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

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

My colleague here, jt, has already noted the big news of the week, month, year, possibly even decade -- the news of induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells, grown from skin cells and behaving much (maybe exactly, no one knows yet) like embryonic stem cells, thus able to be directed in whatever way desired to produce blood cells, bone cells, brain cells...

It's hard not to view the new development with delight, if only because it has the potential to put behind us the acrimonious, sometimes hateful and maybe unresolvable arguments about medicine-vs.-God. Maybe now we'll be able to come together, if not over abortion rights then at least over the issue of "harvesting" genetic matter from embryos -- to say nothing of the debate over when, exactly, human life begins. Is that progress or is that progress?

Well, as Ivan Doig and others might say: Maybe so, and maybe no.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen with the new technology. Nobody knows how it will behave in the real world, or even how many years it will be before those other questions can be answered. But let's assume that all goes swimmingly, exactly as hoped for.

What then?

My fear is not really that we have not dodged the big bullet. I think we have. My fear is that we've been so frozen, mesmerized, by our fear of that big bullet and what it could do to the temper of our lives, we've watched with such frightened fascination as it has borne down upon us, that we've missed something important: the other big bullet, which has been hiding behind the first and traveling at least as fast, aimed straight for our faces. That second big bullet, I fear, isn't the question of "When does human life begin?" but the starker question, "What is human life for?"

The skin cells from which iPS cells will be grown, after all, will still have to come from people. How much "skin farming" is too much? Is there a "too much"? Are there potential black markets in the offing, with skin cells with particular genetic compositions more highly valued and hence more expensive (and hence more out of the reach of people who need them most) than others? If iPS cells can be used to make a heart, or a spine, or a fingernail, at what point -- if any -- do we step in and say, "Okay, fine, but you're not going to be allowed to assemble those organs into full-blown organisms?"

Am I being paranoid here? I don't know. All I know is that the law of unintended consequences isn't likely to just sit in the corner, knitting booties, while this technology works its way to reality. According to the Wikipedia article on this perverse law, sociologist Robert K. Merton identified five causes of such consequences:

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

I don't know about you, but it kind of gives me the squirms to recognize in that list many, many possibilities which might come to bear in this case.

Labels: 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

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

It's not exactly fresh news, but I have just come across a very interesting column by William Saletan, on the Slate Web site. The headline: "Rights and Wrongs: Liberals, progressives, and biotechnology."

Saletan identifies himself as a liberal, for what it's worth -- although he doesn't do so until a good way down into the column:

...what makes me think I'm still a liberal? I guess it's a stubborn belief that liberalism isn't whatever dogmas currently possess this or that lefty camp. Liberalism is an admission of uncertainty. It's open to self-correction and to the complexity and unpredictability of life.

What's interesting about the column in general is that he uses it to take certain "liberal" bioethicists (or those who support them, without being bioethicists themselves) to task for, well, their illiberalism:

I have problems with liberals. A lot of them talk about religion as though it's a communicable disease. Some are amazingly obtuse to other people's qualms. They show no more interest in an embryo than in a skin cell. It's like I'm picking up a radio signal and they're not. I'd think I was crazy, except that a few billion other people seem to be picking up the same signal. At most liberal bioethics conferences, the main question in dispute, in one form or another, is whether to be more afraid of capitalism or religion.

But -- lest the reader think he's about to stab his liberal colleagues in the back -- Saletan offers up a deft summation of a common-sense approach not only to stem-cell research, but to many related science-vs.-religion controversies (emphasis added):

I don't even like the idea of taking a general position on biotechnology. The field is just too big and complicated to fit an ideology. In science, things change much more radically than in politics. One month, we're screening embryos for diseases, and everybody's happy. The next month, we're screening embryos for their suitability as tissue donors, and everybody's queasy. One year, ethanol is a corn product and makes no sense. The next year, it's a switchgrass product and makes a lot of sense. I like having the freedom to soak my head in a new topic and come out saying the opposite of what I expected. Committing to a political identity would just get in the way.

In general, the column neatly repudiates the idea that supporting -- or decrying -- a field of scientific study has anything to do with common sense. You can take one position or another, based on one thing or another, but it makes no sense to (a) require a litmus test of someone's beliefs on the issue in order to label them as either a good liberal or a good conservative, or (b) claim that you yourself are a good liberal or a good conservative because of your beliefs on a given issue. Not just bioethics, but life at large, is just too big and complicated to reduce it to a range of acceptable yes and no opinions.

Labels: bioethics, conservative, liberal, stem cell research

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

And the rest of the quotation, originally from Winston Churchill, regarding what used to be the Soviet Union: "...but perhaps there is a key."

Mike Doonesbury's daughter Alex joins the rest of us who are confused about the Russian-nesting-doll of puzzles for our time. See the complete strip here.

Labels: blastocyst, Doonesbury, stem cell research, stem cells

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

A few days ago, Reuters summarized two papers published in the current issue of Nature on using mouse and rat embryonic stem cells in lieu of those from humans, which "should speed up research into regenerative medicine and help in the hunt for cures to a range of diseases." That the two papers -- one from a team at Oxford, the other from a Cambridge group -- were developed concurrently and independently "is a sign of momentum picking up in stem cell research," says the Reuters piece:

Laboratory mice have long been a favourite model for human disease but researchers have been frustrated by the fact that human and mouse stem cells behave very differently.

Now scientists think they may have cracked the problem.

Here on this blog we tend to focus (rightly or wrongly) on the stem-cell debate as a case of common sense at odds with deep-seated religious moral and/or religious beliefs. But it's interesting to think about how the use of non-human embryonic sources both (a) seems to sidestep the debate altogether, and (b) doesn't really sidestep anything after all -- just shoves the real issue out of sight, by removing it from the scrutiny of partisans (on both sides) otherwise focused on the word "human." The issue, not to put too fine a point on it, is that human life is a subset, a special case, of animal life. Hence the question: If we can comfortably come to a consensus about the use of non-human embryonic stem cells for the betterment of human life, can't we come to a consensus about the use of human embryonic stem cells for that purpose? Particularly when the cells in question are earmarked for no other purpose other than disposal?

Note that I'm not arguing here for what the consensus should be. (It would hardly be a consensus if I just told everybody what to believe, hmm?) Given a Sophie's Choice-type dilemma requiring that I save the life of a human or the life of a mouse, but not both, I'd choose the human just as I suppose most of you would. It would be fair to say that I hold human life to be sacred, just as most of you do.

That very notion of the sacredness of human life, perhaps, is where the potential for consensus is greatest. If a human embryonic stem cell is destined for the waste can anyway, why not use it instead to affirm the sacredness of human life as it is or will be lived by actual living, breathing erstwhile embryos who at some time come to term?

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

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

As with just about every other flash-point issue confronting the world today, clever presentations of one perspective or another tend to be reductio ad absurdum-style exaggerations of the opposing point of view. Here's a recent example, from YouTube.

Labels: embryonic stem cells, George W. Bush, stem cell research, stem cells, YouTube

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

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

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

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

It would be hard for me to admire Elizabeth Edwards more. She is one brave, classy lady, who seems determined to turn her personal bad news (she has incurable cancer) into good news for just about everybody else. First, she talked her husband, John Edwards, into continuing his run for President despite his concerns for her health, and now she's publicly advocating more federal funding for stem cell research. As CNN reports:

In her first public speech since announcing last Thursday that her breast cancer had returned, Elizabeth Edwards appealed Monday for more federal funding for health research of all kinds, including stem-cell research.

"I think that we're foolhardy to not be engaging in federal funding of stem-cell research in the most aggressive way we possibly can," the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina told a luncheon meeting of supporters at the City Club of Cleveland.

The reason the issue has become so controversial is largely because people don't understand it, she said.

"If people think that you're throwing babies out, dissecting children, to do stem-cell research, I'm not for that," said Edwards, who had accepted the speaking invitation before receiving her diagnosis of Stage 4 metastatic breast cancer...Edwards noted that stem-cell work uses blastocysts containing clumps of 16 or 32 cells that were collected by fertility clinics but are no longer needed and would otherwise be thrown away.

[Although] some opponents of the work believe that life begins at conception and that using stem cells is tantamount to killing a human, Edwards said, "We're talking about using something to save ourselves and our children. Instead of throwing it away, don't we want to use it in a way that's productive?"

Thank you, Elizabeth. We sincerely hope your treatments guarantee you many more years to enjoy your family and continue your good works.

Find a copy of Elizabeth's book here.

Read entire article.

Labels: beginning of human life, Elizabeth Edwards, stem cell research, stem cells

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

As if the struggle to obtain government funding for embryonic stem-cell research wasn't already difficult enough, The Center for American Progress had this on March 1st:

Ongoing stem cell research and cloning debates in Kansas and other states highlight a new frontier in the stem cell debate: attempts to define scientific terms for political advantage.

The federal government’s inaction has left a void in overarching scientific guidelines and regulation. State-level opponents of stem cell research are trying to fill that void with altered scientific terminology that conflates human beings and embryos and overbroad definitions of human cloning. These efforts to politically define complicated biological terms often results in ill-conceived laws that satisfy neither opponents nor supporters, confuse scientists attempting to pursue research in the state, and may even create legal problems for those attempting to conduct cooperative studies across state lines.

Two recent bills passed out of committee in the Kansas House of Representatives are particularly egregious examples of the political manipulation of scientific terminology. Advocates of the first bill, H.B. 2098, claim it is an attempt “to define terms related to human cloning.” Yet in reality, it’s an attempt to politically redefine terms to help opponents of stem cell research.

The companion bill H.B. 2255 is a demonstration of just this strategy. Using identical definitions to those in H.B. 2098, the bill seeks to ban public funding for “human cloning to create a cloned embryo,” defined as SCNT.

Even ignoring the ban on funding for SCNT, which would subvert the will of the people of Kansas and prevent scientists in the state from pursuing cures with the best tools available, the bill is simply a poor piece of legislation. It defines an embryo as “the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus or an organism in the early stages of development.” This definition, when considered alongside other references to the “human organism” in the bill, seems intended to blur the line between human beings and embryos.

Unfortunately, the vagueness of the definition also blurs the distinction between a fetus and an embryo. The legislation could be read as stripping away protections for what scientists consider an early stage fetus because it would legally be considered an embryo in Kansas. Certainly the proponents of this bill would not intend this effect, and neither opponents nor proponents of the legislation would condone weakening research protections for the fetus. But by relying on politics instead of science when defining technical terms, legislators may open the door to a whole host of unintended consequences, such as making fetuses more vulnerable to potentially harmful research.

Read the entire article here.

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