鈥淪TEM cell science is no stranger to claims that don鈥檛 stack up, results that can鈥檛 be replicated and doctors willing to rush into the clinic.鈥� One might have hoped that these comments, made more than three years ago in a feature in New 杏吧原创 (11 March 2006, p 42), would by now be outdated. Rigour and caution need to replace the culture of hype and haste that threatened to derail the promise of stem cell biology early in this decade.
A paper , which controversially claimed that human embryonic stem cells could be made to grow into mature sperm, has been retracted by the journal鈥檚 editor after he found that two paragraphs were plagiarised from an article by another scientist (see 鈥淏ad week for stem cells鈥�).
Meanwhile, an investigation by New 杏吧原创 into stem cell research at the University of Minnesota has triggered a new inquiry by university authorities into possible misconduct (see 鈥淔urther doubts over stem cell images鈥�), sparked by concerns about several papers, including one published as recently as December 2008.
Advertisement
While we should not rush to a judgement on the researchers involved, it is clear that papers are still being published about which questions are being raised. More rigour is needed in a field that bears the taint of the fraud perpetrated by Woo Suk Hwang, whose team in South Korea was revealed in 2005 to have fabricated evidence of creating cloned human embryonic stem cells.
鈥淢ore rigour is needed in a field that still bears the taint of the fraud perpetrated by Woo Suk Hwang鈥�
Since then, diligent scientists have worked hard to restore faith in this area, and have created genuine breakthroughs with work on what are known as 鈥渋nduced pluripotent鈥� stem cells made from skin and other cells 鈥� which might one day deliver the same medical benefits as Hwang鈥檚 illusory cloned cell lines. These valuable efforts could be undermined if some still rush to publish, rather than ensuring they have got things right.
Caution and a spirit of self-criticism will be especially important as stem cells move from the lab into the clinic. There may always be charlatans who try to sell unproven treatments to desperate patients, but experience with gene therapy has shown that even well-intentioned researchers can let enthusiasm cloud their judgement, and expose volunteers in clinical trials to unacceptable risks.
The in PLoS Medicine () of a patient who developed a tumour that grew from a transplanted neural stem cell will doubtless have been taken to heart by responsible researchers considering clinical trials of a stem cell clinical therapy. The potential gains of stem cell science are precious and must be carefully nurtured. The guiding principle must be: proceed with caution.