CIRM weekly stem cell roundup: stomach bacteria & cancer; vitamin C may block leukemia; stem cells bring down a 6’2″ 246lb football player

gastric

This is what your stomach glands looks like from the inside:  Credit: MPI for Infection Biology”

Stomach bacteria crank up stem cell renewal, may be link to gastric cancer (Todd Dubnicoff)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that two-thirds of the world’s population is infected with H. pylori, a type of bacteria that thrives in the harsh acidic conditions of the stomach. Data accumulated over the past few decades shows strong evidence that H. pylori infection increases the risk of stomach cancers. The underlying mechanisms of this link have remained unclear. But research published this week in Nature suggests that the bacteria cause stem cells located in the stomach lining to divide more frequently leading to an increased potential for cancerous growth.

Tumors need to make an initial foothold in a tissue in order to grow and spread. But the cells of our stomach lining are replaced every four days. So, how would H. pylori bacterial infection have time to induce a cancer? The research team – a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin and Stanford University – asked that question and found that the bacteria are also able to penetrate down into the stomach glands and infect stem cells whose job it is to continually replenish the stomach lining.

Further analysis in mice revealed that two groups of stem cells exist in the stomach glands – one slowly dividing and one rapidly dividing population. Both stem cell populations respond similarly to an important signaling protein, called Wnt, that sustains stem cell renewal. But the team also discovered a second key stem cell signaling protein called R-spondin that is released by connective tissue underneath the stomach glands. H. pylori infection of these cells causes an increase in R-spondin which shuts down the slowly dividing stem cell population but cranks up the cell division of the rapidly dividing stem cells. First author, Dr. Michal Sigal, summed up in a press release how these results may point to stem cells as the link between bacterial infection and increased risk of stomach cancer:

“Since H. pylori causes life-long infections, the constant increase in stem cell divisions may be enough to explain the increased risk of carcinogenesis observed.”

vitamin-c-1200x630

Vitamin C may have anti-blood cancer properties

Vitamin C is known to have a number of health benefits, from preventing scurvy to limiting the buildup of fatty plaque in your arteries. Now a new study says we might soon be able to add another benefit: it may be able to block the progression of leukemia and other blood cancers.

Researchers at the NYU School of Medicine focused their work on an enzyme called TET2. This is found in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), the kind of stem cell typically found in bone marrow. The absence of TET2 is known to keep these HSCs in a pre-leukemic state; in effect priming the body to develop leukemia. The researchers showed that high doses of vitamin C can prevent, or even reverse that, by increasing the activity level of TET2.

In the study, in the journal Cell, they showed how they developed mice that could have their levels of TET2 increased or decreased. They then transplanted bone marrow with low levels of TET2 from those mice into healthy, normal mice. The healthy mice started to develop leukemia-like symptoms. However, when the researchers used high doses of vitamin C to restore the activity levels of TET2, they were able to halt the progression of the leukemia.

Now this doesn’t mean you should run out and get as much vitamin C as you can to help protect you against leukemia. In an article in The Scientist, Benjamin Neel, senior author of the study, says while vitamin C does have health benefits,  consuming large doses won’t do you much good:

“They’re unlikely to be a general anti-cancer therapy, and they really should be understood based on the molecular understanding of the many actions vitamin C has in cells.”

However, Neel says these findings do give scientists a new tool to help them target cells before they become leukemic.

Jordan reed

Bad toe forces Jordan Reed to take a knee: Photo courtesy FanRag Sports

Toeing the line: how unapproved stem cell treatment made matters worse for an NFL player  

American football players are tough. They have to be to withstand pounding tackles by 300lb men wearing pads and a helmet. But it wasn’t a crunching hit that took Washington Redskins player Jordan Reed out of the game; all it took to put the 6’2” 246 lb player on the PUP (Physically Unable to Perform) list was a little stem cell injection.

Reed has had a lingering injury problem with the big toe on his left foot. So, during the off-season, he thought he would take care of the issue, and got a stem cell injection in the toe. It didn’t quite work the way he hoped.

In an interview with the Richmond Times Dispatch he said:

“That kind of flared it up a bit on me. Now I’m just letting it calm down before I get out there. I’ve just gotta take my time, let it heal and strengthen up, then get back out there.”

It’s not clear what kind of stem cells Reed got, if they were his own or from a donor. What is clear is that he is just the latest in a long line of athletes who have turned to stem cells to help repair or speed up recovery from an injury. These are treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that have not been tested in a clinical trial to make sure they are both safe and effective.

In Reed’s case the problem seems to be a relatively minor one; his toe is expected to heal and he should be back in action before too long.

Stem cell researcher and avid blogger Dr. Paul Knoepfler wrote he is lucky, others who take a similar approach may not be:

“Fortunately, it sounds like Reed will be fine, but some people have much worse reactions to unproven stem cells than a sore toe, including blindness and tumors. Be careful out there!”

Advertisements

Texas tries to go it alone in offering unproven stem cell therapies to patients

Texas Capitol. (Shutterstock)

One of the most hotly debated topics in stem cell research is whether patients should be able to have easier access to unproven therapies using their own stem cells, at their own risk, and their own cost. It’s a debate that is dividing patients and physicians, researchers and lawmakers.

In California, a bill working its way through the state legislature wants to have warning signs posted in clinics offering unproven stem cell therapies, letting patients know they are potentially putting themselves at risk.

Texas is taking a very different approach. A series of bills under consideration would make it easier for clinics to offer unproven treatments; make it easier for patients with chronic illnesses to use the “right to try” law to take part in early-stage clinical trials (in the past, it was only patients with a terminal illness who could do that); and allow these clinics to charge patients for these unproven stem cell therapies.

Not surprisingly, the Texas bills are attracting some widely divergent views. Many stem cell researchers and some patient advocates are opposed to them, saying they prey on the needs of vulnerable people, offering them treatments – often costing thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars – that have little or no chance of success.

In an article on STATnews, Sean Morrison, a stem cell researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, said the Texas bills would be bad for patients:

“When patients get desperate, they have a capacity to suspend disbelief. When offered the opportunity of a therapy they believe in, even without data and if the chances of benefit are low, they’ll fight for access to that therapy. The problem is there are fraudulent stem cell clinics that have sprung up to exploit that.”

Patients like Jennifer Ziegler disagree with that completely. Ziegler has multiple sclerosis and has undergone three separate stem cell treatments – two in the US and one in Panama – to help treat her condition. She is also a founding member of Patients For Stem Cells (PFSC):

Jennifer Ziegler

“PFSC does not believe our cells are drugs. We consider the lack of access to adult stem cells an overreach by the federal government into our medical freedoms. My cells are not mass produced, and they do not cross state lines. An adult stem cell treatment is a medical procedure, between me, a fully educated patient, and my fully competent doctor.”

The issue is further complicated because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – which has regulatory authority over stem cell treatments – considers the kinds of therapies these clinics offer to be a technical violation of the law. So even if Texas passes these three bills, they could still be in violation of federal law. However, a recent study in Cell Stem Cell showed that there are some 570 clinics around the US offering these unproven therapies, and to date the FDA has shown little inclination to enforce the law and shut those clinics down.

UC Davis stem cell researcher – and CIRM grantee – Paul Knoepfler is one of the co-authors of the study detailing how many clinics there are in the US. On his blog – The Niche – he recently expressed grave concerns about the Texas bills:

Paul Knoepfler

“The Texas Legislature is considering three risky bills that would give free rein to stem cell clinics to profit big time off of patients by selling unproven and unapproved “stem cell treatments” that have little if any science behind them. I call one of these bills “Right to Profit” for clinics, which if these became law could get millions from vulnerable patients and potentially block patient rights.”

Ziegler counters that patients have the right to try and save their own lives, saying if the Texas bills pass: “chronically ill, no option patients in the US, will have the opportunity to seek treatment without having to leave the country.”

It’s a debate we are all too familiar with at CIRM. Every day we get emails and phone calls from people asking for help in finding a treatment, for them or a loved one, suffering from a life-threatening or life-altering disease or disorder. It’s incredibly difficult having to tell them there is nothing that would help them currently being tested in a clinical trial.

Inevitably they ask about treatments they have seen online, offered by clinics using the patient’s own stem cells to treat them. At that point, it is no longer an academic debate about proven or unproven therapies, it has become personal; one person asking another for help, to find something, anything, to save their life.

Barring a dramatic change of policy at the FDA. these clinics are not going to go away. Nor will the need of patients who have run out of options and are willing to try anything to ease their pain or delay death. We need to find another way, one that brings these clinics into the fold and makes the treatments they offer part of the clinical trial process.

There are no easy answers, no simple solutions. But standing on either side of the divide, saying those on the other side are either “heartless” or “foolish” serves no one, helps no one. We need to figure out another way.

Here’s a Fun Lab Tour Video Contest for Scientists

Scientists are often stereotyped as serious, focused individuals who spend most of their time pursuing their science with little time for anything else. Their research often is complex and hard for non-scientists to wrap their minds around. I’ve often heard my friends describe to me what they thought I did every day when I was in the lab. It was like a science fantasy story involving beakers full of brightly colored chemicals, explosions, and at the end, a cure for Parkinson’s disease…

But I am going to tell you a little known secret: scientists are normal people like everyone else. They aren’t magicians with special powers, and they know how to have fun while doing their research. The problem is that the public doesn’t know this because they don’t have the opportunity to visit a research laboratory and see scientists in action.

9ac56-paulknoepfler

Paul Knoepfler

UC Davis Professor Paul Knoepfler is addressing this issue with his new lab tour video contest that he recently announced on his blog, The Niche. He’s asking scientists to make short videos of their daily lives in the lab and post them on Twitter with the hashtag #labvideocontest. The winner will receive a cash prize and “free PR for their lab”. The videos can be serious or funny, but Paul asks contestants to use their imagination and think out of the box.

This contest will not only be a fun way for scientists to talk about their research and what they do every day, but it will also benefit the public who will get an inside view of what it’s like to be a scientist. The goal of science communications is to make science relatable to everyone, and this video contest on social media is a great example of new ways that scientists can connect with the public and make science more approachable.

You scientists out there can learn more about Paul’s contest and how to participate on his blog. The deadline to submit lab videos is March 15th, so you better get to work!

And if you need a place to start, watch our recent video featuring the McDevitt lab, a stem cell bioengineering lab at the Gladstone Institutes.

Trash talking and creating a stem cell community

imilce2

Imilce Rodriguez-Fernandez likes to talk trash. No, really, she does. In her case it’s cellular trash, the kind that builds up in our cells and has to be removed to ensure the cells don’t become sick.

Imilce was one of several stem cell researchers who took part in a couple of public events over the weekend, on either side of San Francisco Bay, that served to span both a geographical and generational divide and create a common sense of community.

The first event was at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Marin County, near San Francisco. It was titled “Stem Cell Celebration” and that’s pretty much what it was. It featured some extraordinary young scientists from the Buck talking about the work they are doing in uncovering some of the connections between aging and chronic diseases, and coming up with solutions to stop or even reverse some of those changes.

One of those scientists was Imilce. She explained that just as it is important for people to get rid of their trash so they can have a clean, healthy home, so it is important for our cells to do the same. Cells that fail to get rid of their protein trash become sick, unhealthy and ultimately stop working.

Imilce is exploring the cellular janitorial services our bodies have developed to deal with trash, and trying to find ways to enhance them so they are more effective, particularly as we age and those janitorial services aren’t as efficient as they were in our youth.

Unlocking the secrets of premature aging

Chris Wiley, another postdoctoral researcher at the Buck, showed that some medications that are used to treat HIV may be life-saving on one level, preventing the onset of full-blown AIDS, but that those benefits come with a cost, namely premature aging. Chris said the impact of aging doesn’t just affect one cell or one part of the body, but ripples out affecting other cells and other parts of the body. By studying the impact those medications have on our bodies he’s hoping to find ways to maintain the benefits of those drugs, but get rid of the downside.

Creating a Community

ssscr

Across the Bay, the U.C. Berkeley Student Society for Stem Cell Research held it’s 4th annual conference and the theme was “Culturing a Stem Cell Community.”

The list of speakers was a Who’s Who of CIRM-funded scientists from U.C. Davis’ Jan Nolta and Paul Knoepfler, to U.C. Irvine’s Henry Klassen and U.C. Berkeley’s David Schaffer. The talks ranged from progress in fighting blindness, to how advances in stem cell gene editing are cause for celebration, and concern.

What struck me most about both meetings was the age divide. At the Buck those presenting were young scientists, millennials; the audience was considerably older, baby boomers. At UC Berkeley it was the reverse; the presenters were experienced scientists of the baby boom generation, and the audience were keen young students representing the next generation of scientists.

Bridging the divide

But regardless of the age differences there was a shared sense of involvement, a feeling that regardless of which side of the audience we are on we all have something in common, we are all part of the stem cell community.

All communities have a story, something that helps bind them together and gives them a sense of common purpose. For the stem cell community there is not one single story, there are many. But while those stories all start from a different place, they end up with a common theme; inspiration, determination and hope.

 

Brave new world or dark threatening future: a clear-eyed look at genome editing and what it means for humanity

Frankenstein

   Is this the face of the future?

“Have you ever wished that there were something different about yourself? Maybe you imagined yourself taller, thinner or stronger? Smarter? More attractive? Healthier?”

That’s the question posed by UC Davis stem cell researcher (and CIRM grantee) Paul Knoepfler at the start of his intriguing new book ‘GMO Sapiens: The Life-Changing Science of Designer Babies’.

51rmGzXqfwL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_

You can find GMO Sapiens on Amazon.com

The book is a fascinating, and highly readable, and takes a unique look at the dramatic advances in technology that allow us to edit the human genome in ways that could allow us to do more than just create “designer babies”, it could ultimately help us change the definition of what it means to be human.

Paul begins by looking at the temptation to use technologies like CRISPR (we have blogged about this here), to genetically edit or alter human embryos so that the resulting child is enhanced in some ways. It could be that the editing is used to remove a genetic mutation that could cause a deadly disease (such as the BRCA1 gene that puts women at increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer) or it could be that the technique is used to give a baby blue eyes, to make it taller, more athletic, or to simply eliminate male pattern baldness later in life.

Paul says those latter examples are not as ridiculous as they sound:

Paul Knoepfler

Paul Knoepfler

“If you think these ideas sound far-fetched, consider that Americans alone spend tens of billions of dollars each year on plastic surgery procedures and creams to try to achieve these kinds of goals. Some of the time elective cosmetic surgery is done on children. In the future, we might have “cosmetic genetic surgeons” who do “surgery” on our family’s genes for cosmetic reasons. In other countries the sensibilities and cultural expectations could lead to other kinds of genetic modifications of humans for “enhancements”.

While the technology that enables us to do this is new, the ideas behind why we would want to do this are far from new. Paul delves into those ideas including a look at the growth of the eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th century advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through higher reproductive rates for people considered “superior”. And there was a darker side to the movement:

“Indiana had instituted the first law for sterilization of “inferior” people in the world in 1907. Astonishingly this state law and then similar laws (the original was revoked, but a new law was passed later) stayed on the books in that state until 1974.

This led to approximately 2,500 governmentally forced sterilizations. The poor, uneducated, people of color, Native Americans, and people with disabilities were disproportionately targeted.”

Paul explores the ethical and moral implications of changing our genetic code, changes that can then be passed on to future generations. While he understands the desire to use these technologies to create positive changes, he is also very clear in his concerns that we don’t yet have enough knowledge to be able to use them in a safe manner.

“CRISPR can literally re-write the genomic book inside of us. However, it remains unknown how often it might go to the wrong page or paragraph, so to speak, or stay on the right page, but make an undesired edit there.”

Tiny errors in editing the genome, particularly at such an early stage in an embryo’s development, could have profound and unintended consequences years down the road, resulting in physical or developmental problems we can’t anticipate or predict. For example, you might remove the susceptibility to one disease only to create an even larger problem, one that is now embedded in that person’s DNA and ready to be passed on to subsequent generations.

The book includes interviews with key figures in the field – scientists, bioethicists etc. – and covers a wide range of views of what we should do. For example, the Director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Francis Collins, said that designer babies “make good Hollywood — and bad science,” while the Center for Genetics and Society has advocated for a moratorium on human genetic modification in the US.

In contrast, scientists such as Harvard professor George Church and CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna of UC Berkeley, say we need to carefully explore how to harness the potential for these technologies.

For Church it is a matter of choice:

“The new technology enables parents to make choices about their children just as they might with Ritalin or cleft palate surgery to ‘improve’ behavior or appearance.”

For Doudna it’s acknowledging the fact that you can’t put the genie back in the bottle:

“There’s no way to unlearn what is learned. We can’t put this technology to bed. If a person has basic knowledge of molecular biology they can do it. It’s not realistic to think we can block it…We want to put out there the information that people would need to make an informed decision, to encourage appropriate research and discourage forging ahead with clinical applications that could be dangerous or raise ethical issues.”

The power of Paul’s book is that while it does not offer any easy answers, it does raise many important questions.

It’s a wonderfully well-written book that anyone can read, even someone like me who doesn’t have a science background. He does a good job of leading the reader through the development of these technologies (from the basic idea of genetically altering plants to make them disease resistant) to the portrayal of these concepts in literature (Frankenstein and Brave New World) to movies (Gattaca – 4 stars on Rotten Tomatoes  a great film if you haven’t already seen it).

It’s clear where Paul stands on the issue; he believes there should be a moratorium on human genetic modification until we have a much deeper understanding of the science behind it, and the ethics and morality underpinning it:

“This is a very exciting time to be alive and we should be open to embracing change, but not blindly or in a rush. Armed with information and passion, we can have a major, positive impact on how this biotech revolution unfolds and impacts humanity.”

By the way, Paul also has one of the most widely read blogs about stem cells, where you can read more about his thoughts on CRISPR and other topics.

 

Patients beware: warnings about shady clinics and suspect treatments

stem-cells therapy?

Every day we get a call from someone seeking help. Some are battling a life-threatening or life-changing disease. Others call on behalf of a friend or loved one. All are looking for the same thing; a treatment, better still a cure, to ease their suffering.

Almost every day we have to tell them the same thing; that the science is advancing but it’s not there yet. You can almost feel the disappointment, the sense of despair, on the other end of the line.

If it’s hard for us to share that news, imagine how much harder it is for them to hear it. Usually by the time they call us they have exhausted all the conventional therapies. In some cases they are not just running out of options, they are also running out of time.

Chasing hope

Sometimes people mention that they went to the website of a clinic that was offering treatments for their condition, claiming they had successfully treated people with that disease or disorder. This week I had three people mention the same clinic, here in the US, that was offering them “treatments” for multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three very different problems, but the same approach was used for each one.

It’s easy to see why people would be persuaded that clinics like this could help them. Their websites are slick and well produced. They promise to take excellent care of patients, often helping take care of travel plans and accommodation.

There’s just one problem. They never offer any scientific evidence on their website that the treatments they offer work. They have testimonials, quotes from happy, satisfied patients, but no clinical studies, no results from FDA-approved clinical trials. In fact, if you explore their sites you’ll usually find an FAQ section that says something to the effect of they are “not offering stem cell therapy as a cure for any condition, disease, or injury. No statements or implied treatments on this website have been evaluated or approved by the FDA. This website contains no medical advice.”

What a damning but revealing phrase that is.

Now, it may be that the therapies they are offering won’t physically endanger patients – though without a clinical trial it’s impossible to know that – but they can harm in other ways. Financially it can make a huge dent in someone’s wallet with many treatments costing $10,000 or more. And there is also the emotional impact of giving someone false hope, knowing that there was little, if any, chance the treatment would work.

Shining a light in shady areas

U.C. Davis stem cell researcher, CIRM grantee, and avid blogger Paul Knoepfler, highlighted this in a recent post for his blog “The Niche” when he wrote:

Paul Knoepfler

Paul Knoepfler

“Patients are increasingly being used as guinea pigs in the stem cell for-profit clinic world via what I call stem cell shot-in-the-dark procedures. The clinics have no logical basis for claiming that these treatments work and are safe.

As the number of stem cell clinics continues to grow in the US and more physicians add on unproven stem cell injections into their practices as a la carte options, far more patients are being subjected to risky, even reckless physician conduct.”

As if to prove how real the problem is, within hours of posting that blog Paul posted another one, this time highlighting how the FDA had sent a Warning Letter to the Irvine Stem Cell Treatment Center saying it had serious concerns about the way it operates and the treatments it offers.

Paul has written about these practices many times in the past, sometimes incurring the wrath of the clinic owners (and very pointed letters from their lawyers). It’s to his credit that he refuses to be intimidated and keeps highlighting the potential risks that unapproved therapies pose to patients.

Making progress

As stem cell science advances we are now able to tell some patients that yes, there are promising therapies, based on good scientific research, that are being tested in clinical trials.

There are not as many as we would like and none have yet been approved by the FDA for wider use. But those will come in time.

For now we have to continue to work hard to raise awareness about the need for solid scientific evidence before more people risk undergoing an unproven stem cell therapy.

And we have to continue taking calls from people desperate for help, and tell them they have to be patient, just a little longer.

***

If you are considering a stem cell treatment, the International Society for Stem Cell Research had a terrific online resource, A Closer Look at Stem Cells. In particular, check out the Nine Things to Know about Stem Cell Treatments page.

 

British Parliament votes to approve “three parent” baby law

After what is being described as “an historic debate”, the British Parliament today voted to approve the use of an IVF technique that critics say will lead to the creation of “three parent” babies.

UK Parliament

UK Parliament

Parliament voted 382 to 128 in favor of the technique known as mitochondrial donation, which will prevent certain genetic diseases being passed on from parents to children; diseases that can cause a wide range of conditions such as fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders and blindness.

Mitochondrial donation involves replacing a small amount of faulty DNA from a mother’s egg with healthy DNA from a second woman. The technique involves taking two eggs, one from the mother and another from the donor. The nucleus of the donor egg is removed, leaving the rest of the egg contents, including the mitochondria. The nucleus from the mother’s egg is then placed in the donor egg. This means that the baby would have genes from the mother, the father and the female donor.

The vote makes the UK the first country in the world to endorse this process. It comes at the end of what supporters of the measure described in a letter to Parliament as “seven years of consultation and inquiry that have revealed broad scientific, ethical and public approval.”

Mitochondrial donation is a controversial process opposed by many religious and faith-based groups who say it creates “designer babies” because it involves implanting genetically modified embryos, and because it could result in genetic alterations that might be passed on to subsequent generations.

While many scientists support the technique some have raised concerns about it. Among those are Dr. Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher at U.C. Davis, (CIRM is funding some of his work). In a recent blog on the process Paul wrote that while he is not opposed to the technique in theory, he thinks this move at this time is premature:

“There is no doubt that mitochondrial diseases are truly terrible and need to be addressed, but if the potential outcomes from the technology are still vague, there are safety concerns, and it raises profound ethical issues such as changing the human genome heritably as is the case here, then my view is that a careful approach is both practical and logical. We cannot at this time have a reasonable expectation that this technology would be safe and effective. That may change in coming years with new knowledge. I hope so.”

Supporters in the UK say the science is already good enough to proceed. Dame Sally Davies, Britain’s Chief Medical Officer, calls it the genetic equivalent of “changing a faulty battery in a car.”

Professor Lord Winston, a fertility expert at Imperial College, London, says:

“I think the case is self-evident and reasonable. This is about something that is unusual and will benefit a small number of patients. I know there are some people who think it is a slippery slope that the next thing will be choosing intelligence or blond hair, but I don’t think that. For 20 years, it’s been scientifically possible to have sex selection of embryos; we still don’t allow it in Britain apart from for heritable diseases.”

It’s important to point out that while the House of Commons passed the regulations they still have to be approved by the House of Lords before they become law. A vote is scheduled for the end of this month. Even then any future trial involving the technique will still require the approval of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) before it can go ahead.

Even if the process is ultimately approved in the UK it will likely face an uphill battle to be approved here in the U.S. where the debate over the ethical, as well as the scientific and technical implications of the process, has already generated strong feelings on both sides of the divide.

A Christmas miracle or untested therapy? Why even feel-good stem cell stories need to be checked for accuracy

We’ve written several pieces over the last couple of years about the trend for professional athletes to turn to untested and/or unproven stem cell therapies to help them bounce back from injuries. This week, however, came news of something a little more worrying. Ice hockey legend Gordie Howe was given stem cells to help him recover from a series of debilitating strokes. As is often the case with these stories it’s not just the nature of the treatment that raises questions, it’s also the way the media has covered it.

Gordie Howe - photo courtesy Sean Hagen from Maple Ridge, Canada

Gordie Howe – photo courtesy Sean Hagen from Maple Ridge, Canada

The facts are pretty straightforward. Howe’s strokes left him “essentially bedridden with little ability to eat or communicate on his own”, according to a statement issued by his family. Two companies – Stemedica and Novastem – then “volunteered” their services, delivering a stem cell therapy to Howe. According to the family “The response was truly miraculous.”

And that was often the extent of the digging that dozens of media outlets that reported the news did. They reported the facts of the stroke, and then just reprinted the statement from the family without questioning what kinds of cells, how they might work, etc etc. They didn’t bother to interview other stem cell scientists about this kind of approach to see if it was something that might benefit other stroke patients. They didn’t even take a closer look at the two companies involved to see what their track record on this kind of research is.

In short, it’s clearly a feel-good story about a sports legend and no one wanted to be the one to say, “hey, wait a minute here, how do we know this is real.”

No one, except Dr. Paul Knoepfler. Paul, as regular readers of this blog know, is a CIRM-funded stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis and an avid blogger. In a post on his blog he took a much closer look at the story, posed some thoughtful questions and raised some doubts about it. He also reached out to Stemedica who, to their credit, responded promptly to his questions. You can read what they had to say here.

Paul, like the rest of us, would love to be able to say that this kind of approach worked for Gordie Howe and could work for millions of others left disabled by strokes. But Paul, unlike many news outlets that reported the story, isn’t willing to just accept it on face value.

There’s an old adage in journalism: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check to see if it’s true.” It basically means don’t accept anything on face value; dig a little deeper to see if it’s really true. Paul is doing that, and doing it very well. Other journalists might do well to follow his lead.

Milton Berle and the Art of Writing an Award-Winning Stem Cell Essay

It’s not often that you hear famous comedian Milton Berle quoted in an essay about stem cells, but then U.C. Davis researcher and avid blogger Paul Knoepfler wasn’t looking for an ordinary essay as the winner for his recent contest.

Knoepfler launched the contest as a way to give some lucky individual a free registration to the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) annual conference in Vancouver, Canada later this month.

Essay winner Mohamed Gatie

Essay winner Mohamed Gatie

The winning entry came from a student Mohamed Gatie. Here’s his winning essay.

The second place essay came from Sherry Hikita. We met Sherry at the World Stem Cell Summit in San Diego last year where she signed up as one of our Stem Cell Champions.

Second-place winner Sherry Hikita

Second-place winner Sherry Hikita

Congratulations to both Mohamed and Sherry, and of course kudos to Paul for coming up with the idea and helping a fine student get a chance to go to one of the biggest events of the year for a stem cell scientist.

kevin mccormack

Write your Ticket to the Stem Cell Science Event of the Year

For many stem cell scientists one of the highlights of the year is going to the annual International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) conference. It’s like Disneyland for researchers. This year the event is being held in Vancouver, Canada. But many younger scientists won’t be going because they can’t afford it. So UC Davis researcher and avid blogger Paul Knoepfler has teamed up with ISSCR to help one lucky scientist go. Here’s Paul’s guest blog explaining how they can apply:

What’s better than a four-day stem cell meeting held in beautiful Vancouver, B.C. that includes all of the newest and most cutting edge research?

If, like me, you are a lover of all things stem cell your first impulse may be to shout out “nothing!” and I am betting you will already know that I am talking about the ISSCR Annual Meeting being held this year in that fantastic locale.

Beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia home to this year’s ISSCR Annual Meeting

Beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia home to this year’s ISSCR Annual Meeting

However, the answer I had in mind is that the only thing better than going to ISSCR is getting to go to that meeting for free.

How do you get to that stem cell happy place?

I have teamed up with ISSCR to run a contest with the prize being free registration to the ISSCR meeting that runs from June 18-21.

All you have to do is write a short essay addressing this topic: why do I want to go to ISSCR 2014?

The winner gets free registration and their essay gets published on my blog to be read by the stem cell community.

For a few additional rules and details, check out the announcement of the contest here.

The deadline for entries is Friday May 30th. The winner will be announced on Monday June 2nd.

What am I looking for in a winning essay? As a stem cell researcher and writer myself, I am hoping to get entries that are clever, creative essays that convey genuine, interesting reasons for wanting to go to this great meeting. You will have to be concise too because the limit on length is a strict 300 words.

There may be additional entries published on my blog if more than one really wows me, and other perks like stem cell swag for entrants could come into play depending on the number of entrants and the quality of their writings.

So start brainstorming and writing and then send your entries to me at knoepfler@ucdavis.edu.

I hope to see you in Vancouver.

Paul Knoepfler