Q&A with Larry Goldstein,
Professor of Cellular & Molecular Medicine
This
fall, while other School
of Medicine faculty were
immersed in research and
classes, Larry Goldstein
spent many of his waking
hours working to educate
California voters and
a nationwide audience
about what he thinks could
be the biggest medical
breakthrough in decades.
He has been appearing
on network TV news shows,
speaking before large
crowds, and arguing intently
for passage of Proposition
71, the ballot initiative
that would commit California
to issue $3 billion for
stem cell research.
Goldstein,
a Howard Hughes Medical
Institute investigator
who focuses on basic cellular
mechanisms in neurodegenerative
diseases and nerve injury,
helped write the ballot
measure, and his passionate
belief in the potential
of stem cell research
made him a national spokesman
on the issue. Here, he
sits down with Kate Callen
to share his insights
and experiences from his
foray into the political
arena.
Q. When did you decide to become actively involved in fighting for stem cell research and why?
Goldstein:
My first involvement
was in early 1999
when I was asked
to testify at one
of the first (actually
the second I think)
U.S. Senate subcommittee
hearings on embryonic
stem cell research.
Thomson and Gearhart
had just reported
the isolation of
the cells, and there
was a discussion
of why and how they
might be useful
and why the Federal
government should
fund further research
of this type. I
represented the
American Society
of Cell Biology
at that hearing,
and I testified
along with Christopher
Reeve and Jennifer
Estes, both of whom,
sadly, have since
passed away from
the ailments they
were testifying
about. At the time,
my laboratory’s
research wasn’t
directly focused
in that area, but
that was the start.
In the last year
or two, the science
in my laboratory
has reached the
point where human
stem cells are the
next logical step.
I’ve also
had an active involvement
in science policy
and public education
for a number of
years. The stem
cell issues is an
interesting example
showing how my work
in science policy
is positively impacted
by my research,
and how my research
has benefited considerably
from what I’ve
learned from my
science policy work.
|
Q. What led you to this area of research?
Goldstein:
Much basic and applied
research on neurodegenerative
diseases and other areas
of human disease is done
with animal models, because
you rarely can do experiments
on people. If I need brain
cells from people in the
early stages of Alzheimer's
disease, where can I get
them? And, as is well
known, there's a hard
transition to make when
you try to apply what
you've learned from animals
to treating diseases in
humans, coming up with
new drug therapies, or
even just testing ideas
you've developed. We've
reached the point with
a couple of diseases,
such as Alzheimer's disease
and Lou Gehrig's disease,
where the next logical
step is to begin working
with human cells, which
have tremendous advantages
for what we want to do.
Q.
Stem cell research is
an intricate science.
How do you explain it
to a lay person ?
Goldstein:
Our bodies are made of
cells, and each different
type of cell is like a
small business. They are
all specialists; like
small businesses, each
makes a particular product
or products or provides
a particular service.
Beta cells in the pancreas
produce insulin to help
digest food. Brain cells
send electrical signals
to produce thought or
movement. Heart cells
contract to pump blood.
When we get diseases like
Alzheimer's disease, heart
failure or diabetes, they
are largely caused by
a breakdown in cell function
or by cell death. Stem
cells are important because
they are special kinds
of cells that we may be
able to use to replace
damaged cells or tissues
or to use as tools to
help us better understand
diseases or develop conventional
drug therapies.
Q. Can you summarize the “pros” and the “cons” of advocates and opponents?
Goldstein:
The issues boil
down to morals and
ethics. The scientific
data tell us, and
most knowledgeable
scientists and scientific
societies agree,
that we need research
with both adult
stem cells and embryonic
stem cells to help
us better understand
diseases and to
help deliver new
treatments that
we desperately need.
The moral problem
is that some of
the most valuable
kinds of cells come
from early human
embryos at the blastocyst
stage. Each embryo
is a tiny ball of
100 to 200 cells;
it’s like
a little tennis
ball; it has no
organs, no blood,
no brain. It can
be frozen for 5
to 10 years and
then be thawed out
successfully. Some
people argue that
such an embryo (the
blastocyst) is the
same as a person
or a baby. If you
believe that, then
you will be opposed
to embryonic stem
cell research. My
experience, as I’ve
traveled and spoken
on this issue to
nonscientists, is
that most people
do not think that
a frozen ball of
cells is the same
as one of my kids
or you. In fact,
to me, the problem
of human disease
is so important
that if one doesn’t
equate these frozen
embryos to an actual
person, then we
must use these cells
in research, because
we have a duty to
understand and treat
disease; it’s
an important human
goal.
Q. How would you respond to the argument that scientists shouldn’t get mixed up in politics?
Goldstein:
That’s like
saying citizens
shouldn’t
get mixed up in
politics. Scientists
are citizens. When
scientific issues
are being debated
in the public realm
and scientists don’t
participate by providing
scientific information
and viewpoints,
how can the public
have an educated
discussion? Not
only that, but most
of our work, our
funding, and our
livelihoods are
provided by the
public, so we have
a responsibility
to provide the public
with the best information
we can.
|
Q. What have been some of the high points of your personal activism, and what have been some of the low points?
Goldstein:
There have been two
kinds of high points.
First, I feel good about
the sense that I'm making
a positive impact on public
discussions of science
and science policy. I
don't mean to imply that
people always agree with
me at the end of a discussion,
but if they disagree,
at least they know more
about some of the scientific
issues. I view that as
community service. Second,
I feel good that I'm helping
to demystify science.
Scientific research is
conducted by scientist-citizens;
we are members of the
community, and like everybody
else, we are prepared
to do our part to make
a positive impact. As
for the downsides, it's
terrible when the patient
advocates I've worked
with pass away. I sometimes
feel that, if we had moved
faster, we may have been
able to help, which is
not to say that there's
any guarantee that if
the politics had gone
away, we could have saved
them; it's a feeling of
frustration. Another downside
is that some opponents
of embryonic stem cell
research speak about this
research in terms of Nazi-type
experiments, or violating
the civil rights of embryos,
or murdering blastocysts.
They often make outrageous
and totally distorted
scientific claims because
they don't actually understand
the science. I feel bad
about the implications
that I'm a murderer when
I'm driven actually trying
to do something good and
trying to educate the
public. It's difficult
when opponents feel no
compunction about scientific
distortions and falsehoods.
I'm not sure that, temperamentally,
I'm the right kind of
person for the kind of
publicity I've had to
cope with.
Q. What advice would you give to other scientists who might contemplate taking an advocacy role?
Goldstein:
I would tell them
that they must.
We as scientists
must step forward
and participate
in the public arena
when scientific
issues rise to the
fore, as they increasingly
will in the coming
years. If we don’t,
and things happen
that we don’t
agree with, we only
have ourselves to
blame.
Q. And what advice would you give to a scientist who decides to become an advocate?
Goldstein:
Always speak the
truth and your integrity
will be intact.
Different people
react to public
pressures differently;
some will like it,
some won’t.
And some issues
are hotter than
others. If you speak
the truth, however,
and you provide
honest information,
even in an advocacy
position, you will
feel comfortable
with yourself at
the end of the day.
That’s why
I try to distinguish
between advocacy
and education. Good
science advocacy
comes from good
scientific information
and objective truth.
|
Q. Whether Prop. 71 passes or is voted down - and we don't know right now what the outcome will be - where do you go from here? Back to the lab, or will you stay in the political arena?
Goldstein:
I never left the lab.
I do this in my free time
and around the edges of
my research work. My priority
commitment is to my lab
and my research. But I've
had a longstanding role
in science policy at the
national level, and I've
always done that as my
contribution to community
service. All of us have
a responsibility to serve
the public; it's part
of the mission of the
university and of the
Howard Hughes Medical
Institute. Proposition
71 got dropped on top
of everything else, so
I've been working long
days. But it's worth it.
This area of biomedical
research holds tremendous
promise and opportunity
for the people who can
benefit from future treatments
and technologies. And
it has enormous potential
impact for scientific
research at UCSD and in
La Jolla.
|
