transplant embryonic stem cells into a human being. They would form tumors.

Which brings me to my second point: Why do religious types who oppose embryonic stem cell research always tout the fact that embryonic stem cells will form tumors as some "dirty little secret" that ESC proponents avoid talking about?

I'm going to pick on Paul A. Long here, as he was the lucky author of a recent piece from the Detroit Free Press that Google News introduced me to.

More alarming is that embryonic stem cells are highly prone to uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in animals.

I am going to be very mature in my response: Duh.

No offense to Mr. Long, of course. I'm sure he is a nice guy and all, and that we agree on a number of issues and such.

And since he's such a nice guy, I am going to let him in on a secret: Proponents of embryonic stem cell research do not discuss the risk of tumor formation because nobody is considering transplanting embryonic stem cells into people.

Why this myth continues to get perpetuated, I have no clue. Stories like those that appeared on 60 Minutes are probably one reason.

That, my friends, is why the story annoyed me so much. Their erroneous reporting that Geron will be transplanting embryonic stem cells into humans perpetuates this myth.

If Paul A. Long wants to discuss a realistic risk of tumors as a result of embryonic stem cell transplants, feel free to talk about the possibility that any cultured derivations of cells from embryonic stem cells that will be transplanted may not be 100% free of embryonic stem cells and that because of this potential error, there is a risk of tumor formation.

Or, since his concerns are centered on the moral impropriety of destroying embryos to obtain these stem cells, discuss the need to find alternative, embryo friendly methods of deriving embryonic stem cells.

Just, please, disagree with the research all you want. But do so in a fashion that moves the debate forward on all fronts. It will one day be possible to go to the doctor's office and have a skin biopsy sent off to a lab to generate a perfectly immune compatable set of embryonic stem cells -- all without creating or destroying an embryo.

I want that day to arrive, and sooner, rather than later.

Four Things

2006-02-27T12:56:00.000-05:00

Rebecca Taylor from Mary Meets Dolly tagged me, so I get to fill this out. Here goes:

Four jobs I've had:

1) Bagboy at grocery store
2) Webmaster for a local coffee business
3) Freelance programming
4) Columnist

Four movies I watch over and over again:

1) Aladdin
2) A Few Good Men
3) Stigmata
4) Pleasantville (always on tv)

Four places I've lived:

1) Charleston
2) Uh, Charles Towne?
3) n/a
4) n/a

Four shows I watch:

1) House
2) Veronica Mars
3) American Idol
4) Naruto

Four places I've vacationed:

1) Hilton Head
2) Myrtle Beach
3) Orlando
4) Michigan

Four websites I like:

1) CareCure
2) Slate
3) Christian Science Monitor
4) A List Apart

Four of my favorite foods:

1) Baked chicken
2) Baked potato
3) Chicken teriyaki
4) Cheesesticks

Four places I'd like to be right now:

1) Washington, DC, lobbying Congress
2) San Francisco, CA, just for fun
3) Brisbane, Australia
4) On a date with Lisa Loeb

I don't chat with many bloggers, so I can't tag too many people. But I will tag my editor over at Bodyhack.

The Myth Lives On

2006-02-27T06:41:00.000-05:00

Good news, this morning: Only one article has been written so far about last night's 60 Minutes episode with Dr. Hans Kierstead (per Google News).

Bad news, this morning:

Amazingly, after injecting the rat with human embryonic stem cells, the paralyzed rat was able to move its hind legs. Dr. Keirstead told Mr. Bradley that “If it does the same thing in humans, I think we’ve hit something here that’s gonna be truly remarkable."

*sigh*

60 Minues, Embryonic Stem Cells

2006-02-26T20:16:00.000-05:00

I was rather disappointed by the errors with the report tonight by Ed Bradley during 60 Minutes.

Laboratory rats whose hind legs were completely paralyzed — until they were injected with human stem cells. Remarkably, afterwards, the rats were able to walk again.

They were treated with human oligodendroglial precursor cells -- not stem cells.

Pending FDA approval, correspondent Ed Bradley reports that would make him the first scientist in the United States to transplant embryonic stem cells into humans.

Wrong: oligodendroglial precursor cells.

There are similar errors through the story, and I don't feel like correcting them all.

Here is an email I sent to 60 Minutes:

Dear 60 Minutes,

I am a partially ventilator dependent C3 quadriplegic and columnist with Wired News. I was excited to hear about Sunday's show and the Hans Kierstead segment.

Then it aired, and I was severely disappointed by the flagrant inaccuracies it included. Hans Kierstead's team does *not* transplant embryonic stem cells into the spinal cord. They generate a specific type of cells known as oligodendroglial precursor cells (OPCs) by culturing the embryonic stem cells and then transplant these OPCs, which remyelinate the demyelinated axons.

As a fellow reporter, I am disappointed that you allowed the segment to air with such lax fact-checking.

I hope that you will take it upon yourself to issue an immediate correction, both on-air and online. Please, feel free to check with Dr. Kierstead and Dr. Okarma, CEO of Geron, before you do so.

As a spinal cord injured person and research advocate, I am appalled. Perpetuating such errors makes advocating for a cure much more difficult, which directly prolongs my paralysis induced suffering -- and the suffering of the more than 250,000 other spinal cord injured persons in this country.

With sadness and disappointment,

Steven Edwards
Wired News

Leonard Zon: SCNT Creates Embryos

2006-02-19T10:45:00.000-05:00

Quick background on Leonard Zon:

Dr. Leonard Zon is the founder and director of the Stem Cell Program at Children's Hospital Boston and the first incumbent of the newly established Grousbeck Professor of Pediatrics Chair at Children's. An internationally renowned pediatrician and researcher specializing in blood diseases, Dr. Zon is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator, founder and immediate past President of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), and Chair of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute's Executive Committee.

It should be fairly evident, based on the positions he holds, that Dr. Zon strongly supports human embryonic stem cell research.

He apeared in a recent Talk of the Nation episode along with three other medical professionals to discuss the embryonic stem cell ballot in Missouri, and research in general.

A segway occurred wherein the discussion turned to how the terminology we use to describe new technologies affects the public's perception and acceptance of said technologies. The example was given of "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging," and how the word nuclear scared people at first. The word was dropped, and today magnetic resonance imaging -- or MRI -- is a fairly routine procedure.

What if the debate could be reframed by removing any reference to the embryo? Dr. Zon responds (at 32:28, if you care to listen).

I'm a little bit concerned about the nomenclature which you bring out, and there was a movement among some researchers actually to call nuclear transfer-embryonic stem cells "pluripotent cells" for just this reason -- they wouldn't be embryonic. I really think that if we're going to be honest with the American public that you do create an embryo during this process.

Will the pro-ESC crazies (i.e., the fascist portion of the pro-ESC movement) now call for Dr. Zon's head?

Only time will tell.

Simply Atrocious

2006-02-18T19:48:00.000-05:00

A writer for the Bryan-College Station Eagle penned what may be the most inaccurate piece on embryonic stem cell research I have ever read.

First, there is a lack of consistency in the terminology the author uses to describe the embryo.

Some religious groups believe that life begins when sperm and an egg collide; they condemn research that causes embryos to be destroyed.

Notice the inference: "when sperm and egg collide" equals an embryo.

To obtain stem cells, the fertilized egg is allowed to grow for a few days. Then the inner cell mass is removed and cultured into stem cells. These stem cells have the ability to develop into different types of cells that the body needs.

Fertilized egg? Not too bad. The reader can easily substitute embryo for fertilized egg.

Religious objections arise because the fertilized cell is considered to be alive; therefore, to destroy it is tantamount to murder or abortion.

Fertilized cell? Please tell me this author is just trying to catch their editor asleep at the keyboard?

Luckily, that's where the terminology issue ends. Unfortunately, factual errors continue.

To appease both sides, in 2004, President Bush declared that only 15 lines of stem cells would be eligible for federally funded research.

If you can't say anything nice, just provide corrections.

Bush's decision was made in August, 2001. He (arguably) believed he was authorizing funding for over 60 lines, but only 22 are currently available.

A recent development (SCNT) that does not use embryonic cells allows medical researchers to take cells from a patient's body to make stem cells.

SCNT, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, produces an embryo.

This process is called somatic cell nuclear transfer. To make the stem cells, the nucleus from the patient's somatic cell (skin, heart or muscle) is transferred to an empty, unfertilized egg cell that has its nucleus removed. The egg cell with the new nucleus then produces unspecialized stem cells in lab dishes that can be used in general way.

SCNT does indeed produce "unspecialized", or embryonic, stem cells, but not directly. SCNT produces a functionally competent zygote, which goes on to form a blastocyst in about 5 days.

At this point, the blastocyst makes up the entirety of the organism. The blastocyst has two main structures: 1) the inner cell mass, comprised of embryonic stem cells, and 2) the trophoblast, which is the "skin" or outer layer that contains the embryonic stem cells. To obtain the embryonic stem cells, scientists must destroy the blastocyst, what many believe to be life.

The site lists no email address to submit corrections, but feel free to email these guys with the above corrections.

Newsweek Clarification

2006-02-17T20:11:00.000-05:00

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift has a new column out discussing Senator Talent's stem cell switch and whether it will affect his re-election chances in November. The story is standard fare, but the second paragraph is riddled with mistakes.

Let's begin.

Talent cited new science that would alter the genetic material of an embryo to prevent it from developing into a human being. A “developmentally disabled” embryo should in theory address the moral qualms of critics who view even an unfertilized egg in a petri dish as a potential person.

The second sentence is just... bad.

The author mistakenly equates two disparate issues: 1) objections against creating a “developmentally disabled” embryo (intentionally creating a crippled embryo); and 2) objections against germ-line modification. The first objection centers around scientists creating a human life, only to turn around a week later and destroy it for its "parts" (i.e., stem cells). The second with creating "designer babies".

(There's also a small issue about creating a life outside of the sanctity of marriage, but that's the weaker argument, so I will forego it.)

Then we have this ... inaccuracy.

But the reaction to Talent’s shift was blistering. Pro-life conservatives felt they’d been betrayed and threatened to abandon him at the polls, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which helped write the Senate bill, rejected Talent’s rationale that there is “an ethically untroubling way” of getting embryonic stem cells.

I believe the quote provided by the author misrepresents the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities for the USCCB, has testified before the President's Council of Bioethics on the issue. Excerpts:

If, and this is a big if, a procedure can be found to provide embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos, that would address the Catholic Church's most fundamental moral objection to embryonic stem cell research as now pursued. Clearly, such a procedure would not be prohibited by the cloning bans the Catholic bishops have supported at the state or federal level, which routinely exempt the use of nuclear transfer or any other cloning procedure to produce tissues, organs or cells other than human embryos.

I, therefore, see no moral reason at this time to oppose the further exploration of this theory in an animal model so its feasibility can better be assessed. This would give scientists an opportunity to show their real commitment is to scientific progress, not to the exploitation of embryos, and gives organizations like mine an opportunity to show that our concern is respect for life, not a fear of scientific research or scientific progress.

He continues on to discuss Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT), explaining that the existing animal data is not sufficient to convince him that it does not create an embryo and, therefore, opposes its human application. Then he adds this:

Or perhaps other ways to achieve complete or partial reprogramming of a body cell nucleus without using an egg will be further refined and replace the use of eggs for this technique.

Fund it, and it will come.

Embryo, per Oxford

2006-02-15T19:43:00.000-05:00

Oxford has a semi-decent grasp of the English language. In their ever precise British tone, they provide the following as a definition for embryo:

Embryo: 1 an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, especially an unborn human in the first eight weeks from conception. Compare with FETUS. 2 the part of a seed which develops into a new plant.

It appears that everyone can find a dictionary that agrees with them.

Senator Talent, part deux

2006-02-14T20:24:00.000-05:00

I found the text (.pdf) of Talent's comments.

The media failed to completely cover Talent's floor speech. One thing this has tought me: Never believe information to be accurate unless it provides a source.

Important excerpts:

The answer is for both sides to take advantage of scientific changes to find proposals which they can mutually support and which offer advantages to each compared to the current stalemate.

To that end, I propose a competition, to be managed by the National Institutes of Health, which would create incentives for our great research institutions to get the genetically matched stem cells we need without risking cloning an embryo. Simply put, the NIH would take applications from research institutions with research plans to accomplish the goal. The exact funding and practical details of this would have to be carefully worked out, but let me put forward a preliminary proposal. Five institutions would be selected for the competition and provided $10 million each to conduct their comprehensive plan. The first institution to successfully harvest genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human embryo would receive a prize of $20 million. NIH would develop the boundaries of the competition with the restriction being that the research could not violate the terms of the Dickey Amendment. Once ANT or one of the other alternative methods was successful and we had a proven means to get genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human being, the NIH could issue regulations requiring science to use that technology in its research.

The idea of a competition is not new. They have successfully been used for centuries to educate, inspire, and motivate. For example, Charles Lindberg won a $25,000 prize for the first nonstop flight between Paris and New York in 1927. In 2004, a company called Scaled Composites won a $10 million prize for the first privately funded manned suborbital flight from the St. Louis-based X Prize Foundation. Inspired by the success of the X prize--and with the support of Congress, the President and his Commission on Implementation of U.S. Exploration Policy--NASA has begun a federally funded program called Centennial Challenges that awards prizes to stimulate innovation in technical areas of interest to space exploration. In fact, the program manager at NASA, Brant Sponberg, said they expect to spend $80 million on prizes over the next 5 years.

Since the competition allows for funding of all possibilities, and not just ANT, I support what Talent has put forward.

I called Senator Talent's office and alerted his staff to S.1557, which his comments suggest he would support.

The complete speech, for those who care to waste some time:

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, 9 years ago, scientific advances in the technology of nuclear transfer permitted the cloning of a sheep named Dolly. The immediate reaction of most Americans, and most Members of Congress, was to try to make certain that this process was never used to create a human being, never allowing a human Dolly to be cloned. I remember thinking at the time that I personally did not want to live in a world where I was walking down the street and saw myself coming in the opposite direction.

Why this reaction? After all, cloning is an acceptable thing in the agricultural world. The difference, of course, is that human beings have a unique dignity. When parents decide to have a child, they do it for the benefit of the baby, to nurture that new life to live up to the potential and live out the plan which God created for him or her. All of us agree that people should not be cloned because the only reason you clone something is to use it, and human beings should and do exist for reasons of greater dignity than simply to be used by others. I think we all understand that if we were ever to allow a race of clones to be created as workers or body parts warehouses for society, we would cheapen the dignity of humanity to the point where none of the rest of us would be safe in our lives or freedoms.

Yet, despite this shared impulse against cloning, it has been 9 years since Dolly was created, and no safeguards against cloning have passed the Congress. Nor are there prospects of any such bill passing in the near future. The reason is that there is an area of overlap between the issues of cloning and stem cells. Many scientists believe that stem cells from a cloned human embryo may have unique advantages for medical research. This part of the scientific community has resisted the total ban on cloning which has been introduced each of the last 6 years in the belief that such a ban would inhibit one important aspect of stem cell research. Both sides have settled into what has now become a rigid stalemate, like the Western Front in WWI. Even though the idea of cloning human beings is morally repugnant to most of us, there is currently no Federal prohibition or even regulation of any aspect of human cloning, or for that matter of warehousing body parts and creating ``fetus farms,'' and no prospect of getting such prohibitions.

I have spent the better part of a year researching this issue, meeting with people on all sides: groups who oppose cloning embryos to get stem cells, scientists who support it, parents who don't know who or what to believe but who are desperate for a cure for their children. Many to whom I have spoken have strong opinions about the underlying moral issues. In every case, I respected the sincerity and passion of those whom I spoke with. I have strong opinions of my own.

I believe human beings are precious. I am concerned about the tendency of our society to devalue people because they are too old, too young, or too inconvenient to have around. At the same time, I understand the desperation of parents whose children are sick or dying and who are desperate for treatments that will make them well. I often tour neonatal units. It breaks my heart to see children there fighting for life. I also meet with kids who are struggling heroically with chronic disease. I want to find cures for these children--but I also want them to grow up in a society that values them for their inherent dignity, for who they are, regardless of their age, infirmity, or level of achievement in the world's eyes.

Just because we are deadlocked about what to do in the present is no reason we cannot agree on what we want the future to be. We find ourselves at the beginning of a great new era of biology. I believe we can and should determine what our children's future will look like, and what objectives we want for our Nation. And, clearly, for all of us this would include progress in biomedicine built upon a solid foundation of moral principles in defense of human dignity.

I have come to the floor of the Senate today because there are just such hopeful prospects for the future. As is so often the case, the technology that generates the problem may also provide the solution. Just as recent scientific advancements created a moral dilemma, discoveries that are even more recent may provide a way out. Within a short time, it may be possible to get the exact stem cells researchers say they need without cloning an embryo. This means that we need no longer argue about such important but difficult questions as whether an embryo is fully a person or whether and when stem cell research may actually produce medical cures. The good news is that we can effectively prohibit human cloning and do it with a consensus that heretofore has not been possible; we can honorably reconcile our positions without requiring anyone to compromise their principles--provided that we are willing to approach the cloning issue humbly and practically, and provided also that both sides really do want what they say they want.

Mr. President, one of the difficulties with this issue is that much depends on understanding at least the basics of the science involved, and the science is complicated--especially for those of us who limped through high school biology. So I want to review some of the facts about stem cells and in particular about how stem cell research intersects with cloning.

A stem cell is a cell that does not itself perform a physiological or structural function in the body but instead serves as a source for cells that do perform such functions. During early development, stem cells help form the human body; in adult life, stem cells stand in reserve, to be used as needed to create new blood cells, brain cells, liver cells, and many other cells with a specific function in the body.

In current scientific language, there are two basic categories of stem cells: first, adult stem cells and, second, embryonic stem cells, which are also called pluripotent stem cells.

Adult stem cells exist all over the body. Their purpose is to maintain and repair damaged tissue. Science has known about, researched and used adult stem cells for years. To date, adult stem cell research has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases: over 60 peer-reviewed treatments using adult stem cells exist today. These treatments include autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis and blood diseases such as sickle cell disease.

A few years ago, American scientists announced that they had isolated stem cells from human embryos as well. These stem cells, called, naturally, ``embryonic'' stem cells, are the cells that, during the first days of life, begin dividing and differentiating, developing into the various parts of the body. Currently the cells can only be obtained from embryos created through in vitro fertilization, IVF. Once isolated, however, embryonic stem cells are self-replicating, which means an individual embryonic stem cell can produce tens of thousands of additional stem cells.

There is an important difference between ``adult'' and ``embryonic'' stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in the developed tissue or organs of the body and they can in general differentiate only to yield the cell types of the tissue or organ from which they came. In general, that means that an adult stem cell can become only one kind of tissue. A heart stem cell, for example, becomes heart tissue; a liver adult stem cell becomes liver tissue, and so on. Remember, the primary roles of adult stem cells are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found.

An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is considered ``pluripotent.'' That means an embryonic stem cell could develop into any of the different cell types of the body. They could in theory, if properly controlled, be commanded to become any one of a number of different tissues. This is logical, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the very cells in the embryo that are awaiting genetic instructions on what organ or other part of the body they will become. It is important to remember that the major reason science wants embryonic stem cells is because of this pluripotent quality. The fact that pluripotent stem cells come from embryos is a problem rather than a good thing, because of the obvious ethical concerns in extracting a cell from a human embryo and thereby destroying the embryo.

Whereas the value of adult stem cell research is accepted by consensus, there is more controversy over the scientific efficacy of embryonic stem cell research. The pluripotency of embryonic stem cells gives them more diverse potential, since they can in theory be ``programmed'' to become any kind of tissue. In practice, controlling pluripotent stem cells enough to produce actual treatments has been very difficult, and researchers to whom I have spoken, while supporting research with these cells, have emphasized that cures are likely to be many years away, if they come at all.

Because of this, some have argued that pluripotent stem cell research is of negligible value and that we should feel no compunction about preventing such research. But too many scientists of different backgrounds have insisted otherwise for me to be certain of that conclusion. The truth is that it is simply too soon to know whether science can control pluripotent stem cells well enough to use them for medical therapies; to the extent there is a consensus on this issue, it is that such research is speculative but promising.

Even more recently science has determined that a third category of stem cells may be useful. These stem cells are genetically matched to the patients who need the cell therapies. For several years, scientists have believed that it may be possible to derive these genetically matched stem cells through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT.

In SCNT the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg, which contains 23 chromosomes, is removed and replaced by the nucleus of an adult body cell. The new ``transferred'' nucleus would be genetically complete, containing all 46 chromosomes of the donor cell. This imitates the effect of normal fertilization in which the sperm's 23 chromosomes add to the egg's 23 to make the needed 46. The egg with the transferred nucleus is then stimulated and begins dividing like a naturally fertilized embryo. If all goes well, in 4 to 5 days it gets to a stage of development, called the blastocyst, from which embryonic stem cells would be harvested. These stem cells would be distinct from the embryonic stem cells derived from IVF in that they would genetically match the donor. Proponents of SCNT are hopeful that assuming they can overcome the challenge of controlling the development of any pluripotent stem cell, and assuming that they can successfully complete SCNT at all, these genetically matched stem cells would be superior to other forms of pluripotent stem cells in curing disease.

Again, stem cell research in general has nothing to do with SCNT. It is only with respect to one particular type of embryonic stem cell--a stem cell which no one has ever developed but that might have incremental advantages over other embryonic stem cells--that science wants to do SCNT. The reason SCNT is controversial is that it is a form of cloning. In fact, it is the same technique that was used successfully to create Dolly the sheep.

Both the proponents and opponents of SCNT agree that, if successful, it would result in the cloning of a human embryo.

Some supporters of SCNT, however, argue that a human embryo does not become a human being until it is implanted in a womb, and that unless researchers intend to implant the cloned embryo, SCNT should be permitted. The opponents of SCNT believe just as passionately that a human being does not depend on developmental age, and that a human embryo is therefore a human being from its beginning. From this perspective SCNT is the creation of a human being for purely instrumental use exactly what, in theory, a cloning ban is designed to prevent. But up until now, both sides have assumed that any nuclear transfer procedure which would result in the creation of pluripotent stem cells must first have produced a human embryo.

Yet the most recent scientific developments suggest that this is not true. In May 2005 the President's Council on Bioethics released a white paper entitled ``Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.'' In this report, the council outlined four specific proposals for a scientific solution to our current political impasse over stem cell research. In the months since that report was issued, progress in each of these approaches has been reported in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. Research on one of these proposals, altered nuclear transfer , is especially encouraging and suggests that all the scientific and medical goals of SCNT could be realized without the cloning or destruction of human embryos.

Remember, with somatic cell nuclear transfer researchers would take the genetic material out of a human egg, replace it with the complete genetic code of the donor, and then shock it so that it starts to divide. In theory, an organism created in such a way--artificially rather than naturally--could divide and grow until it became an adult human being. Altered nuclear transfer is a form of somatic cell nuclear transfer in that it uses nuclear transfer but with a preemptive alteration of the genetic material. To put it simply, the somatic cell is altered prior to being transferred. The resultant entity would be capable of producing pluripotent stem cells but because of the preemptive alterations during the transfer process it would be incapable, from its creation, of the organization and developmental potential that are the defining characteristics of an embryo.

Altered nuclear transfer is a broad umbrella concept with many possible specific approaches. For example, one proposed approach using ANT is called ANT-OAR. This form of ANT involves reprogramming the somatic cell to enter directly into a pluripotent stem cell state, without going through any of the normal developmental stages. All of this means that ANT could create genetically matched stem cells without ever having to produce anything with the capacity to be considered a human embryo.

This distinction between SCNT and ANT is vital from a moral and legal perspective. Until the last few months, everyone has assumed that nuclear transfer which was successful in generating pluripotent stem cells must first have created a human embryo. The entity which ANT could create would produce pluripotent stem cells from a laboratory-constructed cellular source lacking the developmental potential of a human embryo. In layman's terms, the entity which ANT would create could only develop for a few days and would then ``close down.'' ANT thus transcends the moral dilemma which has heretofore prevented any legislation from passing. It renders moot the question of whether human life begins at creation or implantation of an embryo since the entity that ANT could create would not have at its inception the organizational and developmental capability to be considered a human life.

Further exploration of the ANT proposal already has the support of a long list of scientists and ethicists and religious leaders, including the former chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine. The author and most vocal champion of ANT is Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford. Dr. Hurlbut assured me months ago that ANT was technologically feasible and would soon be validated through animal models. And, indeed, just 4 months ago stem cell biologists, Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch, of the Whitehead Institute at MIT, used altered nuclear transfer to produce fully functional pluripotent stem cells from a laboratory-construct that is dramatically different in developmental potential than a natural embryo. In testimony to an October 2005 Senate hearing on stem cells, Dr. Jaenisch explained that this procedure is simple and straightforward and does not involve the creation of an embryo. Dr. Jaenisch said, ``Because the ANT product lacks essential properties of the fertilized embryo, it is not justified to call it an ``embryo.'' That was October 19, 2005 testimony at an Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education hearing on ``An Alternative Method for Obtaining Embryonic Stem Cells.'' This scientific advance was widely reported precisely because it signals the end of the ethical dilemma in this area of research; it suggests that science may soon be able to get this special kind of stem cell--pluripotent stem cells that genetically match the donor/patient--without cloning, creating, or destroying a human embryo.

Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of the Senate in bearing with me as I wound my way through the scientific thicket. I believe it was necessary to lay this foundation before proceeding, and I suspect that the Senate may already see the practical suggestion which I see as the logical result given the latest technological developments and the current stalemate.

Again, to reaffirm my central point, many scientists have resisted a total ban on human cloning because they believed it was necessary to clone human embryos for a narrow purpose: to get pluripotent stem cells which are a genetic match of the person whom they hope to treat medically. However, it now appears that it will be possible to get such stem cells without cloning an embryo.

Some may argue that these alternative forms of nuclear transfer and other new technologies are unproven and may never produce usable new discoveries. But the same thing can be said of embryonic stem cell research in general and SCNT in particular. Bear in mind that science has yet to succeed in getting pluripotent stem cells from SCNT at all. Nor, for that matter, is there a single new cure from

embryonic stem cells derived from any source. If researchers cannot learn how to isolate and control genetic signals, then pluripotent stem cell research will turn out to have little medical application; if such control does prove possible, then there should soon be no reason to have to get the stem cells by a method that clones or destroys a human embryo.

As I mentioned earlier, we appear to be at a legislative stalemate. The key to reaching the proper legislative solution, I believe, is to recognize that the new scientific developments create possibilities for an honorable reconciliation that simply did not exist at the time Senators developed and sponsored the various cloning bills that are currently introduced in the Congress. In effect, the new technology is rendering the approach of those pieces of legislation out of date.

For example, the main anti-cloning bill, S. 658, of which I am a cosponsor, would ban the use of nuclear transfer whenever it resulted in the creation of a human embryo or an organism that was ``virtually identical'' to a human embryo. This standard satisfies one of the important principles of the pro-life community, because it recognizes that the dignity of pre-born human beings doesn't depend on their gestational age. But it fails to account for the possibility, created by altered nuclear transfer and some of the other alternative methods, that an entity may be ``virtually identical'' to an embryo in the sense that it has a similar external appearance--and can seem to be developing as it divides--without ever possessing the inherent organizational capability to be rightly considered a human being.

Because of this, there is a danger that the language of S. 658, which was adequate when we all assumed that any entity capable of creating embryonic stem cells must be a human embryo, would outlaw or imperil precisely those alternatives which hold the greatest promise of allowing stem cell research while protecting the integrity of human life. I discussed this problem with Doctor Hurlbut and, in a recent letter, he expressed concern that S. 658 as drafted might be misinterpreted to outlaw ANT. He pointed out that the term `virtually identical' is vague and unscientific and, therefore, could be open to misinterpretation either more broadly or more narrowly than intended by the proponents of this legislation.

The existence of alternatives like ANT actually strengthens the case of those of us who oppose the cloning of human embryos, since it promises another, ethically untroubling way of getting the same genetically matched stem cells scientists need. But it also shows that there is much about nuclear transfer that we have yet to discover, and it cautions against enacting criminal sanctions, like S. 658, that could have unintended consequences because they presume a scientific equilibrium that simply doesn't exist. Congress should still move effectively to prohibit human cloning but the approach of S. 658 needs to change. At minimum, the ``virtually identical'' language in S. 658 should be discarded, and the bill should specifically define when a cloned entity has the organizational capability and developmental potential to be considered a human being. But, I would prefer to enact a regulatory ban that could be adjusted over time to reflect changes in the science like ANT, perhaps after consultation with the President's Council on Bioethics, and I would couple that ban with aggressive funding of ANT and other alternatives, perhaps in the form of the competitive incentive program I will discuss in a moment.

The other main cloning legislation, S. 876, should, in light of recent developments, be equally unsatisfactory to many of its supporters, although for different reasons. S. 876 does not regulate the initial nuclear transfer process at all but simply bans implanting a cloned embryo. This is good as far as it goes, but S. 876 would provide no protection whatsoever to human life before implantation. Under generally accepted medical protocols today, science can't even experiment on animals if other methods of doing the same research are available, yet S. 876 would permit the cloning of human embryos for any purpose and under any circumstances, regardless even of whether the researchers need or intend to use the embryos for stem cell research.

The proponents of S. 876 were almost forced into this position to protect the stem cell research they thought necessary, because they believed, as we all did, that the only way to get genetically matched stem cells was through cloning and that any such cloning would necessarily produce a human embryo. But the evidence now suggests that this is not true. I am sure that the supporters of S. 876 are sincere in their belief that a human embryo does not acquire full personhood until some point after it is created. But I respectfully suggest that this view is no longer a reason, given the changing science, to continue supporting a legal standard that affords no dignity whatsoever to human life at its earliest stages.

The answer is for both sides to take advantage of scientific changes to find proposals which they can mutually support and which offer advantages to each compared to the current stalemate.

To that end, I propose a competition, to be managed by the National Institutes of Health, which would create incentives for our great research institutions to get the genetically matched stem cells we need without risking cloning an embryo. Simply put, the NIH would take applications from research institutions with research plans to accomplish the goal. The exact funding and practical details of this would have to be carefully worked out, but let me put forward a preliminary proposal. Five institutions would be selected for the competition and provided $10 million each to conduct their comprehensive plan. The first institution to successfully harvest genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human embryo would receive a prize of $20 million. NIH would develop the boundaries of the competition with the restriction being that the research could not violate the terms of the Dickey Amendment. Once ANT or one of the other alternative methods was successful and we had a proven means to get genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human being, the NIH could issue regulations requiring science to use that technology in its research.

The idea of a competition is not new. They have successfully been used for centuries to educate, inspire, and motivate. For example, Charles Lindberg won a $25,000 prize for the first nonstop flight between Paris and New York in 1927. In 2004, a company called Scaled Composites won a $10 million prize for the first privately funded manned suborbital flight from the St. Louis-based X Prize Foundation. Inspired by the success of the X prize--and with the support of Congress, the President and his Commission on Implementation of U.S. Exploration Policy--NASA has begun a federally funded program called Centennial Challenges that awards prizes to stimulate innovation in technical areas of interest to space exploration. In fact, the program manager at NASA, Brant Sponberg, said they expect to spend $80 million on prizes over the next 5 years.

A proposal of this kind moves us forward in a way both sides should be able to support. After all, the sole argument for SCNT is that we need it to get certain kinds of stem cells; the argument against it is that it involves the cloning of human embryos. If we can get the stem cells without the cloning, we render the current controversy scientifically obsolete. Science would have the stem cells it needs in a morally acceptable way that would allow for full Federal funding of stem cell research. The pro-life community would have an effective ban on human cloning. We would turn a zero sum game into a win-win proposition for everyone.

We are entering a promising new era in biomedical technology, but as our power over human life increases, so does the seriousness of the moral issues. It is important to acknowledge that both sides in this difficult debate are defending something important to all of us. We should all want to advance biomedical science while sustaining fundamental principles for the protection of human life.

Biomedical science should be a matter of unity in our national identity: no one should enter the hospital resentful that positive possibilities for the best therapies were not explored, or with moral qualms about the research on which their therapies have been developed.

The revelation that the South Koreans have not succeeded in obtaining pluripotent stem cells from cloned human embryo returns this research to square one. This presents to our Nation both a challenge and an opportunity: a social challenge to seek a way forward as a unified society, and an opportunity to set a solid scientific and moral foundation for future generations. The differences within our nation can be a source of strength as we seek to open a way forward for biomedical science. Altered nuclear transfer , and the other alternative approaches put forward by the President's Council on Bioethics offer us just such a path to progress.

We are at a difficult impasse, but we have extraordinary possibilities. Our current conflict reflects deep differences in our personal perspectives, but our wider goals are similar. Any purely political victory will leave our Nation bitterly divided and erode the social support that is essential for continuing public funding of biomedical science. It is with this recognition that I have put forward this proposal in a spirit of unity. And beneath this spirit of unity must be a spirit of humility: these are difficult issues and no one of us has the clarity of understanding or depth of knowledge to answer them alone. But with mutual good will we can transcend the current paralysis and find grounds for practical progress in scientific research. In his presentation on stem cell research last July to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Dr. Hurlbut said the goal should be to find ``islands of unity in a sea of controversy.'' We can move from one such island to another and end up in a world of progress and decency. There is no reason to continue glaring at each other across the legislative barricades, when the means are at hand to embrace the future of developmental biology without moral qualms or political division?

An Embryo, Defined

2006-02-14T12:40:00.000-05:00

An Embryo.

The majority of people agree that an embryo is the first stage of life. They disagree, however, about when that stage begins.

My good friend Don Reed and I spoke for a few minutes the other day and he asked my opinion on the subject. I knew it was an entrapment question, but I couldn't immediately give a coherent response.

This troubled me, so I decided to give the question some thought.

Don proposed a few ideas, none of which I agreed with.

While discussing SCNT, he proffered that the majority of the public believe that an embryo is the product of an egg and a sperm. Did I agree? No offense, but based on the lack of basic reasoning skills prevelant among the public, I prefer not to base my judgement on public opinion.

Don also offered that an embryo isn't an embryo until implantation. Sorry, can't buy that either.

As a writer and former English teacher, it should come as no surprise that Don has a fondness for the English language. One of his most respected and trusted sources of knowledge is Webster's, the dictionary people.

Webster's published a dictionary in 2003 entitled Webster's New World Medical Dictionary. The doctors who contributed to said dictionary run MedicineNet.com, so I consulted with them on embryo. Their response?

Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of pregnancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus.

Now this wording is a little tricky, so let's take it slowly.

"The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation"

The organism in the early stages of development. It lists fertilization as one such stage, but never specifies that fertilization is a requirement for an organism to be an embryo.

Some will argue that fertilization -- the union of the male and female gametes -- is a necessary prerequisite for an organism to be an embryo, and therefore a life. One could similarly say that, based on the above definition, an organism that does not reach the fetal stage was never an embryo, and therefore never life.

I will go out on a limb here and say that women who have suffered miscarriages in the first trimester would differ quite passionately.

Fertilization is a process that ends in the creation of a zygote. Likewise, SCNT is a process that ends in the creation of a zygote. A zygote is considered to be, quite reasonably so, an embryo.

Of course, that is my sole interpretation, based on the definition provided by the authors of Webster's New World Medical Dictionary.

But, what if I am wrong? I always consider that to be a realistic possibility.

Consulting another source in the same family, what does Merriam-Webster have to say?

Embryo: 1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

Apparently, Webster cannot agree with Webster. Is Webster suffering from a multiple personality disorder? A family dispute?

Or, is the definition of embryo not quite settled?

Senator Talent Screws Up

2006-02-12T06:40:00.000-05:00

Missouri Senator Jim Talent recently announced that he was dropping his support of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act because he now favors an alternative method of deriving embryonic stem cells known as Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT).

I will get to ANT in a minute, but first I want to focus on the good in something Talent said. He proposed that the NIH fund 5 centers, to the tune of $10 million each, to further develop the ANT procedure for human use. The first center to do so will receive a $20 million prize.

While I am no fan of the government funding an X-prize like competition, I think this is a positive step. Like Senators Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, he is proposing funding for research into alternative derivation methods. In itself, this is a great thing.

Now, the bad.

ANT has been referenced here before, but not too kindly. The belief that life begins at conception and support for ANT cannot, in my mind, coexist in the mind of a rational person.

The product of conception is a zygote. The product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) -- when an egg is the recipient cell -- is, at least functionally, a zygote. Similarly, the product of ANT is functionally equivalent to a zygote.

If a person believes that a zygote is the first stage of life, then they must oppose both SCNT and ANT to remain logically consistent.

But, that's not even what riles me up the most. A Senator should not use legislation to force scientists to research only one option. If Talent had suggested using money to, generally speaking, fund research into alterntive methods of generating ESCs, I would have loved it. But, he had to go and attach ANT to it.

Transdifferentiation Occurs Naturally

2006-02-02T10:14:00.000-05:00

Transdifferentiation occurs "naturally" in a disease process that mimics asthma and COPD.

In mice with a chronic lung condition resembling asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the researchers saw that the airway lining maintained an overabundance of mucus-producing cells (called goblet cells for their cup-like shape). Further investigation showed that goblet-cell buildup resulted from two cellular mechanisms. One mechanism allows for the prolonged survival of cells with cilia, tiny hairs that help sweep debris out of the lungs. The other mechanism encourages the ciliated cells to transform into goblet cells.

...

The second inhibitor the researchers tested interferes with signaling pathways activated by an immune-system protein known as interleukin-13 (IL-13). They found that IL-13 elicited the crucial change from ciliated to goblet cells in mouse airways and human airway cells in culture. Interfering with IL-13 prevented this transformation from one cell type to the other--a process known as transdifferentiation.

Transdifferentiation is bad, in this instance, but controlled, it would be a useful technology.

State of the Union Redux

2006-02-01T18:29:00.000-05:00

Lashing out against "egregious abuses of medical research" during his State of the Union Address, President Bush set the stage for the embryonic stem cell debate in 2006. This year, the battle continues.

Specifically, Bush said:

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

Before I attempt to predict the future, I need to nit-pick for a second.

There are a two things here that I, for one, have never heard of: no scientist in the US, to my knowledge, has proposed implanting an embryo for experiments; and no scientist or business has proposed patenting human embryos, although they have proposed patenting embryonic stem cell lines. Big difference. These two claims look like scare tactics to me.

With that out of the way...

Bush basically reiterated his August 9, 2001 statements, which does not bode well for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Many SCREA proponents are hopeful that Bush will fail to issue his promised veto, since the bill only allows federal funding for ESCs derived from embryos where "the life and death decision has already been made." But, Bush addressed this in 2001:

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

Bush has made it clear that he sides with the group dubbed "Others," so the chances that he would sign it in to law or allow it to become law without his signature are only slightly lower than they are for me to get up and walk tomorrow. Which, I am sorry to say, I would not bet on.

So, what are we left with? The so-called "decoy" bills.

SCREA supporters claim that other bills, such as the Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act, are just smoke screens meant to divert attention away from the SCREA and allow legislators to "pretend" to support ESC research. For election reasons. And stuff.

Which, to me, sounds like spilt milk. Imagine a kid going to their parent and saying "I want $20!" The parent says "No, but I'll give you $5." The smart kid would accept the $5 and say "Oh, okay." But, a bratty kid would whine about not getting their way and end up with nothing.

So, SCREA supporters, are you smart or bratty?

A ‘Go’ for Stem Cell Research?

2006-01-06T06:36:00.000-05:00

Bibek Karki, a student I am guessing, wrote about stem cells in the Universty of Maine's University Times. It's a genedral overview that (unintentionally) points out some of the glaring misunderstandings out there.

One of the grosser misunderstandings is this:

Recently, President Bush allowed federal funding for stem cell- research using the 60 existing stem lines in various research facilities.

In 2005, I am shocked to see that blatant inaccuracy published. Most religiously affiliated sites acknowledge that there are only 20-some lines available.

Yikes. ESC avocates, you have your work cut out for you.

To Walk Again - Forbes

2005-11-25T17:34:00.000-05:00

Free registration is required to read this article. If you don't feel like registering, BugMeNot.com can give you the login.

The article details three companies -- BioAxone, Novartis, and Biogen Idec -- who have plans in place to start human trials to treat spinal cord injuries without stem cells within two years. With the tragedy surrounding Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk's recent resignation as director of the World Stem Cell Hub, the article attempts to keep hope alive for those with spinal cord injuries and their families.

BioAxone has a trial currently underway on a drug called Cethrin (BA-210). Not much is mentioned about BioAxone's treatment, but their site has more info If you know someone whose injury is newer than 7 days, give BioAxone a call. The numbers are at the link.

The other therapies discussed are for chronic, or long-term, injuries.

The article glosses over the history of paralysis to where we are at now; from nerves cannot regenerate to successful models of animal regeneration. A more complete look at one researcher's journey, Martin Schwab, is available at Novartis' site. It is well worth the read, as it provides an informative overview of where the field is now and what obstacles still exist.

If you don't like to have endings ruined, I suggest reading it (PDF) before you proceed.

Novartis is currently testing a therapy in monkeys to regenerate axons and restore some function. Assuming things go well, they plan to start human trials early next year. (Coincidentally, so does Geron. I can see the headline now: Ethical Cure vs. Embryonic Stem Cells.)

Biogen Idec is working on a similar non-stem cell treatment along with Stephen Strittmatter at Yale, with hopes of starting human trials in two years.

Other companies are in the early stages of developing promising, non-embryonic stem cell treatments.

Merck, with partner Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, is working on a treatment in their labs. Genentech, based on early results, is testing a cancer drug's effect on spurring nerve growth.

All-in-all, there's a good bit going on. The South Koreans were dealt a serious blow with the recent ethics violations, but this Forbes article shows that hope still exists without embryonic stem cells.

Nanomachines, Gene Therapy, and... Stem Cells Cure Paralysis?!

2005-10-29T18:07:00.000-04:00

New Indian Press has an article out that discusses how nanomachines, gene therapy, and stem cells will one day be combined to treat human diseases. It's a good article, but it includes an example of an umbilical cord stem cell transplant that supposedly helped a Korean woman, Hwang Mi-Soon, stand again (with braces for assistance) after 19 years of paralysis. Many Pro-Life groups jumped on this as proof that embryonic stem cells are not necessary to cure paralysis.

However, they all failed to read the full study and report accurately on it. Hwang Mi-Soon's spinal cord appeared to be compressed prior to the transplant, which is enough to induce paralysis by itself. A laminectomy was performed during the surgery, which may have decompressed her spinal cord.

The laminectomy makes it impossible to tell whether the stem cells were what helped her. The study, while positive, is far from conclusive. Until more surgeries are performed, using this study to say adult stem cells have cured paralysis is false.

UPI Gets It Wrong

2005-10-29T16:38:00.000-04:00

While reading up on the new Korean stem cell center, I found a UPI Wire article over at ScienceDaily. The article was good, but it included this (blatantly incorrect) quote:

[quote]President George W. Bush's policy on stem-cell research bars federal funds from being used to generate new stem-cell lines, ...[/quote] Two things here.

First, the Dickey Amendment bars federal funding from being used to derive new embryonic stem-cell lines; not any policies implemented during the Bush administration.

Second, new stem-cell lines can be generated usig federal funds, so long as they do not run afoul of the Dickey Amendment. Fusion of somatic cells with embryonic stem cells and nuclear reprogramming are just two methods that scientists can use to generate new embryonic stem cell lines with federal funding. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into an enucleated embryonic stem cell is another.

New Stem-Cell Methods Fall Short

2005-10-19T19:01:00.000-04:00

Kristen Philipkoski from Wired News writes an interesting piece today on the newly proven methods (in animal models) to obtain embryonic stem cells. Many members of the "main-stream media" heralded these accomplishments as the deal-breaker in the ESC debate.

Guess what? They were wrong. Dead. Wrong.

New Stem-Cell Methods Fall Short
By Kristen Philipkoski

02:00 AM Oct. 19, 2005 PT

Headlines this week trumpeted a possible solution to the embryonic stem-cell research conundrum. Scientists obtained the cells without destroying embryos, which is the sticking point for most people who oppose the research.

But that point is still stuck, according to religious leaders and other watchdog groups. They say the two methods described in the Oct. 16 issue of the journal Nature are not a clear solution to the ethical conundrum.

Religious and bioethics leaders, including Richard Doerflinger and Arthur Caplan, both say that this is a no go.

The reasoning?

The "single blastomere" approach does not guarantee that the embryo will not be affected or harmed. The removal of a single cell from an eight-cell blastocyst alters the interaction between the cells comprising -- at that point in time -- the entire life, which will have an effect on its development.

The effect may be benign and allow the viable embryo to develop, or it may cause an abnormality in the embryo leading to a birth defect, or a number of other things. Given our (current) limited understanding of the human body, it is impossible to guarantee that no harm will come to the embryo.

Scientific obstacles aside, this technique currently relies on human skill to successfully perform. Having yet to meet a perfect individual (some close, but... not quite), this procedure can never truly be deemed 100% safe while humans are involved.

"Altered nuclear transfer" prevents the gene Cdx2 from being expressed, which intentionally stops a crucial developmental event from occurring: the formation of the trophoblast. The trophoblast is, essentially, the skin that holds the blastocyst's innards (i.e., its stem cells) from emptying all over the place.

Again, this technique currently relies on human skill, so the same caveat applies.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center weighs in against both methods. (As a side note, I love their visual layout and color scheme; very calming.)

The Christian Medical Association and the Family Research Council also opine that these methods are inherently wrong.

Two Alternative Stem Cell Derivations Moving Closer

2005-10-16T14:11:00.000-04:00

Two alternative methods of deriving embryonic stem cells came a step closer to reality today. Will the debate about embryonic stem cell sources continue?

One: The single blastomere approach.

Bob Lanza and his colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology, a company in Worcester, Massachusetts, US, overcame this problem in mice by extracting just one cell from a very early 8-cell embryo called a morula. Lanza and his colleagues coaxed the single extracted cell, called a blastomere, into dividing into a colony of ESCs.

They did this by putting the blastomere in contact with pre-existing ESCs. These provided the correct signals for the blastomere to become a stem cell too.

Two: Altered nuclear transfer.

The second technique, dubbed “altered nuclear transfer” or ANT and developed by Rudolf Jaenisch and Alexander Meissner at the MIT’s Whitehead Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, overcomes a slightly different ethical objection, that of extracting ESCs from transient cloned “embryos”.

These are created from a patient’s “donor” cell, a skin cell for example, merged with a human egg emptied of its own nucleus. This forms an embryo similar to that from which Dolly the cloned sheep was produced, and has the potential to provide an exact tissue match for the patient.

The objection to this, again, is that an “embryo” capable of becoming the twin of the patient if implanted into the womb has to be destroyed in order to obtain the ESCs needed to treat the patient.

Jaenisch and Meissner got round this in mice by infecting the “donor” skin cell with a virus. This blocks the action of Cdx2, a gene essential for formation of the placenta. Only then was the skin cell merged with an egg, creating an entity unable to be implanted in the womb, and therefore not “qualifying” as a true embryo.

These two methods will allow some people to sleep easier at night -- increasing the pressure on Monsieur Bush to ease his Embryonic Stem Cell restrictions -- but will it be enough?

We shall see.

mumble: dedifferentiation, aka transdifferentiation aka nuclear reprogramming rocks!

Bush's Stem Cell Policy Helps Research?

2005-10-12T20:30:00.000-04:00

Paul R. Sanberg argues in The Scientist that President Bush's policy of restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is the cause of the private industry's love for the field.

The majority of the piece is standard Republican rhetorhic about industry being better suited and more efficient than a government-run program. I don't take issue with his economic arguments -- my knowledge in that area is weak -- but I will have to disagree with his conclusion.

That said, NIH [ed., National Institutes of Health] funding does provide another level of scientific review and more open dissemination of results. The ideal situation from a science point of view is for the NIH to be involved in the development of viable stem cell therapies, whether they are based on cells of embryonic or adult origin. From a global perspective, however, it's hard to ignore the fact that federal limitations have caused and may continue to accelerate increased stem cell funding and research through other means.

While Sanberg does state that ideally, the NIH should be involved with embryonic stem cell research, he fails to address the negative consequences that lie in an unregulated, non-peer reviewed system.

Namely, any scientist can loudly proclaim cures for patients using a "newly discovered" ESC techniques. Without peer review and duplication of the claimed results by other labs, patients have no outside source to confirme or refute the purported miraculous cures. The lack of significant NIH involvement is, in my opinion, harmful and neglectful to American citizens.

Ethical methods to obtain ESCs exist. By failing to provide the NIH with the funding and tools it needs to properly oversee this research, Congress and the President are negligent in their duties to protect affected citizens.

Many scientists -- the majority, in fact -- would not tout undocumented and unsubstantiated "cures," but vultures do exist. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and desperate people will flock to these vultures.

The United States Government has a duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens. It needs to stand up and assume its duty.

Expanded Scope

2005-10-12T16:29:00.000-04:00

Due to a lack of developments that affect the face of embryonic stem cell research, I have been negligent to my blog. I will attempt to make up for that negligence by broadening the scope of my blog beyond its currently narrow focus.

I will continue to blog on stem cells, but also on other news of interest.

Look for more, coming up later today.

Cure for Congressional Paralysis

2005-09-06T17:14:00.000-04:00

My first column was published today on Wired News and I must say, I am pleased. :)

Care to read it?

September Goals

2005-09-03T14:45:00.000-04:00

September is officially recognized as National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month. Combined with the coming anniversary of Christopher Reeve's birthday on September 25th, this is a month where we can make a realistic attempt to deliver a unified message: We want a cure for paralysis!

A cure for paralysis can and will be achieved. Many researchers now believe that science itself is not the obstacle to curing paralysis. Rather it is the impediments that are preventing a cure, primarily the costs needed to bring a therapy to market for such a small target market. Eliminating these financial obstacles will encourage translation of existing animal therapies into human trials and will attract companies to take a first or second look at curing paralysis.

One way of eliminating these financial obstacles is through the creation of a clinical trial network. As things stand now, a company such as Geron will have to run dual trials comparing the efficacy of their glial-restricted precursor therapy against either a placebo group (injured people who receive no treatment) or a group of injured people who have received the "best" course of treatment. The need to test against a second group would be extremely costly, but this need can be eliminated.

A clinical trial network could eliminate this need by establishing current best practices every year. These best pratices would be determined, initially, by comparing practices currently believed to be optimal for recovery. An initial comparison may focus on methylprednisolone administered acutely after injury against acute methylprednisolone administration plus extensive rehabilitation against extensive rehabilitation by itself. The top outcome measures from among these treatments would then be considered the golden standard by which other treatments are measured against.

Each year the top treatment would receive the gold standard, becoming the new measuring stick for other potential treatments. These initial costs would be paid for by the clinical trial network, reducing the financial burden on the companies attempting to cure us. The network would also employ the clinicians and doctors who evaluate pre- and post-operative measures of function for all treatments, allowing consistent and objective assessment of potential cures without bias.

The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act combines such a network with a consortia of top-ranked researchers who are constantly on the lookout for promising new treatments, working amongst themselves to replicate exciting findings to reduce the lag time between publications. If it looks good and it works, it goes to human trials.

We want a cure! The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act will quicken our path.

In honor of Christopher Reeve (and our own self-serving purposes, of course), let's aim to have the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act on President Bush's desk by September 25th. If we can accomplish that, he will have to answer the question: "Mr. President, do you want to cure paralysis?"

It's up to him to sign the bill. It's up to us to get it on his desk so he can.

September: We Want a Cure Month!

Another Stem Cell Fast One? Maybe not.

2005-08-26T12:12:00.000-04:00

Steven Milloy, writing for FOX News, provides a report on the media's reaction to the recent Harvard stem cell announcement. He starts with:

The embryonic stem cell research lobby must think the rest of us are pretty gullible.

Not hiding his biases, he ends with:

Moreover, despite rather obvious and contradictory facts, the Harvard study is being positioned in the media as a way to do embryonic stem cell research without harming embryos — and the timing seems entirely political.

Last May, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would circumvent President Bush’s limits on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. The Senate is slated to take up the bill in September and supporters say they have the votes to pass it.

But President Bush says he will veto the measure and bill supporters lack a two-thirds majority in Congress to override it — so far. All bets are off, though, if the embryonic stem cell research lobby can get away with morphing woefully premature and limited research results into “miracle cures around the corner.”

A quick search of Google News for articles not mentioning the difficulties he raises include prominent members of the embryonic stem cell research lobby, including Washington Times and LifeNews.

The First Step

2005-08-21T14:27:00.000-04:00

September is the last month that any bills will be considered by Congress during this session, so we should try to have the vill voted on during the month. Write your Congressmen and urge them to bring the bill out of committee to a vote. They are home right now, so call their local office and see if you can set up a face-to-face meeting with them to discuss the bill. (Talking points will be created.)

Every Congressmen is important in this endeavor. The bill is currently stuck in the Health subcommittees of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the full Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. If anyone from your state is on one of these committees, it would be important to contact them and see what can be done to get the bill moving.

Christopher Reeve's birthday was September 25, so let's push for it to be on Bush's desk by that date.

9 Year Anniversary

2005-08-19T20:02:00.000-04:00

Today marks the ninth anniversary of the accident that left me paralyzed. Surprisingly it is not a depressing or sad day, not that my anniversaries ever are. Frustrating for sure, but otherwise a standard day.

However, one thing has been nagging me for the past two years or so: the song "14 Years" by Guns N' Roses will randomly pop into my head and it leaves me thinking "Will it really be fourteen years before I am 'fixed'?"

Today begins the five year countdown to my fourteen year mark, so I guess its time to create a five-year plan to be totally cured by then: August 19, 2010.

I hope to be functionally independent (i.e., having use of my arms, hands, wrists, and fingers) before that time, but I want it all by that date. How do we get from here to there?

Kids in the audience thinking embryonic stem cells, put your hands down.

First, we need to establish where "here" is. "Here" is the combination of the existing political and societal mindsets and the current base of scientific knowledge.

Let's start by breaking apart the political mindset as it currently exists. In one corner -- weighing in at 535 members -- we have Congress, who believe (by a simple majority) that embryonic stem cell research should be expanded. In the other corner, we have -- weighing in at one smirking Texan -- President Bush, who believes that his embryonic stem cell research policy from 2001 is as fine as a Texas steer.

What about society? Recent polls have consistently shown that the public is in favor of expanding the stem cell policy beyond the 22 currently available embryonic stem cell lines.

The science? It's available, and scientists are ready for an expanded policy. The science is not yet perfect, and that's one of the reasons scientists want it.

Conclusion? President Bush's veto wins out on expanding embryonic stem cell research by not having a sufficient number of votes to override his veto in the House of Representatives. StemPAC is hoping to take care of this little problem in the 2006 mid-term elections. Until then, the only shot federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has of being expanded is if ways are found to obtain embryonic stem cells without creating, harming, or destroying embryos.

So, embryonic stem cells are out until 2006. What else can we do?

Well, there are a few things.

The first is work to set up a network trained to run clinical trials designed to cure paralysis. Such a network would reduce costs for businesses attempting to run clinical trials, as startup costs associated with trials would be nearly eliminated. It would also remove the need to add (and fund) concurrent trials of competing therapies, as long as other trial criteria conform to an established standard.

Luckily, a bill exists to do just this: the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act. Unfortunately, it has received little attention from the media and Congressmen know nothing about it. Contact them and let them know about this bill. An important item to note is to include that the bill has nothing to do with stem cells, which is a true but little known fact.

Second, ask your Congressmen to support H.R. 3144 and fund research into non-destructive methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells.

StemPAC may fail in their efforts in 2006, pushing expansion of embryonic stem cell research back to 2008 at the earliest. Failure sucks, but it happens. Be ready with a backup plan just in case. Embryonic stem cells obtained by alternative methods will need to display the same properties and abilities as existing embryonic stem cell lines. That will take time, and it's important to begin the process sooner rather than later.

Finally, urge your Congressmen to support significant increases in NIH funding. An initiative was launched in 1997 under President Clinton to double the NIH budget. That goal was accomplished in 2002, but President Bush has directly forced its budget to stagnate since then. This move alone has stalled research more than any other action Bush has done during his terms.

In review, the five year plan is pretty simple.

2005-2006

* Establish a clinical trial network
* Push for increased NIH funding
* Work to elect pro-ESC expansion House members
* Support funding for alternative methods of deriving embryonic stem cells
* Support cure research, even non-ESC cure research

2007-2008

* Enjoy the benefits of a clinical trial network
* Push for increased NIH funding
* Support funding to prove alternatively derived ESCs are comparable to "regular" ESCs
* Try to pass an ESC expansion bill

2009-2010

* One way or another, stem cells are here to stay
* Push for increased NIH funding
* Work your butt off after receiving the cure to maximize recovery

2010-

* Enjoy a life without paralysis :)

August 19, 2010. Let's join together and achieve a cure by this date. Let's not make anyone suffer "14 years of pain" or "14 years that are gone forever" ever again.

It's been
14 years of silence
It's been
14 years of pain
It's been
14 years that are gone forever
And I'll never have again

LifeNews Mentions Transdifferentiation!

2005-08-15T15:03:00.000-04:00

LifeNews.com is carrying a brief blurb entitled Stem Cell Programming Could Solve Stem Cell Research Dilemmas with quotes from Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology, and Leon Kass, chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics, in support of transdifferentiation. Specifically, a form called dedifferentiation that would be used to derive patient-specific embryonic stem cells from an adult cell.

"We need to educate the public that science takes a long time."

2005-08-14T11:51:00.000-04:00

Browsing through the Journal Science for articles on transdifferentiation yesterday, I came upon an article from June 2002 wherein Drs. Markus Grompe and James Thomson lamented the pervasive belief that not only can stem cells cure everything, but they can do so tomorrow:

"I think [therapies with transplanted stem cells] will eventually work," says Grompe. But "we've raised a lot of false hopes for quick fixes, and that's not going to happen." He and others say a closer comparison might be with gene therapy--greatly hyped 20 years ago but still without much to show for itself. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who first isolated human ES cells back in 1998, agrees. "I'm not looking forward to the backlash 3 years from now when people say, 'What happened to stem cells?' " he says. What can scientists do about it? Says Thomson: "We need to educate the public that science takes a long time."

The last sentence remains true today. Three years later, Bush's policies have unwittingly saved researchers the backlash predicted by Thomson, but the backlash will come as long as people maintain unrealistic expectations.

Leon Kass: It's ethically neat

2005-08-11T11:07:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to Kristen.

Kass: I would like to talk with you about reprogramming, because I think that’s where the gold is buried. Since the council’s white paper has been issued, we’ve been made aware of three major scientific reports that indicate to me at least that the reprogramming alternative is, A., hotly under investigation, and B., moving much more rapidly than we had any reason to suspect even two months ago when the report was issued.

Here Dr. Kass is referring to dedifferentiation, an ethically and scientifically viable way to obtain cells with embryonic-like properties. The interview focuses on the four options discussed in the May Bioethics Whitepaper. My favorite quote:

Kass: But if I’m a betting man, I’m betting on the thing we talked about at first, which is the reprogramming. It’s ethically neat, it doesn’t require genetic engineering, it doesn’t require eggs, and it can be done with the existing eligible-for-federal-funds cell lines that scientists are now using. And these very promising and exciting results from three independent laboratories over the last few months make me think that we’re going to hear an awful lot about this.

If I'm a betting man, I would say Dr. Kass has nailed the key to ending the stem cell debate.

Get Well, Dana

2005-08-09T17:43:00.000-04:00

While I try to avoid blogging on things that do not specifically related to stem cells, I want to send my condolences to Dana Reeve. Her Doctors have given her an optimistic prognosis, and I hope everything clears up for her.

Opinion Piece in Huntsville Times Argues for Transdifferentiation

2005-08-07T14:11:00.000-04:00

Making the standard Pro-Life argument, Tommy Glenn writes that scientists should use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells for research. While his arguments are mostly the same as every other anti-ESC piece you will read, I was happy to see him mention transdifferentiation.

They are also discovering that adult stem cells can transdifferentiate, or become multiple cell types. This is similar to the ability of embryonic stem cells to develop into every cell type in the body.

It doesn't really take much to make me happy, I guess. :)

I wish he would have noted that transdifferentiation offers a morally acceptable way to obtain embryonic stem cells, but I have to give him points for being at least peripherally aware of the concept.

Charles Krauthammer Supports Reproductive Cloning?

2005-08-05T10:14:00.000-04:00

Both in my writings and as a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, I have advocated this dual policy: Expand federal funding of stem cell research by using discarded embryos, but couple that with a firm national ban on creating human embryos for any purpose other than the birth of a human baby.

Ban creating human embryos, except for reproduction. I think this is a mis-print or typo.

Rush Limbaugh: Afraid?

2005-08-03T18:06:00.000-04:00

His screeners may be.

Reading Rush Limbaugh's transcript from Monday's show (excerpts, via JillStanek.com) was an eye-opener. In essence, his argument was that embryonic stem cell proponents are Pro-Choice advocates who are only using stem cells to keep abortion legal.

Okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Opinions aside, he made this shocking statement:

In the meantime, in order to continue the [embryonic stem cell] research, what do you need? You need embryos, and where do you get those? Well, until the left figures out how to replace God, you only get embryos from procreation, and then you have to go in and abort the result of the procreation to get the embryo, abort, abort. You have to abort....

Given that this was the first time I have read Limbaugh's opinion on the subject, I was hoping to get his opinion on H.R. 3144, which attempts to obtain embryonic stem cells without harming an embryo. If he was unaware of the bill, I thought he may be interested in it.

So today about 1:50 PM (Eastern) I started to call his toll-free number (1-800-828-8228) to try and ask Mr. Limbaugh a simple question: If there was a way to obtain embryonic stem cells for research without harming embryos, would you support it?

For those who have never called a radio station, a call screener usually answers the phones to screen out obnoxious callers. Using skills honed as a pre-teen to win free CDs and assorted goodies, I persistently redialed and was rewarded with a non-busy signal.

"Cool! I'll actually get to ask my question."

The screener picked up after a few rings. "Hi, what would you like to ask Rush Limbaugh?"

"Hi, I would like to ask him a question about stem cells."

Immediately after "stem cells" left my mouth, I heard a click sound. Silence followed. Shortly thereafter, the "If you would like to make a call, please hang up and try again" recording started. Being a good boy, I followed instructions.

A few minutes of redialing later, the call screener answered again.

"Hi, I just called and I think I got accidentally disconnected."

Click. Silence. Recording.

Accident? I'm thinking not.

Either way, I will keep trying. I would like to know what Rush Limbaugh would say about H.R. 3144.

William F. Buckley, Jr. Gets It Wrong

2005-08-03T12:17:00.000-04:00

In a piece appearing on Yahoo News, William F. Buckley, Jr. aims to clear up the confusion surrounding the stem cell debate. Sadly, he failed.

Let's take a look at what he says:

In the matter of the stem cells, we are asked to focus on two completely different things. There are the so-called adult stem cells, which derive from cells that would never develop in a human being. To take such stem cells and do nuclear transfer research is OK. Nobody is arguing that what you are doing is snuffing out a human life.

So far, so good.

By contrast, embryonic stem cells harbor life unborn, so that to take these and experiment with them is seen as experimentation with human beings. The ideal is to authorize the first kind of stem cell research but to forbid the second -- or, at least, to restrain it.

Embryonic stem cells themselves do not harbor life. Rather, embryonic stem cells are components of blastocysts.

A strong argument could be (and is) made that a blastocyst is a life or harbors life, but to argue that an embryonic stem cell harbors a "life unborn" is completely false.

Bush Stands Firm on Veto Pledge

2005-08-03T07:36:00.000-04:00

From the Houston Chronicle, Bush again states that he will veto any bill that eases the restrictions he placed on embryonic stem cell research. The story is widely reported elsewhere, as well.

Nothing new here. H.R. 810 is dead.

Family Research Council Report on Adult Stem Cell Pluripotency

2005-08-01T21:26:00.000-04:00

This is a good thing. The Family Research Council has released a "Fact Sheet" listing a few studies that have shown stem cells derived from bone marrow, pancreas, umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, and possibly the bloodstream have the potential to transdifferentiate into other types of cells. If more people focus on promoting this and getting this research funded appropriately (in the $100 million per year range), we can put to rest the entire embryonic stem cell debate.

Representative Roscoe's bill, HR. 3144, only allocates $15 million per year for research into the proposed alternatives. With the incoming taxes shaving $94 billion more than expected from the deficit, I think it is reasonable to expect that Congress can spend $100 million per year on research that will not only save numerous embryos from being destroyed, but will significantly improve the quality of life for those suffering spinal cord injuries while serving our country in Afghanistan and Iraq and the other 250,000+ spinal cord injured persons currently living in the United States.

The Cloning Debate Rolls On

2005-07-30T21:05:00.000-04:00

With Frist recently announcing his support for expanding embryonic stem cell research, many people probably believe that the cloning and embryonic stem cell debates are over, but they are wrong. Bush signing H.R. 810 into law wouldn't end the debates, either.

Sufficiently funding somatic cell reprogramming—dedifferentiation and transdifferentiation—would.

One of the primary benefits of embryonic stem cell lines, as claimed by researchers, is the ability to create and study the disease process in affected cell lines to watch how the disease develops and to test potential drugs against. There are currently three main ways to obtain diseased stem cell lines:

Deriving diseased cell lines from cryopreserved embryos at IVF clinics.
Therapeutic cloning.
Cell reprogramming.

The first option, while statistically improbable, is the only way of obtaining diseased embryonic stem cell lines made possible by H.R. 810. Assuming enough cell lines could be obtained this way, there would likely be a lack of diversity to make this an attractive option with the current state of technology. Given these (and other) deficiencies, researchers will not find H.R. 810 acceptable.

The most well known and widely debated option is second: therapeutic cloning. As therapeutic cloning creates an embryo, this option is not a realistic option.

The final option, cell reprogramming, removes both cloning and destroying embryos from the debate. Directly reprogramming an adult cell from one type to another is known as transdifferentiation, while reprogramming an adult cell to a more pluripotent state is known as dedifferentiation.

An example application of transdifferentiation would be biopsying skin cells from a person, directly converting them into islet cells, and then transplant them back into the same person to treat Juvenile Diabetes. Not only does transdifferentiation avoid creating an embryo, it also avoids potential immune rejection problems.

The one problem with this technique is that people with diseases caused by genetic abnormalities may not be able to be their own donors, as the genes would be the same. Two options exist to solve this problem: the first being gene therapy, and the second being obtaining cells from a donor.

An example application of dedifferentiation would be biopsying skin cells from a person and culturing the cells directly into embryonic stem cells. (This should sound familiar, as dedifferentiation is just a specific form of transdifferentiation.) These stem cells could then be grown, cultured to become islet cells, and then transplanted to treat Juvenile Diabetes.

The dedifferentiated stem cells could also be used in labs to allow researchers to study disease processes.

Transdifferentiation, including dedifferentiation, will allow researchers a way to obtain the cells they need to study the early stages of disease processes without destroying embryos or subjecting women to risky hyperovulation sessions, as eggs would not be required.

With Bill Frist making references to cell reprogramming and the President's Council on Bioethics endorsing somatic cell reprogramming, the research has been acknowledged as legitimate on a federal level. All it needs to achieve reality is significant funding.

During this August recess, please contact your Congressmen and ask them to support research into cell reprogramming. Without proper funding, we will stay mired in a needless debate.

Please, contact your Congressmen.

Bill Frist's Floor Speech on Stem Cells. Politics or Not?

2005-07-30T14:12:00.000-04:00

PBS is streaming Frist's Speech (RealAudio) on their Online NewsHour Stem Cell page. Some excerpts from the speech:

Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today -- as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy -- that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.

Let me read to you my 5th principle as I presented it on this floor four years ago:

No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7847 [ed: PDF]).

I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that consent should be granted under a careful and thorough federal regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds within accepted ethical bounds.

In a prior post, I stated that I believed Frist's recent announcement is "purely political." Given the full-text of his 2001 statements on stem cell research, do I still believe this?

Well, let's take a look at his rather persuasive reasoning for why he now feels "It’s time for a modified policy."

When the President announced his policy, it was widely believed that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for federal funding. That has proven not to be the case. Today only 22 lines are eligible. Moreover, those lines unexpectedly after several generations are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought (they are acquiring and losing chromosomes, losing the normal karyotype, and potentially losing growth control). They also were grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since, will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans (e.g., potential of viral contamination).

To address the first point, at a committee hearing on September 5, 2001 (PDF), NIH Secretary Tommy Thompson said that there were only 24 or 25 fully developed cell lines available at the time for funding. While President Bush had stated that over 60 cell lines were available for funding, Secretary Thompson suggested that the remaining cell lines would be available for research purposes within eight or nine months (ie, by June 2002). This turned out to not be true.

Frist's second and third concerns about the existing stem cell lines were also raised in the September 2001 meeting.

Frist also made a reference to "promising research not even imagined four years ago" in his recent speech, such as reprogramming an adult stem cell to become more pluripotent. Four years ago, Frist made reference to "recent" research suggesting "adult stem cells may have more plastic properties than previously believed." (page S7848)

Based on the evidence presented, I do still believe that Senator Frist's statements are purely political.

With that said, there's no reason to cry over spilt milk. Instead, let's use this as a history lesson.

What did we learn? Unnecessary debates prolong cure research, which prolongs suffering. If we can avoid debates in the future, let's do so. Supporting dedifferentiation research avoids the debate—no embryos created, none destroyed—so let's support it. :)

Frist Supports ESC Research; Bush Takes One for the Team

2005-07-29T09:35:00.000-04:00

Senator Bill Frist has now come out in support of embryonic stem cell research. Is he telling the truth?

Frist needs this to appeal to the Centrists, and Bush's guaranteed veto allows him to take this stand on the issue. Bush maintains his appeal with the Right, Frist gains approval from the Centrists, Bush campaigns for Frist in 2008 (if he gets the nod, which is likely) and hands the Right to Frist. This is purely political.

From the New York Times:

But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."

This is inaccurate. The Senate companion bill (S. 471) to Castle's bill (H.R. 810) explicitly states under Section 498D:

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

These subsections address both of the issues raised by Frist: it prohibits patients from being financially compensated for donating the embryos and it states that the decision is made, with informed consent, by the "individuals seeking fertility treatment".

If Republicans can maintain their hold through the 2008 elections, embryonic stem cell research will still not be allowed and Frist can set forth an "ethical" ESC policy that pacifies all sides. (Assuming we don't know how to reprogram somatic cells into ESCs by then.)

Update: From the Congressional Record (PDF):

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the question. It gives me the opportunity to show the work and the challenge it is to address an issue that strikes at the science and ethical concerns.

My approach has been to include what I think the Senator from Iowa wants, and that is a clean up-or-down-vote on this bill. I have real concerns with how that bill is written, and I will give several examples of why it bothers me a bit the way it is written and passing as a clean bill. But I am willing to do that if I can take into consideration the moral concerns and scientific concerns of others in this body and give them the same opportunity that the Senator from Iowa is asking for, and, thus, put together a group, a defined group, but not an unlimited group--we will be voting up or down on all sorts of votes--but see where everybody is on alternative ways: You do not have to destroy embryos to get the same cells you get from embryos, the cord blood bill, H.R. 810, and the cloning bill. It is a separate issue but involves the creation of embryos and ultimately the destruction of embryos.

That is what we are talking about. That is my attempt. It is going to take a while on the floor of the Senate because of the fact of it not having gone through the committee process and the fact everybody does stand in little different positions, from an ethical standpoint, on any of the bills.

On H.R. 810, the consent process is inadequate, from my standpoint. There is not an ideal ethical construct. It says informed consent, but it does not specifically talk about the potential for financial incentives between, say, a physician and an in vitro fertilization clinic. That is not addressed specifically in the bill. Instead of voting up or down, I would like to at least discuss those issues.

Another issue--there is informed consent and the financial incentives--would be if we pass it, it is passed forever; there is no opportunity to come back and look at it on a periodic basis, say, every 4 or 5 years.

I mention those concerns because I am willing to step back and give a clean vote on that if we can take into consideration other people's issues or their particular bills. I am a little surprised my colleagues have not taken me up on that opportunity, but since they have not, we will have to come back and figure the best way to address it when we get back after the recess.

"Stem Cells" in Portugal; an Urban Legend?

2005-07-22T20:32:00.000-04:00

Various news outlets are often found reporting on people with spinal cord injuries going to Lisbon, Portugal for what the outlets usually (mistakenly) refer to as an "adult stem cell" treatment. As of early May, 52 people have traveled to Portugal to have this surgery, with anecdotal reports of mixed amounts of recovery. (Primarily sensory, with modest one-to-two functional levels of return at best; not average or minimal levels of return, but maximum.)

What do we really know about the treatment?

We know that Dr. Lima extracts the nasal mucosa which (when unpurified) contains olfactory ensheathing cells, mucosal glands, cilia, fibroblasts, and a number of other cell types. Dr. Lima then cuts out a part of the spinal cord to remove scar tissue (which may also contain surviving axons) and transplants the extracted nasal mucosa across the site of injury.

Why is he transplanting the nasal mucosa?

The nasal mucosa is a component of the olfactory system, which is a part of the central nervous system known to perpetually regenerate itself throughout our lifetimes. The belief is that cells of the nasal mucosa produce growth factors that will allow nerves in the spinal cord to overcome native inhibitory signals and regenerate.

Are there really stem cells in there?

A recent study from Brisbane, Australia reports that there are.

Are the stem cells responsible for the reported recovery?

This is the tricky question, which requires a small amount of background knowledge before answering.

Nerve cells transmit information through the spinal cord by electrical impulses called action potentials. Nerve cells are insulated by a fatty substance known as myelin that allows action potentials to travel long distances.

Spinal cord injuries that do not sever the spinal cord usually cause cells around the site of injury (that survive the injury) to lose their myelin insulation. As unmyelinated cells cannot pass on action potentials, simply restoring the myelin in a sufficient number of cells can result in functional recovery.

With that as background, the primary function of olfactory ensheathing cells in the nasal mucosa (and elsewhere) is to myelinate cells. Therefore, the recovery noted in those who received such transplants may be due to the olfactory ensheathing cells, and not any stem cells that may survive the transplant.

So, are the stem cells responsible for the recovery? Yes or No?

Without further information, it is impossible to know. The recovery may be the result of the stem cells, the olfactory ensheathing cells, a combination of the two, or something else entirely such as the removal of the scar tissue or the intensive rehabilitation after the surgery.

Is anyone currently working to find out what causes this recovery?

Yes.

The Australian team mentioned earlier began a human clinical trial earlier this year to determine whether the recovery is due to the olfactory ensheathing cells.

Would embryonic stem cells work better?

No.

A direct embryonic stem cell transplantation would likely show a lower, or a comparable, degree of recovery. Such a transplantation would have a risk of forming a tumor in the spinal cord, which wouldn't be pretty.

Any future therapy involving embryonic stem cells will require that they be grown into specific cell types prior to transplantation. Geron is working on a treatment based on these principles and are hoping to initiate a clinical trial in 2006.

Is the "Adult stem cells cure paralysis" claim an Urban Legend?

Yes.

While the reported benefits are helpful, they are by no means a cure for all the issues involved with paralysis. As mentioned above, the stem cells may not even be responsible for the limited recoveries that have occurred.

Stem Cell 'Alternatives' Raise the Debate

2005-07-21T19:30:00.000-04:00

(An excellent editorial appeared at Wired News today that discusses this in more depth. I will try to avoid duplicating too many points.)

Noted Professors Paul Berg, George Q. Daley, and Lawrence S.B. Goldstein penned an Opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled Stem Cell 'Alternatives' Fog the Debate, in which they argue that the Senate is facing a decision pitting themselves against the will of the House and delaying "vital medical research." Unfortunately, the basis of their argument is a bit misplaced, as the bill they are supporting (H.R. 810/S. 471) has effectively been declared dead-on-arrival by President Bush. Without a veto-proof margin in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, any Senate action on the bill will be largely symbolic and ineffective.

Berg, et. al continue on to discuss the 'Alternatives' Bill (H.R. 3144) proposed by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R - MD) and its efforts to divert support away from H.R. 810 "by promoting dubious approaches to obtaining stem cells that even their supporters concede are scientifically and ethically problematic." While three of the four suggested approaches are ethically dubious, the fourth approach (somatic cell reprogramming, a.k.a. transdifferentiation, of which dedifferentiation is a specific type) presents no ethical concerns, provided you outlaw the creation of an embryo through its use.

The trio then say "Research on these proposed alternatives is already legal and can be funded by existing mechanisms. ... Interested scientists need only write a grant proposal and pass the scientific peer review process for technical merit to secure funding for the research." While this is true, this argument against the need for H.R. 3144 is—to borrow a term—dubious, as bills have long been used to allocate funding for and attract scientists to emerging areas of research.

Professors, Researchers, Scientists, and Advocates who support H.R. 810 should not be afraid of also supporting H.R. 3144. The debate over when life begins (embryonic stem cell opponents oppose the research because they believe an embryo is a life; proponents don't) is an ideological one that has long divided the country, and it will not stop because of stem cell research. H.R. 3144 offers a chance to remove ideology from the debate and satisfy both sides.

If Roe vs. Wade participants were given the opportunity to remove ideology, they would have taken it. We are being given that opportunity with H.R. 3144 and we should take it, not waste it.