Jul 06 2006
The Death Knell Of Embryonic Stem Cell Snake Oil
For those who have not read my posts on the Embryonic Stem Cell fraud that has been perpetrated on this country and on millions of afflicted people around the world let me establish my limited credentials. I have a BS in biology and one of the areas I considered pursuing in my life was genetic engineering and bio-engineering. I found simple engineering paid more and was an easier path to working on space programs (the trekker in me). But I do have a deep understanding of the issues surrounding Embryonic Stem Cells.
I am also not a church going religious person (but spiritual). I was raised Roman Catholic Christian and probably associate more with that sect than any other, but I have my issues with the Church which have created a permanent barrier (I cannot accept men and women being two classes of human being). So I have a deep respect for life, but I can honestly say it is driven more by the realization each life is a “once in all time” unique gift that should never be lowered to the category of a commodity
Embryonic Stem Cell therapies have been misrepresented snake oil. Whatever potential lies in embryonic stem cells lies within an easier reach in Adult Stem Cells. This is mathematically and scientifically provable. Embryonic Stem Cells are undifferentiated, they have taken a path to any specific class of cells or tissues or organs. Their ability to morph is unbounded. Adult stem cells have differentiated to some degree. They have morphed ‘part way’ towards some classes of cells, making it fewer steps to reach those groups. For the other classes it will be either the same number of steps to morph or possibly impossible – there has been proof that the partial differentiation can be reversed in some adult stem cells, stepping back towards the Embryonic Stem Cell state. But the situation is clear. By being partially differentiated much of the complexity of initiating a controlled transition from a clean-slate stem cell to a class of viable cells has been already done. The Embryonic Stem Cells have the potential to morph into infinite states, most of which are useless or deadly.
Adult Stem Cells can be taken from the patient or patients family, thus reducing the two major issues associated with biological treatments: genetic mismatches and tissue rejection. Mixing genes in the manner proposed by stem cell advocates bypasses Nature’s reject filter called conception. Many times bad genetic matches simply self destruct when the new human built incorporates a genetic defect. It might surprise people to no how many times this happens. I don’t have data on it, but having the organism fail to survive is a good clue you don’t want to be mixing the cells and genetics in that case.
Anyway, the proof of all my claims that Adult Stem Cells are simply mathematically closer to viable therapies is in the results. And while Embryonic stem cells are struggling to create any cell type without major defects and cancers, adult stem cell therapies are in clinical trials and improving the lives of people today. It is hard to resist a prediction which has already come true.
That is a long winded way to set the stage for this excellent article in the Washington Post that illustrates how the fraud in South Korea is exposing the general fraud of Embryonic Stem Cells:
But this is exactly the wrong lesson to draw from the South Korean scandal. Cloning will always be morally corrupt because it requires deliberately creating and destroying thousands (or millions) of human embryos. At the same time, the current effort in Congress to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to include embryos left over in fertility clinics will never satisfy the scientists, because such stem cells will not give them the genetic control they want over the cells. The real lesson of the cloning scandal — and the real opportunity now before us — is to find a scientific alternative to research cloning, one that gives us the stem cells we desire without the ethical violations we abhor.
Hwang’s violation involved the exploitation of women, who undergo a risky and unpleasant procedure — first, ovarian hyperstimulation, then the insertion of a needle into their ovaries to procure the wanted oocytes — with no medical benefit to themselves. In the attempt to produce a single cloned embryo, thousands of eggs were harvested and used as raw materials.
Is anyone surprised that people who treat human embryos as nothing more than a commodity would treat female human embryos in a later stage of life as nothing more than a place to harvest the commodity (thus being of less value than the commidity itself). Folks, people are in this for the money and fame. And trust me when I say they will give up the latter if they can get the former. There are backers out there with Bill Gates sized dollar signs in their eyes over this. Here is one group’s claim to the money for their ‘grants’ to help the human condition. Ironically, in the call to make it illegal for woman to be compensated for their eggs (which every woman has) they are also barred from being compensated for the genes they carry (the Holy Grail of genetic therapies). Therefore, if you carry the gene that will cure Altzheimers you will never see a dime from all the money being made off your special gene! You see it is the genes they want, the ones resistant to disease. You cannot patent a human being or any part of them. So in the adult stem cell world the only money to be made is on the process, not a rare genes that may benefit the population as a whole. This restriction is arguable in an embryo since abortion laws have made it hard to treat the embryo scientifically accurately as a human being. So these scientists are trying to gain patentable access to genetic codes by way of the Embryo which doesn’t have the same status as a ‘born’ human being. Got it? It always comes down to lawyers and money.
I basically agree with your thinking on ESCR , the only question on the entire post is, Is the Washington Post a good source for that info? I know they, like the NYT , are known for pushing their agenda to the detriment of truth.
Interesting and well thought out post, AJ. We share similar theological backgrounds and philosophies, except my wife and I grew up Methodist. Neither of us has attended church regularly for over 20 years for a variety of reasons, but both of us have a deeply spiritual side that is complimented by the rural, woodland setting in which we live, surrounded in total by all the glory of nature. The woods, pond and meadow are our sanctuary.
I’ve been following the ESCR debate for several years because my youngest grandson was born with defective kidneys and received one of his father’s kidneys before he was 2 years old. He is now 5, and pretty much normal except for the anti-rejection drugs he takes.
My daughter and son-in-law bought into all the ESC hype early on, but now see adult stem cell research as the likely way that my grandson will eventually be able to grow his own replacement kidney, which he will undoubtedly need at some point.
I disagree with you in more ways than I can count — if you have ethical problems with hESC research I respect that, but if you’re going to make an argument from the point of view of science you’ll have to back it up with more cred than just saying you have a BS in biology (I don’t care if you have a PhD in biology or if you never graduated high school). I find it amusingly yet sadly ironic that someone who claims ESC research has reduced human beings to a commodity has found a way to somehow reduce the complex field of ES cell biology to a set of “mathematical proofs”. Almost as ironic as reducing the motives of those who have dedicating their scientific careers to this research to simply having “dollar signs in their eyes” — and this from someone who admits to becoming an engineer over a biologist for the money. Pathetic…
Jimbo,
Before we begin this little dance, what are your credentials? I have ethical problems with the people who run around saying a cure will come of it, we just need money. They are not being honest. I will give you one example: the mechanics of sequencing the genetic code in the right order with the right timing and under the right chemical and environmental conditions to control any transition to any interim state between the stem cell and a target cell is going to be 99% identical in humans as in higher apes. So why can\’t they develop and prove out they can control stem cell transformations in animals – as they should be doing anyway if they were to be following the ethics all other medical protocols must follow? Name one succesfully controlled transformation from a stem cell to a target cell in any animal. There have been none. What stem cell research as been so far is nothing more than throwing the cells at a problem en masses and adding some enabler chemicals and/or compounds and then prayng they trigger on their own and do not cause cancer or some other abnormality. All the time people are out claiming if there was money people like Christopher Reid could have walked. That is such a damnable lie it is criminal. Do you believe Reid had enough time to live to solve all the problems in embryonic stem cells? If you did you were kidding yourself. Science still has barriers. And one of them is the combinatorial wall we face sometimes. There are 30,000 genes which need to be sequenced just right, at the right time and for the right time, and within chemical conditions that are always changing from one step to the next. Do the math. That process is not trivial to control. Biology is built upon chemistry, which is built upon physics, which is built upon math. You know why I might guess you are not very credentialed? No scientist or doctor would dimiss math in this discussion. They understand how all these fields are part of the larger reality.
I would agree with you about hype — it’s unfortunate that those who do overhype stem cells drown out the more sober, reasoned voices. I would be more worried about putting too much hope in adult-derived stem cells, though, unless you’re talking about stuff that’s already out there like bone marrow transplants.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying re: “stem cell transformations” in animals — but I believe it’s possible to get pretty much homogeneous differentiation of mouse es cells into any number of different cell types these days. There are labs working on primate es cells, but thanks in part to PETA and the animal rights crowd primate research is becoming prohibitively expensive. And even if 99.99% is the same in primates, it’s the remaining 0.01% that will be the problem in humans and we can’t get there until we do the basic stuff — some of which we can do, and is being done, with the existing lines.
I didn’t mean to dismiss math. But to think that a little math provides sufficient reason to declare: embryonic stem cells – bad! adult stem cells – good! is arrogant and exposes you as a crackpot. Nothing personal. But I’m afraid the reality you speak of is far larger than is dreamt of in your philosophy — as some Danish dude once said, I believe. Have a good weekend. 😉
AJ,
Great post on a very important and controversial issue. I’m 100% with you in terms of the ethcis, over-hypeing of esc and the slippery slope we’re on. With the advances in science — bio, chem, genetics, et. al. — and the pro-abortion media/culture, can we be surprised that many have no problem (no conscience, or soul, really) with the embryo and fetus as just another commodity?
I don’t pretend to have any insight into the merits of esc vs. adult stem cells, but your post basically supports my intuition on what I’ve read and understand and believe to be the reality. However, I find it surprising and troubling that your perspective (& mine) hasn’t gained more traction. Has our society & media become so entrenched in the esc hype that an honest & fair accounting will not be presented? Jimbo vigorously disagrees, but offers up no reasoning/logic other than you’re arrogant & a crackpot, which is a common debate tactic of the left and those lacking a foundation to argue from. It was noted he supplied no “cred” for his position.