- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
The Stem Cell Debate Is Over? Not Quite.
James A. Thomson, the University of Wisconsin scientist who published a paper on induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells teamed up with Alan I. Leshner, executive director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a Washington Post op ed yesterday to rebut a column by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer, who served on the President’s Council on Bioethics, wrote that President Bush’s opposition to expanding federal support of embryonic stem cell research “helped lead him [Thomson] and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells.”
But the Leshner-Thomson response is stinging:
Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.
And then there is the peculiar notion, also implicit in Krauthammer’s piece, that Yamanaka’s team in Kyoto worked on reprogramming skin cells because of George W. Bush’s U.S. policy. That must have been news to the Japanese.
Krauthammer and others have tried to use the science to make a case for political vindication. Supporters of the president’s policy would do better to follow Yuval Levin’s serious and sober advice not to treat this as a “vindication” of one side or another, but as extraordinary science.
Comments on this article
