Stem Cell Research

Jean Swenson writes, regarding Christopher Reeve and the promises of embryonic stem cell research,

I believe he and many of us have been misled by the promises we keep hearing about embryonic stem cells being the key to curing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and a host of other maladies. After supporting spinal cord research for years and exploring the possibilities, I believe adult stem cells, not embryonic, are far more likely to produce successful treatments.

Although we hear plenty of general testimonies that play on our emotions, there appears to be almost a blackout of accurate scientific information about stem cells.

Ms. Swenson is herself a quadriplegic, so hers is not some abstract theoretical view. It impacts her and her own future.

This is a political season, and the issue of stem cell research funding has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Politicians and celebrities rave about the fantastic possibilities for cures that could emerge if only embryonic stem cell research was funded more. These cells will cure, according to the politicians and celebrities, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, and a host of other ailments. Newsweek puts it

Embryonic-stem-cell research, while still in its infancy, has the potential to treat or perhaps even cure the more than 100 million Americans who suffer an array of illnesses and conditions, from heart disease to spinal-cord injuries. Scientists say the cells could be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine.

John Edwards, Democratic nominee for Vice President, promises, "If we do the work that we can do in this country ... people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

As a scientist (certainly in a field far removed from medical research on stem cells, but a scientist nonetheless), I am bothered when science becomes politicized and politicians try to tell us what science is. As in other areas, the politician will take the parts that support their point of view and just ignore the others. This is how speculation becomes a "slam dunk" when presented by politicians. These politicians play on our emotions to get our vote. (Politics has evolved from "a chicken in every pot" to "read my lips" to "Vote for me and we will cure Alzheimer's forever and the paralyzed will walk again!" What does 2008 hold? "Let's cure AIDS!"?) In the quest for our vote, the politicians are not going let little things like facts and truth get in the way.

From what I have read on the subject, the science is far less certain than the politicians and celebrity fund-raisers would have the public believe. The reality is the research on the use of embryonic cells is in a very early stage. According to the National Institutes for Health,

Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, Federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on Federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

So talk of all the future applications is, at best, pure speculation. Such speculation may be useful in writing research grant proposals, but is not a sufficient foundation for policy making. (Also of note is that President Bush, blasted by supporters of expanded research for having banned research into embryonic stem cell therapy, is the one who established federal funding for the research in the first place.) The research has only been going on for a few years, far too little time to fully understand the potential.

Supporters of the administration policy point to the potential applications of adult stem cells, as does Ms. Swenson. The principal argument against these cells is that they are not "pluripotent", which refers to the ability of the cell to give rise to any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells are referred to as "multipotent", meaning they can give rise to some cell types, but not all. The greatest potential for treatment comes, obviously, from pluripotent cells. But, the NIH admits that partially specialized stem cells, like adult stem cells, "may be more flexible than previously thought."

Supporters of expanded embryonic cell research want to simply ignore the ethical considerations involved in such research for the sake of the over-hyped promises of scientists trying to wring funding out of whoever will give it and politicians desperate to get your vote. We cannot do this for a line of research still in its infancy. Certainly, we must continue this line of research. But we must also continue research into other types of stem cells. When the science gets more fully grounded in experimental findings, perhaps the embryonic cell hype will translate to reality. In that case, we will then have to address the ethical questions and decide how to proceed. But we must not put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes.

President Bush provided a compromise between science and ethics when he established federal funding for embryonic cell research. While, perhaps there can be tweaks to the system to open some more lines, that is the proper approach to pursue for now. Research is progressing. The time to consider a massive redirection on funding is when, and if, the research ultimately validates the hype.