What to make of this? Sloppy science,

KittyKitty

wasting research money:

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577257513760102538.html?mg=reno-secaucus-wsj

KittyKitty

article front page of today's Wall Street Journal, "Lab Mistakes Hobble Cancer Studies" talking about rampant misidentification of breast cancer cell lines in research, and scientists who won;t test the cell lines prior to research, and won't admit the problem.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577257513760102538.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories 

What a waste of time and money in research.

AlaskaAngel

Yes. I hate to think of how many people took trastuzumab or didn't take it because the process for testing for HER2 positivity was so questionable for so long. We are still living with false information based on studies that were done on groups that had questionable HER2 testing results to begin with.

A.A.

otter

I'd love to read the WSJ article. Researchers' failure to verify the identity of the cell lines they're using has been a problem in some fields of study.  It's actually an area I've been following.

However, the WSJ article is subscription-only and I'm not interested in paying a fee fee to read it.

otter

Note added in edit:  Try this link instead. I found it with a Google search. It doesn't seem to require a subscription:   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577257513760102538.html

[Another edit:  Sorry, that link doesn't work now. It did when I first found it but now it leads to the same teaser as the O.P.'s links.  Anyway, I did read the article, so I'm commenting below.]

The problem of contaminated cell lines really is important, and it does affect the validity of some of the lab-based ("in vitro") studies on cancer biology.  But, there are plenty of intermediate steps that will test and re-test the original findings from those cell culture experiments.  The first validation testing will check to see if the original results can be repeated in other labs, under slightly different conditions.  Next, the treatments described in the cell-culture experiments will typically be tested in animals.  Then, those treatments will be studied in clinical trials in humans, to see if they're safe and if they really work.  Finally, if all else goes well, the treatments will be evaluated and possibly approved by the FDA.  Only then will they be made available for widespread use in patients.

So, I agree that it's a tragic waste of research funding when mistakes like those described in the WSJ article are made.  As is apparent from the article, HeLa cells (the cervical cancer line) are widely used in research labs and it's very easy to spread them accidentally.  They grow like weeds, and will overtake other, more finicky cells in a culture dish.  They also can spread by aerosol -- it doesn't take a lab accident or carelessness with pipets or labeling.

However, in reference to the O.P.'s question, I don't think we need to fear that the FDA-approved treatments we are receiving are invalid because a cell line used in some initial in vitro studies done 10 or 20 years ago might have been contaminated.

KittyKitty

The WSJ link only works for the first hour or so it is linked, I have discovered.

Here are two links on the same subject:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/04/21/one-mans-quest-to-quell-costly-research-errors/?mod=WSJBlog

http://www.biotrac.com/pages/authentication.html

Government research funds should not be used for shoddy research, (scientists not even knowing what type of cancer cells they are researching), and the unwillingness of funding sources like the NIH to make verification of cell cultures mandatory could undermine public support for cancer research. Also, the many articles on the internet on contaminated cells in research make it clear that this is not a one time thing, nor is it something which is not well known in the research community.

We are accustomed to trusting the work of scientists, and finding out that ego and preservation of reputation, as well as protection of years of work on possible false cell lines is behind some researchers not testing their cell lines after the fact and reporting the results, is  more than a little disturbing.

it is understandable now why a cure for bc has been so elusive. This makes one wonder if the scientists feeding at the trough of government and charity funding, are more interested in their stream of income, than in good science and in advancing the solution.

Bottom line, the taxpayers and people donating to bc charities should insist that the groups doing the funding REQUIRE verification of cell lines, and not just RECOMMEND verification of cell lines. There is too much time and money being wasted otherwise.

Scientists should have been doing this verification all along, it is bizarre that the WSJ has to bring an issue like this to the public attention.

camillegal

This is crazy--there has been so much money goin to bc research in the last 10 yrs, but I wonder how much of the dollar actualy oes for the research,  Every organization has a different amount so i wonder how much actually gets there.

Anonymous

Wow, thanks Kitty, I wasn't aware of this aberrant 'problem'

God !  what's next ??????