Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company The Boston
Globe
January 30, 2002, Wednesday ,THIRD
EDITION
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C4
LENGTH: 921 words
HEADLINE:
CLONING CLAIMS CHALLENGED 3 SCIENTISTS RESIGN FROM JOURNAL IN PROTEST OF
ARTICLE
BYLINE: By Jeffrey Krasner, Globe
Staff
BODY: Advanced Cell Technology
Inc. of Worcester called its November announcement of its human
cloning experiments an "important milestone in therapeutic cloning."
But some top scientists in the field disagree - and, until
recently, they worked for the scientific journal that published the article
documenting the cloning attempt.
Three scientists on the editorial board of
e-biomed: The Journal of Regenerative Medicine have resigned in protest over the
article. The resignations cast doubt on the validity of ACT's claims that its
experiments represented a significant step toward human therapeutic cloning.
In the experiments, ACT scientists said they had taken the
DNA from human embryos and implanted it into unfertilized human eggs from a
donor. Three of the eggs began to divide and produce additional cells; one egg
reached the six-cell stage before it died.
"It was not
a good piece of science," said Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge of Britain's National
Institute for Medical Research in an interview. "It was no advance in any
respect. One could say it was a failure. There seemed to me to be essentially no
point to report the failure, except they weren't calling it it a failure, they
were hyping it as the first effort to clone humans."
Lovell-Badge said he was one of the specialists in cloning and stem
cells on the e-biomed editorial board. He said he resigned in part because he
was not consulted about the article before it was published.
"If you expect a paper to be a little contentious, you should consult
with the editorial board to make sure it's all right," he said.
Michael D. West, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technology and one of
the authors of the cloning article, did not respond to messages seeking
comment.
Two other editorial board members also
resigned from e-biomed: John D. Gearhart of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
in Baltimore, and Davor Solter of the Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology in
Germany.
The publisher of e-biomed, Mary Ann Liebert,
described the controversy as a case of bruised academic egos.
"Clearly some noses were out of joint that they weren't consulted on
this particular article," said Liebert, president and chief executive of Mary
Ann Liebert Inc. of Larchmont, N.Y., which publishes scientific books,
newsletters and journals, and holds conferences. "Editorial board members don't
always agree on papers that are published."
West is an
industry renegade in the debate over cloning. He has repeatedly announced his
goal of human cloning even if it means moving his company overseas to avoid
government restrictions.
West has said Advanced Cell
Technology doesn't want to clone an entire person. His company seeks to harvest
stem cells from human embryos. The tiny, undifferentiated cells are seen as a
possible treatment for numerous diseases and ailments. The company's thinking is
that stem cells cloned from an individual's own body would make the best match
for therapies.
The controversy over the e-biomed
publication has focused attention on the musty world of scientific journals.
Submissions for publication in so-called peer-reviewed journals are sent to
leading scientists in the field for comment and criticism. Reviewers may reject
work outright or ask for additional information and other changes. The
identities of the reviewers are not revealed. But the review process can give
scientific claims tremendous validity.
William A.
Haseltine, editor in chief of e-biomed, said the publication follows the same
standards of review as any other scientific journal.
"I
vigorously object to those who say the proper process of review was not
followed," said Haseltine, who is also chairman and chief executive of Human
Genome Sciences Inc., a Rockville, Md., company developing gene-based drugs.
"The fact it's an electronic journal has no bearing on standards of review."
Haseltine said the reviewers had "no connection or
interest" with Advanced Cell Technology. Two ACT executives - West and Jose
Cibelli, vice president of research and lead author of the article - are on
e-biomed's editorial board.
If e-biomed differs from
other peer-reviewed publications, Haseltine said, it is the threshold of
scientific advance required for publication.
"This
journal is prepared to publish work of a more preliminary nature than Nature or
Science," he said, referring to two of the leading peer-reviewed publications
specializing in major scientific advances.
There are
scientists on e-biomed's editorial board who support the ACT article.
"If I had reviewed the paper, I would have approved it,"
said Dr. Michael Lysaght, director of the Center for Biomedical Engineering at
Brown University in Providence. "The paper was very satisfactory in terms of
what was done and what the implications were."
But, he
noted, the paper reported an incremental advance: "This was a small advance
toward the long-term goal of therapeutic cloning."
That
raises the question of the timing of ACT's announcement and publication in
e-biomed, on a quiet Sunday following Thanksgiving. The e-biomed publication
just preceded stories in Scientific American and US News & World Report.
"The motives were all a bit suspicious," said
Lovell-Badge. "I didn't want to be associated with a journal that was allowing
itself to be manipulated by a company or publishing a paper for the sole reason
of gaining publicity for the journal when the article was of dubious scientific
merit."
Jeffrey Krasner can be reached by e-mail at
krasner@globe.com.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Dr. Robert
Lanza, left, medical director at Advanced Cell Technology Inc., listening as Dr.
Rudolph Jaenisch of MIT's Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research testifies
on human cloning Dec. 12 in Boston. / AP PHOTO
Document 443 of 494. 