“Embryonic Stem Cells Can Repair Eyes,” is the headline. But the Reuters story, byline Maggie Fox, about an experiment announced by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), doesn’t actually demonstrate this. From the story:
Writing in the journal Nature Methods, [Robert]Lanza’s team said they found a way to grow and differentiate human embryonic stem cells without using culture. They directed the stem cells into becoming what they believe are hemangioblasts, the blood vessel precursor cells, although other teams will have to replicate this for it to be accepted.
“When injected into the bloodstream, they homed to the other side of the body and repaired damaged vasculature within 24 to 48 hours,” Lanza said. “For example, we injected the cells into mice with damaged retinas due to diabetes or other eye injury. The cells (labeled green) migrated to the injured eye, and incorporated and lit-up the entire damaged vasculature. The cells are really smart, and amazingly, knew not to do anything in uninjured eyes.”
The researchers killed the mice to check the cells’ progress, so they do not know the long-term effects.”
Oh. So, they infer that vision would have improved, not that it actually did. Killing the animals early also means that there is no way to tell whether the mice would have developed tumors from the cells, a significant problem in embryonic stem cell research.
And here’s the money part—literally—that always seem to find its way into stories about ACT’s announced research successes:
William Caldwell, chairman and chief executive officer of Advanced Cell Technology, said the company wanted to test the cells in people and had asked the Food and Drug Administration for permission to do so by the end of next year. “We also have studies underway indicating that the cells can also considerably accelerate wound healing, repair lung damage, and can even generate unlimited amounts of red blood cells for transfusion,” Lanza said.
Translation: INVESTORS, SEND US THE MONEY!
ACT has a history of, shall we say, puffing its research successes. And a request for FDA approval is by no means a guarantee of a receiving FDA approval. Nor should what appears to be a proof of principle experiment be confused with actually accomplishing the deed—in this case restoring vision. People may wish to invest and hope it all works out, of course. Still, prospective investors would be well advised to exercise due diligence. Or as a famous man once said, trust but verify.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
