This WEB log considers issues involving assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
I have checked this out. The actual paper published in Nature states that all 16 embryos were destroyed and 4-7 cells taken from each 8-10 cell embryo. The press release from ACT told a different story and the media stampeded. In other words, they wrote off the press release, not the actual published science. Shameful.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:09 PM
8 Comments
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
8 Comments:
And you are surprised why exactly ?
Hello. I'm a PhD at UCDF. The Nature paper's purpose was, as I read it, to show that it is possible to derive human embryonic stem cells (hES) using a method caled Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). PGD is used somewhat routinely and involves removing a single blastomere from a blastocysts to do a genetic biopsy. Numerous studies have shown (and this paper cites several of them) that blastocysts that have undergone PGD develop into normal healthy children. In other words, PDG DOES NOT HARM THE EMBRYO.
Okay....that said, this paper didn't set out to reprove that PDG doesn't harm an embryo. This paper demonstrated--for the first time, which is why its published in Nature--that the blastomere removed during PDG can be used to make hES cells. The method they used to extract the blastomeres is safe--that's already known. What wasn't known was how to make this blastomere become a hES cell line. Because they were trying out various conditions for growth they removed MORE THAN ONE blastomere from the blastocyst (a single blastocyst has 8-10 blastomeres). They don't say they "destroyed" the blastocyst, but I assume once you remove multiple blastomeres the blastocyst is in effect destroyed. Again the paper doesn't say they "destroyed" the blastocysts. There's no way to tell if removing more than one blastomere kills a blastocyst because these embryos weren't going to ever be implanted.
So why would you remove more than one blastomere? I'm not privy to the author's thinking, but I suspect that you don't want to have to use more embryos. If they could harvest multiple blastomeres then they would only need the 16 blastocyts/embryos. Since they aren't going to be implanted, best to use as few as possible. Moreover, the technique, PDG, is already KNOW TO BE SAFE. They know removing one blastomere is safe--they weren't trying to prove that. They needed X amount of blastomeres to determine if it was possible to grow hES cells. They took multiple blastomeres (which you would never do in the clinic) I suspect so they would use fewer total blastocyst/embryos.
This detracts NOTHING from the paper. There was no media bias or fraud in my opinion.
The issue isn't the Nature paper. The problem is with the hyping of that paper and the false statements made about it in the ACT press release, and the consequent false reporting in the media.
In fact, the researchers did not take one cell from an early embryo, allowing the embryo to survive, while obaining embryonic stem cell lines. They destroyed all the embryos and took 4-7 cells per embryo. Not the same thing at all.
If the PR had said this is proof of principle, I would not be only at the beginning of a process of what I hope will discredit the PR and the reporting. The actual study proves that obtaining ES cells from a single blastomere might be able to be done. It has not, in fact, been done.
Oh, and one more thing Matthew: Thanks for contributing.
I meant to say PhD (postdoctoral fellow actually) at UCSF (University of California San Francisco). I learned early on that the media tends to overhype things (weather, science, etc) for two reasons: 1) sensational headlines make for sensational ratings and 2) scientific ignorance. The explanation I just gave you wouldn't make for a very good press release, so what happens is they "dumb it down" or the science reporters really don't understand what they are reading. I think this happens with most scientific reporting, not just controversial areas such as this.
This is definitely a proof of principal paper as only 2 out of 91 blastomere's formed hES lines. The authors at the end of the report say that the technique is NOT ready for prime time. However, the importance of the report remains: It IS possible to derive hES cell lines from a blastomere without destroying it using PDG and their culture conditions. I tell all my friends, conservative and liberal alike: get your science from scientific journals, not blogs, not advocacy sites and not from company press releases:)
...and your welcome.
Matt
Dr. Wilson: hello. And this blog usually links to actual studies when relaying information. Be cautious of scientific sources; SCIENCE Magazine regularly prints ill-informed and/or politically charged material.
The media always write off a press release. That's par for the course.
Why should they dig into the report when ACT has done the work for you? The media is a business with deadlines, money to be made, and readers to please. They are not the academic critics.
And for that reason, I'm grateful that you are there to catch these kind of errors.
I have found, particularly as I've taken more action on this issue, that reporters are responsive to gentle correction on these matters.
Whether it be simply not making distinctions between adult and embryonic or problems like this, they will listen and take note.
Encourage them to follow the money--that they know how to do!
Tim
10,673 days
A growing problem in this field, in my opinion, is the increasing politicization of the science journals. This is a corruption of science because it makes them special pleaders rather than objective disseminators of information.
NATURE actually retains its integrity, in this regard. SCIENCE is destroying its reputation quickly. The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE has actually stated it will publish in the area of stem cell research with an eye to impacting the political debate--which is not what a good science journal should be about and makes its reliability shaky.
Still, in this particular issue, the media are the culprits. ACT has issued press releases before that overstated its scientific research, or created intentionally false impressions. The media should know this by now, but they are so in the tank or hungry for headlines to sell papers, they don't care. And that is a corruption of journalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home