 |
 |
ANALYSIS - Stem-cell science moves in all directions WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Which is better -- an adult stem cell or one taken from an embryo? Politicians, activists and religious leaders who are opposed to experimenting on human embryos argue that adult stem cells are not only a more ethical route to transforming medicine, but they are in fact the better route. But most researchers familiar with stem-cell science disagree. It does not matter which one is better, they say, because it is important to work with both kinds. All sides are clamoring to get their voices heard ahead of a scheduled U.S. Senate vote on three different bills on Tuesday, one of which would expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. "They hold promise in different areas today," said David Meyer, co-director, of the Cedars-Sinai International Stem Cell Research Institute, which is set to formally open in Los Angeles on Monday. "Adult stem cells will lead to cures much sooner than embryonic. However, the potential for embryonic, once we understand the biology, will be the greater," Meyer said in a telephone interview. Groups such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the American Association for Cancer Research say work with embryonic stem cells is vital to understanding how to regenerate diseased or damaged cells, tissues and organs. And the federal oversight could help prevent abuses -- such as the fraudulent claims made by South Korean researchers last year that they had cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells from them. Opponents call the work a slippery slope to unethical, immoral and even damaging experimentation. Researchers are already working with various forms of stem cells. Although any real treatments are years away, some teams have reported real progress. -- On July 3, a team at the University of California at Los Angeles reported they had transformed human embryonic stem cells into immune cells known as T-cells -- offering a way to restore immune systems ravaged by AIDS and other diseases. -- In June, a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore transplanted stem cells from mouse embryos into paralyzed rats and helped them walk again. Researchers at the University of California at Irvine have done similar work using human embryonic stem cells in rats. -- In April Dr. Anthony Atala at Wake Forest University in North Carolina reported he had grown bladders from adult stem cells -- in this case immature cells taken from the patients' own bladders. Atala's team has also found stem cells in human amniotic fluid. Other teams have found stem cells in hair follicles, bone marrow and other tissues that can be directed to form other types of cells. The hope of all the research is to eventually find ways to take a tiny plug of tissue or a batch of cells and direct them into forming other tissues -- pancreatic tissue to treat diabetes, brain tissue to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, nerve tissue to repair damaged spines. David Prentice of the Family Research Council, which opposes embryonic stem-cell research, issued a statement saying adult stem-cell research was actively helping, or close to helping, people with at least 65 diseases. But in Friday's issue of the journal Science, three stem-cell experts -- Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University in St. Louis, Shane Smith of the Children's Neurobiological Solutions Foundation in Santa Barbara, California and William Neaves of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City -- wrote a detailed rebuttal of these claims and said at best Prentice accurately portrayed only nine of the studies. Some institutions, such as Cedars-Sinai, are going ahead with privately funded research. In June Harvard University launched a privately funded, multimillion-dollar program to create cloned human embryos as sources of stem cells. Federal law banned the use of federal money for experimenting on human embryos until August 2001, when U.S. President George W. Bush allowed funding on a few batches, called cell lines, that existed then. U.S. researchers are free to use private money to do the work, but argue that federal oversight and funding is vital. "The way we have done research for the last 50 years has been based on federal funding," Meyer said. "This is one of the hottest areas in bringing research from the bench to the bedside and the federal government isn't participating." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn