'Scientific' Critique Reveals Another Plus for Adult Stem-Cell Research
by Jody Brown
July 19, 2006
(AgapePress) - - Leading up to the recent vote in Congress on funding for embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), proponents of that research took a swipe at a well-known proponent of adult stem-cell research in a scientific journal, hoping to discredit him. Instead, the "accusers" may have inadvertently opened up discussion in an area where ESCR is considerably weak.Dr. David Prentice is a founding member of the group Do No Harm--The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, as well as senior fellow for life science issues at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. He is also a visiting professor at Georgetown University's Center for Clinical Bioethics. The long-time proponent of developing treatments through ethical stem-cell research -- specifically, using adult stem cells -- came under fire recently when a list of "benefits of stem cells to human patients," published by Do No Harm, was purportedly analyzed by Dr. William Neaves, a proponent of ESCR and human cloning.
Do No Harm says the list of 72 diseases and conditions reflects cases in which human patients have benefited from adult stem-cell treatments. In the side-by-side comparison with cases in which humans have benefited from embryonic stem-cell treatments, ESCR comes up short -- showing, in fact, "none." But in a letter to the editor published in the journal Science, Dr. Neaves and his co-writers falsely accuse Prentice of claiming that adult stem cells are being regularly used as FDA-approved treatments in the U.S.
"They twist our statements into claims that these treatments all currently provide a 'cure,' are 'generally available,' or are 'fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,'" states a Do No Harm press release. Such a claim, notes the group, would have been "ridiculous" because some of the dramatic advances in adult stem-cell research have occurred in other countries, outside the jurisdiction of the FDA.
The Science letter also implies the list inaccurately and inadequately cites peer-reviewed references -- but in doing so actually pointed out references Do No Harm says will allow it to properly update its own list.
But Do No Harm says it finds it "odd" that Neaves and his co-writers would bring up the subject of FDA-approved clinical trials -- especially since ESCR, again in a direct comparison with adult stem-cell research, stumbles badly. The federal government documents, at various phases of investigation, many current trials using adult stem cells. Do No Harm notes that ClinicTrials.gov shows more than 1,100 such trials, 565 of which are currently active and recruiting patients. How does that compare with trials involving embryonic stem cells?
"There are no human trials of embryonic stem cells -- and there never have been," states the press release. "Nor are there any peer-reviewed references for human treatments with embryonic stem cells." That is because trials involving animals have yet to show that embryonic stem cells are safe or effective enough to initiate even Phase I human trials for any condition, states Do No Harm.
And that, says the research ethics group, is the key. Patients suffering from at least 72 different disease and conditions have benefited from adult stem cell-based treatments -- and patient improvement has been documented scientifically. "That is the real success of adult stem cells: helping human patients," Do No Harm points out. "It is a success that no one can claim for embryonic stem cells."
Tony Perkins of Family Research Council says Neaves' attack on Prentice and his ethics group comes as no surprise. "Embryonic stem-cell research has been misrepresented and over-hyped," says the FRC president. "One wonders, based on his own criteria, how Dr. Neaves knows embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos are going to treat people, when not a single disease has been treated by this method in any trial."
Perkins also questions Science's decision to publish Neaves' letter without giving Prentice an opportunity to respond -- a usual practice for scientific journals. "Even worse," comments Perkins, "Science does not disclose Dr. Neave's expenditure of $10 million to advance Missouri's 'clone-and-kill' human embryo ballot initiative."
Do No Harm states that Prentice plans to submit a formal response to Science and is hopeful the journal will publish it along with the original letter to the editor.
