Stem cell cheerleading and hand-wringing at The New York Times
Posted by Marcy Darnovsky on December 4th, 2007
A few weeks ago, the New York Times provided a chunk of its front page to an enthusiastic news article that, in the words of bioethicist Erik Parens, “gave free advertising to three companies that already are or soon will be hawking whole-genome scans” – procedures that experts have described as a waste of money at best. Parens’ pointed remarks are titled, “It’s Time for the Times to Cut the Gene Hype.”
The Times has another biotech hype problem, too, this one on its editorial page, where over-the-top stem cell fervor long ago left thoughtful assessment behind.
In recent years, the nation's newspaper of record has made a habit of jumping in with a cheerleading editorial just about every time an embryonic stem cell researcher sneezes – a total of 58 editorials focused on stem cells since the summer of 2001.
But last month’s announcement that ordinary skin cells can be transformed into human pluripotent stem cells seemed to leave the Times editors at a loss for words. Nearly two weeks later – during which time dozens of other editorials, columns and commentaries appeared in news outlets around the world – a party line had developed, and a Times editorial toed it.
The editors expended most of their energies on Bush-bashing – a tempting pastime, to be sure – and making the case for continued research on IVF embryos – a point with which even many Republicans agree. The editorial was also saturated with the assumption that cloning-based stem cell research is still necessary, and that regulating stem cell research is not.
These are dubious assertions, but in keeping with the Times editors’ stem cell drumbeat.
Times editorials routinely conflate the distinction between stem cells derived from IVF embryos slated for discard – that is, all currently existing embryonic stem cells – and the so-far unsuccessful efforts to get stem cells from cloned human embryos – efforts that raise a number of non-embryo-related concerns, including the fact that they require thousands of women’s eggs.
When the Times editors do mention eggs, their tone shifts from cheerleading to hand-wringing. In September, for example, Biopolitical Times noted their lament about the “distressingly few women willing to donate their eggs for experiments at the frontiers of this promising science.” The editors consistently ignore or downplay the risks of egg extraction for women. In this Sunday’s piece, they refer to the need for “large quantity of human eggs” as “the vexing problem.”
The Times’ final thought in Sunday's editorial is the hope that “the next president will quickly jettison all restrictions on stem cell research.” All restrictions? Do they really want no rules at all? Based on a perusal of New York Times stem cell editorials from 1998-2007 – see this compiled list – that sorry conclusion seems inescapable.
Goozner and the Integrity in Science Project on Conflicts at the FDA
Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 3rd, 2007
Like the National Academies, the Food and Drug Administration recently reviewed its conflict of interest policies. And once again, the Integrity in Science Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest offered a useful take on the findings:
When the original 2001 Vioxx study appeared in the New England
Journal of Medicine, its industry-funded authors dismissed data showing
the drug raised the risk of heart attack by suggesting the comparison
drug in the trial had been cardio-protective. Last month, the Food and
Drug Administration did something similar with a study [PDF] of conflicts of interest on its advisory committees. The agency's press release
said it would be difficult to create advisory committees free from
conflicts of interest. The study, which cost taxpayers $60,000,
according to FedSpending.org,
also claimed the advisors granted conflict-of-interest waivers had
greater expertise than those without conflicts serving on the
In fact, a Center for Science in the
Public Interest reanalysis of the data contained in the report revealed
that the FDA and the report should have drawn the opposite conclusions.
The report examined four committees created during 2006 that granted 17
waivers. It took just 88 person-hours to identify 30 independent
experts with all the expertise needed to fill those slots. Each of the
30 affirmatively declared in the medical literature that they had no
conflicts of interest. Moreover, the expertise of those potential
candidates, according to the report's own methodology, was greater than
either the conflicted or unconflicted experts chosen to serve on the
In a letter [Word Doc] sent today to Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, a coalition of
consumer groups called on the FDA to reopen consideration of an agency
proposal made last March that would forbid anyone who has financial
ties with industry worth more than $50,000 from serving on advisory
committees. It would also deny voting rights to advisers with lesser
conflicts. "While the FDA's proposed guidance doesn't go far enough,
this study shows that those barred or restricted under its limited
provisions could be easily replaced," said Merrill Goozner, director of
CSPI's Integrity in Science Project. Recently passed legislation only
requires the agency to reduce total waivers by 20 percent over the next
five years, which is well short of the total ban on conflicts of
interest sought by consumer groups.
Merrill not only directs the project but has written a widely-praised book on the costs of drug development, and maintains his own blog, Gooznews. Both come recommended.
Defensive Ideologues Dig In
Posted by Jesse Reynolds on November 30th, 2007
|Isaac Newton, responsible for some other great scientific advances in human history|
In the wake of last week's development of patient-specific, pluripotent stem cell lines, I've read much pontification and punditry. Some is thoughtful, plenty is glib, and the occasional nugget is simply ridiculous. Here are three examples of the latter, all from entrenched embryonic stem cell research ideologues - with financial interests in the field - who are resorting to defensive posturing.
Leading the pack is Michael Werner, lobbyist for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, who laments that these "scientific discoveries are being politicized." Yet his job is to do precisely that: He spins scientific developments in ways that encourage politicians and other policy makers to enact policies friendly towards the industry that signs his paycheck.
Next up is Geron CEO Thomas Okarma, who said: "Most of the people who are doing this work and make the claim that this is going to change the therapeutic field really know nothing about cell therapy." This sentence clearly points to the actual researchers who developed the new techniques, including James Thomson. So to Okarma, whose repeated promises of clinical trials for embryonic stem cell therapies make them seem as imminent as Chinese Democracy, the very scientist who first isolated human embryonic stem cells "really know[s] nothing about cell therapy?"
Finally, in an attempt to downplay the new methods of deriving stem cells without embryos, Okarma's BFF Hans Keirstead said that embryonic stem cells (i.e., the type on which he holds patents) are "are the greatest single scientific advance in human history." I'll let that statement speak for itself. (HT to Wesley Smith on Keirstead)
DNA Dieting? It was only a matter of time.....
Posted by Jamie Brooks on November 28th, 2007
|(Click on Image)|
The United States is dealing with skyrocketing obesity rates at the same time we are becoming obsessed with thinness. This has created a market for Americans to be inundated with diet advertisements for quick fixes promising weight loss.
It was only a matter of time before biotechnology would promise people that it could help them get their sexy back while capitalizing on the multi-million dollar diet industry. Enter GenoTrim™, the "world's first DNA-customized nutritional supplement for optimal weight."
GenoTrim™ advertises that for $495 you can take the GenoTrim™ DNA test. This, it claims, will detect your genetic imbalances by analyzing what it calls the "sweet tooth gene," "nervous eating gene," "fat regulator gene," "new cell gene" and the "obesity risk gene." Then, for $99 dollars a month, you can buy a supply of genetically-guided nutritional supplements customized uniquely for you.
The asterisk mark following these statements should come as no surprise. The caveat: "The supplement is most effective when working in conjunction with a reasonable diet and exercise plan…These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
Personalized medicine sounds like a promising approach, but it is still too early to gauge how useful it will be. And, due to the fact millions of genetic variations may exist, identifying them all, and having an accurate understanding of how genes interact with one another may make the fruits of genetic medicine more distant than its proponents would like to admit. Nevertheless, the GenoTrim™ service has already launched, with an expected $70 million in sales over the next five years.
Obesity is certainly a health risk. But as the medical industry and the media increasingly embrace genetic explanations for almost every health condition, will the age-old adage of eating less and exercising more find itself in smaller and smaller print until it finally vanishes?