In 1991, President Bush signed an executive order that forbade the National Institutes for Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond the 60 or so stem cell lines that already existed at the time. President Obama's order will allow scientists to use federal money to to do research on any stem cell lines, although government money still can't be used to generate new stem cell lines. (The creation of a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo.)
More Buzz stories on stem cell research...
CNN's "explainer" feature on the promise of stem cell research
Tags : 
A display on adult stem cells, here at the SMM: In fact, this exhibit features Catherine Verfaillie herself. (Good looking out, BK)
Courtesy bryankennedyFollowing the results of an evaluation by a panel of experts at the University of Minnesota, the magazine New Scientist published an article last week announcing that some of the data used in a groundbreaking study on adult stem cells had been falsified.
The study, performed at the University of Minnesota under the supervision of Catherine Verfaillie, is part of a line of research that seemed to indicate that adult stem cells, taken from bone marrow, are pluripotent—that is that they have the potential to develop into any type of cell. Previously, only embryonic stem cells were thought to be pluripotent, and Verfaillie’s research looked like it could eventually offer an alternative to the ethically complicated use of embryonic cells for research (which requires the destruction of an embryo).
Unfortunately, other scientists had trouble replicating Verfaillie’s results, which were published in the journal Nature. New Scientist began examining the research done by Verfaillie and her team, and found that key images in the research appeared several times in papers for different experiments, and, in the case of a related study in the publication Blood, were used twice in the same paper, but had been visually altered slightly, and flipped 180 degrees. New Scientist reported their findings to the University, which began a formal investigation of the matter.
The University just recently completed the investigation, and found that data in the blood article had indeed been falsified (the images in particular), by a former PhD student of Verfaillies’, Morayma Reyes. The University and Catherine Verfaillie have asked Blood to redact the study.
Verfaillie has stated that she was unaware of the problems with the published study, and while she didn’t believe that the data was deliberately falsified, she takes ultimate responsibility for the errors.
Reyes, who now works as an assistant professor at the University of Washington, denies that the images represent deliberately altered data, and blames the errors on inadequate supervision and training. She claims that she had neither the equipment (photo editing software) nor knowledge required to alter the images. The differences in the reoccurring images were likely the result of the inadvertent use of the image adjusting tools built into lab equipment, she says, and the duplication of a figure within the Blood paper was accidental. Reyes also feels that she has been treated unfairly by the University, and that the expert panel in the investigation demonstrated a clear “lack of expertise” in the field of stem cell biology.
Reyes’ full position can be read here. The University’s response can be found here.
The altered images, Reyes asserts, shouldn’t change the results of the paper, but the whole incident brings up some interesting issues on the process of vetting science. While the errors in the paper never should have made it past Verfaillie and the rest of her team, the process of peer review should have caught them anyway. Generally, before research is published in a scientific journal, the editors select several scientists in the particular field of the paper to evaluate and comment (often anonymously) on the paper. The review panel is meant to confirm that the methodology of the experiments and the interpretation of the results are sound. Research can then be recommended (or not) for publication.
Publishing research essentially formally submits it to the scientific community, and it’s common for other scientists to attempt to replicate experiments, especially if a study makes particularly striking claims (like adult stem cells being pluripotent). The work of other scientists in replicating results is, obviously, essential to the scientific method—in this case is was what finally drew attention to some of the irregularities in Verfaillie’s team’s work.
Reproducibility can be a tricky thing, though—difficulty in repeating results doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t reproducible. (Here’s a good article on repeating and reproducing results.) But the problems in reproducing these results drew attention to the questionable data, which brought up another aspect of scientific vetting: the University’s investigation into academic misconduct. If the problems with reproducibility seem to come from data being changed, added, or omitted to strengthen a conclusion, then there could be a serious problem. This sort of misconduct undermines scientific progress, and can call into question the reputation of the institution it came out of and the validity of other research performed there. And if Morayma Reyes seems a little extra defensive in her letter, it’s understandable, because being accused of academic misconduct is a big deal, and no good for your career and future work.
The subject of the research further complicates the situation—this isn’t the first time issues of academic dishonesty have come up with regards to stem cell research. In 2006, a Korean scientist’s claims that he had cloned human embryos (thereby eliminating the need to destroy new embryos for stem cells) turned out to be based on lies. There’s a fear that the potentially huge medical payoff of stem cell research, as well as the ethical debate surrounding the use of human embryonic stem cells, could lead to science that is less than completely thorough, or even situations like the Korean controversy. And that’s bad for science in general. There’s also the thought that errors that are unintentional (as may be the case with Reyes’ images) could be the result of “pathological science,” where results are steered in a particular direction by scientists because of “subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions.” It doesn’t have the same ethical problems, but pathological results aren’t a whole lot better for science than straight-out misconduct, and it’s a serious potential pitfall with the benefits of stem cell research waiting out there as temptations.
So there you go. It looks like things are, for the most part, being handled appropriately in this situation, but it’s an interesting window into scientific process.
Any thoughts? Does it seem like the vetting process of science is lacking in some way? Or is it maybe too thorough? Professor Reyes, I imagine, would argue that too much has been made of this situation, and there are many who argue that the process of peer review limits the communication and dissemination of scientific ideas.
Or, even better, does it seem like I got something wrong here?
Let’s have it, Buzzketeers.
Science debate 2008
Courtesy Science debate 2008.Follow the link below to see the how presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain answered a series of questions about science policy, covering topics including stem cell research, global warming, renewable energy research, science education, space exploration and more. Obama's answers were submitted in August, and McCain's this past Monday.
Click here for the candidates' answers to the top 14 science questions facing America.
Dr. Hwang Woo-suk, the disgraced Korean stem cell researcher, is back in the news again with a report that he has successfully cloned dogs.
In your dreams pal: A normal human can't keep up the facade. (photo by hanhutton on flickr.com)I’m not sure… Half man, half spider would probably be okay, as long as you didn’t end up with a bunch more legs. Half man, half fly clearly didn’t work out. Half man, half dolphin might work. Half man, half wolf would have to be cool, plus I hunt rabbits that way already.
What? Oh, sorry, I was just thinking about something. Say, did any of you hear the news out of England? The UK government has approved the creation of human-animal hybrids.
It’s about time.
Why do I say this? Well, I’ll sum it up in two points:
1) How many octopus-like suckers have I got on my arms? Zero.
2) How long have I wanted octopus-like suckers on my arms? Forever.
British scientists are quick to point out, though, that they won’t be creating viable creatures, only embryos, and, furthermore, only a very small amount of animal DNA will be present in the embryo. Human DNA would be transferred to an animal egg (of, say, a rabbit or a cow) that had already had most of the genetic material removed. The hybrids would be allowed to grow to only a very early stage, just long enough to study the development of the stem cells.
Or so they say. This slideshow has recently been leaked onto the Internet, and it offers some pretty compelling (and, just a warning, possibly upsetting) evidence to the contrary:
So now you’ve seen the future. What do you think? Are those gentlemen-dogs better off?
New source of stem cells without destroying embryos.
Stem cells from mouse tails: Photo adapted from Kadath
Stems cells can self-renew or go through numerous cycles of cell division while maintaining their undifferentiated state. Stem cells also have the capacity to differentiate into any mature cell type. These unique properties make stem cells very promising in research toward fixing damaged nerves, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. But research involving stem cells has been limited because obtaining stem cells involved destroying human embryos.
Piece of mouse's tail transformed into living mouse.
Researchers found a way to use skin cells from an adult mouse to create stem cells like that of an embryo.
Four genes, which code for four specific proteins known as transcription factors, are transferred into the cells using retroviruses. The proteins trigger the expression of other genes that lead the cells to become pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially become any of the body's cells. Yamanaka calls them induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). "It's easy. There's no trick, no magic," says Yamanaka. Nature.
Principle proven, but not for humans, yet.
But the iPS cells aren't perfect, and could not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant in, for example, spinal-cord injuries. Yamanaka found that one of the factors seems to contribute to cancer in 20% of his chimaeric mice. He thinks this can be fixed, but the retroviruses used may themselves also cause mutations and cancer.
"This is really dangerous. We would never transplant these into a patient," says Jaenisch.
In his view, research into embryonic stem cells made by cloning remains "absolutely essential". ScienceBlogs.com
"Human embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard for pluripotent cells, and it is a necessity to continue studying embryonic stem cells through traditional means." Jaenisch, MIT.edu/news
Barriers to embryonic research are breaking
After more than two years of legal wrangling, California is free to spend over $3 billion during the next decade on stem cell research. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is now free to raise some $300 million per year by selling bonds. New Scientist
In the United Sates Congress, the House gave final approval on Thursday to legislation aimed at easing restrictions on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research, but Democratic leaders in both chambers conceded they were short of the votes needed to override a veto threatened by President Bush. Any effort to override a veto would begin in the Senate, where the bill passed April 11 on a 63-45 vote. Even counting the three Senate Democrats who were not present for the vote, passage was one vote shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. New York Times.
MakeIt Team
On Wednesday, the Make It team at the museum's Youth Science Center talked about stem cell research and the election season.
Recently, Michael J. Fox appeared in ads for candidates who support stem cell research. After one of the ads aired, several people commented on Fox's appearance in the ads. Katie Couric interviewed Michael J. Fox where he commented on the original ads and the press they received.
The Make It team watched video clips of one of the ads with Michael J. Fox, the First Lady's reaction to the ads, and Katie Couric's interview with Michael J. Fox which includes a clip of Rush Limbaugh's comments.
Afterwards we talked about what stem cell research is, why some people want the government to fund stem cell research, and what reservations people have about how stem cells are used. You can check out the teens reactions to the discussions on the Make It Blog here, here, here and here.
With the federal government refusing to fund research into new embryonic stem cell lines, reports this week of a process that created them without destroying embryos in the process had scientists excited. But critics are claiming that the researchers overstated the implications of their work.
Embryo, 8 cells: Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Stem cell research is a hot topic in our country these days. Much of the controversy surrounds embryonic stem cell research and the issue of extracting cells from, and in turn destroying, developing embryos.
If only there was a way to obtain stem cells without killing the developing embryo…
Well, it looks like there is.
Researchers have found a way to extract a single cell from an embryo to be used for stem cells, while keeping the embryo intact.
Usually, stem cells are removed from an embryo when they are about 4 or 5 days old and the embryo has developed into a microscopic hollow ball structure known as a blastocyst. Extracting cells from the blastocyst causes it to fall apart and destroys the embryo. The new research findings show that stem cells can be harvested from less developed embryos, those with only 8 to 10 cells, and can leave the embryos unharmed.
Sounds like a solution to the stem cell debate, doesn’t it?
However, there are still ethical concerns with the new stem cell research technique. Critics fear that an embryo that had a cell extracted from it will be less likely to be able to implant in the womb or will not develop properly, leading to health problems in the resulting child. Others are opposed because the extracted cell potentially could have developed into a new embryo itself.
It seems that the stem cell controversy will never end. But this discovery may be a step towards a solution.
What do you think? Is the new stem cell extraction technique ethical?
Subscribe
I want to learn about
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2010, except where noted.
Add a new comment