A Stem Cell Tale
Why one type of stem-cell research gets fawning media coverage and
By: Wesley J. Smith
The Weekly Standard
December 22, 2004
Original Article
IT NEVER FAILS. If an embryonic stem cell researcher issues a press
release touting a purported research advance, the media trip over each
other to give the story full dramatic fanfare. But if an even better
adult or umbilical cord blood stem cell advance comes to light--even
when the experiments involve
humans--you can usually hear the crickets
chirping.
The latest examples of this phenomenon involve contrasting coverage
about experimental embryonic and adult stem cell therapies to treat
paralysis. Last week, a purported breakthrough in embryonic stem cell
research for spinal cord injury shot across the media firmament like
lightning through an Iowa summer sky. Embryonic stem cell researcher
Hans Keirstead claimed to have transformed embryonic stem cells into a
cell that "help the brain's signals traverse the spinal cord." He then
injected these cells into paralyzed rodents and reported that they
appear to have "repaired damaged rat spines several weeks after they
were injured."
If this research pans out, it would indeed be an important breakthrough.
But one wonders why this particular story was written at this specific
time and received so much play, given that Keirstead didn't actually
make any news. As noted in the story, Keirstead has been playing videos
of formerly paralyzed rats walking to various audiences for two years.
Moreover, the only apparent news hook for the current story is that he
hopes to begin human trials using this technique in about two years.
This is cause for headlines? If human trials were actually beginning,
that
would be a story worth touting. But until then, it is more hype
than fact. Indeed, it is worth noting that Keirstead has made similar
statements before--and they didn't pan out. For example, in a March 18,
2002 story reported in the
San Francisco Chronicle, the researcher was
quoted as planning to begin human trials with his technique "in about a
year."
Now contrast this much-hyped, mostly non-news event with actual recent
news involving adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells that received
muted or no coverage in the mainstream media. For example, most readers
probably don't know that paralyzed human patients are apparently being
successfully treated with their own adult stem cells by Dr. Carlos Lima
in Lisbon, Portugal. The experimental therapy uses a paralyzed patient's
own olfactory (nasal) stem cells and nerves, which are extracted from
the patients and then injected into their injured spinal cords. So far,
more than 20 patients have received this therapy with most receiving
measurable benefit.
On July 14, 2004, two of Dr. Lima's American spinal cord injury patients
testified before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space. Their reports about their individual improvement
after receiving Dr. Lima's experimental treatments were breathtaking.
For example, Susan R. Fajt testified:
I have recovered some functional improvement through Dr. Lima's
procedure, such as the ability to hold my bladder and at times even
void on my own. Sensation has been restored, though it is not
completely normal. When concentrating, I am now able to contract my
thighs slightly . . . this was impossible before my surgery in
Portugal. But most important on my way to recover is that I can now
walk with the aid of braces. I am now preparing to shed the shell
of this wheelchair . . . to more and more use my braces and walker
for mobility. This is something my doctors in America told me would
never be possible with my level of injury and to accept my fate.
[emphasis added]
Similarly, 19 year-old Laura Dominguez, "paralyzed from the neck down"
in an auto accident, testified at the same hearing about the
improvements she received from Dr. Lima's adult stem cell procedure.
Within 6 months of the surgery, she testified:
I had regained feeling down to my abdomen. Improvements in my
sensory feelings have continued until the present time. I can now
feel down to my hip level and have started to regain feeling and
some movement in my legs. My upper body has gained some more
strength and balance. Another one of the most evident improvements
has been my ability to stand and remain standing, using a walker,
and with minimal assistance. When I stand I can contract my
quadriceps and hamstring muscles. I can also stand on my toes when I
am on my feet. And more importantly, while lying down in a prone position, I am able to move my feet. [emphasis added]
A press conference was held to tout these hopeful stories, but it was as
if nobody came. Where were the screaming headlines? Where was the
Larry
King Live interview? Where was the high-profile
60 Minutes report?
They didn't happen.
PERHAPS THE DEARTH IN COVERAGE can be explained by the truth that much
research and peer review remains before we can say that Dr. Lima has
found an efficacious treatment for spinal cord injury. But if that is
true about the remarkable and measurable improvements in Fajt,
Dominguez, and about two score others, isn't it more so about
Keirstead's rats?
This general propensity in the American media to downplay non embryonic
stem cell successes was evident just this month in the scant coverage
given to a similar potential breakthrough in the treatment of human
paralysis, (a story generally well covered in Europe). South Korean
researchers have apparently helped a woman who has been paralyzed for 20
years regain the ability to walk after being treated with umbilical cord
blood stem cells. Indeed, the woman has progressed so well that she took
a few steps unassisted in front of a bank of television cameras.
If either Dr. Lima's or the South Korean experiments eventually pan out,
they would appear to be a better choice for treating spinal cord injury
than embryonic stem cells. First, there is no moral controversy with
either adult or cord blood stem cells. Thus, we could have medical cures
without the accompanying heated political controversy. Second, unlike
embryonic cells, neither adult nor umbilical cord blood stem cells have
been found to cause tumors. Third, Dr. Lima's approach would not require
immune suppressing drugs since the stem cells come from the patients'
own bodies. This isn't necessarily true of umbilical cord blood stem
cells. But their unique characteristics appear to make them less likely
than embryonic stem cells to trigger an immune response. With tissue
typing, it is possible that immune suppression would not even be necessary.
It is important to emphasize that a few patients' physical
improvement--no matter how dramatic--do not new cures make. Much
research remains to be done in adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell
therapies before we can confidently predict ultimate success. But if
less newsy stories involving embryonic stem cells are worthy of
enthusiastic coverage, surely the more hopeful and advanced
breakthroughs, albeit no sure things, warrant at least equivalent levels
of media interest. Perhaps if the media stopped taking sides in the
ongoing political debates over biotechnology, a more balanced picture
would emerge.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His current
book about the moral, scientific, and business aspects of biotechnology
is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.
The work of Discovery Institute is made possible by the generosity of its members. Click here to donate.
