An Inconvenient Boost
First it was climate change, now it's iPS cells. Al Gore loves to have a pet scientific cause to put his (sometimes fluctuating) weight behind--and the scientific trend of the moment, it would appear is stem cell research. But not, surprisingly, embryonic stem cell research. Gore is part of a $20M venture backing research into induced pluripotent stem cells where he is partner of a venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, reports USA Today.
But is Gore's backing for iPS cells good for stem cell research really? I think not. A former Vice President doing what appears to be stumping for iPS cells detracts from the significant advances that embryonic stem cell research can yield. Even if the research appears promising, it sends a very clear message that at least one prominent science policy leader is backing another horse--and right after President Obama's funding of embryonic stem cell research. At the very least it sends very mixed messages about where research priorities in the US should be placed where stem cell research is concerned.
Summer Johnson, PhD
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
Aren't you trading on a false dichotomy here? There's no reason at all for the two approaches to be exclusive of each other, and if the public thinks otherwise, then that's just too bad for the public. Besides: you wouldn't have iPS research without ESC research...
- by Iain on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:13 AM | link
I agree that the approaches aren't mutually exclusive. However, I think its a very strong message to be sent by Al Gore--crusader for other liberal scientific causes like climate change--to take a stand behind iPS cell funding rather than embryonic stem cells. Moreover, Gore is making public statements about the promise of iPS cell research--a clear political statement that the public will interpret at a minimum as divisiveness within the Democratic Party as to what stem cell research should be supported.
- by Summer Johnson, PhD on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM | link
It's not scientifically sound to promote embryonic stem cell research just because you're not morally opposed to it. If iPS show greater scientific promise, the Democratic party should get behind them. Isn't Obama's administration claiming they will introduce more science into policy decisions?
From what I understand, it does seem that iPS cells are more promising than embryonic stem cells, because we have not yet been able to achieve SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) in humans. Without a way to introduce a patient's own genome into the embryo used for harvesting ES cells, the technology will always struggle with the issue of immune rejection.
I do want to disclose that I am coming from the position that destruction of embryos is immoral, but I have tried to keep my comments here purely about the science.
- by Anna Morys, medical student on Apr 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM | link
Dr. Johnson-
The desire to promote a pet technology/science is probably the biggest problem with mixing science and technology. In Rahm Emanuel's world, the most important thing is probably staying on message and to that extent, Gore's involvement is problematic. However, back in the real world where the rest of us have to live with the world science can provide, money and influence should flow where rational actors think it will do the most good (for the people, not the President).
If the public in confused about which technology it 'should' support, maybe the problem is with your presumption that everyone ought to line up behind hESC research to the exclusion of everything else. There is a not insignificant population which categorically rejects hESC research. Those folks may be out of power politically, but if iPS research will bring some of those folks back to the table, it would be divisive folly of the highest order to scorn this avenue.
- by BPC, MPH on Apr 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM | link
As a political problem, I think that Gore's involvement sends a mixed message to the public as to what those "left of center" (for lack of a better collective term) ought to think about stem cell research. I believe that many look to Gore to have a sense of science policy debates of the day and his backing of iPS cell research was ill-timed, particularly given the release today of new guidelines for stem cell research for the Obama administration. The public is barely educated about stem cell research as it is--and now for it to appear that Gore backs one type of research and the Obama administration another would only seem to confuse the public further. Regardless of the fruitfulness of either type of stem cell research, my comments were meant to be limited to the political problem it creates and the mixed message that it sends to the American public, the majority of whom do support, morally and politically, embryonic stem cell research.
- by Summer Johnson on Apr 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM | link
Summer, you say:
"The public is barely educated about stem cell research as it is... the American public, the majority of whom do support, morally and politically, embryonic stem cell research."
If true, how important is it that the American public supports embryonic stem cell research if the same public is barely educated?
I don't understand your distress about stem cell research that doesn't involve destroying embryos. Are you that invested into dehumanizing human embryos? Will you be disappointed if iPS research yields cures?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Apr 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM | link