PROFESSIONAdult stem cell findings clouded by politicsNew research reignites interest on scientific fronts, but some worry the results are being co-opted for political messages.By Andis Robeznieks, amednews staff. Feb. 25, 2002. A not-so-funny thing happened to Catherine Verfaillie, MD, on her way to finding new scientific breakthroughs in stem cell research: Her own research is being used to justify imposing limits on the scientific frontiers she is exploring. Dr. Verfaillie, the director of the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and her colleagues demonstrated the ability of adult bone marrow stem cells to differentiate into the cells that line both blood vessels and the vessels of the lymphatic system. "What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds," Dr. Verfaillie said. "The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy." She envisioned these adult stem cells treating atherosclerosis, healing ulcers or diabetic wounds, and fighting cancerous tumors by introducing anti-angiogenesis genes. Calling them "multipotent adult progenitor cells," Dr. Verfaillie said these cells may have the potential to differentiate into liver cells, neurons and other specialized cells. "Some of the characteristics we found are reminiscent of ES [embryonic stem] cells," she said. "Whether they will be as powerful as ES cells is not yet clear, and can only be determined by side-by-side comparison, which we plan to do."
More research is needed to determine if adult stem cells will be as potent as embryonic ones.
Dr. Verfaillie's study was published in the February Journal of Clinical Investigation. But before that publication saw the light of day, organizations opposing embryonic stem cell research were putting their own spin on the story, and the mainstream media was running with it. "Ultimate stem cell discovered" read the headline in Jan. 26 New Scientist magazine, trumpeting her studies. Another article posted on the Internet wondered if Dr. Verfaillie's work was the "Death knell to cloning movement?" Before long, groups and politicians opposing embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning of embryos to obtain stem cells were using Dr. Verfaillie's research as ammunition in their political arsenal. One group was the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Medical and Dental Assns., who declared that the research showed adult stem cells are the "avenue to real cures for real people." "If the remarkable results of this study prove consistent with early published reports, then no reasonable person could justify violating ethical barriers to clone and harvest human embryos for their cells," said CMDA executive director David Stevens, MD, in a statement. "Given this breakthrough news and the consistent performance of adult stem cells, if you were investing in the stock of companies pursuing therapies from adult stem cells or from cloned human embryonic stem cells, where would you put your money?" Similar statements were released by organizations such as the Alexandria, Va.-based Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, and the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, which is headquartered near Chicago. Although Dr. Verfaillie wouldn't comment on the hubbub surrounding the research, one of her colleagues said she would rather not have her work cited for these purposes. "She is not pleased that her research is being used by politically motivated groups," said Jeffrey Kahn, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. "This is very important work, but it should not be seen as replacing embryonic stem cell research. It is not a replacement of anything yet, and it may never be." It's not just American politicians, policy-makers and pundits who are taking an interest in Dr. Verfaillie's work. University spokeswoman Sarah Youngerman said her office has taken some 20 calls from politicians and reporters in Germany as that country wrestles with the same bioethical issues as the United States. Hijacked by politicsIn the U.S. Senate, three different bills are circulating that would regulate stem cell and cloning research to varying degrees. Sens. Sam Brownback (R, Kan.) and Mary Landrieu (D, La.) are sponsoring the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S 1899). Brownback has used Dr. Verfaillie's research in support of the bill. "Science continues to prove that destructive embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary," Brownback stated in a news release. "This latest finding is of enormous importance -- it shows, once again, that we can find cures for the many diseases that plague humanity without destroying human embryos." The issue was the subject of an early February hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although Dr. Verfaillie was not present to testify, she did send a letter to be read into the record. "It is correct that we have found adult stem cells in bone marrow of humans as well as mice and rats, with great growth potential and great versatility, much like we have seen in embryonic stem cells," Dr. Verfaillie wrote. "That said, it is far too early to say whether they will stack up when compared to embryonic stem cells in longevity and function. Further, we will not know which stem cells, adult or embryonic, are most useful in treating a particular disease without side-by-side comparison of adult and embryonic stem cells. "While we are excited by our adult stem cell findings, it is not our intention to stop here. There are still too many unknowns for researchers or policy-makers to begin closing doors to opportunities of learning." One of the people testifying in favor of a ban on cloning research was Kevin Fitzgerald, PhD, from Georgetown University's Center for Clinical Bioethics in Washington, D.C. Dr. Fitzgerald, who holds doctorate degrees in bioethics and molecular genetics, makes no apologies for using Dr. Verfaillie's adult stem cell research as an argument against embryonic stem cell research. "One of the primary justifications for going ahead with socially contentious and ethically controversial types of research is that there are no alternatives," Dr. Fitzgerald said, adding that Dr. Verfaillie's work shows "that's just not true." If Dr. Verfaillie believes more research needs to be done comparing adult and embryonic stem cells, Dr. Fitzgerald suggested they be done with animal models. New technologies are emerging of such magnitude that they have the ability to "change life as we know it," Dr. Fitzgerald said and "the debate we're having now will relate to many things down the line." Michael Manganiello, the director of government relations for the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation and the president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, said these are the same nonscientific arguments that President Bush made last fall when he allowed limited use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. "We went through this whole debate last year," Manganiello said. "We chalk it up as more political rhetoric -- which is exactly what it is." Dr. Kahn said he believes embryonic stem cell research -- and the debate surrounding it -- will continue. "I don't think it's a turning point," he said. "This is just one of the paths on the road map getting us from point A to point B. "The death of embryonic stem cell research is exaggerated," he said. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:The short, not so sweet, stem cell storyNovember 1998: Within four days of each other, researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University announce development of human embryo stem cell lines.
WeblinkAbstract, "Origin of endothelial progenitors in human postnatal bone marrow," Journal of Clinical Investigation, February (volume 109, issue 3) (http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/109/3/337) Article, "Ultimate stem cell discovered," New Scientist, Jan. 23 Commentary on New Scientist article "Ultimate stem cell discovered" from Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/pr/pr20020124.htm) Copyright 2002 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
|
Featured stories     
« Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next »
Current topicsMost-viewed
This weekUnspent war funds eyed to avoid years of Medicare doctor pay cuts Rite Aid clinics place new twist on "doc-in-a-box" Get our email alertsUse our one-step registration. Learn more Your information will not be shared. Privacy policyColumns and series
From the vaultQuotable"Our goal really is to provide the right care for patients at the right time. Not too much and not too little." Steven Weinberger, MD, co-author of a list developed by the American College of Physicians of 37 clinical situations in which screenings and medical tests provide little or no benefit |
|||||||||
SHARE
