Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scrutinizing a Stem Cell Trial

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the under-the-microscope dept.

Wired News has an interesting discussion of a clinical stem cell trial with the CEO of Geron, a California based stem cell company. The author takes time to discuss some of the process and hurdles that are faced by a company who wishes to engage in early clinical trials. From the article: "After an hour of speaking to Okarma, fears of a half-baked trial dissipated. He readily answered my many questions. If he didn't have the animal data to answer a query, he didn't try to dance around that fact. Okarma outlined a structured but malleable trial. I initially had reservations about safety, but Okarma emphasized that if the animal data is not good, the study will not move forward until problems are addressed."

4 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Summary by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Summary: This study had exactly the same oversight that every Phase I trial in the US has.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  2. What does it say about our society... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does it say about our society that I initially parsed "stem cell trial" in the headline as "a court case alleging illegal use of stem cells in research"?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  3. When to believe by 1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I initially had reservations about safety, but Okarma emphasized that if the animal data is not good, the study will not move forward until problems are addressed."

    Don't believe that. Not because it's stem cells, not because Tom Okarma's a bad person (I have no idea about his character), but because that's not an independent, verifiable standard. Be happy that bad things should be avoided because some procedure is being followed and verified, not because you have a good feeling about a person. You want a process that deals with the honest folk and the dishonest folk just the same way, and works for both. Trust breaks the day you have a dishonest person on the other side of the table.

    Still, I guess this is offtopic. It's an interesting article.

  4. Re:Good. by MrFlibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You must be easily impressed. Frankly, I was hoping for positive results like an improvement in sensation or motion in the patients. Not killing them is not much of an accomplishment. If there's no benefit to the patients from the treatment, why would you be impressed?