Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Although Dr. Bernadine Healy correctly asserts that lifting the ban on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research will be a complex endeavor, eventually requiring Congress to set the parameters for permissible derivation of stem cells from human embryos, her article is blantantly politically skewed and misleading.
First, the Israeli study published in PLoS Medicine used human fetal neural stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. What is so alarming about Dr. Healy's oversight is that the title of the study, "Donor-Derived Brain Tumor Following Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in an Ataxia Telangiectasia Patient," explicity states the use of neural stem cells, and a quick skimming of the abstract reveals the use of fetal neural stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
Furthermore, Dr. Healy expresses concern over the safety of Geron's clinical trials recently approved by the FDA. However, Geron submitted evidence of the safety, tolerability and efficacy of GRNOPC1 to the FDA in a 21,000-page IND application that described 24 separate animal studies requiring the production of more than five billion GRNOPC1 cells. Included in the safety package were studies that showed no evidence of teratoma formation 12 months after injection of clinical grade GRNOPC1 into the injured spinal cord of rats and mice. Other studies documented the absence of significant migration of the injected cells outside the spinal cord, allodynia induction (increased neuropathic pain due to the injected cells), systemic toxicity or increased mortality in animals receiving GRNOPC1. The FDA reviewed Geron's IND application for several years and requested additional data on the risks of teratoma formation, which Geron provided to the FDA's satisfaction. Dr. Healy neglects to address the fact that Phase I clinical trials are intended only to test the safety, not the efficacy, of new medical treatments. Geron's study is intended to reveal more information on the safety concerns expressed by Dr. Healy.
Last, Dr. Healy implies that Dr. James Thomson is abandoning human embryonic stem cell research to focus solely on iPS cell research. Nothing could be further from the truth. When directly asked how he thought the discovery of iPS cells would affect the political debate over stem cell research, Dr. Thomson replied, "Well, what I hope will not happen is that everybody says, ‘See? We don’t have to do embryonic stem cell research now.’" Dr. Healy is doing precisely what Dr. Thomson cautioned against. Furthermore, Dr. Thomson stated that with respect to iPS cell research, "This may not be the end of the story. These pluripotent cells may not be perfectly like embryonic stem cells. We don’t know yet."
Dr. Healy's article is clearly politically motivated and designed to further confuse and mislead the public. As a doctor of medicine, Dr. Healy should instead be committed to providing the public with accurate and objective information on medicine and technology.

Daisy Manning of MO 8:09PM March 04, 2009

Yet again, another "expert" spreads misinformation to further their conservative agenda. Since when are (former) cardiologists considered experts in stem cells, or anything beyond that narrow specialty? Sorry, just because you have an MD doesn't confer magical knowledge of graduate level molecular biology. IPS may very well become the norm but right now it is fraught with problems, mainly having to do with its manufacture. Not to mention there is at least one company out there that can harvest embryonic stem cells with no harm to the embryo, ACTC (advanced cell technologies). I'm sure you know this though as you clearly keep up to date with all the latest research, 'cause you know... you have a blog and used to treat heart disease! LOL.

Rafe Sunita of AL 6:10PM March 04, 2009

What we have here is a typical lack of overall understanding about stem cells and the best lines of use? First, there are three main lines of stem cells out there. Embryonic, Cord Blood and Adult/Bone Marrow. Each has their benefits and each can have their negatives. The article is completely accurate in stating the risks with embryonic cells causing tumors as these cell are so immature that they can form into anything. Hence why they are so beneficial for research, but probably not the best line for treatment. Then you have adult stem cells, typically found in bone marrow. The downside is that time and age have affect these cells and that the are fully mature stem cells making them less adaptable. Cord Blood gets the best of both worlds, in that it is not too immature, but yet immature to be adaptable. The downside is that you can only get it at birth and you cant control how many cells are going to be collected and stored.
For the individual asking about research in the US for specific conditions, just check out clinicaltrials.gov and then type stem cells & the condition. There are plenty of therapies being done in the US that people typically are not aware of and many are for neurological conditions that have amazing results. The last 20 years has been the start of the boom years for stem cell treatments, but it is the last few years that you will see the true application of the cells starting to show significant progress.

JJups of CA 5:59PM March 04, 2009

I agree completely with Mr Mavis' previous comment. For the last eight years, the Bush ban of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has financially tied the hands of our nations scientists. Irregardless of any private funds they may have had the luck to scrape together, the added knowledge of the Bush administrations hostility towards any patentable technology discovered under their watch, only helped to hinder the possibility of obtaining more funding from the private sector. For what good would discovering a patentable breakthrough be, if you knew you wouldnt receive a patent in a timely fashion, or have that patent leaked to your competitors, only because it was founded using a method looked unfavorably upon by your government? I would argue that the federal ban on funding this technology be overturned immediately, and any future possibility of hinderance by government agencies, be legislated to make this technology safe from outside religious influences.
President Obama, Lift The Ban Now!

Jess Niedringhaus of NJ 5:53PM March 04, 2009

I always suspected that there are groups of people, among them drug manufacturers who DON'T WANT diseases to be cured. In my opinion, they will do anything to scare people to block and delay the development of new, natural cures. Just imagine what would happen to drug manufacturers and other entities whose income derives from the ilnesses of mankind? You don't have to be a college graduate to figure out why they are against it. They use religion, politics, and other tactics to block any advance in relieving people of their dependency on drugs and current treatments which in the majority of cases don't cure and have many unwanted side effects. Genetic engineering, which was the hope of many in the last century, was practically banned with bad publicity and negative spinning. But as an optimist, I know that in the end the good and unselfish will prevail. I already see it happening.

Cari tompkins of CA 5:23PM March 04, 2009

Those of us who have neurological diseases which cause limitation and pain every day have a great interest in the promise of stem cell research. I understand and agree with the moral issues related to embryonic stem cells. I also have a problem with the need for chemo-therapy, the possibility of tumors, etc. when using donor stem cells.
Recently, I read about research in the UK, using stem cells from Bone Marrow derived from the patient. Similar treatments have been done at the Xell-Center in Dusseldoprf and Cologne, Germany, (successfully) on a number of patients. Their website is http://www.xcell-center.com I was advised that extracting ones own bone marrow is no more uncomfortable than a visit to the dentist.
After 5 years of being told there is no safe medication or cure for MS, and PPMS, or demyelizing diseases, I would like to explore using my own bone marrow stem cells, for myelin repair, and wonder is there anywhere in the United States where this is being reserched.
If anyone has any information on this, there are a lot of individuals like myself who would be grateful for any information.

Serenity of NC 5:03PM March 04, 2009

Stem Cell Enhancers: The NEW Science
Standing singly, away from all the controversy, some of the scientific community is giving rise to the world's very first patented, organic stem cell enhancer. With only a single dose of this modern day amazement your body can begin the renewal process. In fact, within just one hour after taking this wonder supplement, three to 4 million, yes MILLION stem cells are added to your bloodstream and go to work.
StemEnhance is a revolutionary breakthrough, all natural product that supports adult stem cell physiology. It's the first patented product on the market in the latest phytoceutical category called "Stem Cell Enhancers".
Standing singly, away from all the controversy, some of the scientific community is giving rise to the world's very first patented, organic stem cell enhancer. With only a single dose of this modern day amazement your body can begin the renewal process. In fact, within just one hour after taking this wonder supplement, three to 4 million, yes MILLION stem cells are added to your bloodstream and go to work.http://www.phyl247.com or http://www.phyl247.biz phyl247 970-985-4076

phyl franklin of CO 4:45PM March 04, 2009

I find it interesting that a doctor would make the mistake of taking one patient and applying it to every possible scenario involving embryonic stem cells. The most important detail involving that patient was that his disease had made his immune system incredibly weak, propping up his chance of cancer. Not only that, but it was not lab grown embryonic stem cells that were used. The boy was injected with a slush of fetal cells from different fetuses, in such a method that would make any U.S. researcher blush in embarrassment. Embryonic stem cells should not be the focus of this article; it should be denouncing the Russians' methods and all of the variables involved in the patient.
Finding one case that barely relates to embryonic stem cell research and declaring an entire field of science obsolete is a stretch of the imagination at best.
And on ESC not yielding any cures, what would you expect from a field that is heavily regulated and banned in some states? You support tying down scientists hand and foot, telling them to create cures that would be massive leaps in medical progress, and then declare their science obsolete? That is just absurd.

Travis Mazer of MI 4:32PM March 04, 2009

The rush to use Embryonic Stem Cells is another example of "when fools rush in". Directed research - that imposed by government dictate - blocks innovation. Just as cloning hasn't met the feminist's dream of not needing males, embryonic stem cell therapy was based more upon optimism than insight and knowledge. Scientists needed to look for alternative methods of cell therapy and "necessity is the mother of invention". The greatest advances will always happen when people are allowed to explore but monitored to limit jumping in to a new approach too fast.

Louis HR Muller of NY 3:23PM March 04, 2009