Embryonic stem cell timeline myth

This editorial from the American News from Aberdeen, South Dakota appears to me to contain all the current talking points of the pro-embryonic stem cell advocates. So, I had to respond;

To the editors in regard to the Editorial, "Some motives unclear on stem-cell research," by Ruth Wood:

I believe that Ms. Wood means well but does not understand the significance of changing 2500 years of medical and scientific research and treatment guidelines to abandon the principle of beneficence limited by nonmaleficence: "Heal if possible, but, first, do no evil." The embryos that she advocates destroying are the brothers and sisters of the babies in the arms of parents who desperately desired children.

She does not understand that researchers have been able to develop non-blood related stem cells not only from bone marrow, but from cord blood and umbilical cord and placental cells. We have techniques to create nerve cells from skin and liver cells from umbilical cord blood.

I, myself, have been confused about the differences of opinion as to how long embryonic stem cells have been researched, since I thought I could remember references to them back before I understood their significance. I can't figure out were that 1998 date came from - so I did a Medline search tonight. (Anyone can at the National Center for Emergency Medical Informatics )

Research on embryonic stem cells finds Pub Med/Medline references to chick embryonic clonal cell tissue cultures back in the early '60's. Human embryonic stems were clearly described in 1979 in this article:


Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1979;24(3):150-9. Related Articles, Links

Studies on isolated cloned populations from irradiated human embryonic cell cultures.

Lee CL, Lee SH, Kamra OP.

The recovery of substrains with stable chromosome aberrations from irradiated fibroblast culture are reported. Four human fetal cell strains were exposed to 600 rad of gamma rays at 200 rad/min. The efficiency of recovering viable cloned subpopulations was approximately 87%, and the frequency of clones with abnormal chromosomes was 40/100 colonies. G-band chromosome analyses for 34 abnormal substrains are described. Karyotypes of some of the clones with complex rearrangements are also presented. Analyses of a total of 47 aberrant events in the 34 abnormal substrains revealed at 7:1 and a 9:1 translocation-inversion and translocation-deletion ratios, respectively. Five of the abnormal substrains were continuously cultured; all except one showed signs of sensecence toward the end of 44 ± 10 doublings. Unusual prolonged proliferation capacity was observed in substrain FFS-1-9. The significance of this finding is discussed.


I believe that Ms. Woods has been misled and has inadvertantly passed on bad information to you. Please consider correcting the error.

Thank you,
Beverly B. Nuckols, MD