Paraplegic Regains Mobility After Stem Cell Treatment

Paraplegic Regains Mobility After Stem Cell Treatment

An array of links led me to the on-line site of the journal Cytotherapy and the abstract of the above study (article itself is by subscription only):

A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study.

The WorldNetDaily reported that the woman, who had been paralyzed for 19 years, could move her hips and feel her hip skin 15 days after receiving an implant of stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood. 10 days later, her feet responded to stimulation, and 41 days after receiving the stem cells she had some regeneration at the site of the injury.

UPI reported the story on November 24, 2004, when the scientists, based in Korea, announced it. I found it reported in the World Peace Herald but not in any mainstream media. I have not yet seen a report on the Cytotherapy article, so I don’t have any further details to report, such as other variables that may have been involved, but will be paying attention.

A blogorial aside: The WorldNetDaily quotes a bioethicist writing in Lifesite.com. I was not able to find such a writing on Lifesite.com, which is a page for the Vasca, Inc. healthcare company. Perhaps they meant lifesite.net, which is a website dedicated to pro-life issues and related conservative concerns. The scientist quoted is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which appears to be a proponent of the “intelligent design” “theory” and with the Center for Bioethics and Culture, which appears to be a watchdog on biological alterations to human beings, among other things. Many scientific advances, perhaps especially those in biology, do raise questions of what it means to be human, what is ethical, what are the benefits to a culture or society compared to the benefits to a single individual, and what will cause more harm than good. But I think it is important to live in the question for a while and not try to resolve it immediately. No ethical issue is easy, or it wouldn’t be an issue. I am suspicious of the WorldNetDaily reporting because it seems to come from only one side of the debate ( and because that side is connected to “intelligent design,” which is a philosophy but in no way a science), when there are many. As I do this blog, I am finding that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are working to promote advances from adult stem cells (or umbilical cells) and bemoaning the lack of media coverage on adult stem cell based research. I am trying to avoid putting these two forms of research into opposition with each other in this blog, and try to highlight when a source has a clear agenda. It is certainly true there is lack of media coverage on this study, and I would like to know what other researchers, grounded in science, think.