Stem Cells and Ramesh Ponnuru
Ramesh Ponnuru has an article in NRO on the embryonic stem cell (ESC) vote. I can’t comment on Ponnuru’s arguments about Reagan, but I can speak to the science. Ramesh critizes the claims of ESC research advocates. Although these advocates do often stretch the truth on the promise of ESCs, Ramesh’s corrections snap back way too far.
264 pro-funding congressmen write, “As you know, embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.” The claim is worded vaguely enough so that it is not exactly false: You couldn’t prove that the research has no “potential” to improve our understanding of the common cold. Under the influence of the pro-funding lobby, relatives of ailing people now believe even stronger claims. Patti Davis’s Newsweek article called stem-cell research “the miracle that can cure not only Alzheimer’s but many other diseases and afflictions.”
But Rick Weiss reported in the Washington Post that, “of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer’s is among the least likely to benefit.” (Embarrassingly for the Post, it ran its editorial arguing that increased funding could lead to Alzheimer’s treatments on the same day it ran the Weiss story.) Cancer and heart disease are pretty far down the list, too, although they’re useful in generating the figure of “more than 100 million Americans.”
These criticisms seem to be based on the belief that the promise of ESCs is as a material source for cell-replacement therapy. Such therapies would ostensibly require the perfection of cloning techniques, a vast resource of human eggs, and large amounts of money. The more likely avenue from ESCs to cures is via the creation of ESC culture systems that model common diseases. From these cell culture models, the molecular basis of each disease could be examined in otherwise unavailable detail… drug targets, blah blah blah.
Ramesh:
The president’s critics say his numbers have proven wrong: Only 19 subsidized lines are available to researchers. Wittingly or not, the critics are conflating eligibility and availability. The lines that were eligible for funding were not immediately available. Legal rights had to be parceled out, and the lines had to be developed. These processes took time, and not because of Bush’s funding restrictions. But the number of available lines has been increasing, and will continue to increase — possibly to as many as 55. The congressmen claim that if Bush’s policy were liberalized, research could be done on 400,000 embryos currently frozen at IVF clinics. But the study from which that estimate comes notes that most of those embryos have been stored for future reproductive use. The study indicates that at most 275 additional lines could be generated from these embryos.
Sounds like non-sense, but 275 is 5x more than 55 and 15x more than 19. What’s needed are lines that are genomically intact and genetically diverse. Who wants to use the 2001 model when the 2006 model could be made available?
Ramesh:
It is certainly true that if the president’s goal were to maximize embryonic stem-cell research, to the exclusion of other concerns, he would adopt a more liberal policy. The director of the National Institutes of Health has said as much, in a statement that pro-funding polemicists have treated as a devastating admission. But it is also true that no researcher has complained that the current policy is impeding him; the complaints have been more along the lines that the policy is keeping people from going into the field.
This implies a serious lack of understanding of how biomedical science is done… it’s done by grad students, post docs and assistant profs (i.e. new people). Additionally, ESC research is relatively new and relatively small. Keeping it from growing means keeping it from happening.
Ramesh:
Funding proponents have sometimes been willing to imply that Bush has prohibited embryo research rather than limited government funding for it. Patti Davis wrote in her Newsweek op-ed that her mother had “emerged as a central figure in the effort to get the federal government out of the way.” That is becoming a talking point of the campaign, and it is deeply misleading: The effort is to get the federal government to pay, not get out of the way.
Until such a time when most research is privately funded, this is a serious problem. The prohibition against using government funds means that ESC research (on prohibited lines) cannot commingle with other research. Slight exaggeration: the usual pattern for getting NIH grants is that you have already done most of the work that you propose to do. Then you use that money to fund the work that will be proposed in your next grant. The funding prohibition keeps new research from being started in this fashion.
“stretch the truth”: is that a lawyerly term for “lie”?
I’ve long been highly skeptical of the claims made my stem cell advocates. If the research is that promising, why are they having such a difficult time obtaining private funding for their research?
I’ve long gotten the feeling the proponents of stem cell research have been wildly exagerating their claims so they can feed off the government’s teat.
My biggest question with all this is that IF the research pans out, and government funded lines are used, will the patents fall into the public domain? A rhetorical question–of course they won’t.
OMG! OMG!
the mouse feeder cell contamination problem of ESC lines was not solved until 2005 by Johns Hopkins.
the bush admin made USELESS ESC lines available to researchers.
then in spring 2005 researchers discovered the existing stem cell lines had gone unstable!
liars. liars and contemptable villians and scoundrels.
wow. does anyone wonder why i feel about ponnuru as i do?
But Rick Weiss reported in the Washington Post that, “of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer’s is among the least likely to benefit.”
Weiss is a foul liar also. currently we attempt to treat Alzheimers with chemical intervention, acetylcholinesterase suppressents and one lonely NMDA antagonistic site blocker (see MC coffee mug’s excellent analyses on this very blog)
Alzheimers cannot benefit from ANYTHING except genetherapy and neuron replacement. chemical intervention can only slow neuronal death.
i should say, we can only slow the symptoms of neuronal death. we are currently incapable of intervening in the beta-amyloid cascades and tau protein deposits that are suspected to cause the neurofibril bundles.
by the time symptons are apparent, there is too much neuronal death anyways for normal function.
bioIgnoramus, joe,
no by stretch the truth, i mean things like suggesting that we will acomplish the best possible outcome and not making clear how long it would take to go from basic research to therapies.
however, ramesh’s counter-claims are more wrong.
rikurzhen,
Based on results so far, ESC research has been an failure. It has also been the center of extreme scientific fraud (of which I’m quite sure we’ve seen only the tip of an iceburg.)
The bottom line is that if this research were really as legitimate and promising as it’s proponents claimed, you’d have to be proverbially beating the venture capitalists off with a stick.
Before the US spends another dime on this crap, they should demand a full accounting from the scientists. It’s time for these bozos to stop blabbering on about the “great potential of stem cells” and start giving the straight scoop.
jason, you’re just wrong. there’s not going to be any profits to be had from ESC research in the next 5 years, so it’s not going to get the kind of venture funds that, for example, a new semiconductor product might.
moreover, as I pointed out, the most obvious uses of ESCs are for basic research that would eventually lead to the discovery of drug targets. eventually is a long time in science. what fraction of drugs on the market right now are available, for example, only because we have the human genome sequence? not many.
if ESCs are unpromising, then NIH wouldn’t fund them any away, and there would be no problem. claims that ESC research is failed are thus missing the mark.
if ESCs are unpromising, then NIH wouldn’t fund them any away, and there would be no problem. claims that ESC research is failed are thus missing the mark.
Your naivete is stunning. You should run for congress.
um, how many nih grants have you written or reviewed?
rik is right, developing drug targets is critical–we need neuron replacement to cure Alzheimers, but what if we could make an Alzheimers vaccine, something to prevent the tau deposits and beta-amyloid cascades?
ASCR and ESCR are complimentary, not competitive.
we need to do both.
but it is dishonest of Ponnuru to say that we don’t need new lines because GW supports ESCR on the existing lines. extremely dishonest.
jason, guests don’t get to be patronizing, especially toward hosts. if you find rikhurzen naive, find something better to do with your time.
my impression of Ponnuru:
i could turn my steering wheel to avoid hitting this pedestrian, but i might run over an earthworm on the sidewalk.
cm,
i don’t begrudge prolife people their beliefs about when life begins. my own beef is i get tired of the adult-stem-cells-are-better-than-embryonic-shtick. the reality is that they have two viewpoints on this issue:
a) adult stem cells are a better shot at real remediation of illness, so we should get the word out that they are better
b) adult stem cells aren’t a better shot at real remediation of illness, but we should get the word out that they are better
adult stem cells may in fact be a better bet for immediate cell regeneration therapies, but ESCs are the best best for developing cell culture models of complex diseases. the latter will ultimately be more important for improving human health.
razib,
but they didn’t develop an interest in adult stem cells because there is all this buzz about their medical potential. they needed something to offer in replacement for the research program they were about to demolish irrationally. irrational in my opinion, of course.
its difficult to argue that this ball of cells has any sort of moral status unless one believes in ensoulment. otherwise, i tend to agree with the home depot analogy about how a pile of 2×4′s does not a house make. i’m probably gonna require at least one nerve cell as a minimal requirement for ‘capacity for suffering’ and the beginnings of a moral claim.
we shouldn’t have to have the argument about whether ES Cells can cure Alzheimer’s. they will advance knowledge and have some potential to help with human disease at no more cost than any other type of research. the slightest bit of pro- to a zero con- will tip the balance all the way.
so now we have to have a national argument and delay research with potential so as to satisfy people who think there are ghosts floating around in their heads. i don’t go out of my way to be a militant on these things, but this is a little frustrating.
i guess another way to say what i’m thinking is that there is no ratio of ES cell promise to AS cell promise that would allow a prolife person to accept ES cell research. so what is the point in disparaging it and the scientists who want to work on it when their principles are set regardless of this parameter.
It is possible for Coffee Mug do be correct in all particulars regarding the superstitious opposition to ESC research and for George Bush to be correct to veto it.
I disagree almost totally with Bush’s personal understanding of the science and the ethics of ESC research. Yet I recognize that it is his job to find a workable political compromise.
Tom Cruise believes that Xenu created mankind by injecting eggs into a volcano (or some such). He also believes that sex was invented by psychiatrists about 100 million years ago as a ploy to control humanity.
It terms of irrationality these ideas make the notions of Christain creationists seem like very weak tea indeed. Yet George Bush is bound by the Constitution to protect Cruise’s right to believe and act on those beliefs.
Bush doesn’t have the power to stop ESC research he only has some power to slow it down in the US. We shouldn’t overreact. Perhaps half of all Americans hold a pre-scientific world view. He’s their President too.
If it seems likely that ESC research is important to medicine, the present Bush policies will evaporate like snow in the desert. Religion based public policy is not immutable.
Remember the Angel Moroni came back to announce that polygamy was wrong after all.
http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/forum/2006/07/2006-07-20a-forum.mp3
reports $200M in private donations in CA
One thing missing in all this is a genuine debate about how much research (medical and otherwise) the government should be funding and what the status should be of any patents and other inventions obtained as a result of this funding.
joe, that’s not a special issue for ESC research. currently, universities get to keep the patents.
its difficult to argue that this ball of cells has any sort of moral status unless one believes in ensoulment
and the reality is that the majority believe in ensoulment. my irritation is getting into a shouting match about a scientific topic 99% of the public (myself included) can’t evaluate independently. the root issue are a priori on one side.
Razib, Rik:
Jason may have been over the top with “You should run for congress.” But the truth is that he (and I) are, in his words, “stunned” at the level of naivete expressed in Rik’s posts on the topic.
It flies in the face of all reason and experience to maintain that private entrepreneurs are in any way daunted by the time involved in achieving profitable status for a promising technology: it is precisely the foreshortening of that span that is to be accomplished by the prospective investment (and at minimal cost to the body politic, I might remind). The fact that there’s no rush is the very strongest evidence that such men do not find the technology sufficiently promising. (And, in arriving at that decision, they have even greater access to the broadest and best scientific opinion than has any government.)
Regarding competing avenues or technologies, I have no opinion or information. But the controversy itself is a clear illustration of the muddled (and self-aggrandizing) thinking that gets stirred when the topic is someone’s pet project or interest area. Judgment goes out the window, as if what was being argued was the merits of the government bankrolling “faith-based initiative.”
And, specifically further to Rik, I’d propose that he’d mull a couple more points.
If you bemoan the sad state of current research because it can’t attract the investment levels required for the most basic aspects, note that the (private) profit prospect for such investment will be rendered even smaller by entry of the market-unresponsive government entity as the prime and politically-advantaged competitor. However, such entry will enlarge and protect private effort to “cash in” on a government-subsidized market. The situation is analogous to a market created for textbooks in history edited for political correctness by the fact that government is paying for the education. Is it any wonder that some expert opinion in the field is so solidly in favor of what would, in effect, create not only a reservation but one favored by the prospect that further perks could be expected for its inhabitants–in the form of patents, honors, etc.?
gene, it’s 5 months later, but i just noticed your post. you don’t seem to understand how VCs work, and that’s why you and Jason are wrong. there’s competition for capital, and VCs are looking to maximize their returns. they will invest in the relative certainty of returns from (for example) a new semiconductor technology before they invest in the very uncertain terrain of basic science that is ESC research.
i suspect your comments stem from ideological libertarianism, a position which I and most people do not share. the best of all possible worlds may be one in which all science is funded by private enterprise, it doesn’t follow from that that the piece-meal defunding of research (in this case ESC research) is a good idea.