Read this! Wilmut, King of Cloning, says iPS has made cloning ‘no longer applicable’

A remarkable interview this month with Prof Ian Wilmut – who created the first cloned mammal in 1997, Dolly the sheep. Wilmut was the first senior scientist to signal the move away from cloning to 'induced pluripotent stem cells' (iPS cells) in November 2007 – see the report in the Telegraph, "Dolly Creator Ian Wilmut shuns cloning". This new interview shows again that the true shape of stem cell science is now acknowledged even by former advocates of cloning - and cannot be suppressed in the way it was during recent Parliamentary debates.

 

Browse the comments by Wilmut, and note that they exactly match what honest scientists – including this association – have been trying to get through to journalists and MPs since the iPS cell revolution of November 2007 – namely that the one justification that carried the vote for cloning is now dead and gone, and there is no longer any defence for this inhuman science:

• iPS cells have achieved the exact goal that cloning hoped to achieve (but never has achieved) – namely, patient-matched pluripotent stem cells:
  
  • "Before the discovery of iPS cells, we were trying to derive embryo stem cells produced by nuclear transfer from the cell of a patient who suffered an inherited disease. So far, nobody has been successful. But then, reprogramming somatic cells from mice (Yamanaka's method) demonstrated that the same objective could be achieved directly using somatic cells from patients."
    
    
• iPS is up and running now, already being used in research, whereas EScell research from cloning has never even started – and now has lost its justification:
  
  • "People do not yet realize that studying inherited diseases on cells obtained by reprogramming is much easier and faster than getting human embryonic stem cells by cloning. The iPS technique to obtain stem cells is now the most efficient technique for researchers, in particular for research on inherited diseases."
    

    
     

• Contrary to the claims of the embryo-research lobby, we never really needed to experiment on human embryos to obtain this new, ethical stem cell science of iPS; Yamanaka has never touched a human egg or human embryo:
  
  • "The de-differentiation of somatic cells didn't require the use of human embryos as, technically speaking, it wasn't necessary. The first iPS cells were produced and identified through studies on mouse embryos."
    

The French interview is at http://www.genethique.org/tribunes_mensuelles/mai_2009.asp

 

For the sake of non-French readers, here is the full English translation:

 

Gènéthique Interview with Prof. Ian WILMUT, May 2009:
Chair of Reproductive Biology at the Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, Ian Wilmut was the first to succeed in cloning a mammal in 1997 – Dolly the sheep.

Is research on the embryo and cloning still necessary
since the discovery of iPS cells ?

 

1 - After the discovery by Prof S. Yamanaka and J. Thomson in November 2007 , you told the BBC that you gave up cloning in favour of iPS cells and that "within five years the new technique could provide a better and ethically more acceptable alternative to cloning embryos for medical research". Since 2007, what have been the advances in research with iPS cells, compared to the scientific expectations and goals you had in cloning Dolly ?

WILMUT: "Before the discovery of iPS cells, we were trying to derive embryo stem cells produced by nuclear transfer from the cell of a patient who suffered an inherited disease. So far, nobody has been successful. But then, reprogramming somatic cells from mice (Yamanaka's method) demonstrated that the same objective could be achieved directly using somatic cells from patients.

"The main therapeutic advantage with iPS cells is that they are genetically identical to the patient, they can be used for disease modelling and to look for drugs to prevent symptoms of the disease. There are already about a hundred cell lines on which it is possible to work right away, and which could help us to understand diseases within 5 years.

"Therefore, the technique of cloning is no longer applicable. As with my experiments with Dolly the sheep, cloning requires considerable time to obtain stem cells. Moreover, this technique asks women to undergo ovarian hyperstimulation: they will have to endure an intensive and unpleasant hormonal treatment in order to produce a high number of oocytes and still obtain only a low number of cloned embryos.

"If science can offer faster, more interesting and more efficient means, I want to use them.


2 - What are the scientific and therapeutic hopes with iPS cells? And what are the challenges for researchers ?

WILMUT: "Researchers working on iPS cells are trying to improve the quality of these cells. Their availability and capacities are unquestionable, but the technical challenge is to successfully reprogram cells without provoking collateral damage. It will take very little time to overcome these obstacles: recent scientific publications showed that it is already possible to reprogram differentiated cells using neither viral vectors nor plasmids.

"For economic reasons, I think it no longer possible to envisage creating personal stocks of iPS cells for each patient to look for treatments to their diseases. What would be more feasible from my point of view is to have a sort of registry, or Bio-Bank, where cell lines for different kind of immunological diseases would be listed. It would then be possible to modify and work on these cell lines according to the requirements of each patient.


3 - In France, it has been said that iPS cells were obtained thanks to human embryonic stem cells. However, Prof. Yamanaka's publications on human iPS cells were preceded by results on mouse cells . Could iPS cells have been discovered solely through research on animal models, without recourse to human embryonic stem cells?

WILMUT: "The de-differentiation of somatic cells didn't require the use of human embryos as, technically speaking, it wasn't necessary. The first iPS cells were produced and identified through studies on mouse embryos.

"People do not yet realize that studying inherited diseases on cells obtained by reprogramming is much easier and faster than getting human embryonic stem cells by cloning. The iPS technique to obtain stem cells is now the most efficient technique for researchers, in particular for research on inherited diseases.

"There is also research being done on human embryonic stem cells to better understand their differentiation and cultivation, because iPS cells share the properties of human embryonic cell lines.


4 - Research on iPS cells is accelerating in the USA and in Asia. How about in Europe ? Is there significant support for this research ?

WILMUT: "Research on iPS cells is supported in many European countries: British agencies such as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) are financing programs at the University of Edinburgh where I am currently working. In France too, interesting projects are underway with iPS.


5 - Is there more scientific interest in using human iPS cells than human embryonic stem cells to look for drugs, for (disease) modelling and for screening of pharmacological molecules ?

WILMUT: "Yes. iPS cells are more useful than embryonic cells for this research because, if you take reprogrammed cells from a patient who has an inherited disease you want to study, the advantage is that these cells already carry the characteristics of that person. You do not have to introduce a genetic error. There are many inherited diseases for which we do not yet understand the molecular basis."

 

Science publishes warning against embryo stem cell hype

Better late than never, a reality-check from a senior scientist who can see how embryonic-stem-cell hype serves no good end.

 

James Wilson has published "A History Lesson for Stem Cells" in the journal Science yesterday, drawing on his experience of the similar hype and hysteria that surrounded his field of gene therapy. His diagnosis is precise of the forces that distort the public perception of embryo research / cloning – and so derail the votes of our politicians.

 

For example... "A large and vocal population of patients suffering from a wide variety of ailments is pressing for stem cell-based therapies. Disease-specific stem cell research groups are more politically sophisticated than ever, in some cases employing congressional lobbyists. Unrealistic expectations have been fueled by relentless media coverage..."

 

That is exactly what we condemned on the header of our previous Blog, 'Conscience versus Con-Science': An effective strategy whereby scientists, via a gullible media, peddle false hope and disgraceful hype to desperate patients, who then beat down the door of MPs demanding liberal legislation on cloning.

 

After reading this article, I think anyone would have a more sober sense of the true shape of stem cell science, and the forces driving the hype and false claims about cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research.

 

(Remembering that the humble fellow-traveller, adult stem cells, have none of the problems of immune rejection or tumour formation identified in this article - they are safe and proven to be effective - but not as 'sexy' as messing with embryos, for some reason...)

 

Ah, yes, the truth will out, however belatedly! Unnecessary and unethical science will die by its own internal corruption; that is what this Blog will have the wry pleasure of documenting, re cloning and embryo experimentation, over coming years.

 

Excerpts from Science below:

 

A History Lesson for Stem Cells

James M. Wilson

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Science 8 May 2009:Vol. 324. no. 5928, pp. 727 – 728 DOI: 10.1126/science.1174935

 

"...Unfortunately, some stakeholders in hESC research have failed to exhibit the same restraint, effectively promising cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, macular degeneration, and hearing loss, to name a few.

 

"...It is difficult to avoid getting caught up in the unabashed enthusiasm that attends the emergence of a novel, but untested, therapeutic technology platform, as I myself experienced. Still, January's media coverage of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a hESC-related clinical trial-an experiment sponsored by Geron Corporation of Menlo Park, California, aimed at spinal cord injuries-was surprising for its lack of restraint. News reports characterized Geron's mere gaining of federal permission to test the cells in patients as a "breakthrough" (10). And in a highly questionable move, Good Morning America accompanied its news report with faux video footage depicting the paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve getting out of his wheel chair and walking again (10).

 

"...Despite advances, our understanding of the biology of hESCs and iPS cells remains thin with regard to clinical safety and utility. Controlled incorporation of transplanted stem cells into host tissues and organs remains a major challenge. Questions about engraftment, rejection, and toxicity abound. Steps involved in transformation of hESCs, iPS cells, or their derivatives into tumor cells (and strategies to ablate any tumors that might arise) need further investigation. In February, researchers in Israel reported that a 13-year-old boy with ataxia telangiectasia who had received injections of human fetal neural stem cells into his brain as part of an experimental treatment performed in a Russian clinic developed brain tumors apparently derived from the injected stem cells (11).

 

"...I encourage hESC and iPS researchers to remember the Orkin-Motulsky report's central theme: that no one is served by bypassing the hard work of basic research and experiments in animal models."

 

 

See also his interview and comments this week in the rival journal, Nature, at: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090507/full/news.2009.455.html

More for Scholars: hundreds of human iPS cell lines from at least 13 diseases to end April 2009...

Here is a neat summary of the current 212 induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human patients - with at least 13 distinct diseases, including of course Parkinsons and diabetes. Total of 516 iPS lines underway. By contrast, of course, to exactly zero stem cell lines (in fact nary a stem cell) derived from that quaint and so pre-November-2007 science of SCNT cloning... see document at: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dcpmpcfg_11c8qfk9cv&revision=_latest


For an update on all publications in iPS, both animal and human (with human highlighted) since Yamanaka first started the Revolution, see the document at: http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dcpmpcfg_9fwddzbcp&revision=_latest