| Spinal Cord Patient Speaks out: Embryonic stem cell helps patents not patients |  |
|
|
|
Embryonic stem cells help patents, not patients
A battle is raging between embryonic and adult stem cell research. What are stem cells and why should we care? Stem cells, found in humans throughout their lifespan (including embryos), can divide and change into specialized cells. Researchers hope to use stem cells for human treatments, and we must decide which research deserves our financial support. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) used for research are extracted from 5- to 6-day-old embryos and then multiplied. Under normal conditions, ESCs would eventually develop into the fetus and baby. Sources of original ESCs include excess in vitro fertilization embryos and, potentially, cloned embryos created for research. Nonembryonic stem cells found in human umbilical cord blood and throughout the human body are often referred to collectively as adult stem cells. They form specific cells to replace old or damaged cells. For example, bone marrow stem cells continually replenish needed blood cells. Obtaining ASCs is fairly easy and harmless. ESCs are more "pluripotent" than most ASCs, meaning they can more readily become any type of cell during embryonic and fetal development. Science and media's focus on "pluripotency" implies that pluripotent cells are necessary for human therapies. However, this ability to readily form any cell type is precisely why ESCs are not safe or effective for human treatments. Because ESCs are designed for rapid, pluripotent growth in embryos, they are unstable and unpredictable when implanted in adults. In fact, ESCs often create teratomas or "monster tumors" containing different cell types such as hair, bone, and teeth. Because ASCs are not as volatile as ESCs, they are better suited for human medical treatments. Patients need stable and reliable sources of stem cells that can repair and replace specific adult body cells in a controlled manner, which ASCs are designed to do. In fact, ASCs are treating more than 65 human conditions, while ESCs have not yet successfully treated any (see www.stemcellresearch.org ). Thus, ASCs are criticized by ESC proponents for the very thing that makes them safe and effective for human treatments—slow, controlled growth toward replacing specific cells. And ESCs are praised for the very thing that makes them dangerous and ineffective for human treatments—rapid, pluripotent growth (that, therefore, is difficult to control). Why, then, the push for ESC research when ASCs are clearly superior? Follow the money. Because complex safety problems must be overcome before ESCs are medically usable, ESC research provides greater research and patent potentials for scientists, research institutions, and biotech industry. A 1980 law known as Bayh-Dole permits scientists to patent the results of publicly funded research. For example, researchers may form biotech companies to develop patents jointly held with their university, or they may sell their patents to biotech or pharmaceutical firms. Thus, a profitable relationship exists between industry and publicly funded academic research. ASC researcher Geoffrey Raisman of University College, London, stated in the Nov. 30 Guardian, "This is not the most popular way of attempting to heal spinal injuries. That would be to produce patented chemicals, which drug companies can make and sell.… We're producing a procedure where the patient is their own cure. You can't patent a patient's own cells." California is trying to decide whether publicly funded universities should be required to share their findings or whether they can patent and sell them. Last year voters were promised that Proposition 71's $3 billion in public funding toward stem cell research would accelerate cures and bring direct financial returns to the state. However, at an October legislative hearing, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz said, "The public is not only waiting for cures, but is footing the bill for research... that may not benefit them. The important question is who owns the rights to research findings." The fact that research and industry stand to gain financially through publicly funded ESC research whether or not any effective therapies are ever developed should raise red flags to those expecting cures from such research. The choice is clear. Either we direct public funds toward improving human lives with treatments based on how our bodies naturally function. Or we squander precious time and research dollars promoting basic embryonic science and biotech financial growth under the pretext of "looking" for cures. Swenson, a quadriplegic as a result of a 1980 car accident, is an advocate for spinal cord research. |
|
