I’ve often wondered why there hasn’t been more research on macrophage therapy.
Macrophages are some of the coolest cells in the body. They are capable of not just eating other cells (hence their name), but also numerous other functions.
Before we dive into that, below is the latest stem cell video from my collaboration with Parmin Sedigh. Check it out and please subscribe to both of our YouTube channels.
Macrophage therapy
Recommended reads
- At the Enhanced Games, Rules Are for Suckers, NYT. In this wacky world of sports, things like unproven peptides and steroids are encouraged.
- ‘Are we just going to give up and die like every other generation?’ At the Vitalist Bay longevity conference, dreamers and entrepreneurs launch an industry, STAT News.
- Inside Putin’s $26 Billion Quest for Longevity, WSJ.
Problematic Nature News article on peptides
Is the peptide craze backed by science? The promise behind the hype, Nature. I talked to the journalist for this article and expressed serious concerns about pop peptides. That didn’t come through in the quote from me, which is frustrating.
Also, the “promise behind the hype” element of the title is problematic too. Overall, the article has some depth and balance, which is good, but it could have been a lot better.
Human reprogramming: from the eye to the whole body?
We’ll see how the ER-100 trial goes. Huge risks here.
David Sinclair is reportedly also excited about the idea of reprogramming the body overall to positively impact longevity: David Sinclair plans to test whole-body rejuvenation drugs in the XPrize competition.
Human embryo base editing
Then we have this: Scientists Edit Human Embryo Genes With Startling Precision, NYT. Not so sure about the “startling” word in the headline of this piece, but the science from Dieter Egli’s lab is really interesting. It’s hard to say how close or far even this tech could be from being safe in humans. As I’ve discussed here on The Niche before, in the long run, editing human primordial germ cells could be a superior future approach if one is intent on heritable human genome editing.
Heritable human genome editing will generally be unnecessary for genetic disease prevention considering the power of embryo screening. Still, not everyone has enough embryos to do readily benefit from screening methods like PGD/PGS, but in such cases the odds of successful genome editing are very low too. Also, some kind of PGD/PGS is 100% necessary when doing hypothetical heritable editing too if you want to have any clue of what is going on with the embryo like the extent of mosaicism. As I’ve also pointed out numerous times, with embryo editing you can never really rule out mosaicism and still have cells left for the embryo to develop. This is just one area where primordial germ cell editing should be more effective.
More from SciAM on this embryo editing paper: Report of gene-edited human embryos sparks worries about the technology’s future uses. The piece includes quotes from Egli.
Paul,
Apparently, death of cryopreserved embryos by thawing and discarding is preferable to using them for research. I obviously disagree.
I really wish he would take up the challenge of preserving the doomed IVF embryos instead of discarding them…you know, money where mouth is… He could pay for their storage in perpetuity, or at least as long as he could afford it.
It may be that James believes that IVF itself is unethical. In that case, he should be honest and just start there and focus his complaints about IVF rather than hESC research.
I also wondered if he’s opposed to IVF but is reluctant to say so.
Dear Paul and Jeanne:
Your replies are undermined in merit by their personal references (Jeanne) and their general assertions about public attitudes without providing any supportive data (Paul).
Paul, studies conducted by the Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/03/12/majority-of-americans-continue-to-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/) estimated that 40% of Americans do not support legalized abortion, which is the elective killing of unborn human beings. I’m currently not aware of quantitative estimates of public attitudes for editing and destroying embryo-age human beings for research. I dare say that many of the public are unaware of these activities.
Jeanne, past missteps are not remedied by continued ethical transgressions and cannot be used to justify continuing ethical trespasses. Yes, it would be a better ethical choice for our society to memorialize cryopreserved embryo-age children conceived by IVF than to exploit them by using them to continue to normalize unethical research conduct that is predicated on the in vitro conception of new human beings solely for the purpose of use in destructive research.
Look. The discussed research is genetic manipulation and killing of human research subjects. Period. There is no credible argument that refutes this essential nature of the research. Whether or not anyone cares about the individuals and their families who are affected by this research activity is a question of science ethics, moral reasoning, and social responsibility. But make no mistake, we are all negatively impacted by its presence in our world. A society that knowingly permits victimization of innocent human beings becomes more caustic for all, and to an even greater extent for the less powerful. Our responsibility as scientists is to truthfully inform the public of this aspect of the research; and for those of our community, who think it to be unethical and not essential, to express that perspective to the public as well.
James @ Science Alliance for Life and Technology (SALT; salt4life.org)
@James,
I don’t see how abortion is relevant here.
On the question of human ES cell research specifically, 63% of Americans say it is ethical (https://news.gallup.com/poll/21676/stem-cell-research.aspx). Therefore, those folks clearly don’t equate it to “killing” as you do. Your views are not the same facts. They are your opinions.
James, if you are concerned about the embryos, consider the fate of IVF embryos: more than 100,000 babies conceived through IVF are born in the US each year. For each successful pregnancy, there are multiple embryos that remain frozen, estimated to be cumulatively more than a million, and most of these are eventually discarded (there are fees for storage that are hard to justify if the embryos will never be used for pregnancies).
A tiny fraction will be donated to other families, and another small fraction will be donated for research. No matter how you feel about genetic modification of human embryos, consider that the highly probable alternative fate of the embryos was to be destroyed if not used for research.
More than 25 years ago, when my research involved generation of human ES cell lines, I learned about the motivation of the couples who donated their embryos for research. One said that after multiple successful pregnancies, they could no longer afford the storage fees for the remaining embryos, so the embryos were to be destroyed.
I tried to find a religious organization that would create a liquid nitrogen bank for donated embryos to be kept in perpetuity. I couldn’t find any one that would want to spend the money to maintain the embryos.
Perhaps you would like to pick up that challenge.
Dear Paul:
Please, share with your readership what BioRXiv has NOT done with my posted comment regarding the human subjects experimentation reported by Dieter Egli’s lab. I posted the following comment on June 5 and follow-up reply on June 11 on the BioRXiv page for the group’s preprint, titled “Efficient base editing and development in human embryos without chromosomal alterations.” So far, I have seen no action or response from the editors of BioRXiv.
James @ SALT (Science Alliance for Life and Technology)
jsherley
Jun 5
The reported research is morally and ethically, regressively reprehensible. Not only were nascent human beings bodily manipulated and injured without their own consent, they were also killed in the research. The reported studies are a return to the scientific arrogance of human embryonic stem cell research promoters, whose grave moral and ethical trespass a previously misled public now recognizes and understands as such. In no way can the novelty, technological wonder, and utilitarian promises of CRISPR base-editing justify the deaths of the many human beings injured and killed in the reported activity. A moral and ethical biomedical research community must not condone, promote, or permit such care-free, egregious, unnecessary human experimentation. If we do standby passively and allow it, we place humanity and its humanity at great risk of future unrecoverable loss.
James L. Sherley, MD, PhD Science Alliance for Life and Technology
Pending
Hide replies (1)
jsherley
Jun 11
Dear Moderator:
It has been much longer than 24 hours since I submitted my comment (June 5 comment submission). Please, post or provide an explanation for the delay.
Kind regards,
James Sherley Science Alliance for Life and Technology
Pending
@James,
As I’ve written before, yours is an extreme, minority view. Most Americans support human ES cell research as ethical and it’s by a large margin. Most people view human embryos as not equivalent to human beings. In that sense, since human embryos are not people they cannot be “killed.”
Human embryos are also not just average clusters of cells so any research on them is typically approved in advance by a committee of experts such as those on SCRO committees.
I personally don’t see Egli’s work here as unethical, but it could unintentionally enable unethical efforts by others moving forward.
There are also some other aspects to this research including the funding that warrant more discussion, debate, etc. and I’m writing a piece about that now.