My friend and fellow scientist Jason has been hassling me to write a post about the recent stem cell breakthroughs that have been all over the news for the last week. Two research groups, one led by Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University and the other by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, have published papers in Cell and Science respectively describing the induction of stem cells from somatic cells. I’ve hesitated to write about this because it has been getting lots of coverage in the mainstream press and because the science is fairly straightforward, they are generally getting it right. However, the more I think about this story, the political and social implications on science as a whole are a bigger issue than the science itself.
The research itself is pretty exciting. The Japanese group published first, demonstrating that mouse somatic cells could be reprogrammed by overexpressing four genes that had previously been shown to be upregulated in stem cells. The induced pluripotent step cells (iPS) cells looked like and acted like embryonic stem cells. Then the Wisconsin group, headed by James Thomson, found that by expressing the human versions of the same genes in human somatic cells they could induce human iPS cells. Again, these human iPS cells look like and act like embryonic stem cells. There are a few problems with these studies - the frequency of induction is very low, one of the genes that has to be overexpressed to generate iPS cells is also upregulated in cancerous cells and the viral vectors used to deliver the genes in human cells are unacceptable for in vivo use. These results don’t get us anywhere nearer to curing any diseases using stem cells. Nonetheless, these two reports are huge for stem cell biologists - basically it means that human embryos may not need to be destroyed for stem cell therapies eliminating the moral debate that has been going on in the States since George Bush took office.
And this, for me, is what is most interesting about these papers - the political implications. The Bush Administration has got to be sitting back feeling pretty smug about the decision they made a few years ago to restrict funding on stem cell research to existing lines - a decision which massively restricted stem cell research in the States. I guess it was inevitable after seven years that they would bumble into a decision that looks like the right one. The thing is, they did get it right - but not because of wise decision making but dumb luck. The Bushies did not get advice from the science advisor saying that scientists were very close to being able to create stem cells without destroying embryos. Their decision was made over a moral stand based on the president’s religous belief and I won’t make any judgements about the morality or immorality of that decision - not a can of worms that I want to get anywhere near!
What worries me here is this sets a precedent for any wacko fringe group - on the right or left - to cite in a quest for political interference into independent scientific research. With rare exceptions, science works better when it is allowed to explore with freedom, independent of political causes or social mores. These discoveries make what Bush did in 
controlling stem cell research much, much worse.
It is unlikely that these discoveries will mean the end of research using embryonic stem cells. Yamanaka himself says that there are concerns regarding safety that need to be addressed and embryonic cells will need to be used for the time being. Because stem cell biology is not my area of expertise, I am willing to take his word for it. And that is the kind of logic I would love to hear coming from the mouths of our religious, political and scientific leaders. These disciplines just do not mix well and it is best if all three of them are allowed to operate independently and under their own auspices. It is a bad idea, for example, for a scientist to try and tell a religious leader how to run his church (Dawkins attempts this now and again and illustrates why it is a horrible idea). Likewise, it is a bad idea, and almost always generates bad results (except in cases of dumb luck), for religion or politics (or religious politicians) to tell scientists how to conduct research. I think the best idea is for each of these three groups to keep their own sides of the street clean.
18 responses so far ↓
1 June // Nov 28, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Well said Chris!
2 maryt/theteach // Nov 28, 2007 at 2:13 pm
If I prayed I would pray that the scientists be left alone to pursue the most important research of the 20th/21st century. thanks for the info, Chris!
3 SandyCarlson // Nov 28, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Thanks for sharing your perspective while discussing the topic clearly and rationally. This non-scientist appreciates what you’ve done.
4 Matthew // Nov 28, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Nice story Chris. I have not read the science carefully enough but, in reading this post, the concept now has me a bit concerned that IPS cells may not, in the long term, be as useful as one would wish. By interfering with biology to induce stem cells, are scientists going to be able to use them? I thought the idea was to take stem cells and, given the right environmental cue, have them develop into what ever tissue that is needed, depending on which environmental cue scientists introduce. By manipulating genes and cells to upregulate particular genes to create stem cells, will the newly formed IPS cells stay stem cells forever or do they have the potential to differentiate into whatever cell types scientist wish? In other words, because scientists have manipulated genes to be upregulated, will the IPS cells be able to down regulate those genes to allow differentiation? Again, I haven’t read the papers, so was this shown in the monkey studies?
In retrospect, maybe I shouldn’t comment too much until I actually read the papers.
5 Nathan Brewer // Nov 28, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Just think of what could have been accomplished over the past few years if efforts would have been directed towards research on embryonic stem cells and not towards ways to get around a political mandate…
6 JustJessie // Nov 28, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Mixing religion and politics is pretty much a joke anyway, since Republicans just use moral issues to get into the white house. (I can say that because I suppose I am one.) None of them really believe that stuff, they just know they have to say it to get elected.
Having said that, I’m glad they are finding a way to use stem cells without using embryonic cells. If (like me) you believe life begins at conception, it’s good to know that soon the people who need stem cells to cure their diseases will be able to get them without ending human lives (no matter how or for what purpose those lives came to be). I hope you don’t mind me saying that. I’m not trying to change your opinion or anything, I’m just stating mine.
7 Jason // Nov 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm
First, as a stem cell researcher, let me just say that I thank Nathan for pointing out the idea that many scientists have had for a while.
Secondly, to get to Matt’s point, when he asks “will the IPS cells be able to down regulate those genes to allow differentiation?” The short answer is that they somehow magically seem to do so. Its not too surprising actually because its been ridiculously hard to get stable transfection of human ES cells, so that “problem” with ES cells might actually be a benefit here. But, if there’s just one in a billion that is able to maintain expression of these pluripotency genes, well then you have a huge problem on your hands if you EVER want to think of these cells therapeutically.
I’m not against this approach at all though. It actually has a lot of benefits, and in SOME respects could revolutionize the field. I think I’ll have to write up a blog post with these points so I don’t write too much here. Just as soon as I finish writing these damn applications I’m working on.
8 CDV // Nov 28, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Thanks all for comments. The new stem cell research is good news under any circumstances. Sounds like there is some work to be done - there always is with new discoveries. I’ll look forward to Jason’s post.
As for your question, Jess, I have no opinion about when life begins and I am never offended by others beliefs - unless they believe I’m an asshole;) I do think that Bush made what could have been a huge mistake when he essentially dictated what topics scientists should and should not be researching. Particularly since, as Nathan implies, it was a pointless mandate. Let’s leave science to the scientists, religion to religious leaders and thinkers and politics - well, not to the politicians, but someone else.
9 Nathan Brewer // Nov 28, 2007 at 9:09 pm
The other part of this that some people don’t understand is that Bush’s mandate was for public funding. There was nothing to stop private companies from creating and researching new stem cell lines. Keeping the research out of the public domain just increases the chances of consumers paying for any advancements in the future.
10 CDV // Nov 28, 2007 at 9:20 pm
That is a damn good point, Brewer, and one that hadn’t occurred to me - surprising since I am on a huge anti-corporate rant lately. It all has the potential to become proprietary and a few pharma companies may control all the relevant treatments.
11 JustJessie // Nov 28, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Thanks, Chris! I don’t pretend to be an expert on anything. I can’t even claim to be well informed. I appreciate that you don’t belittle people who have different opinions. One thing we definitely agree on is that it’s time for a change in the White House! I think W would be great for laughs at a party, but not necessarily “leader of the free world” material.
12 webduck // Nov 29, 2007 at 12:22 am
Excellent article! My first thought when I heard about the stem cell breakthroughs was that the politicians would (hopefully) leave that issue behind and focus on other things of importance. Since I am not a scientist, nor well-versed in any of this, I do wonder now if the method for doing this will get patented and only be available to the rich.
On a colder note, I wonder about the effect it might have on population numbers if it becomes a mainstream medical practice. Would it be like going against the “prime directive” to help more people survive? I am not advocating that masses of people die, but at the same time, what are the consequences of larger populations? Will science have them live only to compete for food and water?
Sorry, didn’t mean to blather on…
13 KathyF // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Nathan above as well. We’ll never know what could have been accomplished in all these years since that decision, just as we’ll never know if we could have prevented a major event that took place a month later if the White House had heeded warnings that OBL was determined to strike in the US.
But I digress.
14 arizaphale // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm
OK. This is tricky shit. If we leave science to the scientists and religion to the etc etc etc…who monitors the scientists? I am assuming you have Ethics Committees who can have input into practice?
Also, if there was nothing to stop the big pharmas from conducting their own SS research….why didn’t they?? What does that say???
Just a few layman’s musings.
15 CDV // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Who monitors religious leaders? Scientists do work under a loose ethical standard, but pretty much we regulate each other under the publishing/peer review system.
I like the latter part of webducks comment as well and I think it is a great point. My only hope is that “nature” seems to have a way of evening things out in the end and I don’t think that we can completely wipe out the variables that get thrown our way.
16 Matthew // Nov 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Big pharma is probably conducting stem cell research. It just can take decades to get something on the market. They have no reason to publish, so we have no idea what they’ve discovered so far.
Most science that I know of is funded by tax dollars. Not only is there a peer review system that makes sure the science is done correctly, there is a lot of politics involved in determining what science gets funded. Religion should stay out of science, it has enough people looking over its shoulder.
It is not that they both can’t get along, it is that they ask to very different questions. Science ask, how does things work and how did we evolve. Religion simple ask “why?”
17 zamejias // Dec 1, 2007 at 9:10 am
I agree on the last 2 statements. If only… But really is far different from that.
18 Kristine // May 9, 2008 at 10:12 am
Thanks, I found this very helpful.
To find out more about Benefits of Stem Cells in Your own Body,
please – Click here –
Leave a Comment