Thomson takes on the conversation surrounding induced pluripotent stem cells
James Thomson and AAAS head Alan Leshner have a very direct op-ed in the Washington Post today about all the discussion surrounding induced pluripotent stem cells. It seems they're not too happy with what they've been hearing. Here's a clip:
A new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos changes both everything and nothing at all. Being able to reprogram skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos launches an exciting new line of research. It's important to remember, though, that we're at square one, uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do.
Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.
Thomson and Leshner go on to dispute the "President Bush's moral guidance helped bring about this discovery" storyline, they call out Charles Krauthammer for being inaccurate, and they try up to stir things up on the issue of all the embryos stored in fertility clinic freezers.
-Greg Dahlmann
(via James Fossett)
Earlier coverage of induced pluripotent stem cells on blog.bioethics.net
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
How embarrassing! First, to be reactionary scientists and second, to say that the cells act "like embryos!"
- by Beverly Nuckols on Dec 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM | link
I find it interesting that for all the venom sometimes aimed at researchers using embryos, fertility clinics seem to get of scot free. They must be a great source of destroyed or simply unrealised potential lives?
- by emily on Dec 4, 2007 at 9:11 AM | link
Emily, this time, it looks like the venom is coming from Leshner and Thomson. I wonder whether they got some of Gearhart's pressure or if this is their own application of pressure on the people who want to publish in Science or access Thomson's patents. There are so many blatant scientific inaccuracies in this letter that I blogged on it.
The fate of the embryos that are currently frozen is settled unless the ethics standards are changed to get rid of current prior informed consent laws.
The reason for the different attitudes is that the two appear to be different subjects for most people.
So many people have empathy and understand the grief of the mother and father who are so desperate for a baby that they go through the IVF process.
It's difficult for me to understand how they can donate the brothers and sisters of the children in their arms to destructive research. And, as Caplan found a few years ago, most parents are not ready to donate their embryos. They either plan for future births or would rather just wait and see.
- by Beverly B. Nuckols on Dec 4, 2007 at 1:19 PM | link