The stem cells in this case were turned into the neurons which are missing in Parkinson’s disease. The mice that received cells derived from their own clones improved. But when these cells were grafted into mice that did not genetically match the transplanted cells, the cells did not survive and the mice did not recover.

If you would like a copy of this paper or you would like to speak to an expert about this research please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415.

Professor Richard Boyd is Deputy Director of the Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories, Victoria

“The technology of being able to induce stem cells is now looking much more realistic. This is the first functional demonstration that the cells produced can be used to treat a condition, in this case Parkinson’s-like disease. They also showed that it was a self specific effect because when they transferred the cells into another donor they were rejected. This is very much a proof of concept that one can create one’s own stem cells to potentially treat a patient specific disease.

The necessary underlying provisos are that the effects were still highly variable, the process still inefficient, and there is no information on long term safety issues and all these concerns would have to be satisfied before there is any thought of transferring this to the clinic. This is an exciting step down the pathway of creating a self specific stem cell and getting away from the ethical demands of traditional embryonic stem cells.”

Associate Professor George Mellick is a Parkinson’s disease expert at the Eskitis Institute for Cell and Molecular Therapies at Griffith University, Qld. He is also Vice-President of Queensland’s Parkinson’s Disease Society (Parkinson’s Queensland Incorporated) and is an invited member of the Experts Advisory Panel for Parkinson’s Australia.

The data shows that engineered embryonic stem cells, derived from an adult animal with experimental parkinsonism and cultured into dopamine-producing cells, can be transplanted back into the animal to improve the symptoms. This is the first time that this kind of autologous transplantation has been done with ES-derived cells. Proponents of adult stem cells would claim that their cell lines are much more amenable to such autologous transplantation without the need for somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Are people with Parkinson’s disease any closer to a cure? Unfortunately, not really. That cell transplantation can improve animal parkinsonism has been known for a long time. While it does show promise as an alternative means to treat the motor symptoms of human Parkinson’s disease, like our currently available medications, the emerging cell transplantation approaches don’t address the diverse degenerative changes that occur in multiple regions of the brain seen in human Parkinson’s disease. The idea that we may be able to re-generate complex brain circuitry is, in my opinion, still some way off.”

Professor Bob Williamson is Chair of the National Committee for Medicine, Australian Academy of Science and is Professor of Medical Genetics, University of Melbourne

“The Sloan-Kettering group in New York, headed by Lorenz Studer, has shown that stem cells that are made from skin cells can be used to treat a mouse model of Parkinson disease and are not rejected by the immune system.

The stem cells were made using a technique known as ‘therapeutic cloning’, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, where the nucleus of a cell from a mouse (or, in principle, a patient with Parkinson disease or any other disorder) is pushed into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The so-called ‘embryo’ (though it should be noted that many ethicists, including myself, do not believe this is an embryo) is then grown to a point where embryonic-like stem cells can be isolated.

In each case, the mouse that donated the nucleus from its skin cell was then made to suffer from Parkinson disease (it should be noted that the model, although often used, is not exactly the same as the human disease). When stem cells made from the same mouse using therapeutic cloning were injected into the key part of the mouse brain for Parkinson disease, the striatum, the mice that received matched transplants got better. While not “cured” from Parkinson disease, they were clearly improved compared to mice that received cells that were not therapeutic clones.

Studer has shown that therapeutic cloning works, at least for mice. However, mice are not men, and no one has yet succeeded in obtaining a stem cell line using somatic cell nuclear transfer for humans, though everyone is sure that, however inefficient, this will come soon. Mice are also inbred, which makes rejection less likely even with cell donors that are not “identical”. Nonetheless, this represents an advance, because it has been shown that stem cells can be made by therapeutic cloning and are not rejected, and can cure a model of a human disease in mice. It also underlines how foolish those people are who oppose nuclear transfer; cells in a test tube are not an embryo, and these experiments could give great hope to those with Parkinson disease, type 1 diabetes and cystic fibrosis.”

Professor Jack Martin is John Holt Fellow and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the Bone, Joint & Cancer Uni, St Vincent’s Institute, Victoria.

“The whole game has changed so much now with the new way of reprogramming adult cells, the induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, that this work, such as it is, is pretty well out of date and no one will ever try and repeat it. It doesn’t really show anything we didn’t already know: that you can prepare embryonic stem (ES) cells and program them towards dopamine production and get a partial improvement when you put them into immune deficient mice. These same authors showed it a few years ago, one of their references, Barberi et al., with therapeutic cloned cells. In fact, in that paper they compared them with ordinary embryonic stem cells that weren’t therapeutically cloned and they found no difference. So basically, it’s all out of date now and the paper itself has got so many flaws that it’s really not especially exciting.”

Wendy Rogers is Associate Professor in Medical Ethics and Health Law at Flinders University, South Australia.

“This research appears to show that there is significant therapeutic potential using embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), known as therapeutic cloning. The main ethical issues raised by this process are to do with the creation of embryonic stem cells and the potential for benefits (or harms) to patients treated with embryonic stem cells.

Therapeutic cloning requires access to large numbers of human eggs. In this process, the interests of women must be protected. Issues to consider are harms to women through ovarian hyper stimulation, potentially coercive pressures such as financial inducements, informed consent and regulatory oversight. Collecting ova in non-paternalistic ways that are acceptable to women overcomes one of the main barriers to SCNT.

SCNT and therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells requires destruction of embryos. There are two important differences between embryos created for procreative purposes and those created by SCNT. Firstly, the potential for embryo to grow into a healthy human baby is relatively large for embryos created by union of sperm and egg but very small for embryos created by putting an adult nucleus into egg cytoplasm. The intention is also important, in assisted reproductive technologies embryos are typically created for reproductive purposes and have the genetic potential to grow into new and unique human beings, whereas SCNT embryos are created for research aimed at developing therapeutic applications, are not implanted, and often do not have a new and unique human genetic complement.

The potential to benefit patients is brought one step nearer with this research. This is an exciting development if SCNT opens up the way to new therapeutic procedures that benefit patients.”

Australian Scientists respond to claims that therapeutic cloning has been made redundant by the generation non-embryonic iPS cells.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you wish to speak to one of these or another expert, contact the AusSMC on 08 8207 7415.

Dr Andrew Laslett is a Senior Scientist at the Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC) and an Honorary Senior Lecturer in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at Monash University.

“The ability to make human iPS cells is a fundamental breakthrough which should be applauded and thoroughy investigated. However, iPS cells are not at all identical to human ES cells (1267 genes are greater than 5 fold different between human ES and iPS cells – Takahashi et al, Cell 2007) and it not yet known if iPS cells are genetically stable over long time periods. IPS cells will be a fantastic tool for study in the laboratory but may never be safe (stable) enough to treat humans with.

Cell types made from human embryonic stem cells have been shown to be genetically stable in many laboratories around the world and are about to be used in human clinical trials to treat spinal cord injury in California. It would be extremely premature for any government or regulatory authority to decide that research on human embryonic stem cells was no longer required. I would strongly argue that all avenues of research including somatic cell nuclear transfer need to be actively pursued as it may be that pluripotent cells produced by different techniques will have different capacities to treat different diseases or injuries.”

Professor Richard Boyd is Deputy Director of the Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories, Monash University

“The reprogramming of adult cells to become stem cells is phenomenal science but it is not a reason to discard embryonic stem cells in any way shape or form, in fact they just a very important new weapon in the armoury. If we sit here and predict which of the current technologies is going to give us a treatment for Parkinson’s disease in five years time, it is impossible to say. Institutes like ours do research on adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, somatic nuclear transfer and reprogramming research.

Embryonic stem cells allow us investigate the mechanisms of development of a mature cell from an immature cell, it tells us how the body builds itself. The reprogramming technology would not have been possible if we did not first know what was happening in embryonic stem cells, each of these technologies feeds off each other. In a sensible research environment and to get the fastest possible outcomes for patients you need to maintain all these technologies. It may turn out in the future that one technology may become redundant, but before that can happen a few questions remain, if I take a normal cell and turn it into a stem cell, will it still function normally? Will it not form a cancer in 10 years time? – there are a lot of unknowns in terms of the safety of these cells and their future clinical applications. “

Wendy Rogers is Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Law at Flinders University and the Ethics Centre of South Australia

“Induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells appear to offer a second way of seeking the benefits of stem cells. However this is no reason to abandon the legislation to permit therapeutic cloning. iPS are as yet unproven: we need ongoing research with both embryonic and iPS cells.

“The proposed legislation is permissive only. It does not require that embryonic stem cell research go ahead, but if scientists can put forward embryonic stem cell research proposals that pass scientific scrutiny and get funded, their research should be allowed to proceed, so long as it complies with ethical guidelines governing embryonic research.”

©iStockphoto.com/Gary Cavine

The coalition party room debate on the Lockhart Review of stem cell legislation is regarded by some as a last ditch attempt to persuade the Federal Government to allow the ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), better known as ‘therapeutic cloning’, to be lifted. This was one of the recommendations of the Lockhart review of legislation governing stem cell research. At the same time the Victorian and Queensland Governments have indicated that they intend to go it alone and allow the research in those states to go ahead.

Feel free to use the information and quotes in your stories or if you would like to talk to any of them call the AusSMC on (08) 8207 7415 or email us.

Note:  The AusSMC has also produced Stem Cells in a Nutshell with answers to commonly asked questions. It was produced in collaboration with a number of prominent experts in the field and is designed to help journalists when writing stem cell stories.

Sir Gustav Nossal, is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Pathology at the University of Melbourne, a former President of the Australian Academy of Science and Australian of the Year in 2000.

“Stem cell science has now advanced to the point where it is pushing against the boundaries of existing legislation. It is time for the next step and this involves somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT has become controversial because the first steps resemble those involved in cloning (Dolly the sheep, for example).

No responsible scientist would even think of cloning a human being, so why do we need SCNT? The possibility of new therapies for serious diseases using SCNT is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years. When the research has advanced to the point where curing a disease by a stem cell transplant is possible, SCNT could be used to ensure that the transplanted cells, genetically matched to the patient, would not be rejected by the body’s defencApril 3, 2009d transplant without fear of rejection or the need for potent drugs that suppress the immune system.

I do not know whether or when stem cell science will provide the breakthroughs we hope for. I do know that the history of science shows us that significant discoveries sooner or later provide practical benefits.

Our scientists would bring to the study of SCNT cell lines the imagination and resourcefulness so characteristic of Australia’s medical research.

Australian legislators must now decide whether our scientists will be allowed to keep pace with the world’s best or whether they will gradually fall behind. Here’s hoping for a change of heart at the highest political level in the land.”

Professor Bob Williamson Senior Principal Research Fellow, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Professor of Medical Genetics at the University of Melbourne. Chair of the National Committee for Medicine, Australian Academy of Science.

“The Lockhart Committee was composed of independent experts in law, ethics, medicine and science, and they took evidence from hundreds of people and organisations. They weighed the evidence for months, and presented a unanimous report to Government that argues for continuing a strong ban on cloning, but for allowing somatic cell nuclear transfer in the laboratory.

The Australian Academy of Science is one of the many organisations which gave evidence in support of this stance, because on balance we think that there are some scientific questions, such as why insulin-secreting cells stop functioning in type one diabetes, that can be best answered using this laboratory technique. With Lockhart, we believe that strict legal regulation can maintain the division between what is ethically acceptable because it could lead to dramatic medical progress, and what is totally unacceptable, such as cloning people.

This is now accepted in most advanced scientific nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, which are actively recruiting our stem cell scientists. To preserve Australia’s scientific endeavours in stem cell science, the Commonwealth Government should accept the recommendations of the Lockhart report.”

Professor Jack Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, and a John Holt Fellow at St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research.

“There is no case for requiring so called “therapeutic cloning” at this time. In science we have to justify going to the next step through proof of concept and this hasn’t been done. All we have seen is the occasional demonstration that human cells can be induced to become differentiated cells in culture and we are not surprised at this. We don’t know enough about the performance of these cells – how stable they are in the new differentiated form, how pure the cultures are, what the genetic changes are and how long the changed state can be maintained. We have had no demonstration from studies with animal embryonic stem (ES) cells in disease models that ES cells can be used effectively in treatment, and with long-term safety.

The safety issues are paramount. The danger of embryonic stem cells in therapy is related largely to the development of cancers. They divide very easily so they can become cancerous and there has been no progress with understanding the mechanism of this, or with preventing it.”

On the Lockhart Review: “I think the Lockhart Report was deficient in many ways. There was a mish-mash of IVF issues and stem cell research and they finished up approving all sorts of things way beyond the wildest expectations of the enthusiasts.

One thing that was bizarre was to approve human-animal hybrids. They did that mainly to provide for laboratory practice and training for people in the IVF business.

Also, although the Committee’s brief was to take into account community considerations, it approved therapeutic cloning even though there were powerful arguments against it. When we’ve established sufficient evidence to say these things are worthwhile doing I’d say lets discuss the way ahead but there’s plenty to be done before that.”

Professor John Shine is Executive Director at the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

“The Lockhart Review is a particularly impressive consideration of complex issues and its recommendations are an appropriate balance between allowing critical research with enormous potential to improve quality of life and the recognition of genuine community concerns. Furthermore, the recommendations of the Review are in keeping with most other developed countries which have carefully considered these issues, eg UK, Singapore etc.

The current regulatory framework has proven to work extremely well. But, as anticipated in the original legislation, the field of stem cell research has progressed rapidly such that it is now appropriate to include somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT – unfortunately previously called “therapeutic cloning”) as an allowable activity UNDER STRICT REGULATION. As the science further develops, it is important that we have appropriate flexibility to move with it. SCNT is seen as a cellular extract of an individual (like skin, liver, brain cells etc) – not as a potential for a new human life as it is not intended to be implanted.

It is imperative that Australia has a national position on the regulation of stem cell research. To have different regulations in different states would be a major impediment to effective research and fragment our national competitive position in an area of major social and economic potential.

A nationally cohesive regulatory regime is more important than any ban on SCNT – uncertainty and confusion in this area will lead to loss of researchers overseas.”

Dr Megan Munsie, Scientific Development Manager at Stem Cell Sciences, a private laboratory in Melbourne. Dr Munsie made scientific history when she became the first person in the world to perform SCNT in an animal model.

“The Lockhart Review was carried out with great diligence and involved extensive consultation with the public and scientists. It will be a great pity if the Committee’s well reasoned recommendations are ignored. What seems to be getting lost in the increasingly polarized debate is that the recommendations relate to improvements that would enable responsible, regulated research using human embryos to continue and progress in Australia – bringing us into line with other forward looking countries. The Lockhart review was not about which type of stem cell is superior. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research is valuable and necessary to advance regenerative medicine in Australia.”

]]> http://www.smc.org.au/2006/08/rapid-roundup-the-science-of-stem-cells-experts-comment/feed/ 0