CELLING LIES (Stem Cell Myths exposed by Michael Fumento)

National Review ^ | September 25th, 2002 | Michael Fumento

[Sabertooth]

"Promise of Adult Stem Cells Put in Doubt," proclaimed UPI. "Study Deals Blow to Abilities of Adult Stem Cells," declared Scientific American in its online publication. "Study Finds Adult Blood Stem Cells Will Not Transform into Other Tissue Cells," insisted the Associated Press.

The fuss concerns an article in the highly respected journal Science detailing efforts of Stanford researchers to trace the development of blood stem cells after placing them into mice whose bone marrow had been destroyed. They reported that blood stem cells replenished marrow but appeared worthless for creating other tissues.

"Blood-forming stem cells from adults make blood," primary researcher Irving Weissman insisted to UPI. "They don't make brain; they don't make heart muscle or any of these things."

Such smugness from a scientist who should know a single study never proves anything. As it happens, a report published in Nature Medicine in November 2000 showed that such cells when injected into mice rebuilt liver tissue. A minor co-author of the piece was named Irving Weissman.

Weissman's sureness was just for show.

Indeed, "The Stanford paper is the one at odds with the bulk of the published literature," Indiana State University biologist David Prentice told me.

While nobody knows yet just how capable non-embryonic stem cells will prove, we know they will be extremely useful because they have been.

Ever hear of bone marrow or umbilical-cord-blood transplants? It's the stem cells in the marrow and blood that makes them work. They've been used therapeutically since the 1980s and now some 70 different diseases, primarily forms of leukemia, are treated with them.

True, these comprise direct infusions rather than the next step of "reprogramming" the stem cells outside the body to make them into various types of mature cells.

But there's tremendous progress here, too. As of last year, over 30 different anti-cancer applications alone involving non-embryonic stem cell therapies on humans had been reported in peer-reviewed medical literature. Over 100 non-embryonic-stem-cell experiments in animals have shown success against a vast array of diseases.

The very newspapers that now pooh-pooh adult stem cells were only days earlier reporting on the almost-miraculous cure of a Dutch child afflicted with "bubble boy syndrome." His immune system was worthless. But it was restored when stem cells from his marrow were removed, cultured, and injected back into him.

Even if blood stem cells were worthless for tissue, we'd still have other types of stem cells that have been cultivated not just from marrow and umbilical cords but also from placentas, amniotic fluid, skin, brains, spinal cords, dental pulp, muscles, blood vessels, corneas, retinas, livers, pancreases, hair follicles, and even liposuctioned fat.

Catherine Verfaillie and her co-workers at the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute recently published a report in Science's main competitor, Nature, suggesting that a certain type of marrow stem cells may give rise to almost any type of tissue in the body. They have isolated them from the marrow of mice, rats and people and so far have transformed them into cells of blood, the gut, liver, lung, brain, and other organs.

Yet time and again a single study like the Stanford one is shoved forward to show that non-embryonic-stem-cell therapy is the biological version of cold fusion. Why?

Some of the media coverage may reflect sheer ignorance. But Science and Weissman know better. They're both part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by those who see embryonic stem cell research and non-embryonic stem cell research locked in mortal combat.

The worse the non-embryonics look, the stronger the case for using embryonic stem cells. With every breakthrough in non-embryonic research comes the need to turn up the screech knob on the disinformation box.

That's because while the government can make grants on a whim, venture capital flows towards success. Thus almost all capital is going to non-embryonic research. Those working with embryonic cells are desperate for government funds.

It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Dr. Michael D. West, head of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., told the AP that the Stanford study indicates "stem cells from the bone marrow will not be a practical source for many cell types needed" to treat disease. That is, it wouldn't be surprising if the AP had told you West's company does research with embryonic stem cells.

Just as a 30-year-old panhandler will claim to be a Vietnam vet to shake money out of your pockets, those desperate for funding are obviously not above misrepresenting research to keep their labs running.

But whatever the promises of embryonic research, the actual applications are coming from non-embryonic stem cells. The miracles they have already performed are but little compared to those of which they are capable. We dare not let that progress be hamstrung by the politics of pork.

— Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. where he's currently writing BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing our World.

[Torie]

Yes, it is amazing that so few politicians have gone down the road that I suggest, and explained it. I think in part because most don't care about the issue, and just want to avoid political damage, or go a more unreasoned route and pander. Most politicians are somewhat adverse to taking risk, and unimaginative IMO. But if someone went that route, and it defused the issue in a pro choice zone, without causing the more hard core pro life folks to bolt, it might catch on.

[jwalsh07]

Most neurologists assume that electrical activity in the first trimester represents random neuron firings as nerves connect--basically, tiny spasms

Thanks for the quote Torie, you prove my point quite well. They don't know, they assume! And because they assume, their judgement is arbitrary.

I assume they are wrong. Of course, I wouldn't use sentience as the criteria for life and death when the natural order is for that unborn baby to become every bit as sentient as you or I, in direct contravention to a brain dead patient who is going nowhere but to meet his maker.

But that's beside the point.

[Sabertooth]

Is there any reason to believe that anal sex between homosexual men is a more effective disease vector than anal sex between a man and a woman? My impression is that in Africa the latter is the primary disease vector.

Yes, women are a natural, though not 100% effective, firewall against transmission and retransmission of the HIV virus. There are a few reasons.

First of all, heterosexual anal sex comprises quite a low percentage of all heterosexual acts, which is a large factor lower than its proportion of homosexual acts.

Also, anal sex is primarily a one way transmission, from the penetrator to the penetrated (there's an exception which I'll get to in a moment). Since women are viurtually never the penetrators of men during anal sex in a fashion which facilitates the transmission of the virus to the man, there is almost no retransmission. This also explains the low incidence of HIV infection among lesbians.

The exception I mentioned is the presence of another veneral disease in either partner. In cases where the woman has an active venereal disease, particularly with open lesions, vaginal or rectal retransmission to a man is possible. This explains almost all of the very few true instances where women have infected men with HIV via sexual contact.

All of this was explained to me by my cousin, now a cardiologist, back in 1985.

The aberrant AIDS data from Africa merit further study, however, some follow-up studies I've seen indicate that the data isn't all that aberrant from the model described to me by my cousin 17 years ago.

Bisexuality is far more common in Africa than is reported, in part because in many Third World countries, only the receiver in anal sex acts is considered to be homosexual. Therefore, homosexual transmission in Africa is underreported. Also, venereal diseases are more common in Africa, in part because of lower access to antibiotics, thus facilitating retransmission by women beyond the numbers seen in developed countries.

One more thing, and this is just my own hunch, but the greater incidence of blood-borne diseaes, biting insects, open sores, or other stress factors on immune systems in Africa may be increasing the susceptibility of Africans to HIV infection and the subsequent development of full-blown AIDS.

[Torie]

I don't think in context "assume" = "wild guess" here. But it would have been nice if Easterbrook had fleshed out this point, and what the assumption is based on, because it is a key pivot point for the whole edifice in my opinion. I agree that the brain dead permanently comatose patient is an easier case, much easier.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[supercat]

But if someone went that route, and it defused the issue in a pro choice zone, without causing the more hard core pro life folks to bolt, it might catch on.

Yes, but I think some parts of the Republican leadership view the abortion issue like Jesse Jackson et al. view racism: the problem is more valuable to them than would be a solution.

The point that politicians consistently miss, whether by design or blindness, is that the majority of the people in this country are opposed to abortion on demand in most cases, but a significant portion will fight tooth and nail to keep abortion legal in the few cases (e.g. rape and incest) where they think it should be.

Currently, such people are being pushed into the "pro-choice" camp by Republicans who take a hard-line all-or-nothing stance in a situation where it's really not tenable. If the Republicans could work to build points of agreement while "agreeing to disagree" on points of contention, they could use the abortion issue to sweep the Democrats off the map. Unfortunately, the combination of all-or-nothing-ness and wishy-washy-ness costs them a lot of votes while gaining them nothing.

[Sabertooth]

The judge deliberately distorted the legal meaning of malice. That is not an assumption, that is a legal fact.

To put a finer point on it, that is not an assumption, that is presumption.

[Torie]

Well I won't argue with you on this one. I think you are being tendentious. I killed her out of love does not equal a lack of malice under the law.

[Agamemnon]

..., because I don't think....

Yes, Torie, clearly you don't think whatever you don't think on this issue, but you are hardly qualified to declare what an unborn child "thinks" or doesn't think at any point in its development, nor am I.

Just because today's science and technology are not as yet capable of detecting when life or sentinence begins in the developing human being, does not mean that it has "proved" that neither life nor sentinence exist, even from the moment of conception.

Many biomedical scientists and "ethicists" are far too conceited, and enamoured of themselves to admit their limitations. This is why they often make sweeping proclamations which are evidences more of their intellectual self-infatuation, woven as it often is with a political or economic agenda than it is evidence of any amount of honest, scientific thought.

[Southack]

Please remove me from your Ping list.

[Sabertooth]

I find even early-term abortios disturbing, but given the status quo (abortion on demand any time for any reason) I think it's best to work on convincing people at a 39-week fetus deserves protection. Don't agree that a 38-week fetus doesn't, but agree to put off discussion of the 38-week fetus until there's concensus on the 39-week one. Once concensus has been reached on the 39-week one, then work on the 38-week one, again putting off discussion of the 37-week one.

If Republicans were smart, they could probably use a strategy like the above to significantly reduce society's acceptance of abortion over the next 25 years or so, and would actually gain votes at the polls for doing so. Their current wishy-washy stance costs them votes while netting nearly nothing in the way of useful results.

Agreed. My daughter was born by C-Section at 35 weeks, and came home four days later. Almost everyone can see that late-term or "partial birth" abortions are infanticide.

It's only because of the late-term selfishness of a few expectant mothers that these babies aren't delivered and placed for adoption.

The scenario you describe would be an appropriate strategy for GOP incrementalism, where steady, step-by-step progress is made against the radical pro-abortion crowd.

[heartwood]

An embryo six weeks from conception is sentient - it reacts to stimulus. Do you mean consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness? Why would you deny life to a human being doing what a human being is supposed to do, just because it isn't sentient? Personhood is subjective, legalistic. Humanity and life are a biological fact.

[Sabertooth]

Well I won't argue with you on this one. I think you are being tendentious.

When a judge shades the truth and/or the law to support a desired ruling, isn't that an example of judicial presumption?

[Torie]

preemption. And I thought you were saying that I, moi, myself was presumptuous.

[Sabertooth]

Oh no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was playing on words.

[Sabertooth]

I think some parts of the Republican leadership view the abortion issue like Jesse Jackson et al. view racism: the problem is more valuable to them than would be a solution.

You may be right. This seems increasingly to be the case with a growing number of third rail political issues, like immigration and Social Security.

[Shethink13]

I realize you have your hands full - since you are alone on this thread in your views, but I wondered if you could respond to reply #25 to you, because it was exactly what I wanted to ask you.

To make it easy, this is the question:

Out of curiosity, at what hour of which day does sentience begin? Or are there degrees of sentience? If the latter, then what is the degree which deserves legal protection?

[Torie]

Those continuum thingies are tricky. That is what makes the issue of when life begins tricky. I think I am sentient when I am asleep, and deserve full legal protection while I am asleep. Ya, I know, it is because I have the potential to awake, just like a fetus. So many lines to draw and so little time.

[WOSG]

supercat, that is exactly the strategy that was used to go after late-term and partial brith abortions... The fact that NARAL and NOW still defended these barbarisms exposed them for the nihilists and anit-humanitarians they were, but the battle was not fully joined. Why? Because Roe v. Wade still provides cover for short-circuiting the debate. The proaborts hide behind this instead of facing the issues of right of unborn humans.

There will not be an honest political discussion on this untile Roe v Wade is repealed and the issue is discussed on its merits only.

[Physicist]

Some of the media coverage may reflect sheer ignorance. But Science and Weissman know better. They're both part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by those who see embryonic stem cell research and non-embryonic stem cell research locked in mortal combat.

I must say that I'm disappointed by Fumento's attitude towards Weissman, here. According to the article, Weissman's research focuses on adult stem cells. So according to Fumento's argument, Weissman's vested interest would be to promote the usefulness of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells, in hope of arrogating to his subfield a larger slice of the grant pie. Where Fumento sees a shill for a disinformation campaign, I see a researcher who reached an honest conclusion, and is sticking to it despite what the "conventional wisdom" maintains. Fumento seems incensed that a scientist would hold an unpopular view; apparently to dissent is to be disingenuous.

The reason that stem cell research is so contentious is that political liberals and conservatives both see its primary--or even sole--significance as being a battleground for the abortion debate. They don't understand that the researchers don't share that perspective. It seems that Fumento doesn't understand that, either.