Stem Cell Battles

Its like any other long term goal, the longer we delay starting, the longer we delay enjoying the results.

Laura bushs statements were really boneheaded Midieval thinking

"Hey you cant dissect corpses, the body is an inviolate temple of God'

"Onan spilled his seed upon the ground which is an abomination to God"


all the right-wing religious loonies are so busy getting ready for the next life that they want to deny others the opportunity to live this one

So true, farmerman.

I was sort of detached from this whole argument, and approached from an intellectual rather than an emotional perspective. In large part because no one I knew was directly affected by this issue, but not any more.

I got a call several weeks ago from a women who was one of my students when I first started teaching over 25 years ago. She had seen my picture in a newspaper and wanted to renew an old acquaintance. When I knew her she was an 18/19 year old and a brilliant young lady headed for a very productive career. She is now in a nursing home with a alzheimer's like disorder that is genetic in origins. Her brain is slowly atrophying and she has been told it is unlikely she will reach 50 (she is 46). Much of her present intellectual capability is the result of medications originally developed for alzheimer patients, but this delays, it does not stop, the progress of the disease. The only possible hope for this women is a stem cell like therapy, which is unlikely given her time frame and the current state of knowledge and research in this area. But there are many others that could be helped, now and in the future. I had little use for the arguments of those who wished to prevent stem cell research on ethical grounds but I could, I thought, at least see their point of view. Not any more. The arguments of anyone who is willing to sacrifice the life of someone else for their own ideology, and assumptions of what the supernatural demands, when a cure is possibly at hand, does not deserve serious consideration.

Her name is Doreen. We've had several phone conversations over the last several weeks, and I'll be visiting her at the end of the month. I will not be posting much on this subject, at least in the near future. At the moment I can not approach this subject rationally.

SOUTH MIMMS, England At the end of a winding country road lined with hedgerows and tidy brick homes sits a new prefabricated building chock-full of monitors and filters. Its sole purpose is to guard and nurture vials of precious, potentially life-giving cells, called stem cells, that will soon occupy a squat green Thermos here..
When it starts accepting cells a few months from now, the UK Stem Cell Bank will become a sort of citadel for what is perhaps the most promising medical technology of the last 50 years, which many believe is likely to yield cures for devastating diseases from diabetes to Parkinson's..
But the government-funded British cell bank is also a symbol: Although embryonic stem cell technology started in the United States, the scientific epicenter is shifting overseas, particularly to Britain, where politicians and regulators have given their unabashed support to the research - albeit under strictly monitored conditions..
In the United States, in contrast, stem cell research is struggling, stigmatized and crippled by President George W. Bush's declaration that it is morally suspect and by his decision to deny federal funding for most new projects in the field..
This month, Britain granted its first license for therapeutic cloning to a group at the University of Newcastle, allowing scientists to create human embryos to harvest stem cells that may be beneficial for treating diseases..
To support stem cell technologies the British government spent £2.6 million, or $4.7 million, to create the UK Stem Cell Bank and will soon require that all embryonic stem cell lines in Britain be stored and distributed free through this clearinghouse. Their use will be monitored by a British ethics panel..
Stem cells are primitive and potent cells that will almost certainly help scientists understand, if not cure, diseases. But their use in research is hugely controversial for those who believe that human life begins at conception, since the most powerful cell lines can be derived only from very early human embryos - generally ones left over after fertility treatments..
"We've dealt with a lot of issues and complications of embryonic stem cell research in a straightforward way, and that has put the U.K. in a very good position," said Glyn Stacey, the bank's director. "People are comfortable with the idea of the bank and the research here.".
That is certainly not the case in the United States, where, in 2001, Bush banned the use of federal funds for developing or researching new embryonic stem cell lines, saying that embryos were not a research tool but "a sacred gift from our creator.".
In an instant, stem cell research in the United States became hugely expensive, cumbersome and highly controversial. A once-rocketing technology was thrown into a tailspin..
"Oh, it's been just terrible and it set us back enormously," said Susan Fisher, co-director of the Program in Human Stem Cell Biology at the University of California at San Francisco. "It is very sobering when a government puts restrictions on this very exciting work, rather than promoting it - as has happened overseas. Our position is 180 degrees from that of our colleagues in Europe. Of course, that has cast a pall over the field.".
While British researchers have plugged ahead steadily with their work, Fisher estimates that her group has lost at least two years - "a lifetime," she said - of research time as it dealt with fallout from the Bush regulations..
Because university science buildings are partly subsidized by federal funds from the National Institutes of Health, the Bush funding ban meant that scientists doing research on new embryonic stem cell lines had to relocate to new, privately funded and equipped labs off-campus..
And that has not been simple: Stem cell research is such a hot potato in the United States that Fisher's eminent research group could not find a willing landlord..
"When people found out what we were doing, they said no," Fisher recalled. "The government position has made people fearful.".
She ended up constructing a new duplicate laboratory 30 miles, or 50 kilometers, away from the San Francisco campus, which was finally completed this year..
During the lab's downtime, scientists lost two or three cell lines: They died in inadequate temporary facilities..
The lab's former co-director, Roger Pederson, left to continue his work at Cambridge University in England..
Scientists now spend two hours a day commuting, she said, and young researchers avoid the field because of its expense and uncertainty..
Her lab is still "nowhere near" thinking about the kinds of cloning experiments that are already approved in England..
"We've been busy trying to raise vast amounts of money to duplicate equipment and research facilities that we already had. As a scientist trying to maximize research money, it has been very painful," she said..
The University of California has helped its scientists obtain research funding from private corporations and foundations; Fisher's new lab is funded by Geron, a California-based biotechnology company..
But that has led to new dilemmas: The Bush funding ban has not stopped embryonic stem cell research, but only slowed its progress and moved the ethically sensitive research into the private sector, where it is entirely unregulated and far more difficult to track..
"If you're worried about the slippery slope of using embryos, then fine - develop a tight regulatory system like we have," said Stephen Minger of King's College in London, whose stem cells will be the first deposited at the national bank..
"But the Bush policies mean that in the U.S., so long as you have private money, you can do everything," he said - "buy embryos, create embryos, do it in your basement. Stuff that we can't do here.".
Alison Murdoch, lead investigator in the Newcastle group, said: "Developments like this ought to be open and shared and publicly funded. It's too important for people to hold on to it for commercial profit.".
In the private sector, stem cell lines sometimes sell for tens of thousands of dollars..
And for-profit companies may be reluctant to release their cells at all..
Frustrated by the Bush ban, California has placed an initiative on this November's ballot, Proposition 17, to use state bonds to raise about $300 million a year in support for embryonic stem cell research..
The initiative says: "This is a new frontier of research. And, at present, our state has no effective mechanism to fund stem cell research.".
The Bush administration ban still permits work on stem cell lines created before the ban was announced, but most of the early lines are difficult to work with and there are too few to conduct sophisticated research, scientists said..
A few other countries, like Spain and Japan, are developing their own stem cell banks. But Britain has taken the lead and its bank is likely to become a prototype, if not a resource, for the world..
The power of stem cells derives from their ability to differentiate into any type of human cell, from liver cells to neurons - although scientists are still unable to coax them reliably in any particular direction..
But if researchers could hone this skill, they could - for example - use stem cells from embryos with genetic defects to understand more about the genesis of diseases like cystic fibrosis. For patients, they could create replacement cells for those lost to injury or in the course of a disease..
Many chronic afflictions, including diabetes, leukemia, spinal cord injury and Parkinson's, involve the loss or destruction of a certain type of cell..
All stem cell lines used until now have been created from embryos that are the byproduct of infertility treatments, surplus embryos from couples who had achieved a pregnancy, or embryos that contained genetic or other defects..
Scientists like Murdoch, who study "therapeutic cloning," propose creating tailor-made embryos to harvest genetically matched stem cells that could treat a patient's specific condition..
The concept is anathema to U.S. conservatives..
"We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience," Bush said..
But in Britain, the promise of societal good has consistently won out over the ethical discomfort when it comes to embryo research..
Ever since Louise Brown of England became the world's first "test tube" baby more than 30 years ago - born from an embryo implanted in her mother's womb - the British government has been debating and regulating the use of human embryos in medicine..
In 1990, the British government passed a law specifically allowing embryonic research and technology, but only in a very few situations related to in vitro fertilization or screening for genetic defects..
The government specified what types of embryos could be used and what kind of consent was needed. Scientists were allowed to help couples screen out embryos created by in vitro fertilization for serious genetic conditions, for example, but not to select the gender of a child..
There is no such legal framework in the United States, where the government relies on "guidelines" and university ethics committees to direct researchers through the ethical maze..
A few years ago, as research in the United States began to hint at the tremendous potential of stem cells, the British government decided to expand the scope of the law to allow the creation of embryonic stem cell lines and therapeutic cloning as well..
But the process is deliberate and slow. Every project is reviewed and licensed by a government board and the fate of each embryo is carefully tracked. Every new stem cell line must be ceded to the national bank, where it is evaluated and maintained, and may not be transferred elsewhere without approval from a government steering committee. Reproductive cloning - embryo manipulation to create a specific new human being - is banned and punished with jail..
"We have to be squeaky-clean, because we're the first," said Stacey of the UK Stem Cell Bank, standing by monitors that track every movement in the bank's labs. "We wouldn't want these cells used inappropriately. If we made a mess of it, we'd have pro-life groups screaming and it could affect public perception of this important technology.".
International Herald Tribune

Facts on Stem Cells

By Ruth R. Faden and John D. Gearhart
Monday, August 23, 2004; Page A15



This summer marks the third anniversary of President Bush's announcement of his policy on stem cell research. In the intervening years, the subject has become a polarizing flash point for American politics and a focal point for the presidential campaign. For many of Sen. John Kerry's supporters, the Bush administration's stem cell policy is a leading symbol of everything that is wrong with the current domestic agenda. For Bush supporters, his stance on stem cells is a leading symbol of all that is right.

Translating science into political symbols and slogans comes at a price. There is hype on both sides. In the rush to put a human face on a complicated biomedical challenge, supporters of both stem cell research and Kerry sometimes seem to suggest that but for the administration's policy, stem cell cures for dread diseases would already be in hand. Even under the most supportive policies, however, considerable research needs to be done before the therapeutic promise of stem cells is fully understood and its benefits are realized. In no cases are cures guaranteed, and even in the most promising areas, reliable cures are years, in some cases as much as five to 10 years, away.
That said, and despite the hype to the contrary, there is no question that the current policy is substantially retarding progress in stem cell research. In an Aug. 4 op-ed in The Post, Anne Applebaum argues that our national debate on stem cells should begin with the facts. We agree. Here are some facts:

• As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, no non-embryonic sources of stem cells -- not stem cells from cord blood or from any "adult" sources -- have been shown to have anything like the potential to lead us to viable treatments for such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injury that stem cells derived from very early embryos do. The science here is unequivocal: Access to embryonic stem cell lines is essential to rapid progress in stem cell research.

• The embryonic stem cell lines the president approved for federal funding three years ago, all of which were derived before August 2001, are clearly inadequate to advance stem cell science, let alone to take that science from the bench to the bedside. There are too few of them, no more than 21. All of the approved stem cell lines were prepared using mouse cells and thus pose a risk of contaminating human subjects with mouse viruses. This is a needless risk; since 2001 we have developed techniques for establishing embryonic stem cell lines without using mouse cells. Even if the approved lines were safe for use in humans, many patients who would be appropriate and willing participants in the first human trials would have difficulty receiving grafts based on these lines because of problems of genetic matching. There are just too few lines to even begin to accommodate the genetic diversity in our population.

• Under the current policy, it is not possible to use federal funding to generate or study stem cells derived from embryos with genetic defects or disease genes. Such cell lines would be invaluable in helping to determine the molecular basis of disease and in seeking ways to correct problems or ameliorate their consequences.

• Restricting federal funding to just the approved lines is retarding progress for financial as well as scientific reasons. The $25 million allocated by the Bush administration for embryonic stem cell research in 2003 is a tiny fraction of the National Institutes of Health budget of $18.3 billion for extramural research. To put this in perspective, in that same year the government spent almost eight times as much ($190.7 million) on research with less promising "adult" stem cells. There are formidable scientific and medical challenges to attaining our goal of providing cell-based therapies that are safe and effective. It will take the efforts of many scientists and clinicians in a variety of disciplines to bring this technology to the clinic. The results of laboratory investigations on human embryonic stem cells are highly encouraging and consistent with meeting this goal. Private funding of stem cell research is important and is increasingly forthcoming, but in these early stages, federal funding is paramount and essential.

• We are losing ground to other countries with less restrictive policies on embryonic stem cells. This month British government officials announced the first license to use cloning techniques to generate a human embryo to produce stem cells that might be used for the treatment of disease. Other nations are investing heavily -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- in embryonic stem cell research. The United States stands to lose substantially in the global economy of intellectual property and biotechnology. More important, patients everywhere stand to lose. As much as other countries invest, they cannot fill the gap. They are not as well positioned scientifically as the United States to advance stem cell research. Losing ground to other countries also means losing oversight of critical points in the research cycle, over the ethical treatment of human subjects and embryos, and over quality control.

Hype and symbols will not advance our national debate about stem cell research. Facts and frankness will. So let's be frank.

The controversy about stem cells, and the choice between Kerry and Bush on stem cell policy, is not about science; it really is about values -- moral values.

The science is clear. The only way to ensure that we realize the promise of stem cell research as quickly as possible is to permit federal funding to be used to create new embryonic stem cell lines and to support research with new lines. President Bush's values are also clear. He believes that the destruction of embryos can never be morally justified, no matter how much human suffering might be alleviated, even if the embryos are only still a clump of cells not visible to the human eye and even if the embryos will be destroyed in any event in fertility clinics where they are no longer needed.

We believe that most Americans have different moral values from the president's. While we recognize and respect embryos as early forms of human life, we do not believe that embryos in a dish have the same moral status as children and adults. We believe that the obligation to relieve human suffering binds us all and justifies the instrumental use of early embryonic life. And we believe that it is possible to draw morally relevant lines and to enforce them as a matter of national policy.

Hype and symbols aside, the choice is clear.

Ruth R. Faden, Wagley professor of biomedical ethics at Johns Hopkins University, directs its Berman Bioethics Institute. John D. Gearhart is C. Michael Armstrong professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

link

Another one here http://www.spinsanity.org/ (thanks panzade). I always thought the stem cell issue was sort of a red herring. Don't really know enough about it to complain about Bush's position on it.

This is patently untrue, McG. You are ignoring the difference between base scientific research and applied scientific research. You do realize the difference, and how they lead to different types of discoveries?

Cycloptichorn

How is it patently untrue? Show where and how it's banned.

in either research OR applied science.

Bush should put his advocacy where it belongs. And that is where it will do the most good. As president of a secular nation he has no right to impose his religious beliefs on others. They belong in church not the White House. As for it being an issue in the election. For me it and his religious agenda is a very big issue. They alone would have kept me from voting for him.

Federal tax money comes from everyone, I am glad to see you using your vote to back up your beliefs. That's what makes America strong.

MgC


Are you aware that by a large majority the American people both Democratic and Republican have been pressing that SOB Ayatollah Bush to change his stance on this research. He however, would rather follow the dictates of his church than the wishes of the American people.

I should add that if the religious organizations want to get involved in the political process they should no longer have a tax free status.

Damnet Bush fund stem cell research. We will save human lives so **** your god if he doesnt want that.

A large majority? Well, the large majority get their say in November. We'll see what they actually say.

Mcg
Is it possible for you to have two separate thoughts at the same time. Or as it has been said to spit and walk a straight line. We were talking about the overwhelming majority of people who favor fetal stem cell research.

That's not what you said. Read what you said, Here, I will quote you so you don't need to scroll.

"Are you aware that by a large majority the American people both Democratic and Republican have been pressing that SOB Ayatollah Bush to change his stance on this research. He however, would rather follow the dictates of his church than the wishes of the American people. "

Maybe if you were clear when you wrote, there wouldn't be any miscommunications.

MgC
You will note I was referring to stem cell research while you were referring to the election. Two separate subjects. Hopefully stem cell research would be a defining issue in the election but unfortunately it will not be. Were it, Bush would get clobbered.

Until there is proof of the research working and that something can really come out of it, I say the funding is fine.

Baldimo wrote


If I understand you correctly that would be like putting the cart before the horse. If you understand anything about research you would know there are no guarantees. However, if people thought as you apparently do we would still be huddled around the fire in caves.