A reader wrote in to the "Public Editor," an online ombudsman at the The New York Times, asking why a study of the potential of amniotic stem cells (and their potential to make embryonic stem cell research obsolete) didn't appear in the newspaper, notwithstanding write-ups on the front pages of The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
In fact, virtually everybody who was anybody wrote about it. The Times responded that its "genetics reporter, Nicholas Wade,
. . . looked at the Atala paper last week and deemed it a minor development. Nicholas noted: "It reports finding 'multipotent' stem cells in amniotic fluid. Multipotent means they can't do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called 'pluripotent'). So the cells really belong in the adult stem cell category, even though the authors claim an 'intermediate' status for them." Nicholas further noted that there had been previous reports of multipotent stem cells, which were much heralded at the time but then seemed to go nowhere."
I posted the following response:
Wade is flat-out wrong. Although I have read the full paper, you need go no further than the online abstract at PubMed to read that the amniotic stem cells were differentiated "into cell types representing each embryonic germ layer, including cells of adipogenic, osteogenic, myogenic, endothelial, neuronal and hepatic lineages." Translation: The amniotic cells carry the same potential as embryonic stem cells to become each of the 220 cell types in the human body. As to "similar cells," Wade is right but not in the way he'd have you believe. Amniotic stem cells are the same as those from placenta. Almost six years ago, scientists at Anthrogenesis Corporation announced they'd discovered stem cells that were readily harvestable in great numbers from placenta and convertible into all germ layers. PubMed now lists over 500 articles concerning "placenta" and "stem cells," indicating that a tremendous number of scientists find amniotic/placenta cells to be of tremendous interest even if Nicholas Wade and The New York Times do not.
I could also have added that this was the same newspaper that in 2004, in a Gina Kolata article, declared of adult stem cells "The problem is in putting them to work to treat diseases. So far, no one has succeeded." In fact there were about 70 ASC cures or treatments at the time, dating back to the late 1950s. The bottom line is the Grey Lady supports increased federal funding for ESC research - research that has yet to even be tested on a human being - to the point of outright lying over advances in alternative stem cell therapy. They don't call it "The Slimes" for nothing, folks.
You accuse the Times of mis-representing the data in the paper, but so have you.
"Translation: The amniotic cells carry the same potential as embryonic stem cells to become each of the 220 cell types in the human body"
Your "translation" is wrong. From the article:
"We now describe lines of broadly multipotent AFS cells, and use retroviral marking to verify that clonal human AFS cells can give rise to adipogenic, osteogenic, myogenic, endothelial, neurogenic and hepatic lineages, inclusive of all embryonic germ layers. In this respect, they meet a commonly accepted criterion for pluripotent stem cells, without implying that they can generate every adult tissue.
"The surface marker profile of AFS cells and their expression of the transcription factor Oct4 suggests that they represent an intermediate stage between pluripotent ES cells and lineage-restricted adult stem cells."
"The full range of adult somatic cells to which AFS cells can give rise remains to be determined."
So it is misleading, you see, to say that these cells carry the same potential as ES cells, which can give rise to all somatic and germ cell types, because this has not yet been determined. What you can say is that they potentially have the potential, but this won't be known until it is tested. Clearly this is a much weaker, but more accurate, statement which does not serve the purposes of your post nearly as well.
At any rate, the study in no way obviates the importance of continued ES cell based research, and I doubt you will find very many scientists who think this. Whether this indicates any bias on the part of the NY Times is, of course, completely impossible to know. But don't let that get in the way of a good and just Crusade.
So in the end you've only succeeded in illustrating the political bias that taints the thinking of people who are opposed to ES cell research. Or, should I extend this further to stay it illustrates how easily ideologues (like yourself) find it to ignore data/reality when it conflicts with their non-scientific politically or religiously-motivated belief system?
So which is it, Fumento? Why are you against using human ES cells for research purposes? Shouldn't all reasonable approaches be tried, especially given the potentially huge upside and tiny downside (I know this is opposite how most Right Wingers think, though, but humor me)?
I haven't seen you reply here yet, so I'll not hold my breath waiting for evidence that you are not a shallow thinker and Right Wing Idealogue.
I can't believe I let this one slip, either:
"Although I have read the full paper, you need go no further than the online abstract at PubMed to read that..."
LMAO! What a load of crap! Only someone who hasn't read the original article would say something like this. Especially since, when I did so, it was easy to find at least THREE comments contradicting the conclusion you drew from the Abstract.
So, you either 1) Didn't read the full article, but said you did anyway (i.e., LIE), or 2) Read it but conveniently ignored, missed or purposefully left out the more detailed explanation that didn't support your claim (i.e, LIED).
I'm open to credible alternative interpretations...if you (or anyone else) have the ability to provide any.
*
Israelis create beating heart tissue from embyonic stem cells.
Evidently the Israelis do not see the moral issues the same way many Americans do.
An Israeli scientific team from the Technion have succeeded in creating in the laboratory beating heart tissue from human embryonic stem cells.
Moreover, the researchers - Dr. Shulamit Levenberg and Prof. Lior Gepstein - have succeeded in creating blood vessels in the tissue, which will enable its acceptance by the heart muscle.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. During heart attacks, tissue is destroyed when blood is temporarily cut off to a section of the heart, and this tissue can never be repaired
The scientific journal Circulation Research reports in its on-line issue on two innovations in the researchers' work: one, the use of human embryonic stem cells, and two, the creation of a vascular system in the tissue, which is critical for its acceptance by the body.
"Without this system, acceptance could be prolonged and the cells could die during this time period," explains Levenberg. "In our work, we demonstrated the importance of the endothelial cells (cells that build blood vessels), which encourage differentiation of the heart cells and their organization, in addition to their multiplication. That is - it is important to create heart cell tissue, with all its component cells, in this case the endothelial cells, heart cells and cells that support the blood vessels."
*
You know the above bit I posted was really hard to find. Took about 2 minutes on Google News and 7 minutes to read and understand the article.
Stem cells nurture damaged spine
BOSTON: Human embryonic stem cells can help regenerate damaged nerves in rats, producing compounds that nurture nerve cells and stimulate the growth of new ones, Geron Corp said on Wednesday.
The company's stock rose on the news, published in the journal Stem Cells and Development. Geron had earlier reported that human embryonic stem cells had helped replace myelin, a fatty covering on nerves that is vital to function.
Now, the company's researchers said, they had shown the cells produce multiple nerve growth factors, which are proteins that stimulate the survival and regeneration of neurons.
"In addition to the remyelinating activity as previously reported, GRNOPC1 produces growth factors that can improve the survival and extension of neuronal circuitry in the spinal cord," said Thomas Okarma, Geron's chief executive.
So maybe this research will show that rat stem cells can help humans. Eventually. Or maybe human stem cells are the way to go in humans too.
Fortunately the research is being done.
Check the time stamps. That will give you an idea of how long it took to find this and post it.
Here is a bit on Jewish Law and stem cell research.
Stem Cell Research Permitted According to Halacha
Before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 500 at the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, medical bioethics expert Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler of New York’s Yeshiva University emphatically stated that Jewish law permits embryonic stem cell research and that Jewish tradition clearly mandates the seeking of cures for diseases that cause great human suffering.
Citing Torah sources, the 80-year-old biology professor and Rosh Yeshiva of the university’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) explained that harvesting stem cells from an early-stage embryo on day five or day six does not violate Jewish law concerning when an embryo achieves legal status as a human being.
"That only occurs after 40 days when the embryo has already reached human form and developed all of its organ systems, including having a heartbeat," Tendler said.
In addition, Tendler explained that embryos in a laboratory in a Petri dish have no chance of becoming children without being implanted in a womb.
"Some Christian groups equate embryonic stem cell research with abortion, but that is not Judaism’s position," Tendler said. "Because the culling of stem cells by necessity results in the destruction of embryos, these groups oppose it."
Evidently the Rabbi understands the difference between an acorn and a tree. Something that escapes the anti-stem embyonic cell floks.
Evidently the Rabbi understands the difference between an acorn and a tree. Something that escapes the anti-embyonic stem cell research folks.
The Rabbi nails it with a reference to the US Constitution and Torah Law.
"One of the great tragedies of the Bush administration has been the weakening of the wall between church and state, between the religious and the medical," said Tendler, adding that many of America’s leading stem cell scientists are now working in other countries where they have more freedom in research.
"We can be proud that Israel is a world leader in this regard and that many of the best brains in America have gone to do their research at the Weitzman Institute," Tendler said. "Weitzman is the only place so far that has developed stem cells not grown from mice cells."
Because of their regenerative properties, scientists believe that stem cells can be used to treat a variety of degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis and spinal cord injury.
"My stance can’t change the controversy," said Tendler, who also serves as rabbi of the Community Synagogue in Monsey, N.Y. "I can only resolve the controversy by saying that if the instruction of the Torah was followed, there would be no controversy. But people don’t follow the Torah."
It is time we got back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.
Why should the Rabbi's expressly religious opinion on when legal personhood begins take precedence over that of other opinions? Sounds like he's advocating a close association between Judaism and the state, because the reasoning set forth above is religious. Nothing wrong with that, of course, since personhood is undoubtedly a question that touches upon religion (among other things). Just a little inconsistent to present it that way and then complain about a lack of separation between "church" and state.
ricg,
Why did he bring up Torah? Well a significant part of the anti embryonic stem cell folks are Christains.
He is trying to bring them back to their roots.
He makes a number of points: the antis are anti-science, anti-Bible (Old Testament in the common parlance), and anti-Constitution.
I'm not opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but what a lousy line of arguement, M. Simon!
It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that because Christianity has a historical connection to Judaism, the opinions of one or even all rabbis should govern Christian thinking on any particular subject. Just to point out the obvious, Christians aren't Jews. It's rather the whole point of the New Testament.
arguement argument
M Simon... #3-5. Read Fumento's writing carefully. He says: "research that has yet to even be tested on a human being." None of the examples you provide meet that criteria.
Since clarity in argument is important to this thread, it would have been a good idea to narrow your claim to "even if no research has been done involving humans, it doesn't mean this line of research has been fruitless; for instance"...
With respect to the Rabbi's quotation discussed in #6 onward, it would also better 'truth in advertising' to define which sect the Rabbi is from. An opinion from an Orthodox rabbi and an opinion from a Reform rabbi aren't the same thing. The argumentative style and platform used do not sound at all orthodox, and its style suggests it's more a political than a religious argument.
Weak all around.
There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to convince others that their opinions are "anti-Bible." I won't argue with Rabbi Tendler's expert conclusions in that field.
I don't understand the charge of "anti-science," however. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you've presented above, Judaism's cut-off point for personhood, and thus the morality of stem cell research, is 40 days after conception. After that, you're violating a "person," since no informed consent can be expected from an unborn person. So why does this religious view not count as being anti-science? In my view, it's not a question of being against science, but one of protecting people (however that is defined) from being violated in the name of science, something I think we pretty much all agree on. Our common inquiry is when personhood ensues, not the value of science.
As far as "anti-Constitutional," I do not see how the current ban establishes a religion or prohibits free exercise thereof. Even if it did, no religious argument is required to conclude that personhood begins at the point after fertilization when the genetic map has been determined and development begun, development that ends only in death. I see no reason (apart from the apparent Torah connection in Judaism) that the first heartbeat is more significant.
Andy X has a valid point. Mr. Fumento does appear to have misrepresented the conclusion of the paper.
It is still a valid argument to point out that adult stem cells have been used to date with some success already, and have more potential than the ideologues pushing for fetal stem cell use commonly claim.
Still, the bottom line is that what the paper says isn't what Fumento's post claims it says, and the quote has been pasted in a way that makes it hard avoid a "he Dowdified it"* conclusion.
Mr. Fumento, it would be a good idea to clarify this and explain here in the comments section.
Meanwhile, Andy X, I'm sure you would acknowledge that this kind of ideology-driven argument and lying (hello, Mr. Edwards) can be found in abundance on both sides of this argument - and the dishonest question you ask (the downside is a core of your opponents' argument, and trying to define it away is not an honest approach) doesn't exactly cover you with glory by comparison.
There have been good points made, and useful evidence brought forward by Fumento and commenters, even within some structurally unsound arguments here. If we all tighten things up a bit, this could become a very good discussion.
Joe, Monsey, NY is a center of ultra-Orthodox Judaism in the United States. I would wager very heavily that Dr. Tendler is either modern Orthodox or a black hat.
Found here:
February 4, 1998, New York, NY: Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler of the Community Synagogue of Monsey, NY, will be honored at the Orthodox Union's (OU) Rabbinic Centennial Medallion Awards Dinner on Wednesday, February 24, 1998, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue in New York.
... Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler is a Rosh Yeshiva at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and a professor of biology at Yeshiva College.
Widely quoted in the press on medical ethics, Rabbi Tendler is a leading expert on issues ranging from infertility to euthanasia.
Since 1965, Rabbi Tendler has served as of the spiritual
leader of Community Synagogue of Monsey. A vibrant, growing congregation, the shul is known for its rich and diverse array of stimulating shiurim in Gemara, Halacha, Torah and Nach.
Rabbi Tendler, who has smicha from RIETS and earned a Ph.D. in biology from Columbia University, serves on the Medical Ethics Task Force of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and is chairman of the
Bioethical Commission of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Tendler resides in Monsey with his wife, the former Sifra Feinstein, who is the daughter of renowned Halachist Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt"l. They have eight children.
I haven't read any rabbinical scholars on the subject, but I did read "The Jigsaw Man" by Larry Niven.
In the future, the bodies of condemned criminals are used to provide organs and cells for medical therapy. This is so spectacularly successful that they start sentencing people to death for jaywalking to keep up the supply.
When it comes to discussing the near-term or moderate-term therapeutic potential of stem cells, skepticism is always called for. Embryonic, fetal, adult, or, now, amniotic.
Promising initial reports often don't work out. But one of the problems of science publication is the unpopularity of publishing negative findings. Writeup a report like "We tried replicating the Smith Lab's findings on Stem Cells restoring ear-wiggling to injured mice, but could not," and see where it gets accepted for publication. It won't. And if it did, a lot of people from the Smith Lab on down would think, "That no-talent AMac! He probably didn't follow the Smith Lab protocol exactly!" Not a big career-booster. (This problem has been widely noted; internet publications like PLoS may be changing things in a positive direction.)
The result has been that there are more exciting findings that have been reported than there are exciting leads being actively followed. I figure that if something great-sounding has gone a couple of years without confirmation and extension, there's probably something awry. Not to say that the initial scientists were liars or cheaters or incompetents--just that there's likely to be something else in the mix.
I haven't read the article in question, so I won't comment specifically on it. I will say that Nicholas Wade is a great science reporter, probably the best writing today (he deserves better than the NYT, you might say). Gina Kolata is also excellent. Doesn't make them right all the time of course, but if I'm at the science races and see what horses Wade bets on, that's where my money goes, too.
Muy bad. I thought the "Old Testament" was part of the Christian cannon. I have a couple of Christian Bibles that will need "adjusting".
As far as I know and AMac agrees there are currently no therapeutic uses for stem cells. Of any kind.
It seems then, if research is promising it ought to continue. First in animals, then humans.
And it will. The objections of some religiously motivated folks notwithstanding.
> As far as I know and AMac agrees there are currently no therapeutic uses for stem cells.
Tricky question. Short answer is that that statement is more wrong than right.
The long-established SC therapy is to harvest hematopoietic stem cells and give them to leukemia/lymphoma patients after destroying the patient's cancer and their own HSCs with chemotherapy and/or radiation. When the therapy works, the donated HSCs repopulate the bone marrow and spleen and give the patient a copy of the immune system of the HSC donor. This is done with adult HSCs and with umbilical cord HSCs.
There are other SC treatments that very likely work or will shortly work. HSCs appear to be be able to help the body to regenerate damaged cardiac muscle post heart-attack. Directly (transdifferentiation) or indirectly (signalling), not yet clear. This rx is available in Thailand (Wild West medicine) and is controversial and the subject of a lot of attention among US & European scientists and clinicians.
Some cellular treatments for promoting spinal fusions are on the market, getting the body to make more bone and form a "union." These are probably stem cell treatments.
Adult stem cells are also in mid- to advanced- stages of clinical trials for a number of immune disorders, check clinicaltrials.gov.
Then there are attempts to remedy the defects of Parkinson's with implanted fetal stem cells. Controversial, but possibly effective in some patients, it seems.
AFAIK, there are no instances yet where embryonic stem cells have given evidence of efficacity in humans, though there's a good list of encouraging animal results. The safety issues with ES cells are imposing. In brief, because ES cells are so totipotent and have such proliferative capacity, they are in some ways similar to cancer cells. Thus, clinicans have to prove to the FDA (etc.) that their plan for implanting ES cells won't give patients cancer 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. That's a tough assignment!
"Tough" however is not the same as "insoluble," and my bet is that adult, fetal, and embryonic SC work will lead to clinical successes within the next 5 to 10 years. Different cell characteristics will lead to different applications. If the work is funded and if society decides that the procedures are ethical. And that the safety risks (which will never fall to zero) are acceptable.
#21,
Thanks for the update. Progress in research at least is being made with ES.
Some countries do not have hang ups similar to the one's we do. Reasearches are moving to places with better "climates". If there is any value in use or research some one will find it.
I'd like to see spinal wards go the way of polio wards.
I looked back at the August 24, 2004 Gina Kolata article "Stem Cells: Promise, in Search of Results" referenced in the final paragraph of the main post. Kolata wrote:
Fumento is thus correct in saying that Kolata declared of adult stem cells "The problem is in putting them to work to treat diseases. So far, no one has succeeded."
There is, however, a mundane explanation.
"Adult stem cells" are usually thought of as having two sub-types:
How clear-cut is the distinction between HSCs and other adult SCs? Unclear, it is a subject of active research--there is suggestive evidence that at least some "transdifferentiation" can take place.
HSC transplantation has been in use for decades as a treatment for certain blood disorders (leukemias, lymphomas, myelomas, some immune syndromes). Recently, HSCs have been proposed for other therapeutic purposes, notably the regeneration of cardiac muscle.
In the context of Kolata's article, it is clear to me that she is referring to non-HSC adult stem cells. The focus of the article is to contrast adult and embryonic stem cells for conditions that either might be candidate therapies for. Blood disorders were (and still are) to the side of this discussion.
To conclude: the simplest explanation for Kolata's statement is somewhat sloppy editing in not framing the issue with enough rigor. I don't see any intent to deceive in this instance. Since this article is not Times Select, you can click on the link and decide for yourself.
Actually, though the inner cell mass from an intact embryo has been shown to produce all the tissues of the adult body, after undergoing the epigenetic changes that occur as result of the cellular migrations and interactions that occur during embryonic development ... but the stem cells extracted from a deconstructed embryo have NOT been shown to do the same.
As such, the ability of stem cells amniotic fluid (and other berashis sources + a variety of 'adult' tissues) do exhibit the same differential plasticity (e.g. pluripotency) as embryonic stem cells do.
Although everyone points to this one characteristic, it really has little relevance when it comes to reparative therapies.
If I want good bread, is it better I go to the store that specializes in bread (or a specific adult tissue) or a superstore that sells motor oil, too?
When one considers the tumor and rejection issues (oh, wait, we can clone ... well, someday, maybe perhaps, we can get past the delicate eggs and meiotic spindle configuration issues unique to primates and be able to clone) it is ridiculous that this convoluted science is actually being considered for therapeutic/reparative therapies. Especially when stable options exist whose raison d'etre IS to find/repair problems withing the body (as opposed to creating an entire organism, parts of which determined by chemical cues by surrounding cells).
Few clinic embryos are available for research - and those expected to survive the thaw process and produce stem cells = 275 (really, read the study). Abt. 2.5 of every 10,000 newly stored embryos are expected to do the same.
Women will need to supply researchers with eggs - poor women are being exploited and becoming ill because they are the most cost efficient. Women have even died in the process.
Women shouldn't have to die so researchers have toys and big business can make profits from the patents (which they can't from your own stem cells).
Keep Well.