Home > Plasmid: Science and bio-tech research blog > Archives > 2006 > January
January 2006
Time to Lift Stem Cell Restrictions? A Nobel Laureate Speaks Out
Paul Greengard shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2000 for his work illuminating how neurons transmit chemical messages.
Greengard was in Palm Beach on Jan. 12 and 13 for a meeting of The Scripps Research Institute’s board of scientific governors. At a gala dinner at The Breakers on the 13th, Greengard chatted at length with state Sen. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, and Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson about the potential for stem cell research, and the effect that federal restrictions are having on its progress.
Aaronson is the founder of Floridians for Stem Cell Research and Cures, the group hoping to amend Florida’s constitution to protect and fund stem cell research. Klein has introduced a bill to do something similar: Provide $15 million a year for 10 years in state money for embryonic and adult stem-cell research.
With Florida politics now focused on stem cell research, Aaronson and Klein told Greengard it would be helpful if he would put his views in writing. Greengard did so in a letter dated Jan. 17, 2006. While Greengard does not take a stance on the Florida policy debate, in his letter, he says the federal restrictions are hindering scientific progress, and should be lifted.
Greengard’s letter is below. What do you think? Should embryonic stem cell research be paid for with public dollars? Add your comments.
“…I have thought long and hard about the difficult questions raised by research on human stem cells, and discussed the subject extensively with those colleagues at The Rockefeller University and around the nation whom I most respect. There is an extremely strong consensus that the restriction currently placed upon federal funding of this research should be lifted.
High quality research on human stem cells has tremendous potential to advance medicine. If we can learn enough from this research, it may be possible to generate life-giving tissues for transplantation, providing new hope for people afflicted by illnesses for which few if any effective treatments are available. Stem cell-based transplantation therapies show promise in helping people born with juvenile diabetes, as well as the growing populations suffering from Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. Having worked for many decades to unravel the intricacies of the nervous system, I am especially curious to explore new approaches to understanding and treating neurological disorders.
Based on my discussions with leading investigators in the field, there are many problems with the current policy limiting Federal grants to research on cell lines created before August 9, 2001. There is general agreement that existing cell lines may be useful for preliminary studies of stem cell differentiation and maturation, but they are not likely to meet the long term needs of research. At this point, no one is even sure how many of these cell lines exist. Researchers who have attempted to obtain these materials have frequently been told that the cell populations are still being prepared for distribution, and no details are provided as to when they will be available. Faced with these procedural problems, scientists are already finding it difficult to plan their research programs. In addition, a great many scientists are concerned that dividing populations of stem cells will decline in quality as they age, rendering them virtually useless. With the current restrictions on access to new cell lines, many investigators in the field feel that real progress is next to impossible.
This being said, biomedical science must adhere to the very highest ethical standards in any research that involves human subjects or human tissues. Based on my knowledge and what I have learned from my colleagues, new cell lines can be developed without insult to the sanctity of human life. Stem cells for research are derived from very early embryos consisting of 60 to 1000 cells. This blastocyst stage occurs before attachment to the uterus. The stem cells derived from a blastocyst do not have the potential to become an independent organism.
New stem cell populations can be derived from blastocysts that are now stored in the freezers of infertility clinics, which routinely produce multiple embryos for in vitro fertilization. Early embryos that would otherwise be destroyed could be donated for this purpose by couples who have received in vitro fertilization services. The integrity of this process can be preserved through rigorous regulations designed to ensure that every donation is strictly voluntary and made only after complete informed consent has been obtained.
As with any field of research so new, it is best to proceed carefully with human stem cell research. In the balance, however, I believe it would be beneficial to begin offering federal grants to academic laboratories that wish to pursue research on newly developed human stem cell populations.”
Yours sincerely, Paul Greengard Vincent Astor Professor Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience The Rockefeller University New York
Tall glass or Tumbler? Take our poll…
In our never-ending quest to make you think, Plasmid wants you to pour yourself a nice drink and ponder the art of the public opinion poll. Go ahead, grab a glass and pour yourself about an ounce.
Did you pick a short, wide tumbler, or a narrow champagne flute? Does it really matter? Indeed, it does, but more on that in a moment.
Now that you’re relaxing, let’s talk about informal polls, analysis and scientific polls — otherwise known as lies, damn lies and statistics.
If you clicked on Plasmid from The Palm Beach Post’s “Scripps” page, you may have noticed our informal public opinion poll at the bottom of the page. It asks: “Where is the best place to build The Scripps Research Institute?”
Many people have asked why we haven’t printed the results of this poll in the newspaper. Still have that drink? Take a sip. Here comes the statistics part.
In case you don’t live in South Florida, this question has become important in the wake of a court ruling that makes it hard to continue construction of the publicly financed institute on a former citrus grove. Environmental groups are battling the development because it pushes intense real estate development next to a preserve.
When I last checked, according to our internet poll, 26 percent of respondents preferred the orange grove remain Scripps’ home — it won 553 votes. Meanwhile, 28.67 percent preferred the similarly located — but cheaper — Florida Research Park (598 votes), and 28.81 percent preferred the more urban Abacoa development in the Town of Jupiter. (601 votes)
So why haven’t we published the results?
Polls tend to fall into two categories: scientific ones and informal, unscientific ones. Scientific polls can be tremendously useful. They’re good at showing trends and patterns. Unfortunately, they’re also easily misused and misinterpreted. If we want to know how the public feels about the Scripps site debate, will our informal web poll give us useful information? The answer is most definitely not.
At this point, those of you with the champagne flutes probably need to refill your glass. More on that later.
To be scientific, a poll must take a representative sample, and that can be difficult in the best of cases. In the case of the Post’s Scripps page, the people viewing the page have already selected themselves into a very special sub-set of the general population: Those who are terribly interested in Scripps. Furthermore, people can vote in the web poll multiple times. So now what do we have? A poll that shows conclusively that some people are interested enough in the Scripps question to participate in an on-line poll. And that’s about it.
So the next time you see a web-based poll, or one of those television call-in polls, ask yourself whether the information they purport to offer means anything at all. In nearly every case, the answer is no.
A scientific poll will draw from a representative sample — that usually means large numbers. It will tell you the margin of error. And finally, it will allow you to see which questions were asked, and how they were posed.
The way a question is posed can have an enormous impact on the results. Too often, poll questions are cast a specific way to generate a desired answer. In polling, sometimes perception is everything.
Which brings us back to your glass. Anything left? If you’re drinking from a wide, shallow tumbler rather than the flute, there may well be. In the current issue of the British Medical Journal, Cornell University Professor Brian Wansink shows that people asked to pour the same amount of a drink into different shaped glasses are apt to overpour into a wide, shallow glass to the tune of 20 to 30 percent. “People who pour into short, wide glasses consistently believe that they pour less than those who pour into tall, narrow glasses,” said Wansink, an economics and marketing professor. Wansink says the the classic vertical-horizontal optical illusion is likely the cause: People perceive equally sized vertical lines as longer than horizontal ones.
So if you’re looking for good information from a poll, better look for a scientific one. Pay attention to the margin of error, the sample size and the questions posed.
And if you’re looking for a drink with exactly one ounce of liquor, better stick with a jigger.
So what do you think? Are informal polls useful? Or are they misleading? Do you pay attention to them?
Have a happy New Year.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
