[Mb-civic] Stem Cell Hype and Hope - David A. Shaywitz - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Stem Cell Hype and Hope

By David A. Shaywitz
Thursday, January 12, 2006; A21

The apparent fabrication of results by South Korean researcher Hwang Woo 
Suk has already prompted a serious reevaluation of stem cell science, 
and the release this week of Seoul National University's final report on 
the affair is certain to add fuel to the fire. Many detractors of stem 
cell research (and, privately, even some proponents) have begun to 
wonder whether this might mark the beginning of the end. More likely 
this controversy -- and the ensuing scrutiny and self-reflection -- will 
provide exactly what our discipline needs most: the opportunity to 
modulate the extravagant expectations for this research while we 
reaffirm our underlying commitment to it.

The rapid ascent of stem cell research into the spotlight reflects the 
collision of exciting science with uncharted ethics. President Bush's 
Aug. 9, 2001, prohibition on the use of public funds to create new human 
embryonic stem cell lines ignited interest in this field, even as it 
made it much more difficult for American scientists to conduct the 
research. The concern that important medical science was being 
deliberately thwarted by the federal government enraged many patient 
advocates and further ratcheted up the demand for results.

Meanwhile, stem cell research itself trudged ahead slowly, for all the 
usual reasons -- as well as some unique ones. Scientific research is 
notoriously difficult, and progress typically incremental; human 
embryonic stem cells also happen to be intrinsically difficult to grow. 
Moreover, government restrictions severely hampered the ability of 
researchers to pursue the best science and discouraged many bright young 
investigators from entering the field.

As the demand for results far outstripped the ability of researchers to 
supply them, a seller's market emerged in which goods were overvalued 
and even low-quality merchandise was snatched up by eager buyers. This 
is the context in which Hwang's studies appeared.

While most in the field of stem cell research were shocked by the 
reports of fraud, the shock was only one of degree; it is common 
knowledge that the bar for publication in this field often has appeared 
remarkably low, with even well-respected research journals seeming to 
fall over one another for the privilege of publishing the next hot 
paper. The result of this frenzy has been an entire body of literature 
that is viewed with extreme skepticism by most serious stem cell 
investigators.

The good news is that underneath all this mess, stellar science really 
is happening. Stem cells have proved even more captivating than we could 
have imagined, and understanding the process by which a stem cell 
progressively differentiates into a specialized cell such as a neuron or 
a pancreas beta cell is perhaps the most compelling biology question for 
our generation. Stem cells have sparked our interest for good reason.

But we're not going to figure out how they work overnight; it will take 
a very long time and require our best minds, as well as our collective 
effort (and, ideally, our collective dollars). Translating this 
knowledge into clinically meaningful applications is certain to take 
even longer and present still more challenges -- yet it should be 
achievable. If the current controversy were to cause us to precipitously 
abandon this exciting area, it would be a catastrophic shame.

What we really need is to refine our expectations for this research. 
This doesn't mean we should scale back our ambitions or demand less of 
our researchers. Rather, we need to recognize just how arduous and 
painstaking good science usually is and remind ourselves that data do 
not become dogma when published, but only when independently validated.

Difficult or not, good research is the only responsible way to proceed. 
If the promise of stem cells is to be fulfilled, the pursuit will 
require a solid scientific foundation, one grounded in reliable, 
reproducible facts and not simply supported by hype and hope.

The writer is an endocrinologist at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102040.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060112/531aa4a7/attachment-0001.htm