Should the US government support Fetal Stem Cell research

Since the Koreans have done an embryo clone job wherein the original embryo can be saved but the clone is sacrificed, I wonder whether the argument goes away. Acquiunk started a thread on this last week.
HoweverI see that Bush will veto anything having to do with any kind of stem cell work no matter what the source. Were becoming a nation of faith healers.

I used to be a card carrying Catrholic, so watch what ya call us " separated brethren".. and sisteren

What are the odds that congress will over ride the presidents veto?

Alternative Stem Cell Bill Added to Debate





By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 24, 2005; Page A03



With a closely divided House poised to vote today on whether to expand federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, opponents are offering fence-sitters what they say is an embryo-friendly alternative: a bill that would foster the use of stem cells from umbilical cords discarded after birth.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act -- introduced by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus -- would establish a network of blood banks to help make cord blood cells readily available for patients and research. The bill is set for a House vote this morning in advance of a vote on the hotly contested Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. That bill would boost federal research spending on cells taken from live human embryos slated for disposal at fertility clinics.

The pairing of the votes raises a scientific question: Are stem cells from umbilical cords reasonable substitutes for embryonic stem cells, which can give rise to all of the body's 200 or so cell types, including nerve, liver, skin, bone, heart muscle and the pancreas, the organ that goes awry in diabetes?

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have strongly implied the answer is yes.

"Published studies have shown that cord blood stem cells have the capacity to change into other cell types, which give them the potential to treat . . . debilitating conditions such as spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, diabetes and heart disease," Smith said in a recent statement.

But several researchers said that statement stretches the truth of what is known about umbilical cord cells. Although scientists do dream of coaxing umbilical cells to produce a wide array of other cells, the only thing they can reliably give rise to today are the components of blood -- red cells, white cells and platelets.

Umbilical and embryonic stem cells "are not in any way interchangeable," said David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Regenerative Medicine and Technology.

Umbilical cord cells, squeezed harmlessly from discarded umbilical cords and frozen for later use, are clearly of great medical value. Since 1988, doctors have transplanted them into thousands of patients whose bone marrow had succumbed to disease or been obliterated by chemotherapy. After being transfused into a patient's vein, cord cells work their way into the marrow, where they produce a constant supply of fresh blood for the rest of the patient's life.

Opponents of embryo cell research often correctly note that dozens of diseases have been cured with umbilical cord cells. What is not often emphasized is that all are diseases of the blood.

Still, there are some hints that umbilical cord cells may have the potential to do more. Some blood disease patients treated with the cells have shown improvements in other organs -- perhaps just from having healthier blood but perhaps because the umbilical cord cells helped regenerate those organs.

A few laboratory experiments have also suggested that cord blood may contain very rare cells that can make more than just blood. At least three teams have published preliminary evidence that cord blood may contain a kind of stem cell that can give rise to bone and fat cells and nerve-nurturing cells called microglia. But at best these stem cells are extremely rare, difficult to isolate and almost impossible to keep alive in culture dishes. Moreover, it is still not clear whether the cells they gave rise to are really bone, fat and microglia or simply have some of the cellular markers of those kinds of cells.

"The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is we just don't know at this point what each can do, and we ought to be investigating both," said Joanne Kurtzberg, director of the pediatric blood and marrow transplant program at Duke University Medical Center.

The cord blood bill "is not an alternative bill. It's an additional bill," said Elizabeth Wenk, spokeswoman for Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who introduced the embryonic stem cell bill with Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). "It's something we'd encourage all members to support because all avenues of stem cell research need to be explored."

It would seem that this nation is engaged in a war between religion and scientific advance. Advances that would benefit mankind. If we the American people do not speak up at election time can an Iranian form of 'Democracy" be far behind?

Sponsor of Stem Cell Bill Says Senate Could Override a Veto




http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/politics/26stem.html?th&emc=th


Will reason or religion prevail.

You gotta ask?

Reason doesn't have nearly as powerful a lobbying group.

Editorial


The President's Stem Cell Theology

Published: May 26, 2005
President Bush seems determined to thwart any loosening of the restrictions he has imposed on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research, despite rising sentiment in Congress and the nation at large for greater federal support of this fast-emerging field. His actions are based on strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself. Such convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation.

Mr. Bush threatened this week to veto a modest research-expansion bill that was approved by the House and is likely to be passed by the Senate. The reason, he said, is that the measure would "take us across a critical ethical line" by encouraging the destruction of embryos from which the stem cells are extracted. Never mind that this particular ethical line looms large only for a narrow segment of the population. It is not deemed all that critical by most Americans or by most religious perspectives. Rather, the president's intransigence provided powerful proof of the dangers of letting one group's religious views dictate national policy.

The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally.

These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies. Some people consider them clumps of cells no different than other biological research materials. Others would grant them special respect but still make them available for worthy research. But Mr. Bush is imposing his different moral code on both, thereby slowing research that most consider potentially beneficial.

The president drew his line in the sand back in 2001 when he decreed that federal funds could be used only for research on stem cell lines that already existed. His rationale was that the embryos that yielded those lines had already been destroyed but he did not want to encourage any more destruction, even if the embryos came from fertility clinics' surplus stocks that were ultimately to be discarded. Unfortunately, only about 20 lines have become available under his policy, and most suffer from technical and contamination problems that make them unsuitable for certain kinds of research. Scientists want access to more surplus embryos and the ability to create embryos from scratch in the laboratory, ideally with federal financing.

The bill just passed by the House would ease the problem by allowing federal money to support research on a much wider array of stem cells derived from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. Although that seems an extremely modest step, Mr. Bush countered with a stagy show in which he was surrounded by babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos that were implanted in women eager to have children. "There is no such thing as a spare embryo," he said, noting that a Christian program for embryo adoption has already led to 81 births, with more on the way.

The implication was that surplus embryos should be used to produce children, not stem cells, but it seems unlikely that such programs, which have to rely on people who are willing to allow others to give birth to and raise their genetic offspring, can make much of a dent in the stock of 400,000 surplus embryos at fertility clinics. There will be thousands of embryos available for research should Congress find the will to pay for it.

Unfortunately, none of this week's heated debate focused on the most promising area of stem cell research, research cloning or therapeutic cloning. Mr. Bush is adamantly opposed to such research, which involves creating microscopic embryos to derive stem cells that genetically match a diseased patient, thus facilitating research on particular diseases and ultimately potential cures. There, too, he seeks to impose his morality on a society with pluralistic views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501837.html?referrer=email&referrer=email