Novel Stem Cell Therapy Faces Major Setback

A promising method for creating therapeutic stem cells without destroying human embryos has encountered a major setback, as reported this month in the journal Nature.

The research involves induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells. Like embryonic stem cells, iPS cells have the ability to develop into any adult cell in the body, from bone to brain.

Their discovery by Japanese researchers in 2007 was met with great fanfare, because iPS cells can be created easily from adult cells such as skin. This method circumvents the controversy inherent in harvesting stem cells from human embryos, which many consider to be protected human life.

Alas, the iPS method might be too simplistic. University of California, San Diego researchers found that mice injected with iPS cells genetically similar to their own adult cells violently rejected the transfusion, as if it were foreign matter. Meanwhile, others accepted a similar injection of embryonic stem cells with ease.

The study doesn't spell the end of iPS cells. Rather, this work demonstrates the importance of human embryonic stem cell research, now limited by law. Without continued, complementary research on the "real thing," work on otherwise promising alternatives is futile — a concept that the U.S. government remains hesitant to accept.

Great promise

Stem cell therapy holds great promise because it offers the ability to grow new tissue to replace older, diseased tissue. The body itself employs this technique at a basic level: Adult blood stem cells, for example, churn out the various types of new red and white blood cells. Other adult stem cells create new bone or skin in response to damage.

Once a cell reaches its end point — skin, bone, blood, etc. — there's no turning back. A blood cell can't turn into a skin cell. Not even a blood stem cell can make skin.

Embryonic stem cells, however, have the ability to differentiate into all the body's cells. That, of course, is how a fetus grows. Thus, embryonic stem cells harvested from discarded, frozen embryos from fertility clinics offer the best hope for patients suffering from paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and many other afflictions.

Oh, right, the law

Human embryonic stem cell research has been severely limited for over three decades, on moral grounds. In 1980 President Ronald Reagan instituted a moratorium on public funding, which remained in place into the George W. Bush administration. Bush allowed limited funding for embryonic cells already derived from discarded embryos but not for any new cells. This left only 20 viable cell lines, not enough to perform substantial research. [Embryonic Stem Cells: 5 Misconceptions]

President Obama lifted the funding ban when he came into office. But this action could be reversed once again in the coming months as the courts continue to debate the relevance of the 1995 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which bans federal funding on any research that destroys human embryos. Much of the field remains as frozen as the embryos themselves, and few younger scientists are pursuing a career in stem cells.

While work on iPS cells is exciting, it is nearly useless without embryonic stem cells as a control. The iPS technique — involving a four-gene tweak of adult cells to coax them into acting like embryonic cells — was possible only through direct research on embryonic cells. And as seen in the UCSD study, conducted in part with non-federal dollars, researchers need to understand how "real" embryonic stem cells work to understand what iPS cells lack.

Pluripotent wording

The future of embryonic stem cell research and thus stem cell research in general unfortunately remains hinged upon an interpretation of legal language, not science.

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment concerns "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed [or] discarded." Obama's argument that federal funding could be used on cell lines derived from embryos destroyed with non-federal dollars is just semantics. Everyone knows the intent of this conservative Christian-based law was to stop all research on human embryos — or more precisely, on a blastocyst, a collection of a few dozen undifferentiated cells — because a considerable percentage of Americans consider this human life with a soul.

Science, however, tells a different story, one in which humans evolved over the course millions of years, with no clear distinction between the last ape ancestor and the first human with a soul.

From a scientific perspective, embryos bring the potential of life — whether that life is among the approximately 150 million babies born each year, or among the approximately 25 percent of all fertilized eggs lost in a natural miscarriage, or among the countless blastocysts thrown away daily at fertility clinics, or among the millions of patients who someday could be cured through stem cell research.

Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work." His column, Bad Medicine, appears regularly on LiveScience.

Follow Yahoo! News on , become a fan on

21 Comments

  • 2 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 0 users disliked this comment
    Robert B 2 hours ago Report Abuse
    Wow, so much misinformation in one story. I know most of you are too hung up on "kill the unborn" or "save the unborn" to think about this subject rationally, but I am going to give it a shot. The only federal restriction is on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. If this were a viable solution to all of the diseases they make claims about, companies would throw billions of their own dollars at it. They are not doing it.
  • 14 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    Jamo 16 hours ago Report Abuse
    The rest of the world will do the embryonic stem cell research and US industry will be left in the dust.
  • 18 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 4 users disliked this comment
    psionycx 22 hours ago Report Abuse
    We'll happily bomb people to get access to oil, but fetuses are sacred even for medical reasons (although they too may bombed if their mother is standing near an oil supply or a terrorist).
  • 11 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    gullwingmb 14 hours ago Report Abuse
    I challenge those who are against stem cell research to make one logical educated argument that has no basis in religion. Religion has no place in science and in government for that matter.
  • 10 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    Tag 20 hours ago Report Abuse
    We should work on both ends of the stem cell research. Try and have embryonic stem cells put back into play (because the argument against it is as ridiculous as the rapture, stemming from like-minded people), and continue to see if the IPS cells can be made viable as well. The only laws we need in place would be how we acquire the embryonic cells. We shouldn't farm them, they should be taken from the waste embryos from other fertilization procedures, or from donations. These embryos are guranteed waste if NOT taken for research. It just makes so much more sense to use them for the improvement of life rather than let them die.
  • 13 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 3 users disliked this comment
    Isotope 13 hours ago Report Abuse
    Why do the (supposed) ethics of a minority, who often support capital punishment, feel the need to dictate aspects of science that they clearly can't comprehend?

    My question to all you valiant protectors of proto-embryos: If there isn't a womb to put it in, why is it better to burn it or throw it in the trash when it could be used to cure a disease that you could get 30 years from now?
  • 9 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 2 users disliked this comment
    R 4 hours ago Report Abuse
    When will people realize, like even Nancy Reagan did; that without the research, the cures and advancements in medical science people hope and pray for (and somewhat demand and expect) won't be possible. There is no dumber reason to block scientific research for medical advancement than religion. There is no possible "life" future for the source of these stem cells, it's like thinking the organs of someone who's dead shouldn't be donated to help a living person (and in some countries, that is the case, due to religion). Simply put, this was politicized to benefit a party as a hot button issue for elections, not for the good of man kind or the "stem cells" in question.
  • 21 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 7 users disliked this comment
    Noko 23 hours ago Report Abuse
    the embryos are going to be killed anyhow...why not use them to better the life of the living?? It is just plain stupid to waste the by-products of abortions. Personally, I'd never slaughter my own child...but lots of women don't seem to have a problem doing just that...look at foreign countries where abortion is used as a method of birth control...or in India where female fetuses are aborted so the parents can get pregnant again...hoping for a boy...humans really are ignorant sometimes...let's whine about a baby that really never was...and screw all the kids already living in poverty...
  • 24 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 9 users disliked this comment
    Jake 23 hours ago Report Abuse
    I can not believe that we are still arguing about this the cells do not have a soul get over it.
  • 19 users liked this comment Please sign in to rate this comment up. Please sign in to rate this comment down. 8 users disliked this comment
    Liberal and Lovin' it 23 hours ago Report Abuse
    so which is it? do you want to live a long life? or do you want to die young, but be able to tell your kids, (but not your grand kids) life starts at the erection.....?

Post a Comment

Sign in to post a comment, or Sign up for a free account.