One of the more interesting stories regarding stem cell research is one that has been woefully under-reported. Even though scientists have been performing embryo-destructive stem cell research for a decade, there are no clinically available treatments that have resulted from the research. In the past two years, however, scientists have discovered ways of inducing pluripotent stem cells that many see as more promising.
Scientists had already succeeded in transforming skin cells into stem cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells by using viral vectors. But there was concern that the viruses might prohibit therapeutic use. Last year, researchers figured out how to use viruses without letting the viruses get integrated. And this year, researchers figured out how to reprogram adult cells into pluripotent stem cells without using viruses at all. (Both of those linked Washington Post stories are by Rob Stein, who has covered the beat more thoroughly than many reporters at other news outlets.) Researchers are very excited since these stem cells can be patient specific and safe enough to use clinically. They’re cheaper, easier to work with than embryonic stem cells and much easier to secure.
Because they’re patient specific, they are less prone to immune rejection. For an equivalent embryonic stem cell situation, the embryos would have to be clones of the patient. While some might have no problem with human cloning and killing and the ethics and safety of producing eggs for cloning, using skin cells seems less challenging financially and ethically.
I don’t know why the media are less interested in covering these induced pluripotent stem cell advances than they have been about covering embryonic stem celll research. Perhaps it’s because the former can’t be used to inflame the culture wars. But it’s terribly interesting to note the difference.
All of that is prologue to this Denver Post piece “Stem cells’ potential for 10 vexing illnesses.” It’s actually a report from Premium Health News Service, a division of Tribune Media Services. It feeds subscribers information from the Mayo Clinic and Harvard but also some more questionable outfits such as Psychology Today and New Scientist. I’ve been burned by New Scientist so many times that I think it might be safer to just read their articles and translate them so they say the opposite.
Anyway, the article begins by referring to President Barack Obama’s “lifting of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.” Of course, while Obama significantly changed the federal funding policy for embryonic stem cell research, there was no ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. In fact, President George Bush was the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, which he did with limits. President Obama also has, through the National Institute of Health, proposed limits on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Obama’s limits are much less stringent.
Excitement over the embryonic cells comes from their remarkable ability, as biological blank slates, to become virtually any of the body’s cell types. Many observers believe the president’s move will accelerate the hunt for cures for some of our most vexing diseases.
However, the benefits are largely hypothetical, given the infancy of the field, and are offset by some real obstacles: The risks of embryonic stem cells, as well as cells programmed to become like them, include the possibility they will actually cause cancers in people who receive them. Nonetheless, here’s a look at 10 health problems that stem cells might someday cure — or at least help treat:
Okay, it’s nice to see the media acknowledge that there are cancer-causing problems with embryonic stem cells. But do researchers believe the same about the latest advances in induced pluripotent stem cells?
Before we proceed, let’s look at what the Post says about Parkinson’s Disease:
4. Parkinson’s disease. Stem cells may also help those who suffer from Parkinson’s, a neurodegenerative disorder that can cause tremors, stiffness, and other movement and speech problems. Studies show that embryonic stem cells can give rise to the dopamine-making neurons that Parkinson’s patients lack. When transplanted into rodents with a Parkinson’s- like disorder, those replacement brain cells improved the animals’ motor function.
Last month a number of people pointed me to an Oprah Winfrey show that featured a doctor explaining to Oprah and Michael J. Fox that embryonic stem cells are very difficult to control and can become cancerous. Because of this, they do not show promise for curing Parkinson’s Disease, which afflicts Fox. But the good news, he said, is that induced pluripotent stem cells show great promise for the same treatment.
“I think the stem cell debate is dead,” he says on the show.
You can watch the 3-minute video here. Why Oprah Winfrey is breaking news that the Denver Post can’t handle a month later, I do not know.
Let’s look at what the Denver Post said about Alzheimer’s:
5. Alzheimer’s disease. Likewise, embryonic stem cells may come in handy against Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive and deadly disorder that degrades and kills brain cells, leading to memory loss, cognitive decline and behavioral problems. Stem cells may give rise to new treatments or even, some say, a cure; other experts have expressed skepticism.
I’ve noted this article before, but here’s what the Washington Post wrote about Alzheimer’s back in 2004. The article is headlined “Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer’s”:
But given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer’s, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists.
“To start with, people need a fairy tale,” said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. “Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”
To be fair, that article does say that cloning humans and taking their stem cells might overcome some of the problems — but, as we know now, so would using induced pluripotent stem cells, which doesn’t require cloning and destroying humans in the process.
Anyway, the Denver Post article ignores the old news that embryonic stem cells are not promising for Alzheimer’s, confuses which stem cells are prone to causing cancers, and obscures the promise of induced pluripotent stem cells by grouping them with embryonic stem cells. It’s an interesting media strategy but one that doesn’t serve an already under-informed public terribly well. If the media are going to continue the silly narrative of “science” over “ideology,” “ethics” or “religion,” could we at least expect some honest reporting on the topic?
Here’s another example of a weak article on the topic — “Pelosi rebuts critics of stem cell research” — by Carla Marinucci, a political writer for the San Francisco Chronicle:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi forcefully responded to conservative critics of government funding for programs like stem cell research Friday, saying that under the Bush administration, “We’ve had a situation where it’s faith or science - take your pick.”
“We’re saying science is an answer to our prayers,” the San Francisco Democrat said.
First off, ‘like’ means similar to. I think the reporter means to say ‘such as.’ However, the article is really all about embryonic stem cell research so I think neither ‘like’ nor ‘such as’ fit. Another nit: sometimes stem cell is spelled as one word in the article, sometimes it is spelled as two.
Much more importantly, who are the conservative critics of stem cell research? Are there any conservative critics of general stem cell research? Does the reporter mean critics of embryonic-destructive stem cell research? Yes, yes she does. So why not say that? Headlines and ledes such as this used to be ubiquitous a few years ago, failing to make the distinction between stem cell research that destroys embryos and stem cell research that doesn’t destroy embryos. But now that scientists have made all of these advances with induced pluripotent stem cells, the confusion is even more egregious and unfair. Thankfully we don’t see too many examples of such shoddy headline and lede writing any more.
Anyway, the word ‘science’ appears 13 times in this article, eight of them before the first of two instances of ‘embryonic.’ The story is extremely one-sided. We don’t hear from anyone arguing against Pelosi that it might be dangerous to demean rational and important ethical concerns as mere religiosity or that it might be unwise to sacrifice morality on the altar of science. There’s nobody quoted who looks at previous examples of federal funding of science unbridled by ethical concerns (Tuskegee anyone?) being problematic. There’s no mention that the previous administration actually spent hundreds of millions of dollars on embryonic stem cell research. And we don’t hear from anyone pointing out the advances in adult stem cells.
Once you remove all the problems from the story, there isn’t much left.
 | Posted at 12:46 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (19) |
April 23, 2009, at 1:12 pm
Maybe we need a “get science” blog???
April 23, 2009, at 1:32 pm
What I find interesting is that, in the reports about “Stem cells will be cure for (fill in name of ailment)”, when you get about two-thirds of the way down the story and the actual scientists are actually quoted as to what they actually want to do, it’s generally something along the lines of “By using embryonic stem cells from patients with diabetes/Parkinsons/whatever, scientists would be able to research the development of the disease by comparing the affected cells to normal ones and this would enable them to test out various drug therapies” - which is great, but which will take a long time and a lot of trial and effort.
No quick cures and certainly a long way from “Grow magic cells in a petri dish, inject them, and bob’s your uncle!” which is the gist of the headlines on this topic.
Even if the adult stem cells/pluripotent cells do develop into cures, scientists will still want to work on embryonic cells for research purposes and study of human development - I wish this was clarified, because as it is, the story is very broadly painted as “science will give us cures/Neanderthals holding back science due to Bronze Age religious understanding of world”.
April 23, 2009, at 1:36 pm
Ms. Speaker Pelosi is the perfect example of the Peter Principle. Her pronouncement concerning science is on the same level as her pronouncements concerning ethics.
April 23, 2009, at 1:48 pm
I suppose I should not be stunned by Ms. Pelosi’s “tough sh*t” response to critics. What kind of public policy-maknig is this? At the same time, Pelosi, Obie et al are morally offended by caterpillars and sleep deprivation.
I wonder if she’ll ever have that heart to heart with her bishop.
April 23, 2009, at 1:53 pm
For this blog’s purposes, the discussion point is not about what Pelosi is saying but whether journalists should allow a response or a discussion of the points she raises.
For an issue where people are woefully underinformed, did that San Fran Chron story serve them?
April 23, 2009, at 1:55 pm
I agree with Bern. I think the coverage of science in the media is worse than the coverage of religion.
When there is a story where a reporter needs to understand both and to understand where people are speaking from ignorance, then we have quite a tall order. Then add in political calculations to the stewpot and we have quite a mixture of ingredients. Then add self-serving statements from researchers who want to get their ideas funded. I’m totally not surprised when reportorial or editorial bias is clearly evident.
Amongst other things, when a researcher speaks about something, they will or should often use the conditional voice. For example, at the current state of the science there are certain potentials and issues which are currently under investigation.
From a strictly scientific framework, no one can say which will eventually prove to be the best avenue of research. In this case, which approach offers the best chance of curing particular diseases the quickest given the same level of funding.
What should be reported from a scientific perspective is that embryonic stem cells currently have the following advantages and disadvantages compared to adult stem cells. Ideally included would be statements about the odds of realizing the potential and overcoming the difficulties based on current best estimates. And these odds should be stated by someone with no vested interest in obtaining funding.
April 23, 2009, at 1:59 pm
Good point, Jerry. While I wish we saw more coverage of adult stem cell breakthroughs in the media, I hope that when we do, we’ll see more cautionary language.
It is truly breathtaking what we’re seeing happen in the last 18 months or so — but how do we know that everything will work out as well as is being predicted?
Stricter and more specific language is called for, in my view.
April 23, 2009, at 2:15 pm
Those of a certain age are still wondering whether coffee causes cancer or inhibits it’s growth. We certainly didn’t learn it in the media. Some of us remember global cooling and chuckle at the current obsession with it’s opposite number. On a related note, some of us note with a wry smile the marketing value of “green”.
I know that when some TV anchor announces “A new study in the (name of medical or science journal), it’s time to put on the tin foil cap.
Sorry to be so cynical, but add me to the list of skeptics who consider science reporting worse than the hack job too often done on religion.
April 23, 2009, at 3:54 pm
Wait, what’s with the New Scientist hate Mollie? Has it just burned you on this particular topic? Or others?
April 23, 2009, at 3:57 pm
Ok, 2 seconds after posting i remembered that survey about conservative states and porn, that some people had problems with.
(Got to admit my own scientific interest is mostly in physics so I tend to gloss over other stuff)
April 23, 2009, at 6:43 pm
It is very, very hard to choose. Which news coverage is worse, more biased, more incompetent???—Religious coverage or science-health coverage.
And, considering how our democracy depends on a well-informed electorate, one can only worry how wretched the coverage is in other areas such as foreign affairs or the workings of Congress, the courts, and the White House.
April 23, 2009, at 11:46 pm
The reason adult stem cells aren’t covered as much as you’d like by the media might be because “cures” don’t exist. This is especially true for Parkinson’s disease, which I have had 13 years. Yet opponents of ESCR claim sucessful treatments. Dennis Turner’s PD returned 5 years ago; Patricia Payne was never in Dr. Levesque’s Phase II because it never took place and Amgen’s aborted GDNF infusion therapy trials didn’t involve stem cells of any kind. I don’t have personal knowledge of the other claims, like the 3 listed above, but have reason to believe many are also bogus, being blood replacements due to suppression by chemo rather than treatments aimed at the disease itself. Maybe eventually someone will wonder why no one is “cured”.
April 24, 2009, at 12:42 am
Rayilyn,
I don’t know what you’re talking about, exactly. I spoke of advances with adult stem cells that, to my knowledge, have only been made within the last 18 months. I didn’t discuss cures made via any stem cell research because I’m unaware of any.
April 24, 2009, at 2:05 am
Someone elsewhere mentioned a stem-cell based meniscus repair that he had done which is not human approved but is approved for race horses. So I went hunting and found at least one web site http://www.vet-stem.com/technologies/ that talks about that technology. In case you were wondering, these are adult stem cells.
If you can find someone in the MSM reporting such stories I’ll be amazed.
April 24, 2009, at 1:50 pm
I cited 3 claims for Parkinson’s disease made by the Family Research Council’s Prentice cure list which has been promoted for several years. They are all LIES.
April 24, 2009, at 3:58 pm
Rayilyn,
That may be. I fail to see what it has to do with what I’ve written or with the purposes of this blog. Please re-read if you’re confused about what I mean.
April 24, 2009, at 6:36 pm
[…] here M.Z. Hemingway- to whom a hat-tip for the above- […]
April 24, 2009, at 6:51 pm
I have reread your post and it covers a variety of subjects.
Calling ESCR “destructive” is a code word for opposition to it. ESCR has been restricted these past 8 years, so why are you judging research that hasn’t yet been done? The recent iPS research you refer to is dependent on ESCR. Why do you suppose the fact that these cells are “embryo-like” is considered so important? My comments are an attempt to get the truth out about ASCR claims. The Turner case was cited in Open Stem Cell journal in Feb 2009. Turner has been suffering with a return of his PD for over 5 years.
It is true you didn’t cover any of this. Your article implies Dr. Oz is the last word on the idea that the debate is over. Sorry. I’ve been dealing with PD for 13 years and am at a different place than you - a place with no cures.
April 24, 2009, at 7:34 pm
Rayilyn,
I called ESCR not destructive but embryo-destructive … because IT IS. It destroys embryos. Sheesh.
The rest of your comment also attacks things I never wrote.
I will note that people in this community have a variety of views about ESCR and have a variety of health conditions as well.
None of that matters, of course, because we discuss media coverage of issues. You seem to want to debate the underlying issues themselves. This is not the forum for that discussion … although I imagine there are a gazillion places on the internet for just that.
Thanks.