In Stem Cell Research, Evidence Trumps Ideology
Skin Cell Science Comes Full Circle as U. of Nebraska Considers Rejecting Administration Rules
Print
One of the less attractive features of the political debate about human embryonic stem cells has been a tone of triumphalism when one side or the other can register a “victory.” When a Japanese team reported that they had succeeded in deriving cells from skin that have many of the characteristics of cells derived from embryos (called induced pluripotent stem cells), the Bush White House took credit for work done in a Kyoto lab.
But sound science is driven by evidence rather than ideology; in that way it often surprises. A report from a French team effectively closes the circle on the skin-cells-to-stem-cells process by reporting that they have accomplished the reverse: mouse embryonic stem cells were used to generate a fully functional layer of skin. This work has tremendous implications for patients waiting for grafts from their own skin, as these people are vulnerable to life-threatening infections in the interim.
Just as this paper appeared The Lancet, the life sciences world was on edge, waiting to see if the regents of the University of Nebraska medical school would vote to turn back the clock, limiting Cornhusker scientists to the 21 embryonic stem cell lines approved by the Bush administration. The apparent sanctity of those cell lines is based on a morally arbitrary line in the calendar due to the scheduling of President Bush’s famous stem cell address to the nation.
There were so many things wrong with this idea it’s hard to know where to start. Fortunately the motion failed on a tie vote of the university regents. However, the incident did show, once again, how morally vacuous posturing can overtake science policy. The fact is that no one knows where the science could lead. If the history of medicine is a guide, what is most likely is that there will be a menu of cell lines that will have come from different sources via a variety of processes, each with their advantages and disadvantages, risks and benefits. Reality has a way of trumping rhetoric.
Jonathan D. Moreno is the Silfen University Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.
Comments on this article
