Gary Schwitzer is confused, as he explains in HealthNewsReview.org. And I don't blame him; I'm confused myself.
Was this week's human cloning story a "major medical breakthrough," as Fox called it (the b-word!)? Or not?
Scanning the coverage doesn't help; you can find either point of view well represented.
First, FoxNews.com: "In a major medical breakthrough, researchers at the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) have for the first time ever successfully converted human skin cells into embryonic stem cells – via a technique called nuclear transfer." This is not only a breakthrough–a word that should hardly ever be used–it's a major breakthrough, writes Loren Grush at Fox. (I'm wondering what a minor breakthrough might be.)
At The New York Times, Andrew Pollack raises the specter of "cloned babies," which seems rather beside the point here. The main issue is whether the research will lead to better medical treatment. Pollack even goes so far as to quote the Conference on Catholic Bishops and Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston denouncing the production of cloned babies. Yes, there are interesting ethical issues here, but throwing in comments from two Catholic sources isn't enough to explore those issues. Why doesn't Pollack quote religious figures from other denominations? Let's save the ethical issues for the Sunday story–and let's add a few non-Catholics to the mix.
Dan Vergano at USA Today further undermines Pollack's cloned-baby fears by quoting the lead researcher, who says, "We think there is something in the manipulations to make them that make a successful pregnancy impossible." Vergano's story is more balanced, reporting that this is a "scientific first"–which it seems to be–but without calling it a breakthrough. He also provides helpful history, noting that this claim was made by a South Korean researcher, who, it later turned out, was guilty of fraud.
Vergano says these cloned stem cells–which can in theory be transformed into many kinds of human tissue–will compete with another kind of stem cell for use in the clinic–the so-called "induced" stem cell, produced by reprogramming adult cells, not embryos.
So far, we've read that this new study describes a critical advance that could transform medicine. But here is where Schwitzer and I get confused: Carolyn Y. Johnson at The Boston Globe reports that the finding "is generating little excitement. It is a key technical advance, but not a breakthrough." In explaining why, she refers to the induced stem cells and begins to wax poetic:
The discovery would no doubt be a bigger deal if, in 2007, scientists had not discovered that there was a different, simpler way to create stem cells that bear a patient’s own genome…Instead of replacing the genetic material in an egg with the genome of a patient–the procedure known as cloning–the researchers found they could flip genetic switches that turned back time…
Nicely put. And she ends her short piece this way:
And so a major quest in science comes to an end, in a saga that shows how a major scientific quest can fall to the wayside with advances in technology and knowledge. Moreover, grand scientific missions are often just the first step toward transforming human health. Even if the technique turns out to have some advantage over reprogramming, what lies ahead is the long road toward taking a technique and turning it into something that could be a useful therapy.
That's damn good writing, and I'm sorry that it comes at the end; some readers will not get to it.
And so what to do about the confusion concerning this research? Malcolm Ritter at The Associated Press (a former colleague of mine) took a Solomonic approach: "A prominent expert called the work a landmark, but noted that a different, simpler technique now under development may prove more useful," he wrote.
Ritter seems to get it right. My conclusion (and I hope this helps Schwitzer): This was indeed a landmark finding, but one that is unlikely to have huge implications for medicine. Scientists can cross another goal off the list, and perhaps what they learned here will help elsewhere.
Schwitzer notes, by the way, that this is the second whom-should-we-believe story in a week. See the Tracker two days ago for "Report on Salt and Health Spawns Conflicting, Confusing Messages From the Media."
And before we finish, let's deliver one barb where it belongs: In a press release, Cell, the journal that published the study, cranked up the hype more than it should have with this headline: "Major advance provides human embryonic stem cells for personalized medicine."
That's more hype than we have a right to expect from scientific journals. Cell will find it difficult henceforth to criticize reporters on these grounds.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply