Post by David Feder on Feb 18, 2009 18:49:40 GMT -5
blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/stemcelltumor.html
Stem cells have great promise, but it won't be realized without a lot of clinical trials and errors, and likely some tragic side effects and missteps.
That cautionary counterpoint to biotechno-optimism is driven home by the report of a 13-year-old boy who developed brain and spinal tumors four years after being treated with an experimental stem cell therapy for ataxia telangiectasi, a rare and disabling genetic disease.
With President Barack Obama expected to lift President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and the first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial about to begin, optimism now abounds for regenerative medicine. A recent issue of Time magazine captured the zeitgeist with a cover proclaiming, "How the Coming Revolution in Stem Cells Could Save Your Life."
But the field is still young: even adult stem cells — the general term for any naturally-occurring stem cell not harvested from an embryo — are only beginning to be understood, despite the head-start granted by controversies over embryo destruction. Excitement sometimes obscures this fact.
"Everybody likes optimistic science," said Ninette Amariglio, a Tel Aviv University cancer specialist and co-author of the case report, published Monday in Public Library of Science ONE.
The tumors formed when the would-be therapeutic cells — the boy's condition did not improve — grew uncontrollably. Amariglio, however, said that the tumors shouldn't be seen as a sign of regenerative medicine's failures, but of the research necessary to control them.
"This doesn't mean that research should be stopped," said Amariglio, "but that it should be done in a careful and extensive way."
Side effects are, of course, a possibility of any treatment, especially an experimental therapy. But many researchers say that people have less tolerance than before for the failures that inevitably precede success.
This is fundamentally admirable, but it can also put an unfair damper on potentially life-saving research. That's arguably what happened with gene therapy, a field still escaping from the legacy of a few early and rare tragedies.
It's possible that some past advances, such as organ transplantation, would not have been possible had people possessed modern expectations about the pace and safety of development.
Though the treatment did not work, the tumors were at least able to be removed.
"The people who go to these transplants are people for whom there is no other cure," said Amariglio. "Research shouldn't be stopped. It should be encouraged."
Citation: "Donor-Derived Brain Tumor Following Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in an Ataxia Telangiectasia Patient." Ninette Amariglio, Abraham Hirshberg, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Yoram Cohen, Ron Loewenthal, Luba Trakhtenbrot, Nurit Paz, Maya Koren-Michowitz, Dalia Waldman, Leonor Leider-Trejo, Amos Toren, Shlomi Constantini, Gideon Rechavi. Public Library of Science ONE, Feb. 17, 2009.
Image: PLoS ONE
Stem cells have great promise, but it won't be realized without a lot of clinical trials and errors, and likely some tragic side effects and missteps.
That cautionary counterpoint to biotechno-optimism is driven home by the report of a 13-year-old boy who developed brain and spinal tumors four years after being treated with an experimental stem cell therapy for ataxia telangiectasi, a rare and disabling genetic disease.
With President Barack Obama expected to lift President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and the first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial about to begin, optimism now abounds for regenerative medicine. A recent issue of Time magazine captured the zeitgeist with a cover proclaiming, "How the Coming Revolution in Stem Cells Could Save Your Life."
But the field is still young: even adult stem cells — the general term for any naturally-occurring stem cell not harvested from an embryo — are only beginning to be understood, despite the head-start granted by controversies over embryo destruction. Excitement sometimes obscures this fact.
"Everybody likes optimistic science," said Ninette Amariglio, a Tel Aviv University cancer specialist and co-author of the case report, published Monday in Public Library of Science ONE.
The tumors formed when the would-be therapeutic cells — the boy's condition did not improve — grew uncontrollably. Amariglio, however, said that the tumors shouldn't be seen as a sign of regenerative medicine's failures, but of the research necessary to control them.
"This doesn't mean that research should be stopped," said Amariglio, "but that it should be done in a careful and extensive way."
Side effects are, of course, a possibility of any treatment, especially an experimental therapy. But many researchers say that people have less tolerance than before for the failures that inevitably precede success.
This is fundamentally admirable, but it can also put an unfair damper on potentially life-saving research. That's arguably what happened with gene therapy, a field still escaping from the legacy of a few early and rare tragedies.
It's possible that some past advances, such as organ transplantation, would not have been possible had people possessed modern expectations about the pace and safety of development.
Though the treatment did not work, the tumors were at least able to be removed.
"The people who go to these transplants are people for whom there is no other cure," said Amariglio. "Research shouldn't be stopped. It should be encouraged."
Citation: "Donor-Derived Brain Tumor Following Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in an Ataxia Telangiectasia Patient." Ninette Amariglio, Abraham Hirshberg, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Yoram Cohen, Ron Loewenthal, Luba Trakhtenbrot, Nurit Paz, Maya Koren-Michowitz, Dalia Waldman, Leonor Leider-Trejo, Amos Toren, Shlomi Constantini, Gideon Rechavi. Public Library of Science ONE, Feb. 17, 2009.
Image: PLoS ONE