Ellen
01-08-2008, 06:59 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/03/health-blog-qa-skipping-nih-to-study-stem-cells/
January 3, 2008, 10:36 pm
Health Blog Q&A: Skipping NIH to Study Stem Cells
Posted by Jacob Goldstein
President Bush’s 2001 rule limiting federally funded embryonic stem cell research gave rise to an archipelago of labs sustained without federal money.
http://s.wsj.net/media/bendala4_blog_20080103170214.jpgIn his latest WSJ column, Robert Lee Hotz writes (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119930064992262719.html) that those labs are pushing forward with their work even as recent studies have suggested that it may be possible to create embryonic stem cells from adult cells (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/11/20/embryonic-stem-cells-without-the-embryos/), bypassing the embryo altogether and ending the political and ethical controversy that has surrounded stem cell research.
To get an insider’s view, the Health Blog spoke with Juan Dominguez-Bendala (http://www.diabetesresearch.org/AbouttheDRI/DRIFaculty/JuanDominguezBendala.htm) (pictured), an assistant professor who studies embryonic stem cells without federal funding at the University of Miami’s Diabetes Research Institute. Here are the highlights.
Why not stick with the stem cell lines that are eligible for federal money?
In general, cell lines are very different one from another. They have different abilities. In theory they should be the same. But we find that some lines differentiate better, some lines differentiate in certain ways. We didn’t want to be limited in any way.
So what did you have to do to study unapproved stem cell lines?
We had to subtract the square footage of the lab and the offices from the overall institute’s overhead, which includes power, water, sewage. Basic operation of any building is in part funded by NIH if you are an institute that has NIH grants. Even though my lab is part of the institute, it’s a sort of island without any NIH funding.
The problem comes when you want to do both federally funded research and non-federally funded research in the lab. That’s a nightmare. I understand that [labs that do this] had to start putting stickers on equipment saying this is an NIH culture, this is not.
Does the recent work indicating it may be possible to derive embryonic stem cells from adult cells have implications for your work?
It’s very interesting research. But at this point all these cell lines that have been created from adult cells contain at least four viruses to transfer genes into the cells. The problem is the viruses integrate randomly within the genome and you don’t know where they are going. The way it is right now, you cannot transplant these cells into people because of the risks associated with the integration of these viruses.
So to say that we have finally a non-controversial source of embryonic stem cells is misleading. We don’t know yet.
</SPAN>
January 3, 2008, 10:36 pm
Health Blog Q&A: Skipping NIH to Study Stem Cells
Posted by Jacob Goldstein
President Bush’s 2001 rule limiting federally funded embryonic stem cell research gave rise to an archipelago of labs sustained without federal money.
http://s.wsj.net/media/bendala4_blog_20080103170214.jpgIn his latest WSJ column, Robert Lee Hotz writes (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119930064992262719.html) that those labs are pushing forward with their work even as recent studies have suggested that it may be possible to create embryonic stem cells from adult cells (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/11/20/embryonic-stem-cells-without-the-embryos/), bypassing the embryo altogether and ending the political and ethical controversy that has surrounded stem cell research.
To get an insider’s view, the Health Blog spoke with Juan Dominguez-Bendala (http://www.diabetesresearch.org/AbouttheDRI/DRIFaculty/JuanDominguezBendala.htm) (pictured), an assistant professor who studies embryonic stem cells without federal funding at the University of Miami’s Diabetes Research Institute. Here are the highlights.
Why not stick with the stem cell lines that are eligible for federal money?
In general, cell lines are very different one from another. They have different abilities. In theory they should be the same. But we find that some lines differentiate better, some lines differentiate in certain ways. We didn’t want to be limited in any way.
So what did you have to do to study unapproved stem cell lines?
We had to subtract the square footage of the lab and the offices from the overall institute’s overhead, which includes power, water, sewage. Basic operation of any building is in part funded by NIH if you are an institute that has NIH grants. Even though my lab is part of the institute, it’s a sort of island without any NIH funding.
The problem comes when you want to do both federally funded research and non-federally funded research in the lab. That’s a nightmare. I understand that [labs that do this] had to start putting stickers on equipment saying this is an NIH culture, this is not.
Does the recent work indicating it may be possible to derive embryonic stem cells from adult cells have implications for your work?
It’s very interesting research. But at this point all these cell lines that have been created from adult cells contain at least four viruses to transfer genes into the cells. The problem is the viruses integrate randomly within the genome and you don’t know where they are going. The way it is right now, you cannot transplant these cells into people because of the risks associated with the integration of these viruses.
So to say that we have finally a non-controversial source of embryonic stem cells is misleading. We don’t know yet.
</SPAN>