Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 7 March 2008 | Nature 452, 132- (2008) | doi:10.1038/452132a
News
Stem-cell claim gets cold reception
Carbon nanotubes used to reprogramme adult human cells?
A Californian biotech company claims that it has used carbon nanotubes to ‘reprogramme’ adult human cells to an embryonic-like state — a breakthrough that removes the elevated risk of cancer that blights other techniques. But uncertainties about the cells, which have yet to be reported in a peer-reviewed journal, have left many sceptical.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is a very balanced and informative account on a delicate issue at the intersection of business and science. Bravo.
We need a correct understanding of what a stem cell in order to evaluate the magic claims on 'stem cells'!!! ------- On February 2, 2007 Rudolf Jaenisch wrote to me that "these people seem not quite understand the key issues of interpreting NT [nuclear transfer] experiments" when he read my criticism on a 'milestone' publication in Nature Biotechnology (NBT). My criticism was not accepted for publication by NBT because it still contained a major criticism that the editor wish to delete but I insisted on, even after two revisions. However, that NBT-rejected criticism was PUBLISHED in Logical Biology (6: 110-112, 2006). See full-length at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.pdf ----------------- An invitation for rebuttal was formally sent from the Logical Biology to the NBT authors but that invitation was never answered. See details at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.pdf ---------- Interestingly, NBT later published a criticism from Jaenisch which contained a very same criticism that was already shown in my earlier submitted criticism and was required for deletion by the BNT editor. ---------- My criticism published in Logical Biology was sent to Jaenisch after I leant his criticism published in NTB. Here is that Jaenisch wrote to me: “I fully agree with you assessmentâ€. ---------- So apparently, there is a lack of agreed understanding of what a stem cell is and how to view successful cloning. ---------- Incidentally, I was told very recently by another editor of a mainstream stem cell journal that racket scientists actually provided a better answer on what stem cell is than the stem cell researchers who were having their meeting in the same convention place with the racket scientists. ------- Thus, it is not a surprise that many 'magic' claims on stem cells can now be increasingly found even in the scientific literature. When stem cells are treated as immortal cells and thus the fountain of youth, even stem cell claim can become a quick sell. However, as I already pointed out earlier and as confirmed by recent experimental evidence, stem cells are not immortal at all. Stem cells also age and die!!! Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Correction and further comment---- I apologize for wrongly identifying Nature Biotechnology (NTB) for publishing a false 'milestone' in cloning research and rejecting my valid scientific criticism on that false claim. That 'milestone' was a product of Nature Genetics. --- I was mind-mixed with the severe delay in publishing my criticism on the Yamanaka’s iPS cell research paper in Nature Biotechnology (NTB) when I wrote the above comment. My criticism was submitted to NTB on December 7, 2007. It is now 98 days over but is still listed as "under considerationâ€. -- Why would it take so long to evaluate a criticism on an iPS cell publication when the research papers on iPS cells are actually published very quickly? -- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
One more comment on the magic claims for iPS cells --- I wish to summarize my different perspectives on the magic iPS cells. First, these cells are bona fide cancer cells. Secondly, these cells are most likely originated from pre-existing stem cells or progenitors identified as 'stem cells'. Thirdly, these cells are not embryonic cells or 'rejuvenated' embryonic cell-like cells. --- The so-called 'induction' and 'reprogramming' claims are either misunderstandings or pure misrepresentations. So far there is no direct proof for these imagined processes. The critical experiments for directly testing these claims were already described to Yamanaka in July 2007. But so far there is no word from him on those simple and straight forward experiments that he agreed as 'important'. --- Many criticisms have been published (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) on the erroneous or even deceptive nature of the major claims made for iPS cells. These criticisms were open for rebutal (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html). However, no 'corresponding authors' of the criticized iPS cell publications have lived up to their intrinsic scientific responsibility to publicly answer the PUBLISHED criticisms. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Cell age cannot be reversed by 'nanofication'--- Whether the reception is hot as it was shown for the iPS cells or cold as it is shown for the ‘nanobubed’ cells, an essential principle of biology should not be forgotten: aging is an intrinsic and irreversible process. Chemical 'customatics' using transcription factors or physical 'therapy' using nanotubes may change the appearance or even the function of an adult cell. However, they will not reverse its age into embryonic. --- Those claiming success in reversing cell age are either un-knowledgeable of cell aging or, even worse, modern alchemists with an intention to make profit from selling the 'fountain of youth' to the public. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
How could scientific disagreement be resolved in this way? ----- Please pay attention to the following quote from the above Nature News: <<<Two years ago, PrimeGen similarly publicized experimental results describing the derivation of pluripotent stem cells from sperm precursor cells (see Nature 440, 586–587 ; 2006). At the time PrimeGen told Nature they would publish a paper, but haven’t. Sundsmo says that the science behind that paper, which has been at the core of the company’s technology, had to be reformulated because of internal disagreement over what the experiment showed. Sundsmo says that half the company was let go and that the paper has been accepted for publication.>>> What were the disagreements over the experiment results? What were initially stated about the results of these experiments and what were the revised statements? Which half of the company was let to go? Do the going away scientists agree with the final publication? Where will this publication appear? ----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com