Regenerative Medicine - The Real Deal!
During 2004 Californians were promised “cures” for all kinds of chronic illnesses and debilitating injuries if Proposition 71 became law. Believing the hype, voters passed the initiative—a constitutional amendment that indebted the state for $3 billion ($6 billion with interest), guaranteed scientists the right to do stem cell research, incentivized embryo-destructive stem cell research, and excluded the oversight of the Legislature and/or the Governor.
Five years later—and what do we have? Cadillac buildings on manicured lawns, limousine salaries for administrators and staff, obvious and embarrassing conflicts of interest in the awarding of grants, and not incidentally, money doled out for research that is fast becoming obsolete. No cures. No therapies. Not even any clinical trials!
Stem cell science is moving fast. In 2004 scientists claimed that embryos provided stem cells which were the “gold standard.” In 2006, scientist discovered iPS—embryonic-like stem cells created from skin cells—which allowed for non-destructive and ethical research. But available all during this decade have been blood cord stem cells—the non-embryonic stem cells which have to date successfully treated more than 85 diseases!
Cord blood, which remains in the umbilical cord and placenta following birth and after the cord is cut, is usually discarded as medical waste. However, cord blood contains valuable stem cells which are a genetic match to the newborn and his/her family. Those stem cells can be used to treat life-threatening diseases like leukemia, sickle cell, or even juvenile diabetes—and in more recent developments—can also be used to ameliorate the effects of cerebral palsy resulting from a pediatric stroke. (Cord blood in a "public bank" operates similar to bone marrow matching services. In fact, finding a suitable cord blood donor is easier than it is for marrow.)
At a recent forum, Banking on Life: Cord Blood Stem Cells—the Future of Regenerative Medicine, co-sponsored by the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network (CBC) and the Cord Blood Registry (CBR) the issue was thoroughly discussed by a Congress member, multiple eminent research scientists, a political scientist and best of all—the mother of a little girl who was the recipient of cord blood therapy.
On May 6, 2009, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) launched a new Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research campaign equipping citizens to contact Congress and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to oppose embryonic stem cell research and support ethical cures and treatments we can all live with. More information go here.
(Carol Hogan is Director for Communications and Pastoral Projects for the California Catholic Conference.)
Overview of
Banking on Life: Cord Blood Stem Cells—the Future of Regenerative Medicine
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) reported that she had introduced a bill, H.R.2107, to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign on umbilical cord blood stem cells, noting that 95 percent of all cord blood is thrown away as medical waste.
• David T. Harris, Ph.D., a consultant for CBR and Professor of Immunology at the University of Arizona, established the first cord blood bank in the United States (1992). In his presentation he pointed out that cord blood stem cell therapies recorded the same survival rate but with fewer side effect as bone marrow stem cell therapies. He discussed the contrasting treatments which used either bone marrow or cord blood autologous (one’s own) stem cells—transplantation vs. regeneration. With transplantation the stem cells replace the diseased or injured cells. With regeneration (which is the newer science) the stem cells repair the diseased or injured cells. Transplantation therapy has been successfully used in treating some cancers, sickle-cell anemia and in creating epithelial tissue—such as corneas and skin to cover open wounds. Advances in regenerative medicine include the creation of insulin-secreting islets and repair of neurological injury.
• Colin P. McGuckin, Ph.D., until recently Professor of Regenerative Medicine at the University of Newcastle in the UK, is the founder and director of the Cell Therapy Research Institute in Lyon, France and President of the Paris-based Novus Sanguis Consortium. As the UK’s leading stem cell scientist, Professor McGuckin, devised a harvesting and culture strategy to produce embryonic-like stem cells from umbilical cord blood and has used those cells to grow liver tissue. Professor McGuckin is a great advocate and spokesman for banking cord blood and an enthusiastic explorer of new and beneficial uses of cord blood stem cells—like creating various body tissues upon which therapies and drugs can be tried. He rejects out of hand the use of stem cells derived from destructive embryo research, saying that the qualities (pluripotency: capability of becoming all body tissues) that scientists value in embryonic stem cells are available in iPS cells—somatic (skin) cells induced to regress to embryonic-like stem cells. And even more available for ethical research are the multipotent (most body tissues) cord blood stem cells. (Q&A on embryonic stem cells vs. induced pluripotent stem cells provided by the Bioethics Defense Fund can be found here:
• James Baumgartner, M.D., a pediatric neurosurgeon at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas, is currently involved in clinical trials treating traumatic brain injury in children using autologous stem cells from bone marrow. He reported that each year in the United States there are over 1.4 million traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and 11,000 spinal cord injuries. The possibility of using stem cells from bone marrow—as well as from umbilical cord blood or iPS cells—to heal these injuries is an exciting area of research. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS), the human clinical trials are underway. They build on laboratory and animal research indicating that bone-marrow derived stem cells can migrate to an injured area of the brain, differentiate into new neurons and support cells, and induce brain repair. More information on the trials can be found here.
• Ian Rogers, Ph.D., a scientist at the Lunenfeld Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Canada and a professor in the OB/GYN department of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, has worked extensively in the development of cord blood stem cell therapies for blood diseases, neural diseases and diabetes. Dr. Rogers talked candidly about using embryonic stem cells for research—saying that one of their defining traits—which the newly-discovered iPS cells share—is their ability to form noncancerous tumors called teratomas. He prefers to use cord blood derived stem cells in his research—not necessarily for ethical reasons but for pragmatic reasons.
• John Cusey, a senior staffer in the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2005 and a political appointee at the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services from 2005 to 2008, was intimately involved in the passage of the Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Act of 2005 (H.R. 2520). He gave a lively description of the politics of funding and educating about stem cell research—including the competing ideologies.
• Chloe Levine, a bright-eyed little girl, and her mother joined the forum for a brief testimonial about the effectiveness of cord blood re-infusion. Chloe suffered a stroke in utero, was nearly paralyzed on her right side and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at age one. Fortunately her parents had banked her cord blood. Following the stem cell therapy using that cord blood she has nearly normal use of her right arm and leg. The Denver Post story, “Stem Cells: Small Wonders” is here: