Korea continued

Korea continued

Here’s some news on the Korean situation. (I refuse to call it Hwang-gate.) In Korea, Professor Roh Jung-hye, the spokeswoman for the school's investigative committee on Dr. Hwang, was attacked by a crowd of Hwang supporters. The Joong-Ang Daily reports that Roh’s hair was torn out and she was sworn at. Hwang supporters have been protesting for several days, and the police have been asked to investigate this incident. The same paper also ran an editorial condemning the crowd’s action, calling it “unthinkable.”

Meanwhile, Schatten is under fire again. Multiple news sources have reported that he used the faked research to obtain a $16 million dollar grant. The story was originally reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and picked up as an AP story in numerous papers, including the Washington Post. The AP story reports that Schatten was awarded a 5 year NIH grant in September, and that part of the application was based on the now-discredited paper. The article says that NIH is in contact with Pitt as part of routine oversight. The Tribune-Review article, which is much more extensive, reports that the research will take place on several floors of a building that is now under construction, but the building construction was needed anyway and is not tied to the grant. It quotes bioethicist Arthur Caplan as saying that Schatten should probably not remain head of the research. On the other hand, one of Schatten’s partners said, “Jerry is doing really, truly groundbreaking work that is difficult to get funded because it's so expensive.” The grant was given for research on federally approved hESC lines and for work with monkey embryos.

I can’t pass judgment on this one yet—one, I don’t know how important the paper was in the awarding of the grant, it may have been only one of many factors; and, two, Schatten didn’t know it was faked data when he applied for the grant. The Tribune-Review says the article was cited many times in the grant application, which suggests it was key but does not say in what way—to establish Schatten’s credentials? To provide a baseline of the current science? If he presented himself as a key player in Hwang’s research when in fact he was not, that is an ethical problem that needs to be handled. If he believed the science was good and presented it in that fashion, the issues are somewhat different. Obviously the publicity is bad for the project, but the research covered by the grant is likely perfectly sound scientific research that is deserving of funding. Since it is federal money, it could not be used for human cloning or for research on any of the lines Hwang purportedly created.

$16 million over 5 years? Sounds the pay of an average professional athlete. Where have our priorities gone?

Prostate Gland Grown from Stem Cells

Prostate Gland Grown from Stem Cells

Before I let you know the scientific details, I have to comment on some of the headlines. You can skip the rant by clicking here.

“Man-made prostate created by women.” Shouldn’t it be woman-made? It was their press release, too.

“Female Scientists Create Male Prostate In Lab.” Did you ever hear of a female prostate?

“Oz women scientists create world's first “man-made” prostate.” At least they put it in quotes.

2 points—one, “man-made” just doesn’t cut it as a word anymore. “Artificial” often is a good synonym for engineering projects, but it doesn’t work as well for biological things, since people often associate “artificial” with “inorganic.” But do you need the adjective in this case anyway? Doesn’t “create” let you know that it was not naturally grown? We do need a word to describe engineered tissue and organs grown in the lab, but “man-made” is not it.

Second, what’s the significance of women doing this? Yes, there’s some potential irony in it, which is what the editors are jumping on—but I bet you wouldn’t get “Male Scientists Create Female Uterus” as a headline if that happened. Let’s look a little deeper. Is it that female scientists are still a novelty to many people? Wake up! Yes, there are more men than women in the sciences, but differentiating women’s accomplishments suggests that they are somehow unusual. Certainly it is important to show women’s accomplishments, in order to provide a model for girls and to point out that women are just as scientifically accomplished as men for the folks who still don’t get it. But that’s appropriate for an article on women in science, not a headline on research. If it’s “news” that women can do something, then they have a lot further to go then I thought, which is depressing. I am fairly sure the headline writers were just tickled by women creating a male organ and didn’t think about the other implications, but they’re there.

Bottom line—be careful with your language. It says more than you know.

Ok, on to what actually happened.

From the press release: Researchers at Monash Institute of Medical Research (MIMR) in Australia have grown prostate tissue from human embryonic stem cells. They coaxed the embryonic stem cells into becoming prostate cells, then transplanted them into mice, where they grew to a human prostate. The procedure took 12 weeks.

The significance of this procedure is that it provides healthy prostate tissue that can be used as a baseline for study of disease, both cancer and benign prostate disease. There are very few samples of healthy prostates available to researchers, since young men don’t typically have problems with their prostate. Growing prostate tissue makes much more available for researchers.

The Melbourne Herald-Sun reports additionally that the gland that grew in the mice was not as big as a human prostate but contained the same tissue, blood vessels, glands, ducts and biological processes. (And there’s another interesting question—what regulated the size?) The Australian reports that some of the funding came from the United State Department of Veterans’ Affairs. (Hmm. Wonder if these were US federally-approved hESC lines, or if the money slipped through because it came from the VA. UPDATE: A reader comment says that they were federally approved. See below.)

This is an example of why embryonic stem cell research is important, even if it doesn’t lead to immediate treatment.