Induced Pluripotent stem cells without viruses

"The adenovirus will infect the cells but then will clear themselves from the cells. After a few cell divisions there are no traces of the virus in the cell," Hochedlinger said. "You can't tell the virus was ever there."

Science Magazine has published a report on induced Pluripotent (iPS) stem cells from liver cells (hepatacytes) that do not show any trace of the viruses initially used to cause the regression from adult cells to embryonic-like stem cells. The report, by Hochedlinger's group at Massachusetts Gener al Hospital and Harvard, is behind a pay-wall, but there is a review here at the Washington Post.

The simple explanation is that viruses are used to carry copies of genes that turn on proteins which cause the cells to divide and produce embryonic-like stem cells. Prior research used viruses that might become permanently inserted into the DNA of the cells. These viruses did not cause an infection in the culture because the viruses used were not good at causing themselves to be reproduced or inserting themselves into neighboring cells. However, because they inserted themselves into the DNA, there was a risk that the cells could become mutated or even cause tumors due to the abnormal DNA that resulted. In the case of Hochedlinger's cells, the adenovirus used does not insert into the DNA nearly as often, and when it does, the cell is able to repair the DNA in subsequent copies of the DNA as it reproduces the nucleus of the cell in order to divide to become two cells.

The cells are infected, they change because of the infection, but their granddaughters are able to get rid of the infection, while continuing to act like embryonic stem cells instead of grown up liver cells. The new "adeno-iPS" cells pass all the tests for "stemness."

Just think, no need for egg cells, no cloning, no destruction of embryos, and we're one step closer to healing within the body - to learning how to heal without transplant rejection or tumors due to the treatment. One day, we may be able to regenerate organs and tissues in place, as needed.

The Stem Cell Debate Heats Up

Here's a great review about those new "induced pleuripotent stem cells" (iPS) we've been hearing about. iPS's are truly "patient specific stem cells" since they come from the patient himself or herself. The cells are manipulated in the lab, using viral particles and specific environments to make the able to become many different types of cells.

It would be very difficult, in my opinion, to make these cells become embryos, with all the structures that would allow them to function as individual organisms. From what I understand, the cells return to a state that allows them to become tissues with several different types of cells and cell groups, but they are never organized.

In my opinion (again), the induction process can't be more of a problem than the risk of immune rejection and the manipulations that embryos derived from In Vitro fertilization go through or the changes that are bound to be inherent with cloned cells derived through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. On the other hand, volunteers and tissue samples for IPC experiments ought to be abundant.

And no one has to die for it.

Lee Silver: iPCs named due to politics

Lee Silver, author of is someone that I've read about on the 'net and about whom Robert George and Patrick Lee said, "He hides his ideology under a veneer of science."


He was the guest on Carl Zimmerman's Bloggingheads.tv November 30, discussing reprogrammed skin cells.

Dr. Lee is convinced that if a couple of more labs reproduce the reprogramming (and others have since, Jaenisch and Yamanaka's lab have already published follow-up results), then reprogramming will probably be the way we get embryonic stem cells, rather than by destruction of embryos.

However, he claims that the naming of the cells "induced Pluripotent Stem cells" or iPC's is a political move to hide either the fact that the opponents of embryo-destructive research are being fooled or being hypocrites.

From the thread following the interview:

Actually, human ES cells (unlike mouse ES cells) are perfectly capable of differentiating into trophoblast (Nature Biotech 20:1261; 2002). Why do you think this isn't common knowledge? (Hint: politics) And mouse ES cells can be turned into whole mice quite efficiently with a technique that does NOT involve blastocyst injection or tetraploid embryos (Nature Biotech 25:91; 2007). Concerning your next post, how do you know what the intent was behind naming these cells iPS cells?

. . .

The question is whether continued research will soon get us to the point where fibroblasts cells can be transformed into cells that are completely indistinguishable from human ES cells, with the potential to form every human cell type (including, eventually, blastomeres which could, in theory, develop into babies without any further "tinkering"). With all of the accomplishments of the last ten years, it is very hard to imagine that this won't be possible. The ONLY reason to doubt it is based on a religious-inspired faith that there is something FUNDAMENTALLY different between blastomeres and ES cells.

So now, it's a religious opinion that there's some difference between blastomeres and ESCs?

Hat Tip to The Daily Transcript at ScienceBlogs.

Yamanaka has a conscience

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,” said Dr. Yamanaka.

The New York Times article on Shinya Yamanaka, "Risk taking is in his genes," (free one time registration necessary) should get the headline-writer in trouble for a sad pun.

Instead, Dr. Yamanaka might be in trouble with the objectors to conscience. (No links, just look at today's posts - or the last two months of posts - the subject keeps popping up.)

People like John Gearhart, MD will want to "put pressure" on Yamanaka to write letters to Nancy Pelossi and the rest of the US legislators making the usual reactionary case for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in light of the successes with non-destructive research.

The NYT reporter, Martin Fackler, can't be too popular in the next few days for pointing out that the US laws and funding are not nearly as tight as those in Japan, due to moral objections in that country:

In 1999, his career got a break when he was hired by other universities, including Kyoto University in 2004, that were willing to give him a laboratory and more money. At about the same time, he said, he visited his friend’s fertility clinic. That visit inspired him to find a way around the moral issues that had bogged down stem cell research, not just in the United States but also Japan, where the Education Ministry put tough restrictions on embryo use.

In fact, restrictions are so tight that he says he cannot use human embryos at his laboratories here. Instead, research using human embryos is done at U.C. San Francisco, where he maintains a small two-person laboratory. He said he had never handled actual embryonic cells himself, and the American lab uses them only to verify that the reprogrammed adult cells are behaving as true stem cells.

“There is no way now to get around some use of embryos,” he said. “But my goal is to avoid using them.”

For a look at the science and bioethics slant on these revelations, see Wired Science (see the comments on this one), Blog.bioethics.net, Wesley Smith's Secondhand Smoke, and Jennifer Lahl's blog, "The Human Future."

Genes Cut Out of Reprogrammed Cells

Lots of people (here, here, and here, etc.) are commenting on the "Proof of Concept" by Jaenisch, et. al., in this week's ScienceExpress (early online publication before print) that showed gene modification to reprogram mouse cells in order to create blood line stem cells that would achieve gene therapy - or even, a cure - for sickle cell anemia.

(BTW, these mice are called "humanized knock in mice," meaning that the genes of the have been modified so that the their bone marrow hematopoietic or blood line stem cells have genes "knocked in" to produce human cells blood cells.)

To reduce the potential risk of tumor formation due to c-Myc transgene expression (13), iPS cells were infected with an adenovirus encoding Cre-recombinase to delete the lentivirus transduced c-Myc copies. One out of 10 iPS subclones (iPS #3.3) had deleted both transduced copies of c-Myc and was used for further experimentation (Fig. 2C).

Trust me, as soon as more labs figure out how to make use of these cells, to remove or repair - or to ensure there's no - damage from the insertion of the needed genes, the push for embryos will slow down. (I think it would even faster if Thomson and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine could find a way to capitalize on adult stem cell research.)

Translation of Yamanaka, Yu "induced Pluripotent Stem Cells" (Revised)

Scientists who report their findings are expected to discuss the problems as well as the outcome of their research. This is usually found in the "Discussion," "Conclusions" or "Results" section of the paper. This is the best place to figure out what the researches intended, what they did and what the report means. (Then you go back and check to see if they proved what they "discussed." And then, you wait for other labs to confirm it.)

The actual (Takahashi et al., "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors," Cell (2007).) Cell article on reprogrammed adult fibroblast skin cells, the "induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) or "iPS," is available for free, here. The Science Magazine report about similar work by James Thomson from Wisconsin (the researcher who reported the production of human embryonic stem cells in the first place) is supposed to be published November 22, 2007. (Editorial note 11/30/07 – Science published the Thompson and Yu report the same day that Tamanaka's report was published, two days ahead of schedule. See my “translation,” here.)

To the best of my understanding, here's a translation into layman's terms about what the Takahashi/Yamaka report means:

While it took a lot of cells and more time than the researchers first expected because the human iPS grew much slower than the mouse iPS,

1. The cells that grew looked and functioned like human embryonic stem cells with a few minor differences,
2. They believe they proved that their technique is responsible for all the new pluripotent cells that were found in their cultures(there weren't any cells from another culture introduced accidentally or on purpose and which would make them look more successful than they were),
3. The cells could be directed to develop nerve cells and heart cells,
4. They were able to use several types of adult specialized cells to achieve iPS, and
5. The researchers suggest several possible ways to overcome the drawbacks of the process.

The authors believe that the inefficiency or the need to begin with lots of adult cells and wait a little longer for a substantial amount of human iPS should not be a "practical" problem because the adult cells are easy to obtain and labs all over the world should be able to reproduce their results. Since the technique should be well-funded (it qualifies for US Federal funding and is ethical, since no human beings have to die), the authors believe it will be possible for lots of researchers to work on them.

If I were to predict the future, I would anticipate banks of iPS - or even specialized or intermediate forms of cells that are produced from iPS - being stored for each of us, just in case. In the very long term, we will learn more about stimulating our on bodies' stem cells from research on these cells, so that we can repair or prevent damage without transplants or waiting for cultures to grow in the lab.

The major hurdle is that the cells were produced by the Recombinant DNA technique, using retroviruses in plasmids.

The retroviruses are a class of viruses that actually insert themselves into the DNA strands of animal or plant cells to become a part of that cell’s DNA and are copied when the cell reproduces. They are manufactured in the lab in the form of plasmids in order to carry genes into the experimental cells.

Plasmids are little bits of DNA, a mini-virus in a circle. Think of a chain with pairs of magnets or interlocking puzzle pieces that connect the ends and make a loop. When open, the plasmid becomes a strand of DNA which has ends that are "sticky.” When placed in a culture with mouse or human cells, the plasmids infect the cells and then move into the nuclei of the cells. The retroviral DNA is inserted or inserts itself into the DNA of the host cell because the sticky ends of the plasmid strand match or mate to certain areas of the host DNA.

Plasmids can be manufactured to carry copies of genes that researchers want to insert into the DNA of experimental cells. The technique is common in commercial and experimental labs for at least the last 30 years. In fact, "Recombinant DNA" is used to induce strains of bacteria and yeast cells in cultures to manufacture vaccines like the flu and Hepatitis B vaccine and the insulin used by diabetics these days. The particular retroviruses used by Tamanaka are said to be "strongly silenced in humans." In other words, they don't normally get reproduced as viruses when the cell divides. Once they are taken up in the cell DNA, the viruses used in research don't break out to become infectious viruses, again. However, some of them can induce the cells to form tumors or cancers if injected in an animal or human.


One of the possible problems that the article notes is that the new iPS cells each had several copies of the retrovirus included in their DNA. There is a concern that these bits may be responsible for the tumors that were seen in the mice used in the experiments. Before iPS can be used in humans, it will be necessary to learn to remove all the viral particles or to learn to make the cells without viruses that can cause tumors. Otherwise, there is a risk of causing cancer in patients.

The researchers note that another group of scientists have already reported that it is possible to insert one of the genes without using retroviruses and that the hope is to either find a way to insert the other three genes or to remove all traces of the virus.

There's also a suggestion that what they are actually inducing to grow is a sub-set of fibroblasts with the tendency to become embryonic-like stem cells.

More Questions on Embryonic Stem Cells

Lydia asked about my comments on embryonic-like cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

Umbilical cord blood itself appears to be at least multipotent. However, Texan and British researchers worked with NASA to produce "embryonic-like" stem cells by manipulating them with filters and a special centrifuge. Here's my post from August, 2005 on those cells.

And here's the press release from McGuckin's university in the UK.

And here's the abstract from the Journal, Cell Proliferation,

"Production of stem cells with embryonic characteristics from human umbilical cord blood"

C. P. McGuckin, N. Forraz, M.-O. Baradez, S. Navran, Synthecon Corporation, Houston, and J. Zhao, R. Urban, Tilton, L. Denner

When will embryonic stem cells reach the clinic? The answer is simple – not soon! To produce large quantities of homogeneous tissue for transplantation, without feeder layers, and with the appropriate recipient's immunological phenotype, is a significant scientific hindrance, although adult stem (ADS) cells provide an alternative, more ethically acceptable, source. The annual global 100 million human birth rate proposes umbilical cord blood (UCB) as the largest untouched stem cell source, with advantages of naive immune status and relatively unshortened telomere length. Here, we report the world's first reproducible production of cells expressing embryonic stem cell markers, – cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells (CBEs). UCB, after elective birth by Caesarean section, has been separated by sequential immunomagnetic removal of nucleate granulocytes, erythrocytes and haemopoietic myeloid/lymphoid progenitors. After 7 days of high density culture in microflasks, (105 cells/ml, IMDM, FCS 10%, thrombopoietin 10 ng/ml, flt3-ligand 50 ng/ml, c-kit ligand 20 ng/ml). CBE colonies formed adherent to the substrata; these were maintained for 6 weeks, then were subcultured and continued for a minimum 13 weeks. CBEs were positive for TRA-1-60, TRA-1-81, SSEA-4, SSEA-3 and Oct-4, but not SSEA-1, indicative of restriction in the human stem cell compartment. The CBEs were also microgravity–bioreactor cultured with hepatocyte growth medium (IMDM, FCS 10%, HGF 20 ng/ml, bFGF 10 ng/ml, EGF 10 ng/ml, c-kit ligand 10 ng/ml). After 4 weeks the cells were found to express characteristic hepatic markers, cytokeratin-18, α-foetoprotein and albumin. Thus, such CBEs are a viable human alternative from embryonic stem cells for stem cell research, without ethical constraint and with potential for clinical applications.

These cells were later used to produce functional liver tissue and alveolar lung cells.

There have also been bone marrow cells that share the characteristic markers of embryonic stem cells. (Reported here.)

New Stem Cells Questions and Answers

A reader posts some questions that I'll try to answer. (Thanks, Janet!)

The most important thing to remember is that the new iPS cells appear to be like embryonic stem cells, but they can be made without killing anyone and they can be made to match the patient.


"Does this new procedure use any cells from the unborn to induce pluripotency in the adult skin cell thus creating a stem cell?"

Both labs in the news actually showed their final process using adult cells that did not require the death of any human individual at any age.

However, one of the groups (Thomson's, from Wisconsin) proved that the process is possible by using embryonic stem cells and fetal cells from abortions, while the other group (Yamanaka's, from Japan) used mouse cells for the basic science before using adult skin cells.

"If it does, then it cannot be considered an ADULT stem cell. So, it seems there would need be a third category of stem cells.

"If it does not use cells from the unborn, then could the iPS be considered an ADULT stem cell? It would be simpler to explain. Or because it is not a stem cell to begin with but is induced to become an ADULT stem cell, do we still need a third category for stem cells.

"I think that if the cells that are reprogrammed came from tissues after birth, they are adult stem cells, and the research using them is "adult stem cell research." (or non-destructive stem cell research resulting in induced pluripotent stem cells.)"

It can get complicated, and you do have to read "the fine print" in the reports to figure out the source.

I've always thought of the two groups as divided into

1. Destructive Research - that depends on the intentional destruction of individual human beings at any age is unethical vs.
2. Non-destructive Research - ethical research methods that do not intentionially cause injury to human beings.

For simplicity, most people call the first "embryonic" and the others "adult."

For instance, umbilical and amniotic fluid cells are ethical, non-destructive stem cells that are technically "fetal stem cells."

In contrast,
1. "embryonic" means the cells came from embryos - in humans that's up to 8 weeks gestation.

2. Most of the "fetal cells" used in research come from harvesting the bodies of children who are aborted, between the age of 8 weeks and term. These are sold as tissue cultures by commercial labs. Some of the cultures have been cultivated for 20 or 30 years and the genes and growth habits have been studied and they can be counted on to do what they are supposed to do.

3. Sometimes the "fetal" tissues are harvested after a natural miscarriage. These are considered ethical. (I don't think there are any commercially available standard tissue cultures from miscarriages.)

"I realize this is very basic and elementary to the posts that you get from doctors and other scientists but I believe that we must have clear definitions BASED ACCORDING TO WHERE THE STEM CELLS COME FROM to educate the voter and to keep the issues clear so that legislation isn't passed to support this new procedure with wording that would allow funding to inadvertently go to human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning."

Usually name is based on where the cells came from, but if the cells acted like the very early embryo - if they were truly "totipotent" like the zygote which is able to make both the body and the placenta - then research on them would be unethical.

The problem with "therapeutic" cloning, for instance, is that it would create a new human embryo that is capable of self-directed, organized development.

Even if he or she will be killed or die naturally in a few days, it's not right to create human beings with the intention of destroying them or using them for the benefit of others and to their own harm.

"Irregardless of the media and the bloggers who support human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, most Americans do not believe in the Communist philosophy that the end justifies the means. No matter what our vocation or business, we draw the line when the means are immoral. We expect other Americans to do the same, including scientists and researchers. Destroying one human being to help another is clearly immoral and we should not have to fund it. We will vote accordingly."

I agree. We believe that "self-" should always be part of "sacrifice."

"George Bush and the Catholic Church hold us in thrall"

That's what Terry over at the Womens Bioethics Project Blog says. Terry has a big problem with the breakthrough in stem cell research that so many of us are thrilled with, and says,

It is amazing to see how the Catholic Church and George Bush can hold us all in thrall regarding human embryonic stem cell research. Because of the opposition to deriving stem cells from human embryos which destroys the embryo, eminent scientists are now reduced to attempting to find stem cell alternatives and have done so - by creating induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells, an advance (?) which is being heralded today in the NY Times. In other words, we can regress human skin cells to an embryonic state by introducing retroviruses including c-Myc (cancer cells) to do so. The only problem with this is that it also creates tertomas which are nasty little creatures - effectively a germ cell tumor which may contain hair, teeth, bones, eyeballs, torsos and hands. Yuk, as Leon Kass would say. Here's an idea: instead of trying to create human embryonic stem cells from someone's nose or foreskin, let us do the research on embryos as nature intended.

Really Terry? "As nature intended?"" Nature intended for us to "use the original container," when it came to embryos.


Most of the basic research was done in mice - look at the history of Yamanaka & Takahashi's research, along with the reports published by Jaenisch this summer.

And Terry's way off on the teratomasas draw back: the *ability* to form teratomas in immune-deficient mice is one of the tests necessary if a researcher wants to prove that the cells are embryonic-like or pluripotent stem cells. (As opposed to multipotent - the fact that his cells did not make teratomas was one criticism of Atala's amniotic stem cell work. Gearhart was specific about the pressure he and others placed on Atala, so I expect to hear more about that in the future.)

Embryonic stem cells have always had all the problems that Terry mentions - including the retrovirus manipulation in many cases, look up "first transplantable lung cells" from the Houston, Texas Stem cell researchers here and here - in addition to the ethical problem of requiring the destruction of human embryos and the necessity to consider buying or bartering for oocytes.

Embryonic stem cells have the same concerns about the ability to reliably direct the cells toward the desired cell line, about the lack of regulation inherent in the primitive cells in culture, and ensuring that a more primitive cell - a future tumor - was not transplanted with the derived, less plastic cells.

One huge advantage that the new process offers that has never been achieved before, is the ability to make patient specific cells for everyone, not just the elite few who can afford to buy the oocytes.

The viruses used are strongly "silenced" or suppressed in the culture conditions used to direct development and are well known - the research to remove them from the DNA is not predicted to be all that hard. But that shouldn't really be a problem form long: between the two researchers and the information coming out of other labs, I wouldn't be surprised if we are able to skip the transfection in a year or two.

In the meantime, Wilmut has announced that the science is driving him to abandon embryonic research and cloning (especially using animal oocytes and human nuclear DNA to form a cimera), Yamanaka and Thomson are getting ready to patent and sell their cell lines for drug research and basic science, as well as anticipating future transplants.

Thousands of Researchers Now Jobless

I don't think that the Scientific Activist ("Reporting from the Crossroads of Science and Politics") is at all happy with the "framing" of the reports on the reprogrammed adult stem cells. (beware the language)

However, I did learn where some of the speculation about iPS cells being "like an embryo." may have come from.

"Activist" says that this article from Jaenisch, et al from last summer indicates that the cells are capable of forming embryos and gestating to become a live, born mouse.

Actually, the article discusses the production of chimeras and the production of a viable embryo after the reprogrammed mouse cells are injected into "tetraploid blastocysts."

A blastocyst is an embryo. So, the Activist and Art Caplan are pointing to different ways to make chimeras, not cells that are unique individuals with an innate self-driven organization - they are not organisms.

In other words, the reprogrammed cells act like embryonic stem cells, but not like embryos - not like the cell that is a zygote - they can't make the placenta and direct their own organized embryonic development. The iPS (and embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass) require more manipulation and the innate organization of another organism, the embryo into which they are implanted.

Thomson framed: "iPS more relevant than embryonic"

Framing Science has a great quote from James Thomson, whose lab announced that they had proven a way to reprogram adult cells to become more primitive, embryonic-like stem cells, called "induced Pluripotent Cells."

I don't know how I missed this one yesterday:

". . . says Thomson, the scientist who in 1998 isolated stem cells from human embryos for the first time. "They are probably more clinically relevant than embryonic stem cells," he explains. "Immune rejection should not be a problem using these cells."

While you're over there, take a look at the articles from yesterday and today on what Dr. Nesbit believes is the significance of "The Discovery" and about the art of "framing science." If you're not familiar with the concept of framing, read some of the early and/or labeled posts to find out what it means to "frame" anything, science in particular.
(with a handy little list of words and meanings that you need to understand if you are at all interested in how science is reported and "framed" to influence the rest of us.)

On the power of Naming (iPS and Art Caplan's Off the Wall Question)

Art Caplan, Ph.D., is one of the pseudoeditors over at the Journal of American Bioethics blog, bioethics.net and a founding member of the "Progressive Bioethics Initiative," along with Robin Alta Charo, the subject of one of yesterday's posts. Dr. Caplan writes a regular "Breaking Bioethics" column for MSNBC.

Art took the liberty of renaming the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) that were such big news yesterday. He calls them "panacea cells."

I wondered why so many people were calling iPS cells "embryonic stem cells," when cells with similar markers derived from umbilical cord blood were called "embryonic-like stem cells."

Obviously, these are not technically "embryonic," they are reprogrammed adult stem cells. Technically, all research on iPS cells derived from fibroblasts (a cell found in the skin and many organs that regenerates the connective tissue) should be thought of as research on "adult stem cells."

However, Art asks the oddest questions in his opinion piece:

Lastly, some may wonder if a reprogrammed panacea cell acts like an embryo, should it then be classified as a human embryo?

True, a reprogrammed cell cannot implant in the womb but it can do everything else an embryo does. Is this form of genetic engineering a solution to the issue of avoiding human embryo destruction or merely a new route to a similar destination?

iPC's do not "act like an embryo. They cannot "do everything that an embryo does."

Embryonic stem cells harvested by disaggregating (destroying) an embryo at the blastocyst stage do not have the ability to "act like and embryo," once they are removed from the embryo itself. At least by the third or fourth division (and possibly from the first cell division), the cells are differentiated into cells that will become either trophoblast (the future placenta) or Inner Cell Mass (the body proper of the embryonic individual).


These cells do not demonstrate the abilities that the zygote or early, pre-blastocyst stage cells do. There is no mention in either article of the development of trophoblast cells - the cells that become the placenta - or of any organization that gives them the appearance of an embryo in the petri dish.

The only purpose that these questions serve is as segue to Art's final points in favor of continued research into cloned human embryos and embryonic stem cells derived from human embryos:

My view is that genetically altering body cells creates something that does not have the same moral standing as what is made from a sperm and an egg. That is why I favor continued work to create cloned human embryos as well.

I'm afraid that Dr. Caplan is confused or he is deliberately attempting to mislead his readers in support of a philosophical agenda, not science or ethics.

"I want" ethics reigns, even with good stem cell news

I found someone willing to admit that she's not happy with today's news on the production of embryo-like stem cells without the destruction of embryos or harm to women from donating eggs.

Robin Alta Charo is a lawyer who, as part of the Clinton administration's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, helped fabricate the policy to allow research on embryonic stem cells if the embryos were killed using someone else's money. She's part of the surprisingly small community that pushes for cloning, embryo destruction and Federal funding of the research, as well as attempting to regulate the very institutions, boards, and corporations they oversee. (See my article "Ethicists for hire?" for more on the relationships. Or, simply Google "R. Alta Charo" - for some reason she drops the "Robin.")

Charo is on record as hoping that cloning and regenerative medicine will finally prove that we humans aren't anything special, and maybe even that there's no God. If you think I'm exaggerating, listen to the lecture recording available, here.)


Anyway, the Science and Cell reports on research that produces cells that appear indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells that were published online today, are not the best of news to Ms. Charo.

From the ScienceDaily excerpt of the University of Wisconsin press release, with the cute title, "Reprogramming the Debate: Stem Cell Finding Alters Ethical Controversy,"

"It's going to fuel those who call for preferential federal funding only for non-embryonic stem cell research and it will certainly complicate any efforts to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research at the federal level," she says.
. . .
"Any piece of research like this that suggests that we can get cell lines that are equally usable without having to go through an embryo in intermediate steps is going to undermine any effort on the part of Congress to overturn the Bush policy," she says.

"No matter how well this new technique can be used for many of the disease-research and disease-treatment applications foreseen for embryonic stem cell and cloning research, however, calls for criminalization or wholesale de-funding of embryonic stem cell and cloning research are not warranted," Charo adds. "Criminalizing any area of science, as opposed to merely regulating it, would be contrary to the political and constitutional traditions of academic and scientific freedom, as well as the historical spirit of inquiry that characterizes this country."

From the Wisconsin article linked above,

Charo serves on several expert advisory boards of organizations with an interest in stem cell research, including CuresNow, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the International Society for Stem Cell Research and WiCell, as well as on the advisory board to the Wisconsin Stem Cell Research Program.

In 2005, she was appointed to the ethics standards working group of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Also in 2005, she helped to draft the National Academies' Guidelines for Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and in 2006 she was appointed to co-chair the National Academies' Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.

I'm sure that we shouldn't assume that those connections with Wi-Cell, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or even her associations with the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood have anything to do with her dislike for what many consider good news. And ignore the comments about the "Bush Administration." Charo's involvement with the Progressive Bioethics movement, couldn't have anything to do with politics.

Translation of "Induced Pluripotent (Human) Stem Cells"

Please see the revised version of this post, published November 30, 2007.