THE DREAM, OR THE NIGHTMARE: Stem Cell Crisis Approaching?
In the past several days, I have wakened from two very different dreams. In
the first, a couple nights ago, I dreamed my paralyzed son Roman stood up.
Roman, Gloria and I were in San Francisco, at the bottom of one of those
incredible sloping streets, with the pale white buildings, and the Golden
Gate Bridge spectacularly beside us, arching across San Francisco Bay.
Suddenly Roman got up from his wheelchair. He stretched his arms, tightening
his biceps for the sheer joy of living. And took off running. Beautiful
bounding golden athletic steps they were, the kind he used to take before
the accident. Then he fell, but got up, and ran again, trotting now, but
lightly, back to the chair, collapsing onto the cushion exhausted, but
beaming, exhilarated.
He was rehabbing, getting acquainted with his body again. I slapped my own
face, twice.
"Go to him," Gloria said, and I ran with my shuffling old man knee-pain
steps, and hugged my son and said I had just slapped my face to see if I was
dreaming, because it did not seem possible. "I know," said Roman, "I've
had this dream so many times before." Then Gloria stirred beside me, and her
breathing changed, and I woke up.
The second dream was a nightmare. Roman had fallen from his chair, and he
was face down on the ground, not moving, and no one could help him. I had
to get to him and it took forever, but finally I had my hands on his
shoulders and was straining to get him up, to lift him back into his chair.
But I was not strong enough. I was straining and struggling, but youth had
left me. I was too old and I could not do it, even though Gloria was there,
helping, but I don't know what happened. Usually I can't remember my
dreams. Why these, why now? Maybe because, in the next few months,
everything could come together, or be lost for a generation.
Consider:
The FDA hearings on embryonic stem cells have been (in my view) deeply
politicized, setting the stage to block human trials, an enormous setback;
In too many states, "personhood issue" laws are attempting to re-define
human life as beginning at conception, which could stop embryonic stem cell
research;
The Presidential race is dividing Democrats- while Mr. "straight-shooter"
John McCain has made promises to both sides on the stem cell research
issue: pledging to the Religious Right that he will sign the Brownback bill
(criminalizing SCNT) and also that he supports a personhood law-while at the
same time claiming to be pro-research;
The U.S. Supreme Court just gave a huge gift to the Republicans on the issue
of government-backed voter ID cards: potentially denying the vote to
literally millions of disabled Americans, who may not have a driver's
license;
California's magnificent stem cell program continues to be under fire from
politicians in Sacramento: Senate Bill 1565 (Kuehl, Runner) is moving
forward-which could lead to a restructuring of the entire ICOC;
That is not even mentioning other state issues, positive and
negative-outstanding stem cell supportive candidates who need and deserve
help- enemies needing to be gently retired-- and new science and
accompanying mini-issues needing study.
Everywhere I look are chores, waiting. The room where I write sums up the
situation: a chaotic collection of papers, some stapled, some stacked, some
just of kind of there, boxes and books, every shelf overflowing. There is
just enough bare floor to walk to the well-worn couch where I do my best
thinking, holding up my notes, and closing my eyes to ponder deeply
significant matterzzzzzzzzzz.
Each passing day makes me realize the work undone.I know I am just one more
speck of sand on the beach. But still I want to do as much as I can with
that tiny influence, like grit in a monster's eye, distracting it, while
other folk can bring it down. Fortunately, whenever I get all frazzled like
this, and start groaning and moaning about how everything is too much,
Gloria knows what to say:
"Do one thing." Oh, okay. One thing. I can do one thing, surely. The
most important chore is getting ready for and attending the ICOC meeting.
In a couple hours I drive to Los Angeles, to attend the public of the
Independent Citizens Oversight Committee.
I have my hotel room reserved (not the one where the meeting is being
held-that costs $315 a night-but a Motel 6 ten down the road, that only
costs $50!) and I have a box of cookies to eat along the way, given to me by
Laurel Barches and friends at Cal Berkeley where I just spoke a few hours
ago.
I hope the ICOC will study and take a position on the April 10th Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) hearings on human trials for embryonic stem cell
therapies.
When I first read the background document* for the hearings, it was
disturbing. But as I typed the whole thing, to understand it better, it got
worse.
The hearing seems to have a political agenda, intending to plant seeds of
doubt about the safety of embryonic stem cells, with the ultimate goal of
delaying or denying the human trials.
An unfair FDA could implant permanent restrictions into public policy.
Maybe I am wrong. Hopefully President Bush will not mind there being a
success in an area he so vigorously opposed. Certainly the research under
consideration did not violate his August 9, 2001 guidelines. But this is
the man who twice vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and who
enthusiastically backed Senator Brownback's bill to jail scientists for SCNT
research.
As if written by a political enemy, the background report appears to offer
grounds to change the rules of the long-established human trials process: to
block the research. Every scientist knows these rules. Human clinical
trials come in different phases: phase one is for safety, to study the risk;
phase two is "efficacy"-- to see if it works. But now the FDA committee is
raising the bar; instead of the first trials being for safety, the committee
suggests it may require guarantees of efficacy as well-before it can happen.
A scientist may request that phase one and two trials be combined-but to
require it from above? That is a new hurdle, and an unfair burden.
(Note: some of the following material was included in my previous article,
"FDA Stem Cell Hearings Politicized", at Karen Miner's and my website,
www.stemcellbattles.com.
The committee's paper says, quote:
"Given the potential risks of hESC-derived cellular products, data
supporting a reasonable possibility of efficacy may need to be particularly
strong, and design parameters may need to allow for detection of clinical
benefit.Given all these considerations, .phase one trials of hESC-derived
cellular products will have to be capable of measuring some indications of
efficacy." (emphasis added).
The paper also paints the new field in the worst possible terms. It
threatens cancer in almost every paragraph. The word "tumorigenic" is
repeated perhaps twenty times, like a negative advertising slogan. Anyone
reading this unprepared would conclude stem cell research is riddled with
the dread disease. Which is not true.
Inserting embryonic cells into a body could indeed make a teratoma- a
non-cancerous lump of cells-but not if the scientists differentiate the
cells into whatever the scientists want them to be. Differentiate means to
shape the cells, before you put them in.
Consider your own house: the nuts and bolts that hold your dwelling
together. All of those little bits of metal start off as white hot molten
liquid.
So, if you were building your house, would you pour the white-hot liquid
metal directly onto the wood? Hopefully not. It is generally advisable to
mold the metal into nails or screws or bolts first.
Similarly, (as the FDA did acknowledge) once the embryonic stem cells had
differentiated, their teratoma days are over.
But immediately the committee's document suggests that even a tiny fraction
of undifferentiated hESCs (human embryonic stem cells) could cause
teratomas.
In other words, they claim, if you put in a million stem cells, and 99.9%
were differentiated into the just the right kind of cells you want, but even
the tiniest few were not differentiated, they might overwhelm the rest and
go bad.
However, at the hearings, Dr. Jane Lebkowski of Geron presented data, citing
a 12 month rodent study, (a very long one for rats which live only about 3
years) during which as much as 5% of the transplanted cells were
undifferentiated-but none became teratomas, let alone cancer.
The committee discussed a laundry list of new experiments they may
consider requiring, in so many different areas, it could delay the field for
decades.
Example: Dr. Hans Keirstead's experiment with remyelination (Geron) was
initially completed in 2002. (This is the one done in the Reeve-Irvine
Research Center, partially paid for by the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury
Research Act.)
In the six years since, Dr. Keirstead has been in continual touch with the
FDA, answering their requests for replication, etc., amassing a 25,000 page
paper trail. (Think what 25,000 pages of paper trail means-if a typical book
is 250 pages, he has written or helped write the equivalent of 100 books on
the one experiment!) He has met every condition they have offered. And now?
A laundry list of new conditions may send him, Geron, Advanced Cell
Technology, and Novocell, and the entire embryonic stem cell research field
back to the drawing board, conceivably for decades.
Both the briefing paper and comments from committee members speak of
possibly requiring:
· Multiple species of animal studies (long studies, "optimally, for the life
span of the animal."-a monkey can live twenty years!) even the possible
development of porcine stem cell lines to try on pigs;
· New studies not only for already-resolved issues like teratoma formation,
but also for the physiological effects of the location in the body where the
cells are inserted, and various stem cell interactions with other drugs
("concomitant medications");
· New ways to test for levels of undifferentiated hESCs in the human being
him or herself (how do you test that without human trials!) and much more.
Caution is one thing; endless study is another.
There will never be a time when medical research is risk-free. Any
operation can go wrong, even the most normal medical practice can go wrong,
which is why you sign release forms at the hospital. If you have knee
surgery, it is possible a blood clot may form in your artery and kill you-as
happened to one of my relatives. Does this mean knee surgery should be
outlawed, because it always contains risk?
Is the suppression of science a real worry nowadays? Consider the
just-released report by the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Scientific
findings are being suppressed and distorted. Eight hundred and eighty-nine
scientists personally experienced at least one type of political
interference."-Washington Post, Christopher Lee, April 24th, 2008.
(emphasis added).
I hope the ICOC will authorize a committee to study the FDA's approach to
the clinical trials, to make sure everything is on the up, to point out
concerns, and areas where the next President and Congress may have to step
in. That's why I am making this one particular trip, to make sure the issue
gets raised.
Well, that plus I am just proud to be a Californian, an American, and a
member of this world, in a time when science, hard work, and determination
come together- To maybe make our very best dreams come true.
*"CTGTAC Meeting #45 Cellular Therapies Derived from Human Embryonic Stem
Cells-Considerations for Pre-clinical Safety Testing and Patient Monitoring".
To read it, go to http://www.fda.gov/default.htm -- type the word embryonic
in the search box, and it will take you to the April 10 hearings, and the
background documents.
by Don C. Reed
Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
