The first of a two-author, two-part series at TMH’s Bacon Bits

Stem Cell research has come to the fore again, this time through yesterday’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to overwhelmingly support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (HR 810). If it becomes law, this bill would effectively repeal President Bush’s restriction on federal funding of embryonic stem (ES) cell research by allowing federally funded scientists to develop new stem-cell lines from discarded embryos stored at in vitro fertility (IVF) clinics.

The House vote occurred in the shadow of — or in response to? — recent, startling advances by Korean researchers in the quest to create customized human embryonic stem cell lines. These Korean scientists were the very same to have cloned the first human embryo last year.

This topic has ignited passions on both sides. Some scientists and activists believe that embryonic stem cells hold tremendous promise for cures of everything from spinal cord injury and related paralysis to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer and Parkinson. Others believe that embryonic stem cell research is akin to murder, since in order to harvest human embryonic stem cells, one must destroy a living human embryo. The ES-cell proponents counter with the ethical argument that it is wrong, even immoral, to prevent potential medical breakthroughs by squelching federally-funded research on human embryos that would be discarded anyway — and they parade out senile dementia and paralysis victims to plead their case. The other side then parries by suggesting that, through this logic, we should also do research on death-row inmates, since they too are slated for destruction. Then they introduce us to children who were born as the result of the adoption and implantation of unwanted IVF-clinic embryos that were otherwise slated for destruction.

The media battle, however, is clearly being won by the embryonic stem cell forces, despite the fact that this is the more ethically problematic research route that to date has few if any successes to report. This contrasts dramatically with research on adult stem cells, which has resulted in numerous exciting medical breakthroughs. Sadly, popular debate tends toward the newer, flashier research that promises a new world of medicine lying just around the corner.

The chief culprit that obscures this debate is ignorance. “Stem Cell” (implying “Adult” stem cell) and “Embryonic Stem Cell” are often used interchangeably — nothing could be more incorrect. “Cloning” — a Brave New World buzz word — is constantly (and perhaps innocently) conflated with “Gene Therapy” and even “Stem Cell Research” by technophobes who would have us reject any such research on grounds that we’re playing God (while not grasping the notion that God has given humankind the intellect and skill with which to save life through medicine; is an oncologist a god for helping to cure a patient of incurable cancer?). Add a good shot of hyperbole and mix and: voilà, you’ve got yourself a cauldron of misinformation, the vapors from which cripple the mind and frustrate honest debate.

The worst part about this debate are the tactics employed by those who should honestly know better. Rarely is there ever a mainstream media (MSM) reporter or science advocate who clearly and objectively explains the complex field of stem cell research from the perspective of pure biology and without an agenda — be that agenda against or (more likely) in support of embryonic stem cell research. I argue that this has codified the gross misperception among the public that (1) embryonic stem cell research is the only promising type of stem cell research; and (2) the alternative - adult stem cell therapy - shows much less promise for successful treatments. These are abject fallacies that take advantage of both the arguably low-level of science aptidude among the American public and the perceived complexity of the subject matter, so as to beguile the public into believing only the loudest voices from the scientific Ivory Tower - those of the ES-cell camp.

Worse still, these fallacies are fueled by (i) an unabashedly biased MSM, who generally subscribe to the progressive liberal elite view defining human life as beginning virtually at birth; and (ii) self-interested scientists who seek big research bucks but overlook a significant body of evidence that both supports the efficacy of adult stem cell therapies and casts doubt on the likelihood of promised embryonic stem cell therapy breakthroughs.

Dr. Mary Davenport, an obstetrician-gynecologist, published an article last September in The American Thinker entitled “The Truth About Stem Cell Research”. In it she describes the biology involved with adult and embyonic stem cells thus:

The fact that adult stem cells have already produced remarkable cures, whereas embryonic stem cells have failed in this regard, should not come as a great surprise to anyone with a background in high school biology. When an embryo is created by the union of the sperm and egg, the cells begin to divide, creating embryonic stem cells from which all future tissues and organs are derived. Within days, the embryonic cells differentiate into three cell layers – ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. Cells in these layers continue to differentiate into tissues and organs. As the embryo matures into a fetus, child, and adult, some undifferentiated cells of the three types remain in various tissues such as bone marrow, fat, skin and olfactory tissue.

These adult stem cells are multipotent: they have the ability to turn into a variety of types of tissues. Successful stem cell therapies cause the DNA in the adult stem cells to further differentiate [the cells] into more [tissue-]specific types of cells. There is no point in getting the adult stem cell to turn into a less differentiated type of cell, or using the more primitive embryonic stem cells. This would be going backward, in the opposite direction of providing a clinically useful therapy.

Davenport also describes a number of advances in regenerative medicine based entirely on research with adult stem cells.

At a recent Senate hearing on cutting-edge adult stem cell research, two young women, victims of horrific automobile accidents causing spinal cord paralysis, actually walked into the hearing room. They described their dramatic improvement after spinal cord paralysis. They were treated in Portugal by transplantation of their own stem cells, taken from olfactory tissue that has the ability to form new nerve cells.

In Germany, a cancer victim whose jaw had been removed re-grew bone tissue utilizing adult stem-cells from his own bone marrow, and was able to eat a bratwurst sandwich for the first time in nine years. Patients with Parkinson’s disease have reported significant improvement, some even regaining their sense of taste and smell, with injections of GDNF, an adult stem cell related therapy. A recent PBS special recounted other significant human cures with adult stem cells, and a Texas surgeon liposuctioned himself to promote excess fat as a viable source of adult stem cells. Do No Harm, the web site of a coalition of American scientists for ethical research, is replete with dozens more successful examples of cures from adult stem cell research.

This is quite encouraging news for those who are concerned by the ethical issues surrounding ES cell research. It is also news that, sadly, is not making front-page headlines, let alone being taken seriously enough by the biomedical research community-at-large.

Raven got me to thinking on this subject with her post at The Wide Awakes entitled “The Nose Knows It All”. In it she reports on technology being developed in Australia that is similar to that noted above from Portugal: utilizing olfactory (or nasal) stem cells to regenerate damaged or severed spinal cords. Dr. Carlos Lima, a neurologist Lisbon, Portugal, has treated about two dozen patients with his experimental therapy. All patients have shown some improvement, as noted by Dr. Lima’s American colleague, Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson.

What is astonishing to me is that the names of Drs. Lima, Peduzzi-Nelson, and Patrick Warnke (Germany) — and others who have had success in developing adult stem-cell research treatments for devistating injuries or diseases — are not even on the tips of our tongues. Instead, we hear of pipe dreams about the promise of embryonic stem cell research, promises that, despite Ron Reagan Jr.’s best efforts to have us believe otherwise, have simply not panned out.

Alas, the media blackout on adult stem cell research persists. It is very disturbing that the news about adult stem cell research successes just isn’t getting out there, especially among scientists who prefer to pontificate about trendy research and foresake the more quotidian — which often ends up working better in the long run. Just remember that, in the 1970s and 1980s, we were at War with Cancer. The Silver Bullet was just within reach. I know; I fought in the trenches. That Silver Bullet turned out to be a mirage, as reaserchers came to learn that essentially every kind of cancer is different and must be studied and combatted appropriately.

Is there another similar yet just as ephemeral Silver Bullet taunting us now in the guise of embryonic stem cell research, causing us to foresake the perfectly reasonable though less shiny adult stem-cell bullet that is already locked and loaded?

HT for Davenport’s article: Bergbikr

Cross-posted at TMH’s Bacon Bits