A study in the current issue of Stem Cells Translational Medicine
reports the use of neural stem cells
derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPScs) to treat amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”) in rats. The study shows that the iPSc-derived neural
cells were able to engraft, survive and develop into mature neural cells in the
spinal cords of the ALS rats.
Dr. Roland Pochet of the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium,
who headed up the research teams, said the results
“demonstrate proof-of-principle of survival and differentiation of human
iPSc-derived neural progenitors in in
vivo ALS environment, offering perspectives for the use of iPSc-based
therapy in ALS."
Dr. Anthony Atala, editor of the journal in which the study
appeared, called the results “encouraging,” adding that beyond ALS they “suggest
the potential of cell therapy for the field of neurobiology and disease
treatment."
The announcement of the study’s results also noted that neural
cells had previously been derived from neural stem cells (NSCs) and embryonic
stem cells (ESCs) as well.
But this development again demonstrates that along with
adult stem cells, iPScs are proving to be viable, ethically non-contentious
alternatives to the use of human embryonic stem cells; in this instance the
adult and iPSc-derived neural cells did everything the hESCs did, but without
having to destroy an embryo in the process.
Indeed this and other studies
show the continued pursuit of hESCR is ethically unjustified even by standards
first set by its proponents.
In 1999, Presidents Clinton’s National Bioethics commission
(NBAC) first recommended
federal funding for hESCR. The supposed
potential of the research deserved federal support, NBAC argued -- but on
condition. Given the inherent ethical
problems, NBAC judged it was “justifiable only if no less morally problematic
alternatives are available for advancing the research (at pg. 53).” In others words, if viable, ethically
non-contentious means existed for advancing such research and pursuing cures,
then hESCR should not be pursued at all.
Induced pluripotent stem cells are already replacing the use
of hESCs in several areas of research in the filed of regenerative medicine,
such as in disease modeling and drug testing.
As noted in a previous
blog, the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, established to
give priority funding to hESCR, has over the years been shifting more and more
resources into adult stem cell and iPSC research.
Given these developments and others like it, one wonders:
why do proponents of hESCR continue to ignore the very standards they set down
in the 1999 NBAC report for pursuing it?
