There have been several fantastic science/medicine stories in the last few days that have fulfilled all the ‘top trump’ criteria you might expect (1) if there were a Science or Biomedical Research pack. All revealed progress in stem-cell-based treatment. The Guardian clearly appreciated the good science too.
(i) treatment of blindness in mice with transplanted immature photoreceptor cells as covered on 9 Nov by:
- The Independent (this is an image of the article as you need a login to access the full piece on the Inde’s website)
- and the BBC
Both articles: describe the crucial animal work involved; identify the key finding (that the transplanted photoreceptor cells need to be at a particular stage of development in order to form the nerve connections necessary to restore sight); describe how the next challenge will be to obtain photoreceptor cells at the correct stage of development from human stem cells; and stress that this work will take several years before transplants in humans are possible.
(ii) A stem cell breakthrough using dogs could lead to a treatment for muscular dystrophy, as covered by the BBC on 15 Nov.
Again, this article notes the vital animal work (initially done in mice and then, once they were on the right track moved into the dogs because they are a better model); identifies the key finding (that 4 out of 6 dogs had marked improvement – of the two that did not, one was believed not to have received enough cells); and that this may be a viable treatment for human patients, in time.
This also contained the following quote from an expert in the field:
Professor Dominic Wells, of the gene targeting group at Imperial College, London, said: ‘This is yet another example of the vital contribution animal research makes to the development of treatments for human disease.’
‘This is the first piece of research that has convinced me that stem cell therapy could play a role in treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.’
(iii) Heart attack victims to be given own stem cells after the approach was trialled in rats and mice, as covered by The Times last week.
The scientist involved, Prof John Martin, also noted in no uncertain terms the valuable data from the animal research:
‘There is good animal evidence in rats and mice that it will work,’ Professor Martin said. ‘There are no drugs involved, and nothing to patent, so if the treatment works it will be available to all who can benefit, without extra cost.’
I’m not sure how the antivivs will square this low-cost approach with their ‘big evil pharma’ conspiracy, but I’m sure they’ll try!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) ‘good’ science (ie design and method); implications for human health; etc… you get the idea.
<Wrap up...>
