Last Friday it was announced in Medical News Today that researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered a means to fix the genetic defect that causes sickle cell disease with the patient’s own stem cells. According to the announcement, “The corrected stem cells were coaxed into immature red blood cells in a test tube that then turned on a normal version of the gene.” This does not mean that a clinical application is imminent or that the procedure is safe. As stated in the original abstract from Blood, the Journal of the American Society of Hematology, “the safety and feasibility of stem cell mobilization in individuals with sickle cell trait (SCT) has not been documented.” However, the report added that “no untoward adverse events occurred in either group, including sickle cell crises.” 
The new treatment could prove to be revolutionary; at present the only existing therapy for sickle cell disease is through bone marrow transplantation. However, the journal Blood reports that, “many patients are ineligible [for bone marrow transplantation] because of either the lack of a suitable donor or their underlying condition.” The advantage of “peripheral blood stem cells” (PBSC) from the patient are obvious: patients don’t have to wait for a suitable donor – they are their own source of the stem cells. The study concludes that, “Products from SCT donors require only minor changes in ex vivo cell processing, allowing for the use of mobilized peripheral blood as a potential source of stem cells for transplantation in sickle cell disease.” Furthermore, as one researcher stated, “The beauty of iPS cells is that we can grow a lot of them and then coax them into becoming cells of any kind, including red blood cells.” In short, scientists believe they are now one step closer to successful stem cell therapy for sickle cell disease.
Of course, the word is still out on the success of PBSCs. But ethicists should applaud any research that is as promising as embryonic stem cell research, but does not require the destruction of human embryos.
 There were two separate control groups with eight individuals in each group – one SCT group and one non-SCT group. In the words of the research team, the study does “not permit the conclusion that G-CSF is completely without such risk. Our study, however, suggests that the risk is limited…” http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/99/3/850.full?sid=62767506-48e6-45f1-be88-b033f616fcc7