|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A principal argument for the use of embryonic stem cells is their greater plasticity. In this regard, it is interesting that in a 2002 article,3 Dr. Daley wrote, "The success of nuclear transfer in reprogramming the differentiated state suggests that cellular engineering might indeed confer upon adult somatic cells the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, and work is proceeding on clever strategies for doing just that."
What happened?
John A. Petros, M.D.
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
jpetros{at}emory.edu
References
Richard F. Grunt, M.D.
2100 Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
I agree with Daley that there may be an immediate and compelling medical rationale for stem-cell studies. However, the point that Daley fails to see is that scientific considerations should never trump the ethical considerations of society.
Jurek G. Grabowski, M.P.H.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD 21205
ggrabows{at}jhmi.edu
I find it curious that Dr. Petros suggests that I have changed my position of advocacy of embryonic stem-cell research "to make a political statement," given my "previous enthusiasm" for the use of adult (somatic) stem cells. In numerous public lectures and scientific articles, I have consistently expressed my conviction that fundamental knowledge and lifesaving cell-based therapies will emerge from research into both embryonic and adult stem cells and that neither avenue should be excluded in favor of the other. In my own laboratory, I maintain active research programs on both classes of stem cells.
Dr. Petros is correct in highlighting my hope that one day we will learn to reprogram somatic cells directly by methods that are less cumbersome than nuclear transfer in order to "confer upon adult somatic cells the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells."1 Though promising, such speculative cellular-engineering research does not obviate the need for expanded access to new human embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are not equivalent to embryonic stem cells and cannot satisfy all scientific and medical needs. Dr. Petros chose not to highlight the following statement from the same review he cites: "The biological fact of life that some adult tissues lack stem cells has bolstered the argument that cell replacement for some disorders must tap a source within the embryo, or alternatively from differentiated products of ES [embryonic stem] cell lines."1
Dr. Grunt correctly warns us that restrictions on stem-cell research can have a chilling effect on scientific progress and put scientists in the United States — and possibly patients in this country as well — at a disadvantage.
Rather than distracting readers from the ethical debate, as Mr. Grabowski suggests, I attempt in my article to provide legislators, physicians, biomedical scientists, and the public with credible details of the missed scientific opportunities under the current governmental policy, so that all might exercise sound ethical and pragmatic judgment about medical priorities in our pluralistic society.
George Q. Daley, M.D., Ph.D.
Children's Hospital
Boston, MA 02115
george.daley{at}childrens.harvard.edu
References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | TERMS OF USE | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
Previous
