It has become more and more often we are
searching in vain through news channels or sources to try to find out which
news agency is telling the truth, only to remember that the news has been
brought by some big corporation, no longer owned by the independent spirit of
Journalism. It is saying what their financial or political interests tell them
to say, not necessarily the truth the public want to know. It has become more and
more often we are hearing prestigious university professors, who we suppose to
trust, talk like a politician, saying things that they have absolutely no
scientific evidence or proof, saying things that the scientific data point
otherwise, saying things that distort the scientific process but benefit
themselves, saying things that they are not supposed to say as a scientist or
physician. It is often the same group of prestigious professors who control
those top scientific journals, such as Nature, Science, Cell, that the
scientific community trusts most. It is often the same group of prestigious
professors, often also editors of those top scientific journals or their close
associates/friends, who get published in those top scientific journals with
little or no peer-review. It is often the same group of prestigious professors,
often also editors of those top scientific journals or their close associates/friends,
who block the publication of others’ scientific breakthroughs that would have
conflicts with their own research or interests. If there are multi-millions of
grants, academic rank, salaries, job security, and lab spaces on the line, it
is hard to imagine how much the scientific integrity and professional ethics
would really weigh against those big material benefits, particularly under a confidential review
system where the reviewers basically can do whatever they like, say whatever
they want, even things far away from the truth, without any concerns to get
caught.
The politicization of top scientific
journals has not gone unnoticed in the stem cell community. It is not any
secret to the scientific community that the biggest stem cell scam of the last
few years is the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) made by the
Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka who put multiple oncogenes into the skin
cells, which was first published in Cell in 2007, widely proliferated in
Nature, Science, Cell Stem Cell, and has become almost the only publishable fake
stem cell research in Cell Stem Cell in the last few years, where most of the
promoters of iPS cells are also the editors. It is not so difficult to tell in
the first place that the idea of Yamanaka’s iPS cells is in fact flawed because
it is common scientific knowledge taught in all the universities that cancer is
caused by turning on oncogenes in adult cells, so iPS cells are actually
abnormal cancer cells, not stem cells. Yamanaka’s iPS cells are actually the
politicization of sciences by a group of prestigious university professors to
meet Bush administration’s demand for alternative for pluripotent human
embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Yamanaka’s iPS cells tell us a true story where science
has become secondary to the political purpose, a true story of politicization
of stem cell research. Yamanaka’s iPS cells were promulgated by more than 100
major international news agencies as the “biggest breakthrough of stem cell
research”, as the “ethical alternative for human embryonic stem cells”. However,
Yamanaka has never provided any scientific evidence that iPS cells are stem cells
because it requires very difficult and time-consuming self-renewal analysis
that is commonly accepted as the proof of any stem cells, nor anything else
that Yamanaka or those promoters of iPS cells said about the iPS cells as the
alternative for hESCs is true or has any scientific proof. There are many
scientific reports to show iPS cells actually have more genetic defects than
cloned embryos, which are known for abnormal. There are many scientific
evidences to show iPS cells are actually flawed, however, these real scientific
research and data were not so widely promulgated since they did not fit the
political purposes of some interest groups. How did Yamanaka, who is the editor
of Cell/CSC and also has close relationship with the presidents and other top
officials of international society for stem cell research (ISSCR), skip the required
self-renewal experiments and get his fake stem cell research published in Cell
in 2007 without even providing the slightest scientific data for self-renewal
that has been mandated for the proof of stem cells by anyone else? And how did
Yamanaka win the Nobel prize with such fake stem cell research without any
solid scientific evidences for any breakthroughs in 2012? It is interesting if
we pay little bit attention to the timing of Yamanaka iPS cells and the timing
of his Nobel prize as well as the scope of their promulgations by more than 100
major international news agencies as the “biggest breakthrough of stem cell
research”, as the “ethical alternative for human embryonic stem cells”, which were all
closely aligned with the political gains of those against hESC research.
Scientifically, those flawed alternatives for hESCs, including Yamanaka iPS
cells, later trans-differentiation of adult cells, and most recently cloned embryos,
are disasters for stem cell research. If we look at how much taxpayers’ money
has gone into such fake stem cell research or politicization of stem cell
research of those interest groups, the magnitude is huge. Since 2007, about
$5-10 billions of NIH (National Institutes of Health), CIRM
(California Institute for Regenerative Medicine), and investor funds have gone
into such flawed ideas, nothing has come out of it, except more and more reports
to prove the flaws of such adult alternatives that were in fact flawed in the
first place. Ironically, it is Obama administration, not Bush administration,
has provided the most funding from NIH to those interest groups’ fake stem cell
research or politicization of stem cell research by Bush administration. Needless to say, most of the
beneficiaries are the promoters of iPS cells, many sitting on the editorial
board of top scientific journals, including Cell Stem Cell, the official
journal of ISSCR.
When it comes to tell stem cell scams
from stem cell research, my more than 20 years of scientific training and
knowledge have really helped me. Unfortunately, it is hard to say the same to
the general public and investors who mostly do not have the same level of scientific
knowledge to tell the truth from false about stem cell research. Maybe it would
help if you pay attention to those warning signs, such as if the science has
become secondary to the purpose, if the scientist or professor you think you
trust talks like a politician, if the scientist or professor you think you
trust is saying something without any scientific data, if the professor is
talking about a big breakthrough but has absolutely nothing to show what the
breakthrough is, if the physician or company is selling treatment or cure but
has nothing to show that they can do that, if the company is saying their cells
can repair heart but has nothing to show their cells can become heart muscle
cells, if the professor begins to substitute data with some not so difficult
drawings, etc. This opinion is written in response to reader’s suggestion
below.
From: Lana Reese [mailto:lanamreese@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:16 AM
To:contacts@SDRMI.org
Subject: New controversies in the Research/Publishing Process for Voive of Regenerative medicine readers
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:16 AM
To:
Subject: New controversies in the Research/Publishing Process for Voive of Regenerative medicine readers
Hi
I hope all is well.
I wanted to pass along a couple links to stories that
might be a good fit for Voive of Regenerative medicine, or could at least be
valuable conversation starters for your social followings. It seemed
particularly relevant given your position in quickly evolving field of stem
cells.
Recently, Nobel Prize Winner Randy Schekman and former
science editor Richard Smith called into question current practices of the
scientific publishing process, underscoring a growing need for change. With
these debates being such hot topics, I thought your readers would enjoy hearing
your take on it, specifically the relevance that change could have for the
industry moving forward.
Here are the links to the two stories, which delve
into the problems and possible solutions facing scientific publishing:
Happy holidays and I’d love to see your opinion on the
articles!
Best,
Lana
