Stem cell politics shifting

Posted: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:51 PM by Alan Boyle

For President Bush and other opponents of human embryonic stem cell research, this week's news that ordinary cells that can be reprogrammed to act like the most versatile stem cells couldn't have come at a better time. And although the news is also welcome to the proponents of embryonic research, who include some Republicans as well as lots of Democrats, they're suddenly facing a more complicated political challenge.

The shift in the political landscape is evident in the statements issued soon after Tuesday's announcement about the cell reprogramming technique. Take this statement from Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., an erstwhile presidential candidate who is among the most vocal opponents of embryonic stem cell research:

"This exciting breakthrough means that we can conduct embryonic-type stem cell research without destroying human life, and I call on supporters of embryonic stem cell research to recognize that we have no realistic need to destroy embryos. I congratulate the research teams led by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin for pioneering a route away from questionable science that is destructive to human life."

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who's also a physician, issued a statement in a similar vein:

"This breakthrough provides further evidence that the most promising avenues of stem cell research are also the most ethical. Politicians should note that the scientific community is moving rapidly without the assistance of laws requiring the taxpayer-funded destruction of human life."

Both statements have a strong "we told you so" quality to them. They downplay the fact that the newly reported research couldn't have been done without embryonic stem cells, that further research with embryonic stem cells will be required to move the work forward, and that both of the scientists congratulated so warmly by Brownback insist embryonic research is essential for developing future therapies.

Thomson and most other researchers hope that they'll eventually be able to distill the secret of embryonic stem cells - that is, their ability to become virtually every kind of tissue in the body - without actually using the embryonic cells themselves. This week's revelations represent a major step toward that goal. But there are still years of work ahead before scientists can reach that point.

Defensiveness from defenders of research
On the other side of the issue, the proponents of embryonic research delivered their own congratulations - with a bit of defensiveness as well. A case in point is the statement from Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a principal sponsor of vetoed legislation that would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies:

"While today’s scientific breakthroughs are exciting, this research is still in its early stages. It is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research, which is the most promising research to date. The broad, bipartisan majority of Congress that supports embryonic stem cell research remains committed to supporting all forms of ethical stem cell research.

"These scientific breakthroughs also highlight the need for the creation of a strict ethical framework – including firm guidelines and strong oversight by the National Institutes of Health. Politicians should not be cherry-picking the preferred method of stem cell research; the soundness of the science should be dictating the form of research under strict ethical guidelines."

Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that deals with health spending, had this to say:

"These scientists have performed truly groundbreaking and historic accomplishments. Still, our top researchers recognize that this new development does not mean that we should discontinue studying embryonic stem cells – as Dr. Thomson has said – scientists may yet find that embryonic stem cells are more powerful. We need to continue to pursue all alternatives as we search for treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries."

DeGette, Harkin and their colleagues have been hopeful that the hunger for cures will drive up the support for wider embryonic stem cell funding - generating support for Democrats in the process. But the new strains of genetically modified cells promise to provide an alternate route to the same cures, without the moral and ethical baggage. So although embryo-based research is still necessary for further progress on the technology, there's no question that the stem cell spotlight is shifting.

Good news for the president
That's good news for President Bush, who has taken a lot of heat for his serial vetoes of DeGette's bill. The White House said Bush was "very pleased" by this week's developments.

"By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries," the White House statement said.

"We should all give credit to President Bush for challenging our nation to find a solution," said William Hurlbut, a physician and consulting professor at Stanford University Medical Center who serves on Bush's bioethics panel.

Sen. Coburn took a similar tack, saying that the new research "helps vindicate President Bush's policy and his vetoes of Congress' short-sighted and outdated approach to stem cell research."

It's also good news for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is currently on the conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to stem cell research. Hurlbut noted that Romney consulted with him three years ago on stem cell policy. "He's the one guy on this issue who was ahead of the curve all the way," Hurlbut told me.

Worrisome for stem cell pioneer
Suddenly, it's the embryonic stem cell proponents who are being cast as the scientifically backward fuddy-duddies. And that's extremely worrisome to Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer for Advanced Cell Technology. Lanza has been working with human embryonic stem cells for years.

"We have cells right now, human cells, that could prevent heart attacks or repair the damage, or restore the flow of blood to limbs that might otherwise be amputated," he told me.

He can't promise exactly when those cells will be turned into approved therapies - but the first human clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells could come as early as next year.

Lanza has even bigger ideas for an embryonic cell bank that would do for tissue regeneration what blood banks have done for transfusions.

"One hundred tissue types will give you a complete match for 50 percent of the population," he said. "We could literally in a few months, using somatic cell nuclear transfer [also known as therapeutic cloning], create these embryonic stem cell lines. ... I'd really hate to see all this get wiped out like a tidal wave."

Lanza is the first to acknowledge that the newly published research holds great promise in the long term. He's the guy who has been comparing the research to the Wright brothers' first airplane flights or the alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold.

But he's also wary about shifting the focus to an unproven approach that won't be available to patients until years from now. After all, human embryonic stem cells were first isolated nine years ago, and researchers are just now at the point where they are beginning to test potential therapies.

"We've been fooled many times before," he said. "A delay of 10 years would mean writing off half a generation. ... Just a few years makes an incredible difference."

At this point, it's hard to predict exactly when the first treatments will be available to the public, using either embryonic stem cells or these newly developed pluripotent cells. But Lanza's larger point is this: If embryo-based research is somehow stopped in its tracks - as some would like to do - diseases that could soon be treatable using embryonic stem cells would have to wait until pluripotent cell therapies go through their entire development cycle. And patients who already have been waiting for years would be in for an even longer wait.

Pluripotent perspectives
Is it more ethical to hold back on the use of embryonic stem cells, even though that might slow the progress toward future cures? Or is it more ethical to move forward with embryo-based research as well as the alternatives, in the hope of accelerating that progress? Although the political landscape has shifted, the fundamental dividing line is still pretty much where it's always been.

For additional perspectives on the politicization of pluripotent cells, check out this Associated Press report from our politics section, this analysis from The New York Times, and this one from The Washington Post, as well as these e-mails:

Jim Hassinger: "I'm all for not using embryonic stem cells, if this or another method works. But that can only be established by decades of research. Is there something unique about embryonic cells? Are they by nature more potent? Or is there some trapdoor about using this or other methods? I think science writers should make it a little more clear that 'may' is not 'does.'"

Margie Taulbee, Tennessee: "This would be a wonder. I would gladly donate my skin to regrow my husband's depleted heart cells. It is hard to find the help he needs because we live in a state that does not support (very little) stem cell usage. Vanderbilt Medical does do research for children who have cancer. I do understand not taking baby embryos, but adult cell to adult cell is a breakthrough for many diseases."

Cathy Titchenal, Klickitat, Wash.: "It seems to me that I wrote to you once before about a year or two back about this chimera and embryonic stem cell experimentation stuff, and the possibility/probability that mankind could really cause their own extinction with experimentation along these lines, not to mention the ethical/moral dilemmas involved with embryonic stem cell research, chimera creation, IVF techniques, etc.

"So this news today, hopefully true and workable for medical treatments and cures for diseases and injuries, is indeed a welcome respite. I am one of those who thinks that men should not really be playing God with human biology and when the choices involve sacrificing one human life (no matter how young) to serve another's desires, needs or whatever, that we should all take a step back and consider the consequences to all the human lives involved and stick to the Hippocratic oath of 'first do no harm.'

"God, in His infinite wisdom, has again opened a door to our salvation and redemption from going down the wrong path. You have to really appreciate the way He keeps prodding us in the right direction, not always the easy way, but always the right way. Apparently, some scientists have been doing their own moral battles along these lines and have made a breakthrough that will allow us to preserve our best ethical values and still solve the problems that need solving. ..."

Dan Spano, Kent, Ohio: "Your article on stem cell research is very promising. It would be great to silence the critics on the ethical side of stem cells and embryonic cells.

"My problem is one sentence that I seem to read over and over. It is: 'In their current state, the recipes are too risky for disease treatment, and even the scientists behind the latest studies cautioned that therapies are still years away.' Some people, like me for instance, don't have years. I'm 51 years old and have been a spinal cord injury patient since I was 24. How many more years is this going to take?

"The FDA is very quick about approving drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx and even Viagra, but when it comes to something that could save lives or turn lives around they take forever. It might as well be forever for me, because I'm not going to live to be 70 years old or however long it will take the scientists to even start clinical trials on patients, or even primates for that matter."

Glenn: "If they're looking for a volunteer for something...I suffer from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (with complications), and the pain will eventually kill me. ('Pain isn't fatal.' I know. There are variations on the recipe.) The only solution to the problem looks to be injecting something that will grow into cartilage between vertebrae ... and what the 'something' has to be looks to be fairly obvious.

John: "Non-embryonic stem cells are the only type that has actually been used in real applications. Your article is good news – that non-embryonic cells from skin are very useful for this, but is it really news that embryonic stem cells are even useful at this point, not to mention they come from a person who had no choice in the matter of his or her death?

"This is not even a religious opinion. It is a product of honest observation of man and his abilities – in a different category from other animals. Man writes books and articles in accord with his nature – a human nature, not just the law of nature found in irrational things. Our culture is now worshiping before an empirical science that can’t even understand the true cause of even the most rudimentary laws of nature – like gravity. Is that where our limited reason has led us?"

Feel free to add your own pluripotent perspective as a comment below.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

First of all, no one seems to be touching on the fact that embryonic stem cell research will still be needed to support pluripotent cell research. It's a shame to see how easily the human race can be led. Opposers stand true to your cause! Second, the research into finding cures for pre-existing conditions is like hanging a carrot in front of a donkey's face. Insurance companies refuse to provide coverage for these conditions so on top of waiting for the FDA to approve the treatments, patients will also be battling with the demon HMO's. It's a sad situation, my heart goes out to anyone counting on this country to help save his life.

Joanna, Leonia, NJ (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:26 PM)

This type of researc h is so precious to those in government not for what it can do for the sick and dying, but that it brings the government that much closer to mind control and the ability to physically maneuver human beings by the thoughts of others. Why do you think there are secret labs that concentrate on this type of work in and around Washington DC. Military use and the possibility also of total control over the civilian populace. WHat a cost effective way to eliminate the economy and control everyone without having to pay them.

T.Tewell, Tuscola,IL (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:27 PM)

this is great news.i am a quad c6/c7 for ten years know.all of this talk is good but we really should start doing trials asap.i have a loving wife and twin boys 3-1/2 and i am unable to even throw a football to them or hold on to a baseball.i can not even hold my wifes hand.let's try.

dennis schmitz, appleton wi (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:28 PM)

I don't propose to understand the science behind embryonic stem cell research, I do understand that science and medicine have come a long way over the centuries, and many cures and treatments we use today and take for granted were in the past shunned, that they were unethical, or feared and were not expected to work as they were too far removed from God, and would damn the human race, but humans using their intelligence they have been given have pursued ways to help people born with diseases, and birth defects, and those hurt in accidents, so that they can live healthy long lives, and don't we all want cures for what ails us and our family members. Who knows what the future holds, but at least these scientists and researchers are trying to find ways to improve all of our lives for the future and they maybe be able to provided they are allowed to continue their quest for helping people.

Melody, Portland, Or (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:29 PM)

without religious black and white ism to fall back on, they'll be hopeless...good...medical politics has done more to screw this country up than sexual politics has...and that's something.
remember...it's all coming down to blue eyed fundamentalists vs. brown eyed fundamentalists...wonder who'll get to control the Placental Factories...GEEZ!

steve smyth (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:35 PM)

And don't bring god into this. I have mathematically proven god does not exist, beyond a doubt. The formula is G is not equal to E, where G is god, and e is existence. That should do it, don't you think?

T.T. Tuscola,IL (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:24 PM)

Embryos are not babies. Embryonic stem cells are by far the most viable nowadays. The researchers here caution there are many steps before these skin cells are useful for human therapies. The only people that are "hailing this" as something great are the anti-choice group. Embryonic stem cells are much better and much closer to being used to help people. Do we have to wait and wait to satisfy the anti-choice group?

Jon Doe, Seattle, Washington (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:46 PM)

I have no faith in the American population at this point to allow science to be science. They want science to 'look' like them. It must either be Christian, or it must be agnostic, or it must be black, or it must be white. I can't say if the soul exists. I don't know what happens to an aborted featus. But I can say this ... death seems to be very common, and if we didn't die nothing would change. Should I worry about my death, should I worry about yours? Should I wonder 'what happened to baby jane?' I can't say ... but I certainly hear alot from people who claim they can and do. So much certainty ... from where did it all come?

Bill Weber, Seattle WA (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:03 PM)

Though this is a great day that brings new alternatives for people in the future the problems still exist now and it is not promoting murder when someone has made the choice to have an abortion that is taking those cells and putting them to use rather than letting them die.

The problem in our country today beside the fact that people continue to turn away from god is that we continue to want to force people to do what we believe not what they believe. God forbid a woman makes the choice and says I want to have an abortion I know I could put the child up for adoption but do not want to carry it for the term and go through everything to give it away on the other hand a lot of woman will put them up for adoption and that is fine either way. If we were truly so religious than we would guide and help them no matter what choice they make not persecute them and condemn their choice.

Rick Clarke, Pennsville, NJ (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:22 PM)

Too much emphasis on the demand that life continue forever for the sake of itself at any cost creates a certain amnesia within the population about the real meaning of life. As a society, do we have an identity? Do we have a purpose and meaning to life that makes it of value? And if it isn't of value, then what is all of the fuss?

The question I put forth is: Have we lost meaning because we devalue life, or do we devalue life because we've lost meaning?

Jeremy, Belleville, IL (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:26 PM)

WOW! Iraq is getting better, more and more rank and file democrats are siding against amnesty for illegal aliens (see the co-signers for The SAVE Act) and now this....I don't know, but with an economy sure to slow in 2008, I wouldn't be fighting for legalizing illegal immigrants anytime soon...American workers are getting very, very nervous. All the latest polls show this.

Joe, Indianapolis, Indiana (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:48 PM)

Not very printer-friendly...

anonymous (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:53 PM)

What kills me is the cherry-picking these politicians are engaging in and nobody is calling them on it. #1 the researchers stated that embryonic stem cells were used to begin this study and experiment. And #2 that embryonic stem cells are going to needed to further this study. #3 and probably most troubling is that in the lab in Japan they stated that although there was some regeneration, they formula used to create this regeneration also caused cancer. If I am correct it stated that throat tumors grew as a result of the formula. So tell me how is it these politicians can jump and say, "See we told you so, you don't need embryos, you are unethical" Aren't they being unethical by saying this is a true breakthrough, when in fact ALL the researchers who have had a DIRECT hand in the findings have said, more test are needed, we still need to use embryos, and oh by the way the method we just used has carcinogens in them which caused throat tumors?

tina, san francisco, ca (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:54 PM)

As a former resident of Kansas and current resident of Oklahoma, let me assure you that Brownback and Coburn are culturally and scientific illiterates who still believe the world is flat. They're useless to their home states except to get out the fundamentalist vote. I'm appalled that you quoted them without alluding to the fact that their voting records are slightly to the right of Darth Vader's. Surely there are intelligent, educated Republicans with strong opinions on stem cell research who could have provided you with a thoughtful, if anti-research, point of view.

Paula niBride Noble, OK (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:16 PM)

Stifle the political BS, and applaud the research.

L. Gabrielson, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:47 PM)

Stop making it sound like scientists are intentionally killing babies to get stem cells. Opponents to stem cell research really only have one argument, and that is that this practice has potential to indoctrinate abortion. It's like this, since we are going to have abortion, we might as well advance medicine and save lives in the process. If not, then not.

From a technical perspective, the results of stem-cell trials and treatments could dramatically increase time to market for the other, better kind.

The real question you have to ask yourself is, do you really think this kind of research will motivate people to have more abortions or change their view on federal law allowing abortion? I think not, but I'm generally of the opinion that people are fundamentally good, that is when they actualy are people, after they grow past the glob of cells stage.

Bob in Seattle (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM)

I find it disturbing that the so called "religious right", "evangelicals" and otherwise religious nuts have high jacked this stem cell research for their agenda. It is nothing more but the tyranny of religion at work here empowered through the Bush administration and the republicans. We as a nation must not allow these heartless and merciless people to control scientific methods that will help sick human beings. Relief of suffering should be their goal and instead it is believe as I say or else...What a horrific miss use of Gods name!

paul, miami florida (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:38 PM)

As a 31 year old living with Type 1 diabetes for 17 years, this is amazing news. My brother is also a diabetic and my cousin was just diagnosed. Members of government should realize what an impediment they are to possible cures and therapies for millions of people. It makes me wonder what they would do if these disease affected them directly.

Jason Ostrowski, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:38 PM)

It is not surprising that human adult stem cell from skin can transform into nerve cell since from animal cloning experiment starting with Dolly the sheep which is cloned from breast cell that it can transform into whole animal. The adult stem cells are important to cure some of the diseases but at times we will need the whole organ or bigger tissue to repair or replace damaged organs, for example kidney and heart transplants. The technolgy is non existent now to clone individual kidney or heart. What we can do is clone the organs in pig or monkey without involving human embryos. When the cloned pig or monkeys grow up to the size of the organs we want, sacrifice the animals and harvest the organs for transplant. There is no ethical concern killing the cloned pig or monkey to use their organs for transplant. The question is what will be the ethical concern if the cloned pig and monkey show some external appearance of human being. For example, if a monkey can speak some words like a human can we still kill the monkey? My question now is, "Can you kill a cloned person that is created from your adult stem cells to harvest the organs that you need?

Khin M Kyi (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:41 PM)

I don't get it. Each of these cells subsequently becomes capable of becoming an embryo an embryo. Killing them is killing an embryo. So how does this help their morality?

Byron Raum, Beverly Hills, CA (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:43 PM)

please ''do'' keep your god out of it. and please ''don't'' put your fantasy omnipotent being that has no scientific proof to back it up, ahead of human lives. those who are alive and suffering, and slowly dying have more rights to their life than a life that was extinguished on purpose. morality is an issue? you want to talk choice? how about the choice of living in a world where fresh air is'nt even an option? a world (earth) where to live you are forced to slowly kill it. how about choice. no one is given a choice in this world. it's ''live like we say or kill yourself''. ok i guess there is a choice. a living life is morally has more rights than a dead one. if it never took a breath it was never alive. read ''your'' bible you so vehemently follow. adam was not alive until your god supposedly blew a breath into him. a fetus has never lived therfore it can never die.it was always dead.

bill (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:43 PM)

Research using modified human cells is relevant and necessary but does not replace embryonic cell research as much as enhance it.
Fortunately, for science, there are,and will continue to be, countries where scientific research is not strangled by the asanine moralistic and biggoted posturing of this disasterous president.

John Cochran. Maple Ridge. British columbia. (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:37 PM)

I wish I could formulate a response that wasn't completely negative to those that feel that "God" has brought us to this point of something morally acceptable because folks like president Bush put there foot down and "forced" the scientific communty to explore other avenues. Give me a break...people are suffering because of political BS and because of those in power who want to "play" God. If God put us here and gave us the intellect and imagination to do all of the things that we've acheived then who the heck are you to decide who should suffer? I'm not saying the scientific community (or anyone else) should be free to do anything they please. A previous poster (Dan from Ohio) is sitting helpless, waiting for a break through and people have the balls to sit back and quote the bible while politicians divide themselves along party lines and squabble endlessly...What a world.

Mark Robert, San Dimas, California (Sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:47 PM)

Regardless of the morality of the issue, why does the government need to be involved in stem cell research? If the use of embryonic stem cells is that important, non-government organizations could just as easily be, and I believe they are, moving forward with this research.

LibertarianMan N.Y.,N.Y. (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:49 AM)

Evangelicals and fundamentalists led by George Bush an his abundant GOP allies in Congress still persist in blocking stem cell research and (publicly disseminated) information on a variety of other medically based discoveries via legislation and absolute political control of both the FDA and the Surgeon Generals office. While new medical discoveries are always welcome, it won't be until the democrats have both a super-majority in Congress and a democratic POTUS that the doors to scientific research will truly be re-opened without political obstructionism. Hopefully we'll then be able to re-gain our rightful place as a front-runner on the global science frontier. When primitive religous beliefs confound the issue of both modern ethical standards and modern science you have a science culture that's either stalled out or in retrograde motion - let's by all means resume our forward momentum for the sake of the many sufferers of genetic-based diseases that might once again be hopeful of a cure in their lifetimes - that is indeed a pro-life approach to science!!

justthefacts (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:37 PM)

It seems logical since stem cells have the information to be any cell in the body. It seemas natural that any cell in the body can be reversed to be stem cells.

a p garcia, san benito, texas (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:00 PM)

Jesus showed people their mistakes and they crucified him for it.

When people are shown their mistakes the common response is a strong resistance by their minds. Their minds do not want to be told that the habits they enjoy and cannot live without are wrong and must stop. It is quite visible here. Those who would do anything regardless of the method are seeing that they are wrong, and those who act responsibly are right.

Remember the holocaust? Those who had a plan to improve their own lives with a bad method (dispensing with the values of Judeo-Christianity quite literally) proceeded anyway. Yet nobody had the courage to stop the Nazi's until the war came to them. If only they had been shown their mistake before they began! Those that are attacked for being anti-progress are not mindless fools. They are the rare courageous person who is willing to risk everything to help everyone else avoid repeating history in a new but similar way. They are trying to counterbalance those who believe that progress is our true god. The truth is that if we think rightly then solutions will present themselves that do not require compromises on our values. This requires patience and faith.

Those who are posting here do not have either. This explains why they must avoid dying at all costs. They do not understand the meaning of the phrase "Jesus conquered death". Their life is finite - it ends when they die. Thus they feel they must fill it with as much pleasure and make it as long lasting as they can. But in the end, they will still die. Yet, while they were alive they lived in constant fear of the inevitable. Then, the only affect of their lives was to create the pressure in society to dispense with the values that make life meaningful and truly satisfying. This becomes their legacy. It does not honor the sick and the dying, but dishonors them.

Fear of death and subsequent pleasure seeking are the real tools of mind control. It was never Christianity. Christianity liberated by showing us how to conquer fear and find more meaning in life than the pleasure seeking of paganism. That is why Jesus said he “will show us the truth and the truth shall set us free”. He set us free from oppressive regimes and dictatorships of the mind. Thus, Christianity is the true counter-cultural force in the world. It has already achieved for those who know who Jesus Christ really is, what all the other movements have promised and failed to give us. For “if we gain the world and lose our souls, we gain NOTHING!”

Sometimes I wonder why the truth about Jesus took me so long to finally understand. If there is any real conspiracy in the world, it is that despite all the facts and reasons and truths and experiences that prove it beyond a reasonable doubt - many people still don’t realize that there is a God and he came to show us what we could never have figured out on our own, 2000 years ago. Otherwise life is meaningless and you can’t reasonably justify any action to prolong it. Perhaps this is why it took me so long to understand Jesus’ message. It IS God speaking to us, pulling us towards him. Our minds resist.

Jeremy, Belleville, IL (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:01 PM)

“There is no ethical concern killing the cloned pig or monkey to use their organs for transplant.” Well, that’s a matter of opinion (without any empirical foundation). MY opinion is that the suffering and death of a highly intelligent animal (pigs are about as intelligent as dogs) is less justifiable than the use of a bunch of cells in a petri dish, regardless of the fact that those cells were of human origin. If this is a “Right to Life” (whatever that means) issue, consider that embryonic cells used in therapy will live whereas they otherwise would have been doomed to cell death.

John Mayer, Knoxville TN (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:04 PM)

And in the mean time...

A lot of embryo's are simply going to be flushed down the toilet, what a waste of potential cures. But no, we cannot use them to further mankind, that would be killing.

What a joke.

Thom, Grandville, MI (Sent Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:02 PM)

Everyone seems to forget that Bush on prohibited federal funding of embryo destructive stem cell research. No law currently stops private funding efforts. If embryonic stem cells are as promising as often made out to be, then where is the venture capitial?

Chuck D, Doylestown, PA (Sent Friday, November 23, 2007 10:14 AM)

Like many I feel both a sense of hope and yet see reasons to be wary of these new medical sciences as they grow from infancy. However I am more frightened by the fact that our leaders still allow themselves to be guided not by logic but by ancient religions. I look at my own personal spiritualism as a ever changing thoery much as I hope any good scientist does with the theories they continue to develop until they can be proven. Like all I will have to wait till my time in this life ends to know those answers if there are any to be found. Unlike my search for answers the search to help cure our world of the needless suffering of masses does not need to be kept waiting. Some paths we walk may bring into question a persons ethics yet look at a child born missing a part of its brain or spine and try to look at these new paths with hope and not fear. As for if being one who practices such sciences is enough to condemn ones soul I am thankful to any who makes such a sacrifice to improve our world.

Skylord,Silver Springs,NV (Sent Friday, November 23, 2007 12:33 PM)

BUSH nor the legislatures or the FDA or other government agencies should ever be alow to control medical science and or the other sciences and what tax payers`money can or can`t be spent on science research. Bush and members of the legislatures are die hard republicans, democrates or independants, who are suppost to vote as their majority of their constituants want and not their self serving personnal wants. As for goverment agencies FDA, etc they are controlled by the political figurehead that the president appointed and approved by the legislatures It`s accurate to say these herein mentioned politicians answer to the call of money and the wants of their special interest contacts and not the wants of the majority of their constituants as the Constitution of the USA dictates. Those political appointees for the FDA and other government agencies all dance to the tunes of their sponsers and what they want. Oh say can you see all the short arm transactions going on. All of these elected politicians swear under oath to uphold and abide by the USA`s Constitution. What is the penalty for breaking your oath of office? It should be the immediate expulsion from that office. Base on polls taken, the majority of USA citizens don`t want politician to interfer with medical science and don`t want politician to say what tax payers`money can or can`t be spent towards funding medical science. It`s the majority of USA tax paying citizens`call and not the politician`s self serving decision. As for the heads of USA`s FDA, FTC, Attorney General, GSA these heads should be appointed by a revolving 5 citizens from each state to a 5 year term/with no special retirement or goodies. 27 randomed selected alphabet order citizens from each state will vote for the five citizens from their state who will vote and appoint these heads.

JAE Waters (Sent Friday, November 23, 2007 1:00 PM)

A lot of people have missed the point. There is no golden pill or magic operation. Look at cancer, it can return and there is consequences to every cure. Researchers and doctors promise that "next year" the break through MIGHT come..... while the ailing baby-boomers are left dreaming of immortality. You laugh at the notion of God but believe that with a shot or two you will have the renewed vigor of a twenty year old, regain all those lost years do to illness and your life expectency will double? You call the Christain faith an opaite of the masses yet set and believe that some doctor somewhere with halo about his head will gladly bestow his stem cell cure universally and free of charge to the masses? I do not jest but search for the logic. It seems a vain hope and misplaced faith.

As for the moral side the only thing I ask is would those so ready to use embryos to cure mankind be willing to offer their bodies to be sacrificed for the betterment of mankind, the advance of medicine, a cure for the next generation....No? Then please do not ask that the next generation be sacrificed for this one. Because if a cure is found then somewhere in the future the demand will far out strip the supply. Then what? We laugh at those that seek an alternative method? The ailing father seizes the pregnant daughter by the arm and says "give me you fetus it is my only hope"? It is only his grandchild of course when it is born. What options do we have? Is it not better to weigh the consequences now instead of suffer them late even if it means a delay in progress? We may reduce the suffering of one generation only to increase it in the next. Does any one see that as wrong? What restraints do we impliment if any? These questions need to be constructively answered and weighed against each other by every scientist, politician, and citizen alike.

Josh of Montana (Sent Friday, November 23, 2007 2:56 PM)

I am sure they will eventually be able to get all the benefits out of other cells that they think they can get out of embryonic stem cells. That is not the point. The point is that the religious right is holding up the process. All this political nonsense is just going to make treatments take longer to develop than they otherwise would take. This means people who need the treatments will go without and suffer more. And why? To protect a bunch of dumb frozen cells that won't ever become people anyhow? They just don't like the precedent that it sets for their fight against real abortions...

Loren Nelson, Fullerton, CA (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:24 AM)

Alan: I was paging through msnbc the past couple days and have been reading up on the media's take of Jamie's findings here at the University of Wisconsin. I would personally like to congratulate you and the rest of msnbc for misleading the media on a very important issue, not only in medicine but in politics. To say that this is a shifting of a wave to more conservative views is frivolous for many reasons. For one, you cannot just take a finding like this and run with it, knowing the population, which has no understanding of the science behind it. You are right in saying that this skin cell differentiation MAY be an alternative to embryo derived stem lines, but you aren't telling the whole story. These cells are very very different. Embryos are by nature able to differentiate, this is a lot different than mutating the dna of an adult cell to take these characteristics. When you start manipulating DNA do you know what you get? You get cancer. Thinking that the population wants an alternative to embryos is quite partisan to be on MSNBC. Why not focus on the pros and cons of both for the general population. If i would poll the general population who goes to MSNBC.com i bet you they would think that this finding by Jamie is an equivalent alternative to embryos. It is not however. It is a very different system which has some pitfalls that MAY NEVER be overcome. The chances that you would allow a new piece of tissue or organ in your body grown from MUTATED DNA is slim. The stigma of dna mutation and cloning is too much to overcome. So why not get both the facts in the articles and not just the hope that these adult lines will produce as much hope as embryos already do.

I write this not in argument but in spite. Do you want to be the one accountable for when we take all our focus from embryos to adult stem lines which never may amount to nothing due to scientific reasons....which there are many.

If you would like more facts on this issue before you write i would suggest taking a visit to the University of Wisconsin and talking to Jamie and other researchers about these issues i brought up. I think it would be a rude awakening for you. Bring your colleagues as i am very disappointed in my favorite pop culture news source.

Tony L., MADISON WI (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:27 AM)

The comments from opponents of embryonic stem cell research demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of where the stem cells are coming from. They have bought into the propaganda that implies that stem cells are being ripped from embryos that otherwise would survive and become children. The law does not permit this. No scientific ethics board would permit this. The embryos being used are those which already have been removed from the mothers' womb. They would otherwise be thrown into the trash. It is not a choice between killing a fetus or saving lives. It's a question of saving lives or throwing the means to save those lives into the trash. Understanding that, opposition to using those cells to save lives is either based on false information or malicious intent.

R. Scott Ferguson, El Paso, Texas (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:38 AM)

Selective morality is an interesting thing. I've read that there are approximately 500,000 frozen embryos in the U.S. alone (I am responsible for two of them), and the opponents of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research say nothing when, every year, many of those are simply discarded. That "disrespect for life" does not seem to be an issue.

May I gently point out to those with religious obligations to ESC that God (or nature or evolution to those with a secular outlook) has already provided us with an elegant, perfect method of generating the millions of identical cells necessary for research into the causes of disease, cures for disease, and research on drugs for "everyday" conditions? It's the embryonic stem cell. One ESC can generate millions of identical copies. An induced pluripotent cell has been genetically modified, via an unstable method, and we do not yet know the track record for either its pluripotency or its self-renewing capabilities.

It's time to put politics aside and let science be science. Why is it okay to "play God" and insert a feeding tube, but not okay to "play God" and remove it? Why is it okay to send a retrovirus with altered genes into the nucleus of a skin cell and thus truly "play God" by creating a new form of pseudolife but not okay to use the cells God made? Why is it okay to throw an unused embryo in a biohazard bag, but not okay to let it live on in the spinal cord, or the pancreas, or the brain of a critically ill individual?

Kelly, Texas (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:12 PM)

Anti-religion and anti-Bush people are always whipped into rabid frenzy. It's so easy to fool you people. Notice no one mentioned that Congress DOES spend money on stem cells research? No one notices that there are stem cells ALREADY being used. These of course are adult stem cells. Not some maybe, kinda, almost cure-for-everything. What have embryonic stems cells done? Nothing but silly stories of "one day maybe..." but the soft brained people seize this and bash a President and religions. Fools, you are being used for political reasons.

CommonSenseAmerican Houston Texas (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:15 PM)

I wanted to respond to Scott and to Tony about a couple of things...

First, I'd like to correct Scott on one point: The embryos in question here have not been removed from a mother's womb. Rather, these are eggs that have been extracted from a woman's ovary, then fertilized outside the womb and frozen, potentially for later use. Scott's basic point remains, however: Physicians collect more embryos than will be implanted so they can be sure they have a fertilized embryo that is judged most fit for pregnancy. The embryos that are left over from this process may indeed be discarded.

For Tony, I wanted to mention that I have indeed been to the Madison campus, and have sat in Jamie's office for an extended chat and spoken with various other stem cell researchers at UW-Madison. I also took the UW's stem cell lab class and have split embryonic stem cell colonies (but I think I'll hang onto my day job as a journalist ... working with stem cells is much harder than you might think).

Jamie Thomson and the other folks at UW have been very open and accommodating with me - more accommodating than I deserve, but I thank them for that.

I agree with you that there are lots of unknowns involved with this research into induced pluripotent stem cells, very much including the fact that they are basically modified using gene therapy. The process as it is right now is pretty nasty for humans - including retrovirus transfection and (in the case of the Japanese team) a proto-oncogene. You probably also know that if you were to implant an embryonic stem cell into, say, an adult mouse, the cell would differentiate into a weird tumor of sorts known as a teratoma. In fact, that's how the research teams confirmed that the cells were indeed pluripotent, by seeing that the cells generated teratomas in mice with different types of tissue.

So I agree with you that there's a possibility that this therapy will not work, and I hope that came through in the stories I wrote. Right now, Jamie and the other researchers think they can solve the challenges, but Jamie does think it will be a couple of years at least before they know if they're really on the right track. People have taken part in gene therapy studies before, so I think there will be people willing to do so with these cells as well. But there's no denying that there will be a risk.

I do hope we can redeem ourselves as your favorite pop culture news source. ;-)

Alan Boyle (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:45 PM)

Al...RE fave pop culture source...never thought of it that way, but I'm in...I thought we were doing heavy science, but if it's pop culture, so be it...keep up the good work!

steve smyth (Sent Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:09 PM)

I like the fact of agreement for ethical laws and abiding by them. The line has been drawn in the sand and our children wont be harvested for body parts if they become poor in the future. I hope these kinds of mandates reverberate around the world long into the future! Thank you (all parties) for setting a fine precedent. I'm not going to criticize the finer details of the arrangement because it would be good for all of us to stand back and praise any ethical outcome as progress. I hope science is further encouraged by being able to solve an ethical dilema of our time!

Brett, HCMC, VN (Sent Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:52 AM)

I am just awed that embryonic stem cell research is a federal issue. People are fighting over the right to use someone else's genetic refuse. Only in our culture of consumption would we argue about whether it is right or wrong to consume what would otherwise be trash. From what I understand, the stem cells are taken from the embryos when they are only a few cells, so the rights of these clumps of cells that would otherwise be garbage are worth federal intervention? Why worry about the millions of people who could benefit from embryonic research findings, when we have trash to fight over? Are we going to force the brilliant scientists to resort to dumpster diving?

Sam, Madison WI (Sent Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:01 AM)

I would kill one million fetuses to save the life of one adult or child. If religion stands in the way of scientific progress, religion must be destroyed. Science has brought us up from savagry and 40-year life spans, and now a bunch of under-achieving goons want to stop it? The religionists are waging war on science, and I know what side I'm on.

Your wacky superstitious religious people crack me up. You're all liars peddling a half-witted philosophy as truth. If you weren't so dangerous, I could accept your weak-mindedness and your pathetic desire to find patterns and meaning in nothingness.

If stem cell research had been funded properly and not stagnated by religious [*******s], I might still have a grandfather.

Sean, Torrington CT (Sent Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:39 PM)

i guess as long as bush brownback and coburn do not allow themselvers to take advantage of any stem cell research, then pope george the first is okay. we used to live by progress, we now live by regression.
god has indeed condemned man to be led by such ignorant bigots. what percent voted for this joke

al (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 7:38 AM)

What is completely ignored is all the info about stem cell success stories using adult, cord blood, or amniotic stem cells. There are over 70 different diseases, disorders, and injuries for which stem cell treatements using the types of stem cells I mentioned have already shown benefits in HUMAN patients, including:
- Parkinson's Disease
- Type I Diabetes
- Spinal Cord Injuries
- Heart disease and damage (due to heart attacks)
- Cancers
- Anemias

Why articles keep talking about the possibility of possibly some day coming up with treatments for these conditions and NEVER mention that treatments are already being developed using adult cells is deceptive.
I feel sorry for the uninformed person who would kill a million fetuses to "save" one adult or child. You obviously don't consider that unborn child a human worthy of protection (the true ethical issue here) or, if you do, that it is not as valuable of a life as someone older.
Science can tell us what CAN be done. There is NOTHING that makes scientists the experts on if something SHOULD be done. That determination is a moral one, not scientific. Quit trying to obscure the issue with grand and glorious claims of science "saving" us from our own values.
This issue is ethical, plain and simple.

MIke, Winchester, VA (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 10:55 AM)

Sorry TT, your math does not compute.

Having said that, I am a Christian, but I support embryonic stem cell research. And here's why. First, women are going to have abortions whether you like it or not, so the tissue is available. Secondly, I've seen lots of people who would have been better off if they hadn't been born. Third, the majority of the Pro Life people I've seen either don't have any children and/or are unwilling to adopt unwanted children (in other words, they have no solution to the problem, just biased beliefs). And fourth, I believe God will step in and let us know if we're doing something wrong. Oh yea of little faith. Let God do the judging. Most of the medical advancements in the last one hundred years wouldn't have happened if over-zealous Christians had had their way. Let's be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Let's help save lives by allowing for more embryonic stem cell research.

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 10:57 AM)

The fact that REAL science is still, in the year 2007, politically controlled by religious zeal and pseudo-scientists like Al "The Science Czar" Gore amazes me. No, scratch that....it scares the heck out of me!

BG, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 2:05 PM)

Has anyone noticed that there has been no real treatments from embryonic stem cells, yet there have been real treatments from adult stem cells documented and you don't have to worry about the body rejecting the cells. Why don't we invest in something that is already proven to work instead of just a promise.

Bruce, Minnesota (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 5:13 PM)

In the animal kingdom, many young and old are sacrificed during drought or famine for the breeding adults who maintain the species. Mothers will leave their offspring to die without qualms. The rest of the pack may eat the weak in extremes. They need to - for survival.

The earth's population will double in the next few generations inspite of the wars, abortion and many other means of death to human kind.

We invitro fertilize multitudes of eggs so a woman who can not conceive normally can give birth. Because she only needs a few embryos to be implanted, the rest are flushed down the drain or destroyed for the stem cell tissue. For those people that believe life starts at conception, this is horrifying. For those that don't, the conceptions are only a means to saving those people not healthy enough to survive on their own.
Although humans are animals, we try to maintain a higher degree of conscienceness. We try not to be animals, we try to attain higher goals, to be Godlike. This is all part of being human. I am afraid to say that after the next 50 years, we will be shown that there is a greater force that will impart its own laws upon the earth. Religion or not, Nature's law will demand a head count. When this happens, this debate will not be remembered by anyone.

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI (Sent Monday, November 26, 2007 6:28 PM)

What is amazing to me is this simple fact - in all the arguments 'for and against' on the issues of stem cell research, abortion rights advocacy vs. anti-abortion forces, & family planning/birth control vs. deity control, I see mostly men engaging in these ongoing and seemingly perpetual discussions.

And curiously, the leadership between these two generally defined groups as they relate to the above issues is perhaps sigificant and correct me if I'm wrong - the pro-choice movement seems to consist of a mix of male & female figures, whereas the anti-choice movement is largely dominated by male voices (Phillis Shafley el al excepted).

Politically speaking, men totally dominate on the right (what is this, a patriarchy??). Evangelical & fundamentalist religious leaders are all men, without any exceptions that I'm aware of. Perhaps (unconscious) biological imperatives dominate on the right, with leadership a male domain and reproduction the pre-eminent value. The over-all health of a nation should be the pre-eminent value afterall, as the USA now ranks globally at #12 on the list for life expectancy and quality of life (most desirable places to live).

To me there is an obvious and clearly defined divide between two fundamental groups (no pun intended) that are seeking political control to further their own agenda.....our job as voters is to pick the agenda that best dovetails with our own world view and accompanying values.

justthefacts (Sent Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:28 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=476812

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG