Stem cell research, free at last!
Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today. “We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research”, “We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.”
Back in 2001 George W. Bush restricted funding stem cell research to only a few stem cells that had been created prior to Aug. 9, 2001. This decision was based on politics and religion rather than science. Since then the rest of the world has taken a huge step forward in understanding and bringing commercial products closer to the market than the U.S.
“When it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.” “As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.” Obama said today in his speech.
For those unaware embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they have the ability to form into any cell type that make up the human body. Scientists across the globe (except the U.S.) hope to utilize them to regenerate brain cells lost in Parkinson’s, repairing spinal cord injuries as well as treating diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and many more defects. Stem cells also help in understanding the human development and growth of diseases. If scientists can map the growth of a disease they will have a greater chance at forming treatments.
Let’s think of how many Americans are suffering from the aforementioned ailments and what this research can do for them. I’m sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies. Research in the U.S.has not progressed since earlier this decade, cures are a very long time away and lets not even discuss the approval requirement by the FDA. At least this can be seen as a huge step forward to join the rest of the world at bringing about cures that could help millions of people including you and I some day. For those interested in learning more about this topic please visit: stemcells
Long shares in ASTM @ .33
thevoice@voicedup.com
Dude, whoever you are, you are woefully ignorant and need to do a little reading. I suggest you start finding out about what real science is showing. Search in vain, you will not find any stories showing the value of embryonic stem cells. But what you will find is adult stem cells showing not only promise, but results. Before you insult our intelligence, you need to do a good bit better on your own intel. Try doing some reading at the Center for Bioethics and Culture to begin with (www.thecbc.org)
russell please read:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001644
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n4/abs/nbt1393.html
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n9/abs/nbt1327.html
Dude, you should probably do your own research before you spewww shit http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/04/23.htm
great article thanks for the link to read further
Anonymous – You’re the one spewing, dude. I’ll read your articles, but they won’t change the facts, and the facts are that you will search in vain to show me even one successful case of therapy on a living human being through embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have shown quite a propensity to develop into horrifying tumors called “teratoma.” The problem with embryonic stem cells is that we can’t control them. Further, the actual science is showing that the induced pluripotent adult stem cells are doing everything that could possibly be done with embryonic stem cells. You need to look into the research of Dr. Hinya Yamanaka and that of Canadian and Scottish researchers led by Andras Nagy of the Samuel Lunenfeld Reasearch Institute in Toronto. The genius of adult stem-cells is two-fold: 1) It is patient-specific, and therefore resists rejection (and doesn’t develop tumors) and 2) it doesn’t involve the destruction of nascent human life. All your articles are going to do is keep selling the same tropes about embryonic stem-cells that have not done anything for anybody in the real world yet.
I agree in some and disagree on others, adult stem cells are much more difficult to find and grow in the lab. Umbilical cord blood can can also be used.
It’s not fair to conclude esc are worthless, the FDA a few weeks ago approved it’s first ever esc study with geron.
Your initial reply states there was no value in them, someone showed you value and you change your arguement to “living human beings” I’m not taking sides but your changing the focus after “value” was proven. You are correct no human being has been treated but the FDA just recently approved testing with geron.
Anonymous, I didn’t change the argument, I simply said that there’s no value in pursuing ESCR, and there isn’t. I don’t care what the FDA just approved, the point is: everything that embryonic cells can apparently do, adult stem cells can do, and do better. So what’s the value in continuing with ESCR? Further, in ESCR we take human life, and there’s no value in that. So I reiterate my claim. It has no value. We have no business pursuing any further research in ESCs. We should be pouring all of our money into adult stem cell work. I’ll interact with the articles you’ve posted as soon as I can get to them.
This is from a 2006 article by Ryan T. Anderson (I’m quoting him at length, but you can read the entire article at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=498)
“Leaders in the stem-cell community, however, are beginning to speak out about scientific hurdles embryonic stem-cell therapies face. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media in the United States has chosen to ignore it.
Luckily, the Australian media has been paying attention. The Australian ran a series of articles this week about Dr. James Sherley, associate professor of biological engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who is lecturing in Australia about stem cells and cloning. The Australian reports “concern about scientific dishonesty had driven him out of his Massachusetts Institute of Technology laboratory and into the public debate.” Why? The Australian summarizes, “supporters of embryonic stem cell research ignored evidence that adult stem cells had far greater potential, if they could be produced in large quantities.” Sherley is now at work on methods to mass produce these cells.
Sherley argues that adult stem cells present greater promise for medicinal cures because they are already specialized into the tissue-type needed, and—because they are harvested directly from the patient in need of therapy—they have the same genotype and thus avoid the risk of immune rejection (without need for cloning or embryo destruction). As Sherley put it: “If you have a problem with your liver, you need a liver stem cell, you don’t need an embryonic stem cell.”
Embryonic stem cells, meanwhile, have several major problems, notably—and seldom mentioned—they cause tumors and form cancerous growths. Sherley explains it this way: “When you put them [ESC] in an environment where they can grow and develop, they make lots of different kind of tissues. This tumour formation property is an inherent feature of the cells. And all you have to do is simply inject them into an animal tissue—this happens at very high efficiency.” Currently, there are no solutions to this problem on the horizon. As Sherley put it: “And although some might say we can solve the tumour problem down the road, that’s equivalent to saying we can solve the cancer problem, and we may, but that’s a long time coming.”
That about covers it, I believe.
russell,
“what is value? In fact, the question appears to be almost identical to the question: Why do we exist? We are entering here into a very complex terrain, on the crossing of economics, strategy, finance, management, sociology, philosophy, ethics, and for many people also religion…” a rock had no value either until someone smoothed it out and made it round, and still it had not much value until someone connected it with a plank and used it for transportion. I think you get the point. Value is a bad choice of word and really puts you against the wall.
The common argument often put forth by conservatives: embryonic stem cell research hasn’t shown any progress. How much progress could have been made in this field in 10 years if opponents hadn’t tied scientists hands through lobbying and legislation? Adult stem cell research has been going for almost half a century. “lack of progress” arguments are insidious. Obama’s lifting of the ban on federal spending for stem cell research has the potential to have far reaching impact not only on the course of future health care for millions of Americans but economic effects as well. This has the potential to benefit millions throughout the world. Embryonic stem cell research hasn’t moved forward due to the limitations on funding and number of available and usable stem lines, therefore there is no progress to be displayed. By lifting the ban on funding and opening up more lines, we can let the science dictate whether pursuing this research is valuable or not, we can also consider placing ethical standards for scientists to adhere to.
Success=opportunity+preperation, with no funding there is no opportunity. “The United States should have been at the forefront of this work. It was a (non-federally funded) James Thompson, at the University of Wisconsin, who created the first human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998. But instead we are years behind in researching stem cell application for medicine and human health, leaving that work to the UK and other research centres globally. Internally we’ve allowed private or even state-funded research centres lag far behind. Federal funding is critical for most of this research. There simply isn’t enough in the private or state pots to push the work forward at any kind of reasonable clip. As a result, as much as they are championed, we really don’t even know what the possibilities of stem cell research might be. And we need to be realistic. The cure for Parkinson’s disease, and cancer and diabetes isn’t around the corner, and it won’t be until the US government allows scientists to do their jobs without the political sea changes that arise with every national switch in party power.” (Sarah Wildman guardian.co.uk)
One last point regarding funding and probably the most important to the industry. Private investors, venture capitalists and pharmaceutical companies will NOT invest money into a company out of fear federal regulation could tighten further. Any notion of why hasn’t private money seeded this if it could be profitable should be put to an end right there. If anyone here has ever managed a P&L you would know money is not allocated in such a haphazard way where government can intervene. Russell thanks for contributing i sense you are more against the use of esc as you see it as killing a living creature and that is open to interpretation by all. The main point of my article was that federal funding is available once again …and that is great for the reasons I stated above. There is no discussion about right or wrong as that will be debated for years to come. music2myear whose hiding behind anonymous? and yes I read your story i left a comment…dont over think it! and to those that left messages as anonymous, thanks.
music2myear… thats not a human life!!! if i step on an acorn i didnt kill a tree…..
In the meantime, we have some half a million frozen embryos lying in dubious moral state – suspended “life”, so to speak – though the huge majority will never be implanted in a human body it will go unused and is eventually destroyed, either for no purpose at all or for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cell lines, was a child murdered? No.
Likening the value of rocks to human embryos is not an apt comparison, but if you like, I will drop the word, for I’m not interested in playing semantic games. Doing things to rocks for our usage is not the same is doing things to nascent human life for our purposes. So try again.
Your argument about people’s hands being tied is also a red herring. You need to understand the history of this issue a bit better. The government has not been in the habit of tying people’s hands in the arena of bioethics. Just take IVF for example. The Feds didn’t do such a good job of keeping that genie in the bottle. And of course, when private money is involved, the government never opens ways for that money to be spent. Lobbying and special interest groups are a total waste of time in Washington, right! President Bush did not enact one single law that would’ve impinged upon ESCR; he simply did what Bill Clinton (a non conservative) did, which was to keep federal money away from it. This was the right thing to do for 2 reasons: 1)If people think it’s valuable, they need to put up their own money, and 2) this is a morally controversial issue, and people like me should not have to pay taxes to fund it. I don’t want tax money for my religious organizations because it’s not right to ask non-Christians to pay for it. The same goes for this.
You are simply wrong about venture capitalist being “afraid” of further government tightening. There was no government tightening, as I’ve made clear. Bush did not, nor did he have the authority, to make ESCR illegal. Researchers were free to do all that they wanted to do WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. And that’s the way it should’ve stayed as it pertains to funding.
The point I’ve been making about adult stem cells is that what we DO KNOW is that these induced pluripotent adult stem cells are able to do everything that we have hoped embryonic cells could do; so working with embryos is now superfluous. All people agree with its ethical position and it will continue unhindered. This is why we should stop destroying human life to “save” other human life.
Finally, you are being disingenuous when you say that your post has no discussion of right and wrong. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve used the words or not, everything you’ve stated presumes that destroying human embryos for research purposes is right. This is a moral question, and it is really the only important question. Just because science CAN do something doesn’t mean it should be free TO do it. What we’re dealing with in ESCR is eugenics in the name of “helping” people. So don’t act like you’ve taken some sort of morally neutral position and I’m just opposing ESCR because I have some sort of moral qualms. You have staked out a moral position based on dubious historical, scientific, and moral analysis, and the real questions need to be dealt with.
If you want to read something really chilling along these lines, I suggest you pick up a copy of C.S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man.” I hope it wouldn’t be too much to read something from such and overt and brilliant Christian thinker.
March 11, 2009 1:03 PM
This is by far one of the better arguements I have read on the web. Way to go voicedup and russ.
Russell while I do appreciate the back and forth please answer me the following and hopefully we can agree to disagree:
What do we do with all the IVF’s in labs today?
Argument about peoples hands tied behind their backs is a red herring….ok, If I place the answer to HIV in a location that you can not afford to reach how do you extrapolate the information? This is the same with esc there was no funding to further any research here in the U.S. You’re turning this into an ethical argument….talk about red herring…..no scientists in this country were able to use any funds for esc research.
You should not have to pay taxes to fund it? You know the rules in this country, we all pay taxes and its distributed whichever way the government chooses too. It is our choice to live in this country no one forces us, if you are really against this, consider moving. Taxes were here before you and I and they will be here after us. Can the government do a better job at allocating funds, yes, a lot of things can be better.
I am not wrong about venture capitalism, I know because I deal with them on a daily basis so scratch that argument. Obviously he did not make it illegal we know that and I am not explaining the function of a corporation right now. If I have to explain it, you don’t get the whole funding issue, most people don’t its ok.
What about what he have not discovered about esc? Like I said only 10 years compared to half a century…..I understand there are scientists that have concluded that we can do everything we need with asc and not bother with esc….but what if we did this throughout history and always stopped as soon as we thought we figured it all out? how many new discoveries would have been overlooked?? hmmm…bottom line is we dont know the full potential….we cant know…yes up until today esc has not cured anything (in humans)..what about tomorrow? what about the future? this is about the future and not today..there were over 30 scientists at the white house a few days ago cheering Obamas move, they know more than you and I do about what could possibly be there.
I am aware of CS Lewis….concerned with our cultures inattentiveness which will put the world at stake…..great….talk about red herring…the post on this blog is to congratulate the ending of a legislation that curtailed funding to this sector for almost a decade, this legislation overturn will help the ENTIRE sector which includes your adult stem cell research, isn’t that great? You have been turning this into an ethical/moral argument.
Is it ok to utilize an embryo for the potential to save millions of lives?
I will assume there are people close to you that you would not want to lose under any circumstance, if tomorrow each one of them contracted a rare virus that will result in their death within 24 hours and the cure lies within an esc which will be worthless once used for this purpose would you let the people closest to you die? (Wife? Children? Parents? Best friend?) and please don’t leave another 3 paragraph response, this is a simple yes or no.
March 11, 2009 8:24 PM
Simple “yes” or “no?” No! There are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed. As someone once said, “Let us not do evil that good may come.” I appreciate you taking the time to comment, and I’m sure I’ll be visiting your site again.
Been following this blog as it’s one of the better ones. One question to russ, you answered no. Was the “no” to no you would not let them die or no do not use Esc and let them die?