Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Friday, November 30, 2007 1:53 PM

Stem Cell Honesty

Sharon Begley

Does anyone else feel a trifle deceived, or a bit manipulated? The enthusiasm over last week’s announcement that two groups of scientists had coaxed plain old adult skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells—no embryo required—was tempered by one little fact: among the four genes the team from Kyoto University used to reprogram adult cells back to embryonic status was one that causes cancer.

That suggests that using the reprogrammed or “induced” stem cells, or their descendants, to treat diseases might cure Parkinson’s, for instance, but at the cost of giving patients cancer. That led me and many others to raise concerns about the real potential of the new kind of stem cell.

Turns out we needn’t have worried so much, and the Kyoto researchers knew it all along. Today they are reporting that they were able to convert adult mouse or human skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells without inserting the tumor-causing gene, called c-Myc. As they report this afternoon in the online edition of Nature Biotechnology, eliminating the need for c-Myc is a critical step if these “reprogrammed” cells are ever to be safe to use in patients. No kidding.

Advertisement

This time the Kyoto group has generated embryonic-like cells from adult human skin cells with only three genes, not including c-Myc. To see whether the absence of c-Myc makes the reprogrammed cells less likely to form tumors, the scientists compared mice containing many specialized cells derived from the embryonic-like stem cells with and without c-Myc. None of the 26 mice with cells lacking c-Myc died of tumors; six of the 37 with cells containing c-Myc did. The only drawback is that without c-Myc retrovirus, fewer of the initial adult skin cells could be reprogrammed to become embryonic-like stem cells: in about half the experiments, they could not accomplish the transformation.

The Kyoto group submitted its paper to Nature Biotechnology on Nov. 6, which means they knew their results a full two weeks before a flood of stories went out saying the presence of cancer genes in the reprogrammed cells raised questions about their safety. Apparently, secrecy and getting as big a bang as possible from your scientific paper—not letting the cat out of the bag before the paper is officially published—counts for more these days than honest public discourse.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: LabBenchDrone (December 1, 2007 at 12:55 AM)

I'm surprised after all these year, the media still doesn't really understand how academic science is done and reported.  This opinion reads as if the scientists in this study intentionally tried to deceive the public.  If they wanted to get "as big a bang as possible" why would they announce after the fact, that they didn't need c-myc after all?  This opinion makes no sense.  It smacks of childish impatience and convinces me that its author is looking for a knee-jerk response instead of communicating the actual science involved in the study.  It is hard enough for us to even get these experiments to work, let along interpret the results.  It's much harder for us to explain our results and their ramifications to the public.  Add to that the workings of publication and peer review funding and John Q. Public is totally lost.  No wonder they lose faith in us when they read this kind of reporting.


Posted By: ezrest2004 (December 1, 2007 at 12:43 AM)

Why the kvetching? Two weeks? A real lifetime, right? Sounds to me like some "journalist" is throwing a little hissey fit because she or her buddies didn't get it all on the first try. Grow up, nobody owes the media a dammed thing, especially those scientists who made this discovery. Who do you think you are, the thought police?


Posted By: ATBoyle (December 1, 2007 at 12:18 AM)

Sharon, I don't feel deceived at all.  Dr. Yamanaka and his colleagues basically said all this right in the original Cell paper, on page 15 of the draft I'm looking at: "We have recently found that iPS cells can be generated without Myc retroviruses, albeit wth lower efficiency." When I asked Yamanaka about this, he said he couldn't say any more because the follow-up paper was under review, as I noted on this page:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886974/page/2/

It's often the case that researchers have follow-up results that couldn't quite make it into the original paper, and because of the embargo rules for peer-reviewed journals, they can't discuss those as freely with members of the press (like you and me).


 
The Peek
 
 
PROJECT GREEN

For decades, tiny Barrow, Alaska, has been largely unknown and unnoticed. But with increasing global activity in the Arctic--especially from oil speculators--things are changing … fast.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu