The New York Times
has long been – and continues to be – a vocal advocate for human embryonic stem
cell research (e.g., here). From the time hESCs were first isolated in
1998, the Times has published numerous editorials endorsing the research and
calling for federal funding of it.
So a recent
Times story providing a look at
where stem cell research stands today was – no doubt unintentionally –
revealing.
In marked contrast to the delirious enthusiasm with which
advocates promoted hESCR, promising it
would lead
to cures for virtually all diseases and conditions (one prominent
politician at the time said human embryonic stem cells could become a “veritable
fountain of youth”), the tone of the article is far more cautious and
restrained in assessing what advances have actually been made to date in the
field of stem cell research.
The article’s title sets the newly sober tone: “The Trials
of Stem Cell Therapy;” “trial” here can mean “to test,” as in a clinical trial,
but also “difficult” as in the difficulties researchers face in bringing stem
cells to therapy. The article calls the
process “halting” and notes that “progress has been slow.”
But while progress may be “slow” and “halting” the article
does note some promising developments.
And they are all being accomplished with adult and other
non-embryonic sources of stem cells.
The article opens anecdotally, with the story of a heart
disease patient who lost one-third of his heart’s functioning ability. The patient volunteered for a medical trial
in which researchers injected adult stem cells, derived from the patient’s own
bone-marrow, directly into his heart.
While the article notes that “It’s impossible to know for sure whether
the bone marrow cells’ descendants became heart muscle cells or if repairs were
spurred some other way,” doctors nonetheless were able to tell the patient that
his heart “is one-third of the way back to normal.” The patient himself is quoted saying, “My
quality of life is like night and day to before the treatment.”
The article further notes there are “as many as 4,500
clinical trials involving stem cells” currently underway in the U.S. for a
whole host of diseases and conditions, but it does not clarify that virtually
all of these trials are using non-embryonic stem cells. That’s because only three trials using
embryonic stem cells have been approved here: two
are testing hESCs in two types of macular degeneration; they are ongoing
and valid results have not yet been reported.
The third approved trial was for spinal cord injury; however, it
was halted in 2011, a little over a year after it began. The
California-based Asterias Biotherapeutics Inc. recently announced that it would
resume
the trial.
Another sign of progress mentioned in the article is that
the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has awarded over $2 billion since 2006
to stem cell researchers, and that it is enrolling patients for 10 clinical
trials.
Unmentioned again, is the fact that the clear majority of
these trials all involve non-embryonic stem cells.
A look at CIRM’s website shows a list of eight
clinical trials “directly funded by grants from CIRM.” Of these eight, just one employed embryonic
stem cells, and it was the one mentioned above for spinal cord injury that was
eventually shut down.
As for CIRM’s $2 billion in research grants awarded, this
blog has noted several times that, over the years, more and more of the money
awarded by CIRM has gone to fund adult and other non-embryonic stem cell
research projects (here,
here,
and here).
The article also references the work being done using
non-embryonic, induced
pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) for disease modeling and drug testing. Dr.
Kevin Eggan of Harvard, the article notes, has used the iPSC process to
create patient-specific stem cells from two patients with ALS (i.e., Lou
Gehrig’s disease) and then coaxed those cells into becoming neurons. Dr. Eggan noticed a signaling defect between
those neurons that appeared to cause the neural degeneration typical of ALS.
After extensive testing on the iPSC-derived neurons, Dr. Eggan has singled out
a drug currently used to treat epilepsy that may correct the defect in the ALS
neurons, which he expects to test on patients by the end of this year.
Commenting on the use of iPSCs for such disease modeling and
drug testing, Dr. Eggan said that “the whole process is something that’s never
been remotely possible before.”
Other researchers agree.
Earlier this year, in July, scientists used this same method to
study Down syndrome, allowing them to discover a possible cause of the
condition and a possible drug to treat it. “The advent of induced pluripotent stem
cell technology has created exciting new approaches to model neurodevelopmental
and neurodegenerative diseases for the study of pathogenesis and for drug
screening,” said David Pleasure, a coauthor of the study.
The more sober approach to reporting on the therapeutic
progress of stem cell research, as reflected in this New York Times article is, no doubt, a welcome development.
But however “halting” such progress may be, it is important
to note, as the examples cited by the Times
article – however unwittingly – show, that virtually all of it is being made on
the non-embryonic stem cell front.
