Like CIRM, others are rethinking all the hype for hESCR and
coming to realize that the real promise of stem cell research in all
probability lies elsewhere, in adult and other non-embryonic avenues.
For more than a decade, Michael J. Fox has been a leading
celebrity advocate for human embryonic stem cell research. As the New
Scientist recently put it, Fox “was on the front line of the US's ‘stem
cell wars’, arguing that embryonic stem cells could cure conditions like his
own – Parkinson's disease.”
In testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 2000, Fox
referred to the “miraculous potential” of human embryonic stem cells and
claimed that the “consistent and inescapable conclusion is that this research
offers a potential to eliminate diseases -- literally save millions of lives.”[1]
Fox also was a vigorous advocate for passage of California’s Proposition
71, which established CIRM. In a commercial
he taped Fox declared “[Prop] 71 will support research to find cures for
diseases that affect millions of people ... including cancer, diabetes,
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Please
support the effort to find cures by voting Yes on 71. It could save the life of someone you
love."
But in a recent
interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, Fox’s take on the ability of hESCR
to deliver cures was far different, as he expressed an outright skepticism that
such research will ever live up to its hype– hype that he had a very prominent
role in promoting.
Sawyer broached the topic with Fox by characterizing hESCR
as “this is the promise, this is the future” (had she been a lawyer and this
was a courtroom, that would clearly be called “leading the witness”).
Ten years ago, Fox doubtless would have enthusiastically
agreed. But now, his response was highly
qualified and cautious: “The other
avenues of research have grown and multiplied and have become as much or more
promising,” Fox replied. “So an answer
may come from stem cell research but it’s more likely to come from another
area.”
Those other areas, according to the New
Scientist “are speeding towards clinical trials. These include
neurotrophic factors – proteins that promote the survival of nerve cells – as
well as antibodies that target the alpha-synuclein protein, which may be a
cause of the brain damage seen in Parkinson's.”
Proponents of hESCR should have displayed such realism and
caution over the last decade in the public policy debate on stem cell research,
rather than the hype and exaggeration they resorted to instead.
“It's time to act on what we've learned,” said Mr. Fox in
2000. “Further delay would come at a
high price.” Treatments from adult and
other non-embryonic stem cell research were indeed almost certainly delayed, as
public attention and resources were diverted for years toward the largely
disappointing avenue of research based on embryo destruction. Advocates who called for such diversion may
now be realizing that it is their agenda that slowed authentic progress.
But as the saying goes, better late than never.
