Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Hunting medicine's holy grail

Since Monday I have emailed 402 scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan's petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells (last week it was one signature from 1,072 emails). As usual, the vast majority of the emails were dumped straight to spam boxes or to cyberspace (see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”) – probably cyberspace because yesterday I included bogus emails (for example, I added an extra “u” to “uk”) and none were returned as undelivered. It may explain why yesterday, out of a total of 173 emails, I only got five out-of-office autoreplies, and just one signatory. Never mind that 59 went to The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge and 64 to the University College London Medical School – we have several distinguished signatories from each. There is a pattern starting to emerge: signatories come from emails sent either immediately before or after an autoreply – such was the case with two out of the four signatories on Monday.

Spam is not the only difficulty. We also have problems with internet access and computer bookings in our local council’s flagship library, the Idea Store Whitechapel (see blog of 13 October “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”). Only yesterday there was almost no internet access for near on three hours; my booked computer automatically shut down and restarted six times (not even a member of staff could explain why); and in my third and final hour I couldn’t log in for fifteen minutes (this has been happening for some days now) – since 29 January, we have been restricted to a 3-hour maximum computer use per day on each of our membership cards, despite that for several months previous we were given “additional time” subject to computer availability in accordance with the council's then and current “Idea Stores PC Usage Policy”.



World-renowned biologist Alan Trounson, President of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (and an honorary associate of NAC), was a guest speaker at AusBiotech 2008, Australia’s biotechnology conference, which took place in Melbourne this week (26-29 October). He discussed worldwide optimism in respect of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, pending human clinical trials and the potential of stem cell therapy. In his only interview while in Australia, he told the Sunday Herald Sun: “The world is incredibly optimistic about the use of stem cells, embryonic or other. There will be treatments, there will be cures. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.” (The CIRM provides the world’s biggest source of funding for hESC research, with a budget of more than $3 billion.)

The stem cell pioneer said that hESC research was ready to prove its potential. “There have been tremendous clinical advances using human embryonic stem cell therapy,” Trounson said. “Things are moving very quickly.” He said scientists working with US biotech company Geron would begin human clinical trials within months following the success of testing the therapy on rats with injured spinal cords. It will be the first time hESC therapy has been tested on patients.

He said more human clinical trials were also imminent. They included testing the ability of hESCs to repair damage to the retina causing blindness (see blog of 26 August “Fighting for the Right to Clone”) and, within two years, overcoming diabetes by using the cells to mature into pancreas cells to produce insulin. “There is a myeloprolific condition that ends up multiplying red blood cells and becoming a preliminary to developing leukemia,” he said. “The scientists were able to block that using a human embryonic stem cell drug and it is now in early trials.”

Stem cell critics are now using the recent advances in adult stem cell research to forward a political agenda, says the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). On 22 October, the ISSCR published an open letter in support of all forms of stem cell research, which has been signed by more than 375 of its members. From the introduction to the letter: “As scientists, we are concerned that efforts to favor one arm of stem cell research at the expense of another are based on unsound interpretations of scientific discoveries. Therefore, the ISSCR joined with other leading scientists to issue an open letter to reiterate the urgent need for support for all types of stem cell research, asking members to endorse this open letter.” From the letter (para 2):

Recent exciting advances in the reprogramming of cells in adult human tissues, to convert them into cells that resemble embryonic stem (ES) cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, iPS cells), or to redirect cell fate to enhance tissue repair, have captured the imagination of the scientific community worldwide. Many scientists are very optimistic about the future of this new research. Unfortunately, some in political circles have interpreted this enthusiasm as a verdict that research on human ES cells is no longer necessary. This conclusion is premature and is not scientifically justified.

Meanwhile, the Detroit News reported on Saturday that Michigan voters appear to have growing doubts about Proposal 2, the 4 November ballot proposal that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in Michigan (see, for example, blog of 17 October “Stem Cell Research: Five Basic Things To Know”). In an emotional struggle, supporters and opponents have committed $10 million, according to campaign reports filed Friday. A new, Detroit News/WXYZ Action News poll shows the initiative, Proposal 2, leading by 46-43 percent – within the 5-point error margin. A month ago – before a saturation campaign of advertising paid in part by $2.79 million from the Michigan Catholic Conference – it was favoured 50 percent to 32 percent, reports the News. According to one pollster, when a ballot proposal has less than 50 percent support this close to Election Day, it usually is rejected because undecided voters typically vote against ballot proposals. (See here for a series of videos from the University of Michigan in support of hESC research.)

As I wrote in the previous blog, our campaign in support of hESC research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), has been greatly simplified; and that the serious threat to hESC research of the “non-material neuroscience” movement will be dealt with in “Embryonic stem cell research” under “Ethics”. Well, material in an article I have come across in the New York Times by Yale psychologist Paul Bloom (a signatory of Declan’s petition) will likely feature prominently in promulgating the view that the brain is no place to invoke the ‘God of the gaps’ (see blog of 23 October “Creationists declare war over the brain”). Bloom writes: “When people wonder about the moral status of animals or fetuses or stem cells, for instance, they often ask: Does it have a soul? If the answer is yes, then it is a precious individual, deserving of compassion and care.” He concludes by stating: “The great conflict between science and religion in the last century was over evolutionary biology. In this century, it will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls.”