Is belief larger than fact: expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research

Abstract

BackgroundStem cell (SC) therapies hold remarkable promise for many diseases, but there is a significant gulf between public expectations and the reality of progress toward clinical application. Public expectations are fueled by stakeholder arguments for research and public funding, coupled with intense media coverage in an ethically charged arena. We examine media representations in light of the expanding global landscape of SC clinical trials, asking what patients may realistically expect by way of timelines for the therapeutic and curative potential of regenerative medicine?MethodsWe built 2 international datasets: (1) 3,404 clinical trials (CT) containing 'stem cell*' from ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Portal; and (2) 13,249 newspaper articles on SC therapies using Factiva.com. We compared word frequencies between the CT descriptions and full-text newspaper articles for the number containing terms for SC type and diseases/conditions. We also developed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify novel SC CTs, mainly regenerative medicine applications.ResultsNewspaper articles focused on human embryonic SCs and neurological conditions with significant coverage as well of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In contrast, CTs used primarily hematopoietic SCs, with an increase in CTs using mesenchymal SCs since 2007. The latter dominated our novel classification for CTs, most of which are in phases I and II. From the perspective of the public, expecting therapies for neurological conditions, there is limited activity in what may be considered novel applications of SC therapies.ConclusionsGiven the research, regulatory, and commercialization hurdles to the clinical translation of SC research, it seems likely that patients and political supporters will become disappointed and disillusioned. In this environment, proponents need to make a concerted effort to temper claims. Even though the field is highly promising, it lacks significant private investment and is largely reliant on public support, requiring a more honest acknowledgement of the expected therapeutic benefits and the timelines to achieving them.

Stem cell hype: Media portrayal of therapy translation

“…Research has shown that hESCs dominated discussions in the U.S. press in the early years of discovery, in 52.8% of the news reports from 1998 to 2000, and in 74.7% in 2001 when the political controversy reached its peak (25). Similarly, a review of 13,249 articles in English-language newspapers published between 1991 and 2010 in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries has established that hESCs were the focus of coverage from 1998 to 2010 (11). Our analysis shows an optimistic slant toward the future of translational SC research (57.7% of the news reports), which remained steady in both pre-and postGeron press coverage.…”

“…Although most clinical trials over the past decade have used SCs for the treatment of cancer and graf -versus-host disease, media coverage has focused extensively on applications for neurological conditions, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes (11). A longitudinal study of the media framing of biotechnology news in the United States and the United Kingdom shows a bias in reporting biomedical discoveries, which commonly are portrayed more favorably than agricultural biotechnology (12).…”

Applied cultural and social studies are needed for a sustainable reduction of genetic disease incidence

“…I have personally experienced this in basic biomedical research, far away from a usable treatment, that reports of a new mechanism to target in general for autoimmune diseases (Coornaert et al, 2008) or specifically for multiple sclerosis (Mc Guire et al, 2014) or psoriasis (Afonina et al, 2016) led to a media spin which gave many sufferers of these diseases false hopes. These high expectations on what science can deliver on a short term basis is an ethical problem in science communication (Bubela et al, 2012). It also leads to frustration from patients with rare and difficult-to-diagnose diseases, which believe that the lack of research or treatment options is due to lack of interest (Rich, 2016).…”

Commercialization and Stem Cell Research: A Review of Emerging Issues

“…A recent survey of stem cell researchers found that 88 % of respondents felt " moderate " or " intense " pressure to create clinical applications from their work [14]. To date, there has been only limited success in translating stem cell research into clinical therapies, but this has not dampened expectations in, or enthusiasm for, the fi eld, as the phenomenon of " stem cell tourism " attests [12,13]. The commercialization pressures facing stem cell ABSTRACT Stem cell researchers face pressure to develop therapies that will reach the clinic within a short period of time.…”

“…Scientists face pressure from funding agencies and the public to develop stem cell therapies that will reach the clinic within a short period [12,13,102,103]. A recent survey of stem cell researchers found that 88 % of respondents felt " moderate " or " intense " pressure to create clinical applications from their work [14].…”