An amazing medical breakthrough reported in the London Times today. In a small trial of patients, 13 of 15 diabetics given injections of stem cells did not need daily insulin injection 3 years after the treatment. Truly remarkable.
Now, there are 2 types of stem cells; adult and embryonic. What kind were these. The articles doesn’t say specifically, but it leaves it to the reader to deduce that.
In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.
Unless we’re talking about fetal diabetics, the stem cells must be adult ones. Chalk up another win for stem cells that lack any ethical issues.
But note that the writer is more than happy to bring up the other type of stem cells specifically.
Previous studies have suggested that stem-cell therapies offer huge potential to treat a variety of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neuron disease. A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims.
But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
By positioning these two paragraphs this way, the writer begs the reader to make the connection between this breakthrough and Bush’s refusal to have the feds fund embryonic stem cell research. Even the linked article about heart attack victims won’t use the word “adult” when talking about the stem cells.
What’s worse, blatant media bias like this really works. Just read the comment section at the end (which I believe is in reverse chronological order) to find those who are against Bush’s position but fail to realize the distinction.
Interesting that a major medical breakthrough, promising hope to millions of Type 1 diabetics and their families gets overshadowed by a debate on morality….
…
If you’ve had to stick a needle into your 11 year old twice/thrice daily would you object to stem cell research?
Get real this is the 21C. Blair n’ Bush should spend the war money on this research!Kids want fun/childhood, not adult ethics.
…
How sanctimonius some of the opinions on this discussion are. My brother and I have type 1 diabetes. I really don’t care what type of stem cells are used if it finds a cure for this disease. Do you really equate a bunch of cells with an actual child or adult life? Is that serious? You would condemn people like me & my brother and countless others to living with this disease for ever because you believe that embryos are so important. That isn’t moraility, its drivel.
And one fellow seems to think that if the government doesn’t pay for it, it doesn’t get anything.
You use your religious beliefs to prevent my tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research. Only adult stem cell research is funded, so only adult stem cell cures are produced. Then, you use the success of some adult stem cell research to deny the value of embryonic stem cells? What kind of twisted circular logic is that? Of course there aren’t embryonic stem cell treatments if the research isn’t funded.
All victims of media reporting.
Finally, one commenter makes a great point. Follow the money.
Let’s not forget one of the biggest reasons that pharmas want to use embryonic stem cells. Money. If they use stem cells that come from a source other than a bonafide “Person”, they can patent it and make lots of money from the treatment. You cannot patent adult stem cells as they come from and belong to a particular individual.
Doug Payton blogs at Considerettes.















2 users commented in " Diabetics Cured with Stem Cells. But What Kind? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback*sigh* if it helps, I can give you a brief primer on stem cell research for the next time you blog on it.
The research above was done by manipulating adult stem cells using techniques learnt from embryonic stem cells (as you would have seen if you had read the primary source, rather than substandard media on the work). Adult stem cells can potentially be derived from the patient being treated, therefore they have the same HLA and minor histocompatability antigens. Embryonic stem cells are derived from a third party to the patient, and therefore there will be at least a degree of mismatch, requiring immunosuppression. Therefore, every serious researcher wants to use adult stem cells as a therapeutic. Unfortunately, adult stem cells are very difficult to manipulate, because we don’t yet understand how to undifferentiate and redifferentiate them. The best way to study how to use adult stem cells is to study embryonic stem cells, which are much easier to manipulate. All of the tricks we have found to use on adult stem cells have come by studying embryonic stem cells. Stem cell research is not either-or - we require embryonic stem cells to understand the biology of adult stem cells, and then adult stem cells for therapeutics.
Medical scientists have to get ethical clearance for everything they do. It would be far easier for them to work on adult stem cells only, the problem is (and this is the only reason why they work on embryonic stem cells) you just can’t do much of the basic research without using embryonic stem cells. This research was a success for the basic science of embryonic stem cells and the applied science of adult stem cells. Trying to turn it into a competition for political/religious purposes demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of medical science.
BTW, your comments on following the money are incorrect - both embryonic and adult stem cell technology can be (and have been) patented, and both are being worked on commercially for the reasons I stated above.
Thanks for the information. Very helpful. My main point is that the media do indeed have an agenda in this and, I’d contend, many other, issues, and have no problem slanting their coverage to try to advance it. This is just another in a long line of blatant advocacy journalism that those on the Left fail to note while throwing hissy fits over Fox News. Embryonic stem cell research, which is occurring despite what these media consumers have been led to believe, may have contributed to it, but it was adult stem cells that were the source of the treatment, something the article entirely glosses over, and indeed obfuscates.
And, as comments to the article suggest, this form of advocacy journalism works, unfortunately. Fair and balanced it ain’t.
Leave A Reply