Charlotte Prior
September 20, 2016
Current Event 4
The article I chose to do my analysis on is called Stem Cell Therapies are still mostly Theory, yet clinics are still flourishing. This article is based on the unlicensed usage of stem cell therapy in treating patients with certain diseases. It explains that, in theory, this research could be effective and stem cells could find new ways to defeat diseases, like Parkinson's and type 1 diabetes, but the science is not perfect. Some clinics are using the science to treat almost any disease, stem cells are used to produce more cells made by your own body, so they heal diseases which are caused by the loss of cells. Clinics all over the country are opening up advertising stem cell research as overwhelmingly positive and using it to treat more common diseases and injuries. In a paper published by Leah Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, she says “It's operating brazenly, out in the open. It leaves out of these cultural assumptions about hopes and dreams of stem cell treatment, but there is no science behind it.” She is explaining how even though stem cell research is not heavily backed up by science, it is still extremely popular and has become industrial. The FDA does allow clinics to use stem cells as long as they meet certain criteria, but the FDA does not have the resources to regulate every clinic in the United States.
Certain clinics have been found to be using amniotic fluid which is not FDA approved because it does not come from the patient themselves. These clinics have been doing this for years and the FDA has done nothing to stop them. Online, they advertise impressive success stories with videos of happy patients on their website but they don't talk about when it goes wrong. For example, one experience, a man named Jim Gass had, went terribly wrong, he was being treated for stroke and the stem cells were produced on his spine and a mass of cells grew too big, that paralyzed him from the neck down. His life was ruined because of the assumptions that scientists made about stem cell science before it has been fully backed up. This is why this issue is extremely important and should not be taken lightly.
I enjoyed reading this article and I think that it was very well written. I chose this article because I'm interested in stem cell research, and the potential it has, and I was one of the people that believed that this research was heavily backed up by scientists and I was unaware that instances like Jim Gass occurred and that the FDA did not approve all stem cell research. The author used great real life examples, that helped the reader to understand that this is not a science issue but I also a social issue. The vocabulary was not confusing or extensive and it was easy to understand. This article offered the opinion that there should be heavier regulations on stem cell usage in clinics around the United States and in other countries and I agree with the author's perspective. I believe that before these tests are done so commonly, people should be warned that they are not fully backed up by science and should be aware that not everybody has a success story.
Kolata, Gina. "Stem Cell Therapies Are Still Mostly Theory, Yet Clinics Are Flourishing." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 July 2016. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte’s review was interesting and easy to understand. First of all, the way she explained what diseases stem cells were being used for, like Parkinson’s and type 1 diabetes, helped me understand the concept of the article in an easier and quicker way. In addition, I liked how she put in a some quotes from specialists of stem cells, for example, Leah Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota. By doing this, her article was very precise and thorough, it did not leave any questions out in the open. Finally, the fact that she put in the story of Jim Gass, whose stem cell operation had gone wrong, really brought more information to her review. It also helped prove her point that stem cells can be helpful for treating some diseases but if it is not regulated, there can be some disastrous consequences, like ruining a man’s life.
Although Charlotte’s review was very good there were some parts that could have been improved. First of all, there were some typos which sometimes made the review a bit confusing, so if she had thoroughly reread her review, she could have avoid this. Moreover, to make her review even more detailed she could have talked more about what exactly are stem cells, which would have helped me understand better what she was talking about. So, if she could have put a sentence or two about this topic, it would have been a great asset to her review.
All in all, Charlotte’s review was captivating and very interesting to read. I had no idea that the FDA was not capable of regulating every clinic, and so there were some that were using stem cells without the FDA’s approval. This scared me a bit and made me realize that you have to be careful when you go to a doctor because everything they do may not be completely regulated and there could be some consequences if that is the case. Thus, Charlotte’s review really opened my eyes to this new technology and how we may not be using it very appropriately.