[tomder55]

There is no doubt that diseases will be cured by application of stem cells ,and other medical treatments will be developed that benefit humans.

The debate is if there is a need at this point to do unethical research to achieve that ? The answer is no . Already there are plenty of advancements in what is called iPS technique to make the use of ESC obsolete as an alternative. The technology has passed this debate by.

The President would be better serving the scientific community by funding this .

Induced pluripotent stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[excon]

If there is no danger in harvesting them then why is the pro-ESC research Center for American Progress asking the President to come up with ethical guidelines for the research that specifically restricts harvesting ?

Hello again, tom:

Couple things.

I didn't use the word "harvest". I used the word "generate". They don't mean the same thing.

In fact, upon review of the restrictions you posted, I see that protections against "generating" embryos are clear. I don't see ANYTHING that prevents or "restricts" them from being harvested.

I'm not going to argue whether one line is superior than any other. I'm NOT a scientist. I believe, contrary to you, that scientists want to study them for the RIGHT reasons, which is to benefit mankind. If THEY think there's something positive there, then I believe them.

Plus, I don't operate in this arena with the same handicap you have. I don't have ANY authority telling me that I shouldn't believe science. You do.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You use the word "ethics" to mean we shouldn't do research on lines that are going to be destroyed anyway.

I don't share those same "ethics". In fact, I think it would be UN ethical to wear religious blinders into the lab, which MIGHT prevent the discovery of a cure for a major illness..

Yup. I think THAT would be pretty UNETHICAL.

excon

[tomder55]

I don't know how other Christian denominations feel about it . But the Catholic Church has no inherent conflict with real science.

But I reject the idea that because science wants to study it ,that we as a society should ignore the ethical implications ,or that we should use tax payer money to fund it.
The Germans scientists did some real research on the Jews as I recall . There was some really good results and data on the study of things like hypothermia ,and human endurance in general .

I would think that even a relativist would think there were some limits to what science is permitted to undertake.

[asking]

Science doesn't prove stuff BEFORE it does research. It does it AFTERWORDS. That's actually WHY we do science.

Exactly right.

Plus, why don't you tell me why we SHOULDN'T study these lines? They're going to be destroyed anyway.

Well, one reason is that jump starting the stem cell industry MAY create a huge market for human eggs, which will lead to the exploitation of women in developing countries. A thriving human embryonic stem cell industry that depends on a steady supply of human eggs to treat diseases in western countries is going to create a demand for a huge ongoing supply of human eggs UNLESS researchers instead find a way to use Adult stem cells OR they create a new technology that does not yet exist.

Researchers are working around not having access to human eggs right now, but for actually treating patients, they will need real human eggs. They are also eyeing the 400,000 or so frozen embryos that the fertility industry has been stockpiling for the last 30 years and is eagerly offering. Those would be great for research (although you have to wonder if that's what all those eager parents had in mind... ), but not for treating patients (where you need cells that have the patient's own DNA).

So if they develop the technology to treat people with stem cells, they will HAVE find a way to get real human eggs by the millions. And it won't be in this country because nobody's going to allow anyone to coerce thousands of young reproductive age women to take huge doses of hormones so that they hyperovulate 10 or 20 eggs at a time, just to supply a business interest. But they'll do that in places like Thailand, you betcha.

[tomder55]

Well, one reason is that jump starting the stem cell industry MAY create a huge market for human eggs, which will lead to the exploitation of women in developing countries. A thriving human embryonic stem cell industry that depends on a steady supply of human eggs to treat diseases in western countries is going to create a demand for a huge ongoing supply of human eggs UNLESS researchers instead find a way to use Adult stem cells OR they create a new technology that does not yet exist.

Well said. And not just eggs... but the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them

[asking]

Actually rereading it, it was not one of my better sentences.

But thanks.

The DNA of therapeutic stem cells needs to match the DNA of the patient. So either the stem cells come from the patient himself or herself or DNA from the patient is injected into a human egg (whose own DNA has been removed) and caused to begin dividing. (A dividing egg cell with a full complement of DNA is in fact an embryo, even if you stop it from dividing to form tissues and organs. I personally have no problem with this.) You then culture the cells and inject them into the patient. Because of inefficiencies (so far) you need quite a few eggs for each patient. At minimum, you will need one egg for every patient treated. How many people have Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, or type I diabetes? A lot.

Women normally produce one egg per month. It's not cost effective to get that one egg (you have stick a needle through the abdominal wall to get it), so women are treated with heavy doses of hormones to make them hyperovulate lots of eggs at once. They may do this several times, although guidelines suggest they not do it more than a few times in their life. I don't think any particular reason for this limitation is given, since the party line is that the treatment is "safe."

One of the short term side effects of the heavy doses of hormones is liver failure. There are no long term studies on women who have been treated with these hormones, even though thousands of such women exist. So the fertility industry continues to say it's safe. But no evidence of harm is not evidence of no harm. Meanwhile, we find harm from low dose hormone regimens like birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy. How likely is it that enough hormone to cause liver failure in some women is harmless in the rest? If they are so sure it's safe, why no studies to demonstrate it?

[inthebox]

Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy Shows Steady Benefits In Rebuilding Infracted Heart

Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy Shows Steady Benefits In Rebuilding Infarcted Heart NK

Stable benefit of embryonic stem cell therapy in myocardial infarction -- Hodgson et al. 287 (2): H471 -- AJP - Heart and Circulatory Physiology

This the article:

We treated infarcted rat hearts with CGR8 embryonic stem cells preexamined for cardiogenicity

Are we rats?



Compare that with this:


Neurophilosophy : Skin cells from an 82-yr.-old ALS patient reprogrammed to form neurons



Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Generated from Patients with ALS Can Be Differentiated into Motor Neurons -- Dimos et al. 321 (5893): 1218 -- Science

We have generated iPS cells from an 82-year-old woman diagnosed with a familial form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). These patient-specific iPS cells possess properties of embryonic stem cells and were successfully directed to differentiate into motor neurons, the cell type destroyed in ALS.

ALS is Lou Gherig's Disease.

No disrespect to Cal Ripken Jr, but Cal would not have broken Gherig's record were it not for Gherig's eponymous disease.






G&P

[NeedKarma]

are we rats?
G&P

In this the first you hear of animal testing? Seriously?































NK.

[inthebox]

Hello again, in:

Science doesn't prove stuff BEFORE it does research. It does it AFTERWORDS. That's actually WHY we do science.

Look, in and tom. Nobody is fooled here by your pseudo support of science. You don't like science. Science conflicts with your religion. I'm find with that. Why don't we argue about that?

Plus, why don't you tell me why we SHOULDN'T study these lines? They're going to be destroyed anyway.

excon

Don't you get it. There is private research done in ESC and non-ESC and thus far ESC research has proven of no benefit for humans compared to non-ESC research?


Ex, you are projecting your own fears of science onto Tom and I, because SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPPORT YOUR [liberal] RELIGION.


Bush stated that these current lines can be studied, the issue is TAX DOLLARS GOING TO THE WORSE OPTION in terms of ethics AND actual benefit.


Think of it this way:

If esc and non-esc could potentially replace the oil driven internal combustion engine; and thus far esc engines have not proven to be able to start an engine let alone run a car, and nonesc engines have proven that they can get a car started and idling, where would you want tax dollars to go? Which one is scientifically, that is observed reproducible results, better?








G&P

[inthebox]

In this the first you hear of animal testing? Seriously?NK

ESC is at the rat stage, in the one human I linked to, it caused brain tumors.

Non-esc is already showing benefits in humans.







G&P

[asking]

ESC is at the rat stage, in the one human I linked to, it caused brain tumors.

Non-esc is already showing benefits in humans.

I haven't kept up recently, but there's absolutely no reason that human embryonic stem cells wouldn't work as therapy if they can be induced to differentiate into the right kind of cells. This is going to be very hit and miss depending on tissue type. But I think they bound to get some hits if they throw enough money at this problem, which they are.

The question is not will HESC therapy ever work. It will--although it won't be the cureall, it's proponents are saying. It's whether treatments for us will come at the expense of the health of others.

I agree with inthebox that the focus should be on adult stem cells.

[inthebox]

First of all, there is no viable alternative yet. But there are also not a lot of useful applications of stem cells yet.

It's not political per se; it's greed talking. It's about starting a whole new arm of the biomedical industry so that businessmen can make big bucks. Of course, it's marketed as a life saving therapy. Just like the pharmaceutical industry presents itself as caring deeply about "patients."

Stem cells will undoubtedly help a lot of people, but not as many as if we put the money into something prosaic like vaccines or education or clean water for poor kids. But that doesn't pay back cash returns that allow guys to fly around in private jets. That would just be charity. Yawn. Stem cells are a way to make a lot of money, or at least that's what investors expect.

I'm actually very leery of the stem cell business, too, but not for any of the reasons that you are.

The hype is comparable to that for gene therapy 20 years ago. That was a bust and predictably so. In terms of straight biology, stem cells have a better chance of success, though with HUGE hurdles. Basically, it's premature in terms of our understanding of how cells work.

But there are a also lot of ethical questions and human costs. I just read an article about putting human DNA into cow eggs in order to generate stem cells for therapy. The article implied that there was almost no cow DNA in these cow eggs, but of course mammal cells contain mitochondria (tiny organelles) that have their own DNA so in fact cow eggs are not just a blank slate vessel, as implied in the article. They are COW eggs! No regulatory group is going to allow anyone to put those in people. But the news article was written from a press release, which was spun by the investors. It was misleading.

WHY are they making stem cells from cow eggs? Because people like me object to the idea of creating a vast market for human eggs, which is what the stem cell industry will do otherwise. I can explain this in another post if you want.

Also, if I had my way, the fertility industry would be shut down today. They have done enough harm. And they are poised to link arms with the stem cell industry, with whom they share a lot of interests and ethics (that is to say none).

Where are the results, the proof, the links, the articles showing human benefit?

We can editorialize about the potential benefit of anything but what does it prove if there have been no beneficial results.

Is it not cruel to give people hope in something with no benefit, when there is an alternative showing benefit?

Is it more beneficial to someone if you tell them to get a job that pays x$ a year, or to tell them to play powerball in the hopes of hitting the jackpot?














G&P

[N0help4u]

They say that adult stem cell research is more promising than embryo cell.
Also it is not like Bush banned it but he mnerely said it should not be government funded with tax dollars. I heard Bush did put 30 million toward it anyway,
Government is taking over too much and this is yet another,

[tomder55]

Venture capitalists think IPS cells are promising and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Last year, Kleiner Perkins, the veteran Silicon Valley venture capital firm that helped found the biotechnology industry, announced it was backing a new Bay Area company, iZumi Bio Inc. which will work on further developing the technology for creating and using IPS cells developed from adult stem cells.
If embryonic stem cells are so promising, why aren't venture capitalists lining up and why does ESCR need federal funding?

[asking]

Is it not cruel to give people hope in something with no benefit, when there is an alternative showing benefit?

This problem is not specific to stem cell therapy. There is an entire industry based on soliciting money from people who have money and a family member with a specific disease--whether it's ALS, Parkinson's, cancer, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's etc. Many of these foundations do a lot of good, but I'm not aware that any of them has ever put itself out of business by actually finding a cure for the disease in question. This is not, I should add, for lack of trying but because the basic biology for curing these diseases is just not there. Skipping the basic research is like people in the middle ages trying to cure tuberculosis without knowing about germs. They can spend all the money they like and it's not going to get them anything. In the language of scientists, the problem is not yet ripe.

Plus, in many cases, prevention would be way more effective and cheap.

I don't know if giving people false hope is cruel. But I consider it unethical and really bad social policy. We should be spending the money where it will actually help someone, instead of supporting labs that are never going to produce a cure or effective therapy.














G&P[/QUOTE]

[asking]

They say that adult stem cell research is more promising than embryo cell.

In purely technical terms, I don't think that adult stem cell research is more promising. They each have different problems.

In a nutshell, cells can either multiply or differentiate (turn into specific tissues) but not both.

Embryonic stem cells multiply and have the capacity to turn into any tissue, but you have to know how to make them differentiate into the tissue you want--brain cells for Parkinsons, pancreatic cells for diabetes. It turns out it's really hard to tell cells in tissue culture to turn into something specific. Basically there's a secret handshake in a language that's mostly only understood by developing embryos. Biologists can only guess at that language.

On the other hand, adult stem cells are hard to locate in the body (not counting bone marrow cells, which we've been using forever anyway) and hard to get a lot of. They are already partly differentiated and are limited in what they can turn into, unless you can get them to DEdifferentiate into all purpose vanilla cells. IF you can, you can make them multiply so you'll have lots for treatment. But then you have to get them to redifferentiate into the cell type you want. But basically there's a trade off between making more cells and making the right kind of cells.

Meanwhile, in a few cases, just dumping stem cells (human or embryonic) into someone sometimes works for a while. Most of the time it doesn't.

I heard Bush did put 30 million toward it anyway,

$30 million for this stuff is really nothing. A single institute of the National Institutes of Health has an annual budget on the order of a billion dollars. California, by itself, not counting private industry, has allocated $300 billion for human embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years. That bond was sponsored by a businessman by the way.

Government is taking over too much and this is yet another,

Government has always been the primary sponsor for research--or at least in the last 75 years or so. That's where the tech industry came from, computers, the internet, biotechnology, weapons, pharmaceuticals, and so on. Our economy depends on the government creating an infrastructure of new technologies. So it's government's job to sponsor research that private companies won't take a chance on (and rightly so). The question is what kind of research. As citizens, we need to make an effort to understand what's being done. Otherwise, the decisions are made by others, primarily big business.

[speechlesstx]

Charles Krauthammer (paraplegic since 1972 and supported relaxing Bush's limits on hesc) did a thorough job of ripping Obama's pathetic position on this, but P.J. O'Rourke (cancer patient) really let him have it.

Stem Cell Sham
The president as sophist.
by P.J. O'Rourke
03/23/2009, Volume 014, Issue 26


When a Democratic president goes from being wrong to being damn wrong is always an interesting moment: Bay of Pigs, Great Society, Jimmy Carter waking up on the morning after his inauguration, HillaryCare. Barack Obama condemned himself (and a number of human embryos to be determined at a later date) on March 9 when he signed an executive order reversing the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.

President Obama went to hell not with the stroke of a pen, but with the cluck of a tongue. His executive order was an error. His statement at the executive order signing ceremony was a mortal error: "In recent years, 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."

A false choice is no choice at all--Tweedledee/Tweedledum, Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL, Joe Biden/Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Is there really no difference "between sound science and moral values"? Webster's Third New International Dictionary states that science is, definition one, "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.

Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.

The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."

The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.

You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.

We're the center of the universe and the Sun revolves around us (and shines out of Uranus, Mr. President, if I may be allowed a moment of utter sophomoricism).

But, lest anyone think I'm not serious, let me quote with serious revulsion the following passages from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911)--that great compendium of all the knowledge science possessed, carefully distinguished from ignorance and misunderstanding, as of a hundred years ago:

[T]he negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.

Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.

[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thought.

The above are quoted--not out of context--from the article titled "Negro" written by Dr. Walter Francis Willcox, chief statistician of the U.S. Census Bureau and professor of social science and statistics at Cornell. I trust I've made my point.

Now let's look at the things morality has known. The Ten Commandments are holding up pretty well. I suppose the "graven image" bit could be considered culturally insensitive. But the moralists got nine out of ten--a lot better than the scientists are doing. (And, to digress, the Obama administration should take an extra look at the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," before going into nonkosher pork production with redistributive tax and spend policies.)

A false choice means there's no choosing. The president of the United States tells us that sound science and moral values are united, in bed together. As many a coed has been assured, "Let's just get naked under the covers, we don't have to make love." Or, as the president puts it, "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view."

Mr. President, sir, if this is your respect, I'd rather have your contempt or your waistline or something other than what you're giving me here. The more so because in the next sentence you say,

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans--from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs--have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.

Mr. President, you're lying. There is no consensus. And you are not only wrong about the relationship between facts and morals, you are wrong about the facts of democracy. In America we have a process called voting--I seem to remember you were once very interested in it. We the citizens determine whether and how to spend the proceeds of taxation, which we alone are empowered to impose upon ourselves through our elected representatives in Congress, not the White House. If you want to kill little, bitty babies, get Congress to pass a law to kill little, bitty babies, if you can. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about whether it's wrong. Surely you too gazed at the sonogram screen and saw a thumb-sized daughter tumbling in the womb, having the time of her life. And a short life it will be, in a Petri dish. But we've already established that you don't know wrong from right.

The question is not about federal funding for stem cell research, the question is are you a knave or a fool? I'm inclined to take the more charitable view. For one thing you have a foolish notion that science does not progress without the assistance of government.

Philosophy was once considered science. After Alexander the Great had accepted the surrender of Athens, he found Diogenes the Cynic living in a barrel.

"What can I do for you?" Alexander asked.

"Get out of my light," Diogenes said.

On the other hand, you, Mr. President, said that scientific progress "result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work."

Thus it was that without King George's courtiers winding kite string for Ben Franklin and splitting firewood and flipping eye charts to advance his painstaking and costly research into electricity, stoves, and bifocals, Ben's years of lonely trial and error never would have borne fruit. To this day we would think the bright flash in a stormy summer sky is God having an allergy attack. We would heat our homes by burning piles of pithy sayings from Poor Richard's Almanac in the middle of the floor. And we would stare at our knitting through the bottoms of old Coke bottles.

We'd probably have telephones and light bulbs if President Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) had been willing to support the work of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. As you say, Mr. President, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed." (Although the light bulbs would now have to be replaced by flickering, squiggly fluorescent devices anyway, to reverse global warming.)

Also, Mr. President, you make a piss poor argument in favor of embarking on what you yourself admit is an uncertain course of action. You say, "At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated." And you find it necessary to say, "I can also promise you that we will never undertake this research lightly."

As your reasons for this research--which we are to perform with heavy hearts--you name a few misty hopes: "to regenerate a severed spinal cord," "lift someone from a wheelchair," "spare a child from a lifetime of needles." Then you undercut yourself by introducing a whole new fear. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society." Because cloning cells to make a human life is so much worse than cloning cells from a human life that's already been destroyed. Why, it's as dangerous, as profoundly wrong, and has as little place in our society as being pro-life.

Mr. President, any high school debate team could do better. Even debate teams from those terrible inner-city public high schools that your ideology demands that you champion no matter how little knowledge they provide. And I particularly enjoyed the part of your speech where you said that "we make decisions based on facts, not ideology."