Stem Cell Breakthrough Avoids Embryo Use
U.S., Japanese Scientists Report Success With Human Skin Cells; May Halt Cloning Controversies
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Stem Cell Breakthrough
The discovery of a way to make human stem cells without destroying embryos could one day end heated debate, though experts caution it's not a perfect solution. Jon LaPook reports.
-
-
Photo
In this undated photo released by Japan's Kyoto University Prof. Shinya Yamanaka of Department of Stem Cell Biology Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007, nerve cells are shown. (AP Photo/Shinya Yamanaka)
-
Photo
Kyoto University professor Shinya Yamanaka, left, and University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Jamie Thomson. (AP)
-
-
Interactive
Stem Cell Research
Follow the debate, and learn how and why the cells are harvested.
-
Timeline
Stem Cell Debate
The scientific advance sets off an ethical debate that rages on.
Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It's a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.
The "direct reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.
"This is a huge breakthrough," said CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook. "It's an incredible breakthrough that involves the way we create stem cells."
LaPook said the announcement opens the doors to serious study of how stem cells act, and ways in which they can be used to treat people with conditions like cancer or Alzheimer's disease.
"This is extraordinarily exciting to study ways in which cells go wrong," he said. "Here you can look at living cells, as opposed to taking a specimen after a person has died, and see what has gone wrong."
Scientists familiar with the work said scientific questions remain and that it's still important to pursue the cloning strategy, but that the new work is a major coup.
"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone - the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.
"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.
"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it."
There is a catch. At this point, the technique requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury.
But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.
Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, tells CBS News producer Steve Baltin it's a breakthrough that can be accepted by anti-abortion advocates.
"This is a win-win. This is completely acceptable ethically and also perhaps more promising scientifically and medically than embryonic stem cells have been in the past," Doerflinger said. "Sometimes by being creative, science can help solve the moral problems that science raises."
Sometimes by being creative, science can help solve the moral problems that science raises.
Richard DoerflingerU.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Both reported creating cells that behaved like stem cells in a series of lab tests.
Thomson, 48, made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.
Yamanaka gained scientific notice in 2006 by reporting that direct reprogramming in mice had produced cells resembling embryonic stem cells, although with significant differences. In June, his group and two others announced they'd created mouse cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.
For the new work, the two men chose different cell types from a tissue supplier. Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Thomson, who was working his way from embryonic to fetal to adult cells, said he's still analyzing his results with adult cells.
Dr. LaPook described the process the laboratories used. "To do it," he said, "scientists dripped a solution with four genes into a petrie dish containing skin cells. The genes re-programmed the cells into stem cells, which can be coaxed into becoming other tissues."
"For example, LaPook explained, "doctors can take the skin cells from someone with Alzheimer's, turn them into nerve cells and try different drugs in the petrie dish, without experimenting on the patient. This technique can be used for many diseases - including diabetes and Parkinson's."
"People didn't know it would be this easy," Thomson said. "Thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow."
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds three patents for Thomson's work, is applying for patents involving his new research, a spokeswoman said. Two of the four genes he used were different from Yamanaka's recipe.
Scientists prize embryonic stem cells because they can turn into virtually any kind of cell in the body. The cloning approach - which has worked so far only in mice and monkeys - should be able to produce stem cells that genetically match the person who donates body cells for cloning.
That means tissue made from the cells should be transplantable into that person without fear of rejection. Scientists emphasize that any such payoff would be well in the future, and that the more immediate medical benefits would come from basic research in the lab.
In fact, many scientists say the cloning technique has proven too expensive and cumbersome in its current form to produce stem cells routinely for transplants.
The new work shows that the direct reprogramming technique can also produce versatile cells that are genetically matched to a person. But it avoids several problems that have bedeviled the cloning approach.
For one thing, it doesn't require a supply of unfertilized human eggs, which are hard to obtain for research and subjects the women donating them to a surgical procedure. Using eggs also raises the ethical questions of whether women should be paid for them.
In cloning, those eggs are used to make embryos from which stem cells are harvested. But that destroys the embryos, which has led to political opposition from President Bush, the Roman Catholic church and others.
Those were "show-stopping ethical problems," said Laurie Zoloth, director of Northwestern University's Center for Bioethics, Science and Society.
The new work, she said, "redefines the ethical terrain."
Doerflinger called the new work "a very significant breakthrough in finding morally unproblematic alternatives to cloning….I think this is something that would be readily acceptable to Catholics."
Another advantage of direct reprogramming is that it would qualify for federal research funding, unlike projects that seek to extract stem cells from human embryos, noted Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
Still, scientific questions remain about the cells produced by direct reprogramming, called "iPS" cells. One is how the cells compare to embryonic stem cells in their behavior and potential. Yamanaka said his work detected differences in gene activity.
If they're different, iPS cells might prove better for some scientific uses and cloned stem cells preferable for other uses. Scientists want to study the roots of genetic disease and screen potential drug treatments in their laboratories, for example.
Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, told London's Daily Telegraph that he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.
Other scientists said it's too early for the field to follow Wilmut's lead. Cloning embryos to produce stem cells remains too valuable as a research tool, Jaenisch said.
Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem. Nor is it clear just how direct reprogramming works, or whether that approach mimics what happens in cloning, he noted.
So the cloning approach still has much to offer, he said.
Daley, who is president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, said his lab is pursuing both strategies.
"We'll see, ultimately, which one works and which one is more practical."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 211 CommentsThank goodness we don''t have same *** marriages ... it only cost us election of ole W, an unending war, thousands of lifes lost and numberous casulaties, a debt for decades to come, our reputation damaged beyond repair, our rights eroded, etc. etc.
Seems like a good trade to me.
Perhaps he will try to clone himself--that way he can pick up where he left off.
I think he should clone about 160,000 of himself and send himselves over to Iraq and bring our troops home!
Do some research. This is a huge breakthrough and can make both sides happy. I personally am against embryonic stem cell research. There are two many other proven donors of stem cells (adult, umbilical cord blood just to name a few). Embryonic has many problems associated with it. Growth of tumors, wrong tissue is formed and no known cures at this time.
Grow up and quit complaining. Not everything is about Bush.
Another reason why we need to take the nuts, who live their lives by the dictates of a two thousand year old book that contradicts itself, out of the debate altogether. They are completely beyond any kind of logic or reason. They would rather the stem cells die in a trash can than be used to eliminate human suffering and save lives.
We''ll see bumper stickers soon: ''STOP THE MURDER OF SKIN CELLS''
if it didn''t kill babies in the process
This will make the liberals mad, because it doensn''t kill babies.
.
if it didn''t kill babies in the process
This will make the liberals mad, because it doensn''t kill babies.
.
if it didn''t kill babies in the process
This will make the liberals mad, because it doensn''t kill babies.
.
Well put.
I''ll pray for your soul.
Posted by jumkey
Umm, isn''t this article proof that progress has been made? Why is it that you feel the need to attack the beliefs of others? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Isn''t it the motto of the left, "live and let live"?
Isnt it the motto of the left, "live and let live"?
Not as long as US Conservatives are now the Fascists of the world, that same people who mindlessly spit on the 400,000 Americans that gave their lives during WWII to defeat Fascism. We will NEVER let you FASCISTS prevail! NEVER!
http://blancadebree.blogspot.com
Posted by danstoned
You don''t know what the hell you''re talking about. You''re very confused.
Okay now to say that is pretty wack and I''m a catholic conservative! As far as I''m concerned there is only ONE savior and he hasn''t returned yet.
Libs don''''t want to hear that; their hatred deafens them to anything good this president has done or said.
Posted by katg21
Really? Educate us on what good things Bush has done for this country and the world.
Posted by frankly6
What''s the use? All that matters is that I know, I won''t even try to educate you.
What''''s the use? All that matters is that I know, I won''''t even try to educate you.
Posted by katg21 at 12:08 PM : Nov 20, 2007
Oh that gave me a good belly laugh. Thank you. So you''ve got nothing. That''s what I thought. You don''t support Bush because he''s acomplished anything for the American people. You just support him because he hates the same people that you do.
Posted by katg21
Really? Educate us on what good things Bush has done for this country and the world.
tick...tock...tick...tock...
Posted by danstoned
You''re wrong. If that were the case then there wouldn''t be such a backlash against it. It''s the harvesting of embryos that is immoral and wrong. The argument for embrionic stem cells is pointless. It''s proven that there have been more successes with adult stem cells, why not keep pursuing that avenue instead of creating and then destroying potential life?
You''re pathetic! Why is it that you feel the need to ram your beliefs, or lack thereof, down other peoples throats. Oh, there must not be a god ''cause YOU say so. Kiss off.
Posted by frankly6
What you waiting for?
it didn''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
it didn''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
it didn''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
Posted by MCVett
It certainly makes superchez1 mad; he/she/it is dying to kill some babies or small animals for that matter.
Posted by katg21 at 12:21 PM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse
You stupid brainwashed moron. All the stem cell lines that we have were to be thrown out as extra tissue left over from invetro fertilization procedures. They die in the trash can. It happens every day and is happening even as you come here and put your ignorance on display for all to see. Let me clue you in on the crucial difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are undiferentiated. That means that they can be turned into any kind of tissue. That''s what makes them so usefull. Adult stem cells are not undifferentiated. It''s a lie that adult stem cells have shown more promise. A lie promoted by idiots like you who are afraid of science and rational thought.
By the way, what has Bush done for this country?
sad, but true
it didn''''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
it didn''''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
it didn''''''''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''''t kill babies.
Posted by MCVett
Righteous!
By the way, what has Bush done for this country?
Posted by frankly6
Bush has done more for this country then you have, are and ever will.
Posted by MCVett at 12:33 PM : Nov 20, 2007
What makes rational people mad is the fact that embryonic stem cells are thrown in the trash can every day and die there when they could instead be used to save lives and reduce human suffering. I''m sorry that you are a moron.
Well now I suppose I could say the same thing about you. Your opinion is yours and I have mine; not trying to change your mind. Why do you feel the need to force your opinion on me? That''s what I can''t stand about you libs, you HATE anyone who doesn''t believe the same as you. Why so much hate?
As for your other question...have we been attacked since 9/11? I''d say that''s the biggest accomplishment of this administration.
Bush has done more for this country then you have, are and ever will.
Posted by mudrose at 12:38 PM : Nov 20, 2007
Why don''t you take the oportunity to educate us on what Bush has done for the people of this country? Educate us.
As for your other question...have we been attacked since 9/11? I''''d say that''''s the biggest accomplishment of this administration.
Posted by katg21 at 12:40 PM : Nov 20, 2007
What did Bush do to prevent us being attacked on 9/11? What has he done since then to prevent us from being attacked?
Posted by katg21 at 12:40 PM : Nov 20, 2007
On stem cells, I didn''t give you opinion. I gave you facts. You gave opinion. What facts do you have?
it didn''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
it didn''t kill babies in the process.
This will make liberals mad, because it doesn''t kill babies.
.
Is it Double-U the gas prices?
Is it Double-U the housing prices?
Is it Double-U the national debt?
What, is this a pattern we see developing?
Is it Double-U the housing prices?
Is it Double-U the national debt?
What, is this a pattern we see developing?
Posted by degress12 at 12:52 PM : Nov 20, 2007
If we had started drilling and built refineries 10 years ago we wouldn''t have high gas prices now. Dems refuse to do either.
Housing prices are not double anything.
National Debt now is the same percentage of GNP as it was in the 1990s
The pattern is you can tell the truth.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 211 Comments