Stem Cell Breakthrough Defuses Debate

advertisement

NEW YORK — Scientists have created the equivalent of embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells, a breakthrough that could someday produce new treatments for disease without the explosive moral questions of embyro cloning.

Research teams in the United States and Japan showed that a simple lab technique can rival the complex and highly controversial idea of extracting stem cells from cloned embryos.

It was a landmark achievement on all fronts, defusing one of the most divisive debates in modern medicine and religion. It was lauded by scientists, ethicists and religious groups.

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone — the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, whose company, Advanced Cell Technology, has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

"It redefines the ethical terrain," said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University.

"It's a win-win for everyone involved," said the Rev. Thomas Berg of the Westchester Institute, a Roman Catholic think tank. "We have a way to move forward which ... brings the kind of painful national debate over this controversial research to very much a peaceful and promising resolution."

At the White House, President Bush, who vetoed two bills to allow federal funding for stem-cell research, was described as "very pleased."

"The president believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life," said a statement from his press secretary.

The new technique reprograms cells, giving them the chameleon-like qualities of embryonic stem cells, which can morph into all kinds of tissue, such as heart, nerve and brain. As with embryonic cells, the hope is to speed medical research. For example, one day an ailing patient might benefit from genetically matched healthy tissue that would replace damaged cells.

The research was published online Tuesday by two journals, Cell and Science. The Cell paper is from a team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University; the team published by Science was led by Junying Yu, working in the lab of stem-cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Both groups reported that the reprogrammed cells behaved like stem cells in a series of lab tests. Their papers ended a scientific race that broke into wide view just this summer, when the achievement was reported in mice.

The scientists themselves were startled by their success.

"I was surprised when we achieved our results with the mouse," Yamanaka said. "But proving what we could do with human cells really bowled me over."

Thomson said he was surprised it didn't take longer to discover how to reprogram ordinary cells. The technique, he said, is so simple that "thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow."

In contrast, the cloning approach is so complex and expensive that many scientists say it couldn't be used routinely to supply stem cells for therapy.

While the discovery seems likely to shift the direction of research, Thomson and others said it's too soon to give up on studying embryonic stem cells.

He said he believes the ethical turmoil surrounding the embryonic cells set the field back four or five years. The new results are "probably the beginning of the end for that controversy," he said.

But he said his team wasn't trying to find a way around the ethical debate by pursuing the new technique. "We just thought this was a more practical approach," he said.

An official of one group fiercely opposed to destroying embryos saw things differently, saying scientists should thank "pro-life voices" for pushing them to find alternatives.

"The results are groundbreaking studies like these," said Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group.

The controversy over embryonic stem cells has been a touchstone of national politics. It inspired impassioned pleas by Nancy Reagan, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, and countless ordinary citizens arguing in favor of the potential medical benefits.

Equally heartfelt were objections that destroying embryos to extract the stem cells meant destroying human life.

No federal money was available for embryonic stem cell research until 2001, when President Bush allowed very limited funding. Some states like California and Connecticut responded to his restrictions by setting up their own programs to pay for it.

The new work shows that like cloning, "direct reprogramming" can also use ordinary body cells to create versatile cells that are genetically matched.

"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.

"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it."

There is a catch. At this point, the technique disrupts the DNA of the skin cells, and that creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for transplanting into a patient.

But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.

For the new work, the two scientific teams chose different cell types from a tissue supplier. Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Thomson's team, which was working its way from embryonic to fetal to adult cells, is still analyzing its results with adult cells.

Both labs did basically the same thing. Each used viruses to ferry four genes into the skin cells. These particular genes were known to turn other genes on and off, but just how they produced cells that mimic embryonic stem cells is a mystery.

Both Thomson, 48, and Yamanaka, 45, had already produced notable achievements. Thomson made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.

And Yamanaka gained scientific notice in 2006 by reporting that direct reprogramming in mice had produced cells resembling embryonic stem cells, although with significant differences. In June, his group and two others announced they'd created mouse cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.

Zoloth, the ethicist at Northwestern, noted that direct reprogramming avoids not only embryo destruction, but also the need for unfertilized human eggs to create embryos. Eggs are hard to obtain for research, and collecting them subjects women to drug treatment and surgery. Using eggs also raises the ethical question of whether women should be paid for them.

The embryo and egg issues were "show-stopping ethical problems," she said.

Another advantage of direct reprogramming is that it would qualify for federal research funding, unlike projects that seek to extract stem cells from human embryos, noted Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

Still, scientific questions remain about the cells produced by direct reprogramming, called "iPS" cells. One is how the cells compare to embryonic stem cells in their behavior and potential. Eventually, iPS cells might prove better for some scientific uses and cloned stem cells preferable for other uses. For example, scientists want to study the roots of genetic disease and screen potential drug treatments in their laboratories.

Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, has said he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.

Other scientists said it's too early for the field to give up studying stem cells from embryos.

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem.

His lab is pursuing both the reprogramming and cloning strategies.

"We'll see, ultimately, which one works and which one is more practical," he said,

___

On the Net:

Journal Cell: http://www.cell.com

Journal Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

  • 51 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
27
10
2.9
{"commentId":1201763,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}

Yea! Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells

Except the technique requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer

And just how they produced cells that mimic embryonic stem cells is a mystery

And Yamanaka said his work detected differences in gene activity

And it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem

But otherwise, yea! Go, science!

Now, how to solve that ethical dilemma created by discarded embryos deriving from fertility treatments?

{"commentId":1201763,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
  • 16 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:51 AM EST
{"commentId":1201979,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Best review possible of the reality, thanks!

{"commentId":1201979,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:45 AM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1201802,"authorDomain":"uttles"}

You mean, George Bush was actually right? Wow.

{"commentId":1201802,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"uttles"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:58 AM EST
{"commentId":1201833,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}

Not exactly, just ever so slightly less wrong ;-)

{"commentId":1201833,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
  • 7 votes
#2.1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:05 AM EST
{"commentId":1202680,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
The White House lauded the papers, saying such research is what President Bush was advocating when he twice vetoed legislation to pave the way for taxpayer-funded embryo research.

What utter bulls---.

{"commentId":1202680,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
  • 9 votes
#2.2 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:17 PM EST
{"commentId":1203878,"authorDomain":"songbird6"}

Amen to that, Jack.

{"commentId":1203878,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"songbird6"}
  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:57 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1201830,"authorDomain":"Marriage"}

Ditto!

{"commentId":1201830,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"Marriage"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:05 AM EST
{"commentId":1201958,"authorDomain":"babin"}

"Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn."

?

{"commentId":1201958,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"babin"}
    Reply#4 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:38 AM EST
    {"commentId":1202684,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}

    If that wasn't a newborn, there'd be a joke in there somewhere.

    {"commentId":1202684,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
      #4.1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:17 PM EST
      {"commentId":1202720,"authorDomain":"babin"}

      Yeah I couldn't really think of one myself. It's tempting though. In poor taste...

      {"commentId":1202720,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"babin"}
        #4.2 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:31 PM EST
        Reply
        {"commentId":1202060,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}

        Gee, was Reagan right about this all along? Are the Dems going to give the Repubs credit for holding out until this was discovered?

        {"commentId":1202060,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
          Reply#5 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:10 PM EST
          {"commentId":1202217,"authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

          Regan, Bush, et al have set back progress on this issue by decades. There's no telling were we'd be with this research if they hadn't cut off research funds in a big way.

          It's unbelievable that these so called "pro-lifers" would rather allow people to die than to use embryos that were slated to be tossed in the trash.

          Decades may not seem like much to you, but I garran-damn-tee you, if you or a loved one was waiting and hoping that help for you could be the result of this research, you'd be plenty pissed at the aforementioned A-holes.

          This issue casts the harsh light of hypocrisy on the agenda of the Right. One that is devoid of ethical standards.

          {"commentId":1202217,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"JStranahan"}
          • 6 votes
          #5.1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:03 PM EST
          {"commentId":1202278,"authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}
          Regan, Bush, et al have set back progress on this issue by decades.

          That's a little bit of an exaggeration. By any account, we are still decades and decades away from any real treatment that can be gleaned from this. Had GWB funded embrionic stem cells 3 years ago, we would not have a cure for Parkinsons, Alzheimer's, etc, today, or even in the next 20.

          This was really worth the wait... I just can't believe that they found a work-around so quickly.

          As for me, I would not want anyone (regardless of "age") to die for any cure that would help me or any of my family.

          {"commentId":1202278,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}
            #5.2 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:23 PM EST
            {"commentId":1202297,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
            There's no telling were we'd be with this research if they hadn't cut off research funds in a big way.

            You need to stick to the truth and less with the rhetoric. Neither Regan or Bush ever cut off a single fund for stem cell research. Bush was actually the first President to allow any federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research at all. He just greatly limited that funding.

            {"commentId":1202297,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
            • 4 votes
            #5.3 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:26 PM EST
            {"commentId":1202674,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
            Neither Regan or Bush ever cut off a single fund for stem cell research. Bush was actually the first President to allow any federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research at all. He just greatly limited that funding.

            Neither of them actually completely cut off funding, Bush's limiting of stem cell research to a few existing strains meant greatly stunted research.

            {"commentId":1202674,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
            • 3 votes
            #5.4 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:15 PM EST
            {"commentId":1202717,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}

            But remember, previous to Bush, there was no funding at all. That's why I found it interesting that the President's mentioned were Reagan and Bush. Clinton didn't exactly propose any funding either.

            The reason why: it wasn't until rather recently, in the late '90s that researched actually developed the techniques to allow them to properly experiment on embryonic stem cells. Thats why this was a non-issue for both Reagan and Clinton.

            {"commentId":1202717,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
            • 2 votes
            #5.5 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:30 PM EST
            {"commentId":1202762,"authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

            Nathan-

            Had GWB funded embrionic stem cells 3 years ago, we would not have a cure for Parkinsons, Alzheimer's, etc, today, or even in the next 20.

            Maybe, but who knows? When one is waiting for that cure, three years can mean life or death.

            This was really worth the wait... I just can't believe that they found a work-around so quickly.

            I really hope this pans out, naturally. But there seems to be a few iffy areas, as mentioned in larnuocon's comment #1. Don't push this method just because it comports with your belief system. We'll have to see.

            As for me, I would not want anyone (regardless of "age") to die for any cure that would help me or any of my family.

            A collection of a few cells, to me, doesn't constitute an "anyone" as you say. By contrast, you (or the pro life groups for that matter) appear to not be concerned by these embryos being thrown in the trash. That's what in happening now. It seems inhumane to me to allow this waste when it could potentially save lives.
            Even those that everyone is so "pro" about.

            {"commentId":1202762,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"JStranahan"}
            • 1 vote
            #5.6 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:47 PM EST
            {"commentId":1202844,"authorDomain":"JStranahan"}

            What the...? Oh well, that's a link to the Washington Post July, 2006

            {"commentId":1202844,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"JStranahan"}
              #5.8 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:12 PM EST
              {"commentId":1202866,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}

              One of the tricks that have been used is the magic math.

              The current amount is $1

              One group wants it to be $10

              Another wants it to be $5.

              The first group claims that the second is "cutting" funding by 50% when they are really quintupling it.

              All 'funding' is not equal. Instead of making the argument about how much to increase, they focus on how much is being "cut".

              {"commentId":1202866,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
                #5.9 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:18 PM EST
                {"commentId":1202900,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}

                Jimster, the key words in the excerpt are "would have". Clinton left guidelines for after his presidency. He did not fund the research during his presidency.

                But whatever, it's just a technicality.

                The moral of the story is that when you rely on government to fund your pet project, expect politics to play a role.

                {"commentId":1202900,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
                  #5.10 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:26 PM EST
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":1202075,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

                  Seriously. The religious right needs to calm down over this one. Just because there is another way does not mean they are any more justified or correct in their obtuse moral paradigm.

                  {"commentId":1202075,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"martinez"}
                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#6 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:15 PM EST
                  {"commentId":1202292,"authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}

                  How is it any less obtuse to say that doing research using pre-born humans is okay, but doing the same research on delivered babies is not okay? This is a complicated issue... if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a delimma, genius.

                  {"commentId":1202292,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}
                    #6.1 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:26 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1202309,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}

                    What? You're a little unclear on the difference between embryos and babies?

                    They conceal information about those differences in these things called "books".

                    {"commentId":1202309,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
                    • 6 votes
                    #6.2 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:29 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1202420,"authorDomain":"martinez"}
                    How is it any less obtuse to say that doing research using pre-born humans is okay...

                    Pre-born human is a convenient term. How about glob of cells that has a chance of developing into a healthy person? Or better yet, glob of cells, because, if people like you were fighting science from the get go with this kind of vigor, we would all still be wondering where babies actually come from.

                    {"commentId":1202420,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"martinez"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #6.3 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:59 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1202481,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
                    Or better yet, glob of cells

                    Aren't actual humans just globs of cells as well?

                    {"commentId":1202481,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
                    • 1 vote
                    #6.4 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:17 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1202689,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
                    This is a complicated issue... if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a delimma, genius.

                    Ah yes, like that whole "dilemma" about evolution, right? Yep, it must be because the situation is actually complicated, not because of fundamentalist self-righteous bulls---, "genius."

                    Aren't actual humans just globs of cells as well?

                    There are a few subtle differences, such as the fact that we have organs.

                    {"commentId":1202689,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
                    • 3 votes
                    #6.5 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:20 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1203501,"authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}

                    You're right.... if we all drank the intellectual-snobbery kool-aid, there would no longer be any dilemmas.

                    {"commentId":1203501,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"nathanjohnson"}
                      #6.6 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:53 PM EST
                      Reply
                      {"commentId":1202183,"authorDomain":"geebee"}

                      stem cells are go!

                      {"commentId":1202183,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"geebee"}
                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#7 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:53 PM EST
                      {"commentId":1202568,"authorDomain":"gmarez"}

                      Now the religious right can calm down just one breath or two.

                      {"commentId":1202568,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"gmarez"}
                        Reply#8 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:38 PM EST
                        {"commentId":1203087,"authorDomain":"lucidcommunication"}

                        This sounds great, but I'll remain skeptical until I see some of the unanswered questions answered.

                        {"commentId":1203087,"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095","authorDomain":"lucidcommunication"}
                          Reply#9 - Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:21 PM EST
                          {"canLink":false,"threadId":"178659","isPrivate":false}
                          Leave a Comment:
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                          {"threadId":"178659","contentId":"1110095"}
                          Start TrackingStart Tracking
                          Stop TrackingStop Tracking