It's been a busy few weeks, but here's a brief recap on President Obama's reversal of Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research:

The Moral Imperative to Relieve Suffering: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

There have been many moral objections raised to embryonic stem cell research. But as President Obama prepares to sign an executive order to repeal his predecessor's ban on federal funding for such scientific inquiry, we should also ask what the moral imperatives are to do this research. In addition, are there moral insights that can help us develop guidelines for the research?

Restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research have retarded scientific investigation that could well yield important medical advances. Devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease, and spinal cord injury may see treatments emerge that can relieve enormous suffering and promote healing. There is a clear moral imperative, shared across many religions, to relieve suffering and promote healing. This is a strong ground on which to base religious arguments for the research.

The religious objections arise specifically in relationship to embryonic stem cell research. The religious controversy is rooted in the belief that the fertilized egg, even while not implanted in a woman's uterus, is still spiritually complete "life" and as such sacrosanct.

Read the article in The Washington Post.

<President Obama Reverses Bush's Stem Cell Research Ban
WASHINGTON – President Obama reversed a Bush administration order and vowed Monday to "vigorously support" stem cell

research that scientists hope will lead to cures for deadly ailments like diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

"We will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for and fought for these past eight years. We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research," Obama said to cheers at the White House.

Fulfilling a campaign pledge, Obama signed an executive order ending President Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Read the article in U.S. News & World Report.

Some Catholics Disappointed in Obama

He garnered the majority of Catholic votes in the 2008 election, but a number of Catholic groups now say President Obama is showing a complete lack of regard for their beliefs.

They count his decisions to lift restrictions on abortion and stem cell research among the most offensive.

"As far as the Catholic church goes, there's no bigger priority for Catholics than human dignity and human life," said Cathy Ruse, senior fellow at the Family Research Council said. "And the Obama administration has just been an assault on those values again and again in just two months."

But some American Catholics support the president, saying his policies are consistent with their "mainstream" beliefs.

"President Obama has already reached out and won the Catholic vote," Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said.

"That's what happened in the last election in spite of the very loud voices of some extreme uber-Catholics who really want to paint this black and white picture -- to engage us in this endless culture war," he said.

O'Brien, whose group supports access to contraception and abortion, said Obama presented Catholic voters with a social justice agenda they can support.

Read the article at FoxNews.com.

Majority of Americans Likely Support Stem Cell Decision
Fifty-two percent support easing Bush-era restrictions or lifting restrictions entirely
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A majority of Americans likely support President Barack Obama's executive order Monday doing away with the rules on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that were in place under the Bush administration. In a Gallup Poll conducted last month, 38% of Americans said they support easing those restrictions and another 14% said they favor no restrictions at all. About 4 in 10 Americans favor keeping the Bush restrictions or eliminating federal funding altogether.

Read more about the poll and what the country's really thinking at Gallup.com.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, President Obama

ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008:

Neural cells derived from human embryonic stem cells helped repair stroke-related damage in the brains of rats and led to improvements in their physical abilities after a stroke, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

This study marks the first time researchers have used human embryonic stem cells to generate neural cells that grow well in the lab, improve a rat’s physical abilities and consistently don’t form tumors when transplanted.

Though the authors caution that the study is small and that more work is needed to determine whether a similar approach would work in humans, they said they believe it shows the potential for using stem cell therapies in treating strokes.

Senior author Gary Steinberg, MD, PhD, the Bernard and Ronni Lacroute-William Randolph Hearst Professor of Neurosurgery and the Neurosciences, said that with 750,000 people having strokes in the United States each year, the disease creates a massive burden for stroke victims, their families and the medical system.

“Human embryonic stem cell-based therapies have the potential to help treat this complex disease,” Steinberg said, adding that he hopes the cells from this study can be used in human stroke trials within five years.

Continue reading.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Although I'm quite sure this is NOT the reason Jon Colton posted the following list on the "Californians for Mitt Romney" Web site, it sure points out many reasons I would never vote for Romney. (Actually the 3rd and 5th points are reason enough to make it to this site.)

• Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

• Governor Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)

• Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)

• Governor Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)

• Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05)

• Governor Romney opposed Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts and fought for an amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution to ban gay marriage. (NY Times 05/16/04)

• Mitt Romney supports the Federal Marriage Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

These folks who trumpet "traditional family values" sure seem intent on defining "family" to suit their own preferences. Not to mention "values." Well, I have a family, and I believe I have values, but I don't agree with one point on this list. So what does that say? You tell me.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryonic stem cell, Mitt Romney

Not everyone's happy with the recent stem-cell breakthrough. Read on:

Baptist Press, Jan 21, 2008, WASHINGTON (BP)--Scientists used cells from aborted babies in recently reported research that has been hailed as a breakthrough in the ethical development of embryonic-like stem cells.

Pro-life advocates decried the abortion connection, but bioethicists said the newly successful technique could be utilized without the employment of such cells and thereby be considered ethical.

Research teams in Wisconsin and Japan reported in November they had converted adult skin cells in human beings into the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Pro-lifers hailed the development because the scientists had found a way to produce the stem cells with seemingly the most potential for providing therapies for debilitating afflictions while avoiding the destruction of human embryos.

Children of God for Life, however, reported Jan. 8 the researchers had used cells from aborted fetal cell lines to produce a virus to reprogram the adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells. The organization, which monitors stem cell research and the presence of aborted fetal cells in medical products, said the Wisconsin team also utilized material from embryonic stem cells in its research.

"Using aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells from deliberately destroyed human beings is certainly not any kind of moral victory," said Debi Vinnedge, director of Children of God for Life.

Southern Baptist bioethicist C. Ben Mitchell said, "The principle is clear: Science should never perform an evil act -- or contribute to evil acts -- in order to achieve good ends. So, deriving therapies from electively aborted fetuses ethically taints the discovery.

Continue reading.

Labels: Abortion, embryo, embryonic stem cell

Not everyone's impressed with the scientists at Stemagen Corp's newest accomplishment. Led by Andrew French, the team cloned five human embryos using donated DNA from skin cells. Because there has been such a moral divide over the use of embryonic stem cells in research, many researchers have now diverted their efforts toward finding new ways to develop the embryonic cells, ways that don't destroy the human embryo.

Scientists are investigating the use of embryonic stem cells because they can turn into other types of cells, theoretically replacing damaged tissue in the brain, heart and immune system, and curing diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.)

"Stemagen is trying to develop ways to produce embryonic stem cells for treatment and research," French said.

But, and this is a big one, that is not enough for some (many?) in the anti-research crowd. Check out the following example:

For some this is the answer the the ESC research dilemma, the embryonic life has been spared and the scientists still get their stem cells. But those who think so, just don’t get it. Mary Meets Dolly weighs in on the number of ways this method is still unethical:

1. It is unethical to create a human embryo in a dish and treat it like a commodity,
2. Embryo biopsy is not always successful and therefore still destroys embryos, if only part of the time, and
3. What happens to the embryo after a piece of it is sucked out? Will it actually be implanted? Or does it go back in the deep freeze?

An excellent assessment. It is not merely the destruction of the human embryo, but the very creation and use of innocent human life for scientific advantage that makes such research unethical.

Take no prisoners. Make no compromises. Put the blinders on and plug up your ears. Now, do you think we can reasonably discuss this?

Read the entire post here.

Labels: cloning, DNA, embryonic stem cell, embryos

LifeNews.com, by Steven Ertelt, Editor, December 17, 2007 -- Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Mitt Romney participated in a weekend interview with Tim Russert of the NBC program "Meet the Press" and he restated, as he has countless times before, why he changed his position on abortion. Romney also reiterated his position allowing researchers to destroy human embryos from fertility clinics for scientific studies...

...Romney said he now believes that life begins at the point of conception.

"I do. I believe, I believe from a, from a, a political perspective that life begins at conception. I, I don't, I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins," he explained.

The former Massachusetts governor also restated his position that his supports a human life amendment and overturning Roe v. Wade but doesn't think Americans are ready for the amendment yet...

...He said that abortion bans would not punish women but hold abortion practitioners accountable in the same way the partial-birth abortion ban does with fines, loss of medical license and prison terms.
-------------

On the issue of stem cell research, Romney again said he opposes the purposeful creation and destruction of human life.

However, he also would allow the destruction of human life by letting scientists destroy human embryos from fertility clinics for experiments.

Russert followed up on that point.

"But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed for research, and you support that?" the MSNBC host asked.

"The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose," Romney replied. "I would not outlaw it. I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions--as we currently do, and as the president does as well--to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded."

Read the entire article.

Labels: abortion rights, embryonic stem cell, in vitro, Roe v. Wade

UNION-TRIBUNE, By Sandi Dolbee, December 14, 2007
SAN DIEGO – His body jerking and shaking from the toll of Parkinson's disease, actor Michael J. Fox said Friday he's excited by recent news that adult skin cells have been reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells – but lamented the energy and resources being put into this and other alternative approaches.

“The irony is that every big development in this area in the past few years has involved efforts to mimic embryonic stem cells,” Fox said to about 4,500 people gathered at the San Diego Convention Center for the biennial meeting of the Union for Reform Judaism.

“With research that had gone into recreating what everyone agrees is the gold standard, who's to say how close we might be to new treatment now if we had been pressing forward with (embryonic) stem cells the whole time,” he said.

Fox, who received an award from the Jewish group for championing disease research, was given three standing ovations, and his comments were often punctuated with applause.

The still boyish-looking actor, known for roles on “Family Ties,” “Spin City” and “Back to the Future,” was diagnosed with Parkinson's, a progressive neurological disorder, in 1991 at age 30. In 2000, shortly after going public with his disease, Fox started the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. It has since raised $100 million.

Fox acknowledged that he's received much criticism from conservatives who oppose human embryonic stem cell research because the embryo is destroyed in the process.

Continue reading the article.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, Michael J. Fox, stem cell research

Denver Post, 12/02/2007 -- U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado made news this past week by endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton for president. She'll be back in the spotlight in coming weeks as she continues her fight for federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research in light of a promising new study that ordinary skin cells can be transformed into embryonic stem cells.

POST: What do you think about last week's developments?

DeGETTE: To take adult stem cells and make them essential to other kinds of cells is a big breakthrough. But I would also sound a cautionary note that this research is really still in its nascent stages, and it is not — certainly at this point — a substitute for other kinds of research, like embryonic stem-cell research.

The religious right and the White House, every time there's some other breakthrough, they want to say that's a substitute for embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, we don't know which of these types of research will end up being the research that will end up curing all these diseases.

What we do know is embryonic stem-cell research is almost 10 years ahead of this new type of discovery, and so there are a lot of advances coming, particularly out of Great Britain and some other countries, on skin regeneration on macular degeneration.

I expect you'll see some big announcement in the next few months about embryonic stem cell research or somatic cell nuclear transfer or some other technique. What this all points out to me is that Congress needs to stop playing God, Congress and the White House need to stop telling researchers what types of cell research they should be doing.

POST: Do you foresee yourself running another embryonic stem-cell bill?

DeGETTE: I certainly do intend to reintroduce the bill, but we may want to look at other ways to move the issue.

We are so close on the research with so many of these diseases. One of my colleagues, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, he's been in a wheelchair since he had a gun accident. You know they're close to nerve regeneration, they're close with the islet cell regeneration with diabetics. What it's going to take is some serious attention and resources through the NIH to all of this research.

I'm not going to say it's embryonic stem-cell research or it's adult stem-cell research or it's somatic cell nuclear transfer. Everybody was really happy to see that research announced last week, but ... we've got to think really hard about the ethics of what we're doing.

Continue reading the article.

Labels: adult stem cells, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

The New York Times, Andrew Pollack, November 27, 2007 -- If researchers were oil prospectors, it could be said that they struck a gusher last week. But to realize the potential boundless riches they now must figure out how to build refineries, pipelines and gas stations.

Biologists were electrified on Tuesday, when scientists in Japan and Wisconsin reported that they could turn human skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells, able to grow indefinitely and to potentially turn into any type of tissue in the body.

The discovery, if it holds up, would decisively solve the raw material problem. It should provide an unlimited supply of stem cells without the ethically controversial embryo destruction and the restrictions on federal financing that have impeded work on human embryonic cells.

But scientists still face the challenge of taking that abundant raw material and turning it into useful medical treatments, like replacement tissue for damaged hearts and brains. And that challenge will be roughly as daunting for the new cells as it has been for the embryonic stem cells.

“Even though we have this nice new sources of cells, it doesn’t solve all the downstream problems of getting them into the body in useful form,” said James A. Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, who led one of the teams that developed the stem cell substitutes. Dr. Thomson was also the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells, about a decade ago.

Still, the new discovery should accelerate progress — if only because with the ethical issues seemingly out of the way, more scientists and money will be drawn to the field.

Continue reading article.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, stem cell research, stem cells

The New York Times, By GINA KOLATA, November 21, 2007 -- Two teams of scientists are reporting today that they turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.

All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.

The reprogrammed skin cells may yet prove to have subtle differences from embryonic stem cells that come directly from human embryos, and the new method includes potentially risky steps, like introducing a cancer gene. But stem cell researchers say they are confident that it will not take long to perfect the method and that today’s drawbacks will prove to be temporary.

Researchers and ethicists not involved in the findings say the work should reshape the stem cell field. At some time in the near future, they said, today’s debate over whether it is morally acceptable to create and destroy human embryos to obtain stem cells should be moot.

Keep reading article.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Columbia Missourian
By ALLISON ROSS
November 8, 2007 | 10:12 p.m. CST

COLUMBIA — Like many couples who can’t have children of their own, Chad and Tanya Tatro decided they would start a family through adoption. But they didn’t go to a local agency to begin paperwork on a domestic adoption. Nor did they decide to look into international adoption.

Instead, the Tatros turned to Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, and the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program, which helps match potential adoptive parents with women and couples who have frozen embryos they want to donate.

Today, Chad and Tanya say they are still amazed at how God led them to the embryo adoption program as they watch their 1-year-old son Ethan toddle around the floor, his soft blond hair sticking up in all directions, his dark-blue eyes exploring the world around him.

“He’s really strong and energetic; he’s the cutest baby I’ve ever known,” Tanya Tatro said with a somewhat self-conscious laugh. “I couldn’t imagine a better gift from God.”

Embryo adoption is a growing phenomenon, especially among Christians whose faith has put them in the middle of the debates over abortion and stem-cell research. For people like the Tatros, this relatively new, controversial form of adoption is as much a moral issue as it is a personal decision. Moreover, many conservative Christians are re-focusing their energy on the culture wars in a way that emphasizes adoption and foster care as part of a solution. Embryo adoption is an option created by the explosion of in vitro fertilization, which often results in embryos that are subsequently destroyed or donated to stem-cell researchers. Stoddart, the executive director of California-based Nightlight Christian Adoptions, established Snowflakes in 1997 to give leftover frozen embryos a chance at life. A year later, the first stem cells were extracted from a human embryo, and Stoddart said the new science and the ethical debate it has generated have helped his business. “If it weren’t for that, trying to get the word out would be much harder,” he said. “Embryo adoption is more relevant when juxtaposed to the embryonic stem-cell debate.”

Keep reading the article.

NOTE: While embryo adoption might help some Christians with their moral dilemma over the excess embryos left over from their in vitro fertilization, the truth is that only a fraction of these embryos are being adopted. According to this Fact Sheet on the Snowflakes Web site, only 134 embryos have been adopted through the Snowflakes program. That's out of the more than 400,000 left over from in vitro procedures to date. Not a very convincing percentage when arguing embryo adoption over embryonic stem cell research.

And it's not cheap to become a Snowflake parent either. According to the site:

If you live outside of Southern California:
Program Fee of $8,000 (paid in 4 installments)
Fees from the agency performing your homestudy,
ranging from $1,000 - $3,000
The fertility clinic’s fee for a Frozen Embryo Transfer
(FET), usally ranging from $2,000 to $7,500

If you live in Southern California:
Our program fee of $10,600 (includes a homestudy)
*A $2,600 credit is applied if you already completed a
homestudy with another agency
The fertility clinic’s fee for a Frozen Embryo Transfer
(FET), usually ranging from $2,000 to $7,500

You do the math.

Oh, and what about the remaining 400,000 +/- embryos in labs all across this country? According to a University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics 2004 paper, "of 165 of the 175 clinics practicing [embryo] disposal (94 percent) disposed of embryos as biological waste material, 23 (13 percent) after thawing." And this is morally preferable to using them for research that might save countless lives? I still don't get it.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo adoption, embryonic stem cell

Embryonic stem cell debate moves to N.J.
Posted on Nov 2, 2007 | by Michael Foust TRENTON, N.J. (BP)--The nationwide debate over stem cell research moves to New Jersey Tuesday, when voters in the cash-strapped state will decide whether to borrow $450 million through bonds to fund the most controversial type of such research -- embryonic.

Passage of Public Question 2 would move New Jersey to the forefront of embryonic stem cell research, which necessarily requires the destruction of the tiny human beings and which has yet to produce any cures, despite much hype.

[And because this is The Baptist Press, the article later says:]

The proposal's fine print makes it clear the research would fund embryonic stem cell research -- and apparently therapeutic cloning. Although the proposal bans reproductive cloning -- that is, cloning that produces a child -- it is silent on cloning that doesn't result in a birth, which is known as therapeutic cloning. With that latter type of cloning, an embryo is cloned simply to allow the harvesting of its stem cells. Such cloning in theory could give scientists an unlimited supply of embryos.

"It definitely means they're going to be cloning and killing human beings," Tasy said. "They're denying it because they've redefined cloning and they're hoping the people will be fooled. And yet, they're lying to the voters and claiming there will be no human cloning."

Continue reading.

----------------------------------------

[While some ratchet up the emotionally charged rhetoric with references to "killing human beings," others approach the issue with more mercenary concerns:]

Cherry Hill Courier Post

Vote 'yes' Tuesday on stem-cell bond act

Sunday, November 4, 2007 -- The bond issue offers a sizable return on investment. Even in these tight times, it's a deal worth taking.

On Tuesday, New Jersey voters will be asked to approve a $450 million bond to fund stem-cell research over 10 years. In a state perennially struggling to pay its bills, it might seem foolish for voters to support more spending.

Yet, this is a case where New Jerseyans can get back a lot more than they pay. New Jersey could be in the forefront of research leading to cures and improved treatment for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. The state's patients would be first in line to benefit.

And as the state's biotechnology industry expands, hundreds of new jobs and thousands of dollars in additional state revenue, as well as royalties from the work of government-backed scientists, could be realized.

[Later on, the author mentions the embryonic stem cell controversy, while attempting to minimize the anticipated use of embryonic cells.]

The money will allow researchers to follow their investigations wherever they lead, including to controversial embryonic stem-cell research. Some scientists complain the Bush administration's opposition to this approach has hobbled researchers. The bond money will lift this restriction, but that doesn't mean most of the money will be spent on investigating embryonic stem cells. For example, Coriell is doing adult stem-cell research that could help save the lives of heart-attack patients.

Continue reading.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, New Jersey, stem cell research

The Philadelphia Inquirer
South Jersey Section

Most New Jersey voters support borrowing $450 million for stem-cell research, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released yesterday. In it, 57 percent said they supported the proposal, which will be on the Nov. 6 ballot, and 36 percent said they opposed it.

The telephone poll of 856 registered voters was conducted Oct. 18 to Tuesday and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The money would fund research on adult stem cells and on federally restricted embryonic stem cells for 10 years. Many experts believe stem-cell research will bring cures for spinal-cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments.

The Catholic church, which strongly opposes embryonic research, plans to run radio ads this weekend against the measure. "We speak out against embryonic stem-cell research and the allocation of moneys for research which in our judgment fails to respect the sacredness of human life at its beginning," Archbishop of Newark John J. Myers wrote to parishioners this month. - AP

Labels: Catholic Church, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Far left: embryonic stem cells grown under normal conditions
Left: embryonic stem cells that received some mild shaking while growing

Science Daily reports on the following from Georgia Institute of Technology:

Science Daily, Sept. 10, 2007 — Embryos spend much of their time in the womb bobbing along with a mother’s movement, and, surprisingly enough, new research from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University suggests that embryonic stem cells may develop much better under similarly shaky conditions.

Georgia Tech and Emory researchers discovered that moderate and controlled physical movement of embryonic stem cells in fluid environments, similar to shaking that occurs in the womb, improves their development and suggests that different types of movement could some day be used to control what type of cell they become.

“Embryonic stem cells develop under unique conditions in the womb, and no one has ever been able to study the effect that movement has on that development process,” said Todd McDevitt, assistant professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University and head of the project. “While labs typically add all sorts of things to their cultures to influence cell direction, we were able to control the levels of differentiation and size of cell clusters by simply providing some fluid motion.”

Continue reading.

Labels: embryonic stem cell

In Bruce Wilson's "Welcome to Talk to Action," he says, "Talk To Action is an online publication, and a forum for discussion, that is focused with unparalleled intensity on the rise of the Christian right as a social and political force - and on what those who are opposed to that movement can do to counter it." Wilson co-founded the site with Frederick Clarkson, who "has been researching [and] writing on the Christian right for many years." The site's Statement of Purpose begins:

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it.

I don't know why this strikes me as a fascinating reason for a Web site. When you think about it, the Christian right's organized (and unnervingly successful) attempts to control national policy on a wide range of issues lends itself to an organized resistance. I'd just never stumbled across evidence of such specific resistance. From my brief scan of the site's contents (I plan to go back), it looks like they're doing a pretty good job of it, too.

What led me to Talk to Action was actually a Google Alert on the topic "embryonic stem cell." Among the items returned by the search engine was an article by Frank Cocozzelli entitled "IPC Releases White Paper on Neocon War on Embryonic Stem Cell Research." The reader finds out, about midway through the column, that Cocozzelli is the director of "a newly formed think tank, the Institute for Progressive Christianity ("IPC"). IPC defines its mission as follows:

To further awareness and understanding that the progressive tradition is rooted in core Christian gospel values, and to relate that tradition to personal faith, public policy, family, and the common good."

Apparently there's a lot more going on in this area than I knew about. I was vaguely aware of various Catholic groups formed to disagree with particular points of church doctrine, like Catholics for a Free Choice, and its off-shoot, Condoms4Life.org. I'd heard rumblings of various women's groups against fundamentalist teachings, and I knew about Jim Wallis' book, God's Politics: Why the American Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. But I didn't know how active the Christian right resistance had really become. Make time to visit Talk to Action. No matter which side of the debate you fall on, there's some interesting reading waiting for you.

Case in point -- the column that led me there in the first place. Cocozzelli, the author, is also an attorney who was diagnosed with LMG muscular dystrophy in 1985. He has a vested interest in stem cell research. The beginning of his column tells us a little about living with a neuromuscular disease:

Neuromuscular disease is often an ordeal that just doesn't adversely affect the patient, but his friends and family. To provide you with some context, let me explain what my family goes through to keep my law practice going.

Monday through Friday my wife wakes up at 5 A.M. and gets herself ready for work. An hour later she wakes me up then dresses me for court. As since my body does not mostly move of it own volition, she must roll me back and forth to get my pants on, lift me onto a slide board to get me into my wheelchair, lift my arms to get my shirt on and then knot my tie. Then after she gives me breakfast, she attends to getting our kids ready for school. She does all this before working an eight-hour day. I usually leave for court shortly thereafter driven either by my father my uncle or Chris, my driver.

Later on, he says:

But what I did not understand at the time was how the opposition to embryonic stem cell research was being organized and mostly driven by the very same neoconservatives who helped push this nation into the poorly chosen war in Iraq. Too many of us just don't understand that the neoconservative movement is just not about foreign policy, but domestic policy. The battle over embryonic stem cell research simply emphasizes that point.

This realization eventually led to his co-authoring "a White Paper for IPC entitled, "An Unholy Alliance: How Neoconservatives and the Religious Right Have Joined Forces to Fight Stem Cell Research." The link takes you to a 22-page document in PDF format.

You can also read the rest of Frank Cocozzelli's column here.

Labels: Christian right, embryonic stem cell, Frank Cocozzelli, Frederick Clarkson, IPC, Jim Wallis, Talk to Action

TORONTO STAR, Aug 25, 2007 --

Clashes between the high-tech and the holy are looming anew as political changes force stem-cell research back onto the public agenda, raising a host of new bioethical concerns for doctors and patients. And a Toronto physician is going to have his say about where this all leads.

The medical world needs to think about more than just curing diseases and prescribing drugs, says Dr. Bill Sullivan, who has been tapped to advise the Vatican on bioethics, and consider more where those cures come from.

"You can fix the kidney, but the person might not be healed in other ways," continues Sullivan, appointed earlier this month by Pope Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

True care needs also to address the ethical issues surrounding their care – including the research done to arrive at a treatment. For Sullivan, medical decisions cannot, and should not, be made in a moral vacuum. For the Catholic church, embryonic stem-cell research tops the list of concerns.

"The ethical issues arise where the vulnerable are threatened," Sullivan says, referring to the stem cells destroyed in labs.

He expects such research to get a boost in the coming years as the Bush administration comes to an end, taking with it the White House ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The U.S. Congress tried again this year to pass a bill allowing such funding, only to see President George Bush veto it in June. The veto was expected, but the attempt by Congress nonetheless sent a clear message that the rest of Washington supports the work.

Meanwhile, moratoriums restricting stem-cell research in other countries, such as Germany and Australia, are nearing an end, scientific journals are calling for more stem-cell and other research, and Democratic presidential candidates are letting it be known they support the work.

In short, the floodgates of medical and biotechnological research seem about to spring open and with them a whole host of new bioethical concerns.

Shane Green, director of ethics for the Ontario Genome Institute, says new discoveries are being made all the time, even with the Bush ban in place, expanding the ethical questions on a constant basis.

Keep reading.

Here's more:

TORONTO, August 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An official response from the Canadian Diabetes Association indicates the funding organization is in complete support of using human embryos in destructive research.

The Canadian Diabetes Association is the country's foremost organization disseminating information to Canadians on the disease. Its mission is to "promote the health of Canadians through diabetes research, education, service and advocacy." The Association distributes government funding to researchers.

A reply to a query by LifeSiteNews.com elicited an emailed response from "Susan" at the Canadian Diabetes Association Contact Centre who said that the Association "does not currently fund embryonic stem cell research" as of 2004-5.

"All stem cell work funded by the Association is with cells derived from non-embryonic tissues." Susan specified the promise shown by transplant research using pancreatic islet cells as an example of adult stem cell research in diabetes. This treatment involves, however, replacing a patient's islet cells with differentiated donor cells, not stem cells.

Susan went on to write that while the Association "recognizes the need to be respectful of the varying perspectives held by the Canadian public on this sensitive issue," it supports the "Canadian government's direction" on the use of embryos in research.

Complete article here.

Labels: bioethics, Canada, diabetes, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Came across this "editorial" (courtesy of Google) on a site called opinioneditorials.com, a branch of something called "Frontiers of Freedom." FoF appears to be a conservative site, hyping the usual conservative issues. This particular editorial is so rife with mis-statements and weak arguments that it's tempting to deconstruct it one argument at at time. But I'll leave that exercise to someone else. I just want to give you a few examples, and then you can visit the site and read the column in its entirety. (Caveat: I didn't spend a lot of time at opinioneditorials.com, so I have no idea if they ever publish anything from a more liberal (or at least "less conservative") point of view.

Kevin Roeten, August 14, 2007--Recently Bush vetoed federal monies for Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). From the response, one would believe that he dumped all hopes for curing diseases down the commode. But this demonstrates just how misinformation can provoke a visceral emotional reaction that almost borders on irrationality. With nothing to gain except eternal life, Bush seems to have demonstrated courage under fire...

...hype from actors such as Christopher Reeve(Superman) and Michael J. Fox(actor) teases a possible cure for their diseases. But no cure has been found. The fallacy that ESCR shows the most promise is a false hope. [Er, maybe no cure has been found because researchers have been too busy scrambling for funding since the federal government (and most states) have all but shut them down?]

... it’s said that with so many fertilized embryos slated to be disposed of, it’s acceptable to use them for research. Being ‘trapped’ in liquid nitrogen shouldn’t affect our decisions. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are permanently trapped in a schoolhouse. It would not be morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device to harvest organs and kill the children. [If they're permanently trapped, are they going to die? Sooner rather than later? Still, I'd have to say no, killing them probably wouldn't be morally acceptable. Be we are talking about living, breathing, developed, functioning children. Not a cluster of cells the size of this period.]

There's lots more. Why don't you check it out for yourself. And if, by chance, you agree with Kevin Roeten, please take just a minute to leave a comment and tell us why. Or if you disagree with him, let us know that, too.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, ethics, morality

FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU
CHRIS CHRISTOFF
August 9, 2007 --

A Christian activist organization charges in a federal lawsuit that [Michigan] Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s online petition to promote embryonic stem cell research discriminates against those opposed to it.

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor filed suit in U.S. District court in Lansing today on behalf of three anti-abortion groups. The suit claims Granholm’s petition – on her official state Web site since April 2006 – violates the free speech of embryonic stem cell research foes because she won’t allow them to post their opposing petition on the Web site.

Those who sign Granholm’s online petition have their names sent to House and Senate leaders, urging them support legislation that would lift state restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Such research is opposed by anti-abortion groups because it uses the cells of discarded human embryos.

No question on whose side the writers for this blog line up. Why can't a Governor promote her own agenda on the state Web site? It's ludicrous to think Gov. Granholm would have no preference on any issue. And it's beyond ludicrous to suggest that she should post opposing views in the interest of Democratic fairness. People, she was not elected because she sat on a fence. She was elected because she espoused a particular platform with definite opinions. Her opinion is that the state should lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. More power to her for her advocacy on an issue she obviously cares about. You go, Governor!

Read it here.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, embryonic stem cell research, Jennifer Granholm, Michigan

Wired Science -- Steven Edwards, July 14, 2007 -- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) offered James Holsinger, the nominee for Surgeon General, a final opportunity to defend himself against the accusations that he is anti-gay. Holsinger's answer demonstrated that he has no problem writing a paper to support a "specific purpose," which isn't likely to raise his support among Democrats.

Holsinger ended by responding to questions about embryonic stem-cell research, saying that President Bush's plan is an effective one that is allowing progress. He also explained his opposition to a Kentucky bill that would have criminalized embryonic stem-cell research, but neglected to say whether he would support therapeutic cloning.

This final testimony -- particularly calling President Bush's stem-cell program effective -- probably sealed his fate. When asked whether he agrees with the scientific community that expanding Bush's pogram would allow greater progress, Holsinger again dodged by saying he has had no reason to keep up with the science since 2002.

Read part of the exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Dr. Holsinger here, in which Holsinger elaborates somewhat on his beliefs.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, James Holsinger, Sen. Edward Kennedy, stem cell research

The Washington Post, Sunday, June 10, 2007 --

Thursday, June 7. After months of intense lobbying by scientists and patient advocacy groups, the House is ready to vote on legislation that would loosen President Bush's restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research. But that very morning, the lead story in every major newspaper is about research just published in a British journal that shows stem cells can be made from ordinary skin cells.

The work was in mice, but the take-home message that suffuses Capitol Hill is that there is no need to experiment on embryos after all.

If that doesn't sound suspicious, consider this:

Monday, Jan. 8. After months of intense lobbying by scientists and patient advocacy groups, Congress is ready to vote on legislation that would loosen Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. But that very morning, newspapers are touting new research just published in a British journal suggesting that stem cells can be made from easily obtained placenta cells. No need for embryos after all!

Is there a plot afoot?

Lots of lobbyists, members of Congress and even a few scientists are starting to think so.

"It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a sudden there is a major scientific discovery that basically says, 'You don't have to do stem cell research,' " Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) sputtered on the House floor on Thursday. "I find it very interesting that every time we bring this bill up there is a new scientific breakthrough," echoed Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), lead sponsor of the embryo access bill. Her emphasis on the word "interesting" clearly implies something more than mere interest.

Although the bill passed easily, the margin was not large enough to override Bush's promised veto.

Continuing reading the article.

Labels: congress, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, stem cell research

On July 18, 2006, The Washington Post published a timeline of the stem-cell debate. We've reproduced it here, with links to the actual Post story where applicable:

Nov. 5, 1998: The first stem cells are isolated by scientists at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University. Stem cells can develop into any tissue, but the process is controversial because it requires destroying human embryos. Post Story

Aug. 9, 2001: President Bush declares federal funding will go to research only select stem cell lines derived from destroyed embryos left over at fertility clinics. States retain the ability to appropriate money for research or to restrict it. Post Story

However, scientists say some of the 64 designated cell lines are fragile. Post Story

Nov. 25, 2001: Scientists in Massachusetts perform the first cloning of human embryos. In a process called therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloned embryonic stem cells could generate replacement tissues that patients' bodies would not reject. Post Story

Nov. 2, 2004: In Proposition 71, Californians vote to spend $3 billion over 10 years on stem cell research, making the state the first to fund such research; 59 percent of the state's voters support the move.

Jan. 11, 2005: New Jersey's governor announces the state will fund a $150 million stem cell research center and promises to champion a ballot initiative to allocate another $230 million.

May 20, 2005: Bush vows to veto any legislation that would ease the restrictions he imposed on stem cell research in 2001. He has not yet used a presidential veto. Post Story

May 24, 2005: The House approves a bill to loosen Bush's restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research by a vote of 238 to 194. In voting in favor of the bill, 50 Republicans break with Bush. Post Story

To continue reading this timeline, click here.

Next, we'll look at what's happened in the past year.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, stem cell research

Tuesday, May 15 -- Jerry Falwell died today after being found unresponsive in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. The 73-year-old conservative Falwell's television ministry helped fuel the rise of the Religious Right. Rev. Falwell took very public stands on a variety of issues, and he encouraged his followers to do the same.

On embryonic stem-cell research:

Most pro-life people believe that life begins at conception or fertilization – that is the foundation for being pro-life. Therefore, we believe that even embryonic life is something to be cherished and protected even though, as Ron Reagan noted, these lives have no arms or legs or discernible signs of what we recognize as humanity.

The fact is, most liberal politicians and pundits long ago sold their souls to the abortion-rights movement that is responsible for the million or so abortions in America each year. We can't really expect the abortion-rights community to understand our regard for life when they have already disregarded 40 million aborted lives. What we can expect is the usual flurry of accusations that we are "right-wing" zealots who are out of touch with what the left has determined to be the "mainstream."

Our ethics on life cannot be offhandedly modified simply because an arm of science demands it or because the left calls us names. Once we begin to adapt our ethics because of political heat, there is literally no telling where we could arrive in terms of completely manipulating innocent life.

On the 9/11 attacks:

On September 13, 2001, Falwell appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network's TV program "700 Club," hosted by Pat Robertson:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

The fallout was swift and loud. Robertson quickly back-pedaled and claimed he hadn't understood what Falwell was saying. Falwell himself called CNN the next day and issued an apology of sorts. After saying that only the hijackers and terrorists were responsible for the deadly attacks, he couldn't leave well enough alone:

"I do believe, as a theologian, based upon many Scriptures and particularly Proverbs 14:23, which says 'living by God's principles promotes a nation to greatness, violating those principles brings a nation to shame,'" he said.

Falwell said he believes the ACLU and other organizations "which have attempted to secularize America, have removed our nation from its relationship with Christ on which it was founded."

"I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812," he said.

On Teletubbies:

The February 1999 issue of Jerry Falwell's National Liberty Journal ran an article entitled "Tinky Winky Comes Out Of The Closet," which questioned the "sexual preference" of the Tinky Winky character in the popular children's show, noting that the character carries a handbag. Need more evidence?

"He is purple — the gay-pride color;" observes the alert, "and his antenna is shaped like a triangle — the gay pride symbol."

Concludes the Lynchburg, Va.-based newspaper, "These subtle depictions are no doubt intentional and parents are warned to be alert to these elements of the series."

Jerry Falwell. I can't think of much we agreed on, but you sure had a knack for making things interesting. Rest in peace.

Labels: 9/11, embryonic stem cell, Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority, September 11th, teletubbies, Tinky Winky

When Time Magazine released the Time 100, its list of the 100 most influential people of our times, it divided the list into five categories:

Artists & Entertainers
Scientists & Thinkers
Leaders & Revolutionaries
Builders & Titans
Heroes & Pioneers

As with any list of this sort, you will find obvious and not so obvious choices, and you will wonder, as I did, why they neglected to include this entertainer or that hero. Or it might be the reverse, as in "how in the world did that bozo make the cut?"

One entry that gets no argument from me, however, is Douglas Melton in Scientists & Thinkers. At 53, he's the Co-Director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, and he admits that much of his motivation comes from his diabetic son. From Time:

Every day, Doug is on the front lines of the war not only against disease but also against the obstacles placed in the path of the science. And he has demonstrated that he has what it takes to advance this campaign. When President Bush cut federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001, Doug used private donations to create more than 100 stem-cell lines and distributed them without charge to researchers across the country. He has the skill and creativity to carry out the experiments that need to be done, and the vision and compassion to know that true humanity lies in relieving human suffering, not in acquiescing to politics or ideology.

Click here to read more about Doug Melton and the other 99 movers and shakers on the Time 100.

Labels: Douglas Melton, embryonic stem cell, Harvard, stem cell research, Time 100

From an op-ed in the Zanesville Times Recorder:

Currently our United States Congress is voting for a bill to waste millions of taxpayers dollars on something that has shown no results, that private companies can no longer afford to research because of the lack of results, and that has the component of killing to it - embryonic stem cell research. This they have done in the name of helping people with various diseases. However, since there has never been any cure with this research, and some of these embryonic stem cells have developed tumors, why waste our money when there are better, more successful ways already being used.

This is the kind of nonsense that continues to hinder progress in obtaining federal and state funding for embryonic stem cell research. Through misinformation and half-truths, opponents to this research continue to erect roadblocks to its widespread acceptance.

Embryonic stem cells are already achieving good results in animal models, and with more funding their amazing potential will become a reality. I've yet to hear a "convincing" argument against this research, and yet the President, along with many state legislatures (like Florida), continue to withhold funds.

When the full potential of embryonic stem cells is realized at some point in the future, I wonder how many politicians will look back at their votes against the research and feel shame. They are prolonging the suffering of millions of people by prioritizing a microscopic cluster of cells. Now there's a morality I don't want to get too close to.

Here's the article.

Labels: adult stem cells, embryonic stem cell, Religious Right, stem cell research

From the Home News Tribune:

RUTGERS — As legislation to help fund embryonic stem-cell research makes its way toward President Bush's desk — and an inevitable veto — New Jersey is opening the doors to the first state-funded stem cell research lab in the nation.

Rutgers University held a ribbon-cutting ceremony Saturday to open the 4,250-square-foot Stem Cell Research Center at Nelson Biological Laboratories, the first step in establishing a statewide stem-cell research institute with state money.

"New Jersey should be one large research lab, working with each other for cures," said state Assembly Deputy Speaker Neil M. Cohen, D-Union, who helped push the funding through the state Legislature. "This is about children who may be born with leukemia having the opportunity to see a sunrise. This is about a senior with Alzheimer's being able to remember remember who they were, who their children are."

Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research argue that embryos used for harvesting stem cells are the beginning of human life, and that destroying those embryos can be avoided by obtaining stem cells from other sources such as umbilical cord blood.

But advocates for embryonic stem-cell research say the possibilities for curing spinal cord injuries and certain diseases are too great to ignore. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted in January, found that 61 percent of Americans support embryonic stem-cell research.

Read the complete article and let us know what you think. Are opponents of embryonic stem-cell research ignoring the fact that the embryos used for research would be destroyed anyway? Are they favoring potential life over actual life? Which is more important? Is that an answerable question?

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, New Jersey, Rutgers, stem cell research

I came across this at Catholic Online.

NEWTON, Mass. (The Pilot) - Two Catholic senators and presidential candidates — Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.- shared their views on their faith and how it affects their public policy decisions on April 23 at Boston College’s Conte Forum.

“My faith has had a huge influence on me,” particularly the teaching of Catholic social justice, Dodd told the crowd of nearly 4,000. However, he underscored that “faith informs my decisions. It doesn’t define my decisions.”

Brownback, too, acknowledged that his faith is “a big part of the decision-making process.” A recent convert to Catholicism - having entered the Church only four years ago - Brownback noted, however, that most of his views predate his entrance into the Catholic faith...

Moderated by Tim Russert, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the senators spoke on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty and the war in Iraq.

Although the senators agreed on some issues, like Iraq, the death penalty, and prison reform, they "disagreed sharply on other societal hot-button issues such as embryonic stem-cell research, abortion and same-sex unions."

Dodd indicated he is in favor of embryonic stem-cell research in cases where “the choice goes down to whether to discard embryonic stem cells or utilize them.” Brownback, who is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, indicated that he believes the issue “boils down to one question: What is the youngest of humans — is it a person or property?”

Read the complete article.

Labels: catholic, Chris Dodd, embryonic stem cell, presidential candidates, Sam Brownback

From LifeSite.com:

A couple who adopted their two-year-old daughter as a frozen embryo left stored in a fertility clinic freezer, are now using their story to fight against legislation that would permit research using human embryos, the Dialog reported April 16.

Tim and Dawn Smith adopted their daughter Erin 11 years after she was conceived in a petri dish during in vitro fertilization proceedings. Unused by her biological parents, the child remained frozen in storage and faced likely destruction by eventual discarding.

Hearing of efforts to combat proposed legislation that would permit couples to donate leftover embryos for stem-cell research, the Smith’s offered their participation as a couple able to personalize the issue for the public. Tim Smith has appeared in radio commercials funded by A Rose and a Prayer, a group opposed to human embryonic research, speaking about his daughter as a “typical 2-year-old.”

“Some would call Erin medical waste,” he says in the commercial. “I call her my daughter.”

How lucky Erin is to have been adopted by a loving couple. However, the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of these frozen embryos and most of them (probably 99%) will never be adopted. Eventually, they will be thrown out.

And what if Erin should develop a disease for which there is no cure, or injure her spine causing paralysis, or suffer a traumatic brain injury? I have no doubt that her parents would pray like crazy for a cure for their child. Well, there are thousands (if not millions) of parents out there praying right now. And some of the miracles they're praying for might be found in embryonic stem cell research. The last thing I want to do is deny them their chance for a miracle.

Read the complete article here.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryonic stem cell, in vitro, stem cell research

For an admittedly liberal viewpoint on the stem-cell research issue, check out this Salon.com blog, The Liberal Perspective / Joe Sheridan's Radio Weblog. Here's an excerpt:

George Bush is attempting to kill the federal funding of stem cell research and limit scientists access to already available stem cells. The United States Supreme Court on April 19, 2007 ruled against partial birth abortions in an historic five to four decision.
This decision could lead to several other anti-choice decisions by the Bush appointed ultra-right wing Supreme Court under Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy and potentially to the reversal of the Roe v Wade decision that originally gave women the right to choose.

AND:

Stem cell research is not a matter of law; it is a matter of faith. If George Bush or Pat Robertson, or James Dobson do not wish to have their stem cells used in this scientific venture, they are not forced to participate. On the other hand, the fact that Joe Sheridan and his wife wish to have our stem cells employed in such an endeavor is our decision based upon our faith and our interpretation of the beginning of human life.

What makes Bush’s decision to veto a bill that would expand the federal government’s funds for stem cell research so absurd is the undeniable fact that those stem cells under consideration are going to be thrown into the trash container, destroyed, and dumped in a heap of debris?

If stem cells can do half as much good as some scientists believe they can, no sane person would deny those who suffer from Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, cancer or skeletal damage the opportunity to regain their health.

If nothing came from stem cell research, it is better they be used for a an attempted cause of human healing rather than trash, garbage or waste.

The important issue surrounding the “Culture of Life,” is Bush’s contradictions in policies and practices. You cannot believe in a culture of life, and champion war. You cannot be for a culture of life, and support the death penalty. You cannot believe in a culture of life and deny the furtherance of stem cell research and all of the good that may come from it. You cannot believe in the culture of life and continue to condone the unrestricted ownership of guns for criminals and the mentally ill.

Read the complete blog post.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, stem cell research

It's important to remember that all of the discussion about embryonic stem cell research refers to the blastocyst, a microscopic clump of about 120 cells. (To put that in perspective, estimates of the number of cells in the fully developed human body range from 10 trillion - 100 trillion.)

From an ABC News report:

WASHINGTON Apr 12, 2007 (AP)— A stubborn Senate voted Wednesday to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, ignoring President Bush's threat of a second veto on legislation designed to lead to new medical treatments.

The 63-34 vote was shy of the margin that would be needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition, despite gains made by supporters in last fall's elections.

"Not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick," said Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a senator less than 100 days following a tough 2006 campaign in which the stem cell controversy played a particularly prominent role. "It is a noble cause," she added.

The Senate bill, Bush said, "is very similar to legislation I vetoed last year. This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it," the president said in a statement after the vote.

Read the complete article.

Also visit the University of Kansas Medical Center's site on stem cell research for more information and illustrations.

Labels: blastocyst, embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, Senate

From today's "New York Times":

The Senate easily approved a bill this week that would free embryonic stem cell research from the worst shackles imposed by the Bush administration. The House passed its version earlier. A substantial majority of Americans tell pollsters they support embryonic stem cell research. Yet one man, President Bush, and a minority of his party, the religious and social conservatives, are once again trying to impose their moral code on the rest of the nation and stand in the way of scientific progress.

Mr. Bush is threatening a veto, and neither house had enough votes for the bills on initial passage to override him. Concerned voters will need to ratchet up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to help stop the president from killing the second enlightened stem cell bill in less than a year.

Here's an example of the results of Bush's intransigence:

The restrictions on federal financing have led to absurdly complicated and costly maneuvers. Scientists are forced to buy extra equipment and laboratory space with private money to perform off-limits research while using equipment and supplies bought with federal money on the permitted stem cell research. In a shocking example cited during Senate debate, a California researcher who had been cultivating stem cells in a makeshift privately financed lab suffered a power failure but was unable to transfer her lines into industrial-strength freezers in another lab because they were federally financed. Two years of work melted away because of this inanity.

Read the complete article.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, Senate

Although Florida seems determined not to fund embryonic stem cell research (for this year at least), things are looking up on the national level. From an "Orlando Sentinel" editorial:

As the U.S. Senate again considers a bill to ease President George W. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, members would be wise to heed one of Mr. Bush's appointees. National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni recently told a Senate panel that "American science will be better served, and the nation will be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more stem-cell lines."

Mr. Bush's restrictions limit federal funding to research on embryonic stem-cell lines that existed before Aug. 9, 2001. The number of those lines available for research has fallen since then from 78 to 22, and their scientific value is limited.

Stem cells can be derived from adult sources, but many scientists believe the ones from embryos offer the best hope over the long term for treating or curing paralyzing injuries or devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes.

Read the complete article.

Labels: congress, embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush

Following Gov. Charlie Crist's lead, Florida's legislators avoid the embryonic stem cell research debate by moving forward bills that restrict funding to non-embryonic research. As mentioned here in an earlier post, although the governor's campaign platform included embryonic stem cell research, he back-pedaled on the issue once in office and opted to support other types of research.

Although Gov. Crist's lead on this issue is disappointing, I have to give him credit for some of his decisions in other areas. The most recent? Restoring civil rights to non-violent felons. The governor should be commended for helping move Florida out of the Jim Crow dark ages toward a more just and hopeful future. Now, back to the topic at hand.

From the St. Pete Times:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Two state legislative committees voted Tuesday to focus limited dollars on research using stem cells culled from adults and umbilical cords, rather than human embryos.

The House and Senate panels both unanimously approved bills that set aside money for non-embryonic stem cell research - although how much money would be put into the grant program isn't clear yet.

With their votes, the House Health Care Committee and the Senate Health Policy Committee rejected a competing proposal to also allow state money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Many people oppose such research because it requires the destruction of the embryo.

Read the complete article.

Labels: adult stem cells, Charlie Crist, embryo, embryonic stem cell, Florida

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cells will be at the top of the agenda for the U.S. Senate when it returns on Tuesday with supporters of the research hoping they can change the president's mind on the issue and opponents hoping to have a say about their stand.

The Senate will consider two bills, one virtually identical to a bill vetoed by President George W. Bush last year that would have expanded and encouraged federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

The other is a compromise measure worked out by Republicans Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. It would encourage stem cell research on embryos that have naturally lost the ability to develop into fetuses, such as those that have died "naturally" during fertility treatments.

Read the article here.

Labels: beginning of human life, bioethics, embryonic stem cell, stem cell, stem cell research

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick said Friday he will push to reverse stem cell research restrictions imposed by his predecessor, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

The changes last August prompted complaints from researchers who said they could be prohibited from using some embryonic stem cells. They also argued the restrictions undercut a 2005 law that had been approved by the Legislature over Romney's veto.

Patrick told a meeting of the Life Sciences Collaborative on Friday that he would ask the Public Health Council, which approved the changes, to revisit the policy. In effect, Patrick will be able to reverse the policy, since he will gain control over the panel next week amid an overhaul linked to the state's new health insurance law.

"I believe that life sciences should be guided by science, not politics," Patrick told the roundtable of biotechnology officials.

The governor said researchers should not have to compete globally "under a regulatory cloud, or to do so with one-hand tied behind their back."

He said he hoped the council would create a hospitable regulatory climate "and then get out of the way so that you can do what you were trained to do, and so that your imagination and creativity can have the full range of its potential."

Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body, and scientists are eager to expand their research with them to treat a variety of diseases, from Alzheimer's to diabetes. Patrick noted that his mother-in-law suffers from both, while his late mother had lupus.

Read the entire article.

Labels: beginning of human life, Deval Patrick, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Do you like Wikipedia? I do. While it's certainly not the last word on anything, it is sometimes a wonderful launching pad for research on just about any subject. Take "embryonic stem cells," for example. (A topic this blog is very interested in.)Here's the Wikipedia lead in to the subject:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells.

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types. When given no stimuli for differentiation, (i.e. when grown in vitro), ES cells maintain pluripotency through multiple cell divisions. The presence of pluripotent adult stem cells remains a subject of scientific debate.

One thing I like about Wikipedia is the Table of Contents that divides each topic into sub-categories, many with links of their own. Under Embryonic Stem Cells, one can click on "stem cell controversy" in the second paragraph, which will take you to a separate entry on just that. (Of course the controversy is grounded in differences of opinion on when human life begins.) From the "controversy" entry:

The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the ‘pro-life’ movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and constitutes murder.[1] The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the opinion that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell.

Most stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos.[2] This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.[3]

The bracketed numbers are links to the source material for that particular item (and many of the sources cited have links to the source itself). Ah, the wonders of the Web. As long as you remember not to believe everything you read, and to check and re-check the sources, Wikipedia is a great resource for an initial look into a subject.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo, embryonic stem cell, in vitro, Wikipedia

In Delaware Stem Cell Go, a group set up after last year’s legislative failure, last week made its debut, dedicated to passing a stem cell research regulation bill. A Rose and a Prayer, the consortium of Catholic Church, socially conservative Protestant denominations and right-to-life groups that successfully derailed last year’s efforts at regulating embryonic stem cell research, are supporting House Bill 76, which would ban cloning in the First State.

And while the New Mexico Senate narrowly passed a bill allowing research on human embryos, "Republican Sen. Joseph Carraro said no matter what justifications are offered by the bill's supporters, life begins at conception, and scientists shouldn't tamper with it."

In Austin, Texas, "Texans for Advancement of Medical Research applauded Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, for filing House Bill 2704, which would protect adult and embryonic stem cell research while banning human cloning and setting ethical guidelines for stem cell research." But "Elsewhere in the Capitol, scores of 'pro-life and respect-life directors' of Texas' Catholic archdioceses asked lawmakers to support a variety of anti-abortion-related bills and to oppose legislation allowing embryonic stem cell research."

Meanwhile, in Florida, the brouhaha caused by Gov. Charlie Crist's flip-flop on embryonic stem cell research continues. Read this excellent opinion piece from The Tallahassee Democrat.

Labels: beginning of human life, Charlie Crist, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Here's another reason to support stem-cell research:

Stefan Heller's dream is to someday find a cure for deafness.

As a leader in stem cell-based research on the inner ear at the Stanford University School of Medicine, he's got a step-by-step plan for making this dream a reality.

It may take another decade or so, but if anyone can do it, he's the guy to place your bets on.

"Everyone asks, 'How long before we do this?'" said Heller, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology, whose accent still bears the trace of his native Germany. "I tell them the devil is in the details."

But even at the national level, those in the research community remain hopeful that Heller's work will reap successes sooner rather than later. Heller will discuss his stem cell research during a panel discussion Feb. 17 in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The session is titled "Hearing health: The looming crisis and what can be done about it."

James Battey, MD, director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, lauded Heller as "one of the leading auditory neuroscientists" and points to his stem cell regeneration research as a high priority for the institute.

Heller's vision is to develop a variety of possible cures for deafness. For the past year and a half, since coming to Stanford from Harvard, he's been focused on two paths: drug therapy -which could be as simple as an application of ear drops - and stem cell transplantation into the inner ear to remedy hearing loss.

Currently he's working on perfecting the steps toward eventual stem cell transplantation into humans, with the goal of first curing deafness in mice within the next five years.

Read the entire article on BBS News. There's even a picture of a female embryonic stem cell.

Labels: embryonic stem cell, hearing impaired, stem cells