Stem Cell Guide

An Opinion on the “Stem Cell Research” Debate

I was reading in the USA Today the other day where the reporter for this widely read publication wrote that the Republican Vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, was against stem cell research because it involves the destruction of the human embryo. This is of one of many articles I see almost daily in print and on-line that refers to this “stem cell research” debate. For those of us in the industry, it is frustrating that the public in general doesn’t realize there really shouldn’t even be a need for a “stem cell research” controversy and believe those individuals referring to this “debate” are illustrating their ignorance, their apathy or both. This is because the public in general, including the majority of our politicians, is continuing to being fed misinformation by journalists, TV talking heads and others who ask their readers and viewers to accept the erroneous assumption that “stem cell research” means “embryonic stem cell research”. What the public is not being informed about is that there are other stem cells being researched besides embryonic stem cells and these non-embryonic, adult stem cells are going to being yielding our future commercial therapeutic cellular products with the highly unlikely probability that a product derived from “embryonic” sources will ever see the light of day in the USA.

Why to I say that it is highly unlikely that embryonic stem cells will ever be developed into a FDA-approved commercial product? To answer this, let’s first examine the scenario that there will be no change in the government’s position on funding embryonic stem cell research, no matter which party is elected. Under this scenario federal funding will be available for those cell lines derived on or before August 9, 2001. Though 78 cell lines officially qualify for funding, only 21 cells lines are actually available for research purposes. Of these 21 cell lines, researchers and industry experts have serious concerns surrounding the stability and validity of these lines. These concerns are derived from facts that these old cell lines were grown using an animal feeder layer and could be contaminated with non-human cellular material or the lack of accurate characterization of these early cell lines translates into research results being unable to be replicated by others. This was exemplified by a study in Nature in 2007 showing that two different National Institutes of Health (NIH) registered cell lines differentiated into neurons that had two differing cell markers. These types of concerns is why knowledgeable authorities believe these older, research funding-able cells lines are pretty much worthless.

Next, let’s examine the scenario that under a new administration, federal funding will be expanded for research on newly grown embryonic stem cells, a scenario that may be a long time becoming a reality depending on the political make up of our newly elected congress. One needs only to examine one of the characteristics that define a cell as embryonic to have pessimistic predictions as to the probability that these stem cells will ever be developed to an FDA approved commercial product. This characteristic is one of pluripotency, i.e. the ability of the cell to differentiate into multiple cell types. To test the pluripotency of a cell, it is injected into a laboratory animal to look for the formation of a teratoma, a tumor containing many differentiated cell types. In other words, the very definition of an embryonic stem cell requires that cell be able to cause tumors in animals. Given the ultra-conservative attitude of our FDA to protect us against even the question of an unsafe product, companies working with embryonic stem cells will need to deal with this sticky problem, probably by using sophisticated nuclear re-engineering techniques that will attempt to address the “teratoma question”. All this leads to lengthy, complex research, the potential of years of human testing and the un-likeliness of an eventual commercial product.

Other the other hand, adult stem cells are not derived from the embryo and you don’t need to destroy human life to obtain them. Adult stem cells come from a variety of tissues after the child is born such as bone marrow, fat, menstrual fluid and even the placenta, the after-birth and an organ that has traditionally been thrown away. Adult stem cells should, therefore, be totally non-controversial.

Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cell research will yield FDA approved commercially available therapeutic products relatively quickly. There are several companies with adult stem cells currently in human clinical trials, with most of these companies simply acting as farmers and growing or expanding their cells without genetically manipulating them. For example, Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., a public adult stem cell company whose source of cells is the bone marrow, is currently well along in human clinical trials for the use of their cells for gastrointestinal, cardiac and lung disease as well as diabetes. Another example is Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc., also a public company whose source of adult stem cells is the placenta, an organ felt to be medical waste before Pluristem was able to expand the adult stem cells within it in a unique way. Pluristem will soon begin human studies with their cells in the US and Europe for the indication of peripheral vascular disease, a common, potentially devastating disorder in need of a beneficial therapeutic.

So why does the public translate “stem cell research” automatically into “embryonic stem cell research” whenever heard in public or seen in print? Why indeed is there even a controversy or debate over embryonic stem cell research? Especially when it is probable that embryonic stem cell research is research being done is for the sake of research and a resulting commercial therapeutic product for the public being highly unlikely. Maybe informing and educating reporters, politicians and others influencing our public sector about adult stem cells and their value will resolve this so-called debate and curtail the benefits to those profiting from the continued dissemination of this misinformation.
William R. Prather RPh, MD

Thank you for your detailed comment about stem cell research. When I began discussing stem cells, I described the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells--but that was some time ago.

Nice forum indeed. I've been learning a lot thing on this site since i started to register. Very interesting topics about ones health and medical matters.
ogden doctors

There should be more cord blood banks and stem cell research we have far to many advances that can happen from this and it's to important to pass up on just because of some peoples values. Here's a thought for those against it, if stem cell research kills people, how many people did you kill the last time you had sex?

Have not learned to work around the blog yet...looking for parkinson advances. Sorry I couldn't help anybody else.

Thank God for stem cell research. Every day I hope that we will be able to cure some deadly conditions thanks to this type of research. Mothers can put aside their after-birth in order to collect the cells and use them to cure cancer is their kids will ever get it. Ain't that a blessing? The fact that we can sleep at night knowing that our kids will live healthy lives?
___________
Samuel Stanislas, part of the Traduceri Autorizate team.

In my very strong opinion, banking cord blood should not be controversial what-so-ever. In fact, due to the benefits the cord blood may one day offer if ever necessary, banking it should become a requirement or automatic. The only thing that should be controversial is the COST involved. It's to bad that it's so expensive because everyone should do it and so many can't afford it. I say this because I understand the huge medical benefits that can come from core blood.

Hi, Very nice article , thanks for sharing ...all the best for your future projects !!

Stem cell research is a welcome approach to the advancement of the medical field. Its practically defined as a cell that has the potential to regenerate tissue over a lifetime. An awesome find indeed. I wonder if this advancement may reach the potential of curing health problems like bladder weakness and/or incontinence.