Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Problems Slow Research
Jeremy Erwin writes: "George W. Bush essentially closed the door on the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines by restricting the funding to 60 existing cell lines, most of which are covered by patents of one sort or another. But now it seems that most of these cell lines were cultured using mouse cells, possibly infecting the stem cells with murine viruses. The FDA, concerned that cross species organ transplantation may hasten the spread of such viruses, has all but banned the practice. According to this Washington Post article, this could make it difficult, if not impossible to use stem cells in human clinical trials."
You can create new stem call lines, they just don't qualify for federal funds. They need to be privately financed by the biotech sector.
They just pushed off the impending philisophical debate, basically.
Uh, that's only if they use federal funds.  If they don't use federal funds there are NO restrictions.
Nice F.U.D.
It's important to note that Bush's administrative authority here only covers the applications of federal money in research. His decision will hurt research by many scientists, but doesn't prohibit anyone in the private sector from doing what they want with stem cells. That would require bills to be passed by the Congress.
Bush's move (provided that it lasts) will impede the growth of knowledge and lead to even more privatization and patenting of important fundamental research. It's fairly certain that big medicine will continue to develop new lines of cells, as the payoffs for genetic technologies may be tremendous.
If you want to start planting stem cells into live people, you're going to get a patent on the process that helps you fight the disease. Once you are at that stage in the process, you should be privately funded.
Federal research dollars are supposed to go to basic science. This "compromise" allows the scientists to do ALL the basic research that they want on the tax payer's nickel.
If they want to start destroying embryos and doing human clinical testing, well, let the private sector pick up the tab.
There is no reason that these researchers are entitled to tax payer dollars.
It's also my belief that God purposely created man as scientifically-minded, inquisitive creatures. In order for us to carry out His work on Earth, scientific innovation must not be suppressed.
George Bush, in an effert to do what he believed was moral, in fact suppressed innovation. Stem Cell research has fantastic potential to improve quality of life for generations to come
.To not allow scientific research and discovery, rather than being the "morally correct" choice, is the exact opposite. To not use our God-given gifts of intelligence and curiosity when they could be used to help humans, is truly the morally incorrect choice.
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Tim
What is the moral value of a date? Either it is okay to create stem cell lines (all right, all right, "destroy embryos") or it is not. The fact that the cell lines were created (embryos destroyed) before W started paying attention to the subject has no relevance. And if it is not okay to create stem cell lines, then it cannot be okay to use them for research purposes.
And please don't tell me about how the net result will be fewer of these embryos destroyed. Frozen embryos are destroyed at fertility clinics every day, en masse, and W has not lifted even his pinky finger to stop that. Far more useful, in my opinion, is the approach now being taken by Harvard and Boston IVF, to use these embryos for research rather than simply dump them in the garbage.
-Renard
Are embryonic stem cells the only feasible method of curing what ails us? How does that jive with this research? Are there other non-embryo based stem cells that can be used?
It would seem that the fervor over this debate would die if there was some way to avoid using embryos altogether. Is it simply impossible to do this without them?
Dancin Santa
...have shown far more promise in terms of research. The fetal cells tend to be so maleable and flexible that they can grow wildly out of control with devstating consequences to the transplantee.
Adult stem cells aren't as maleable, but they ARE more stable and better able to target specific ailments. Also, there's only a miniscule chance of a human rejecting its own cells.
Besides, from all of the research I've seen, the stem cells contained in the umbilical cord of babies carried to-term are just as viable as those extracted from aborted ones. Why not concentrate your efforts on those, instead of making a reproductive issue out of the whole thing?
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
1. Bush's policy applies only to federal funding (NIH - National Institutes of Health funding basically). It has no impact on private funding. Private biomediacal research is huge is the US.
2. Stem cell lines are innovative not because they are cell lines, but because they are embryonic stem cell lines. Cell lines are central in medical research. No drug or therapy can progress to human trials until its effects in vitro (that is, on cells in a dish) have been assessed. There are hundreds of established, standard cell lines that are used for this purpose.
3. It is totally beyond my comprehension how this debate has come to focus on the destruction of embryos. Embryos are destroyed by the hundreds daily. Many fertility clinics require clients to agree to terms that amount to: 'We will create embryos, implant them within you, and any spares will be destroyed in five years if you don't come back asking for them'. Whether or not federal funds can be used for stem cell research, multitudes of embryos are being destroyed daily. This decision has no impact whatsoever upon that fact. The number of embryos 'destroyed' as a consequence of embryonic stem cell research will never be more than a miniscule proportion of the total number of stem cells destroyed.
... that people wishing to perform research on stem cell lines are leaving the United States to go to Great Britain - basically to avoid the influence of religious based persecution ??
When politicians try to become bioethicists without a solid knowledge of the underlying science, these things are going to happen.
By blocking future federal funds for newly created (and non-contaminated) stem cells, Bush has assured that nearly all major US innovations in stem cell research will be created by biotech companies. These companies will undoubtedly patent their work, and be more motivated to extract the greatest possible profits from their work (as they have to turn a profit on their investment), while publicly funded research generally requires federal access to patented techniques at little to no cost. Non-federal users of university patents generally don't have to pay as much for licenses, because the universities a) don't have to turn a profit, and b) don't have to repay the initial investment.
In addition, Bush's decision has not prevented unused in vitro embryos from being destroyed. They simply get thrown out now, rather than having their stem cells extracted for research purposes.
When a child dies, parents have the option to donate their organs to save others. When an embryo is destroyed, the Bush decision doesn't enable "parents" to do the same thing.
A list of those who are opposed to stem cell research should be kept, then when they contract a disease that can be treated with a stem cell derived cure, they should be refused treatment.
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Money for the loss of freedom - that's a good trade there.
"George W. Bush essentially closed the door on the creation of new human embryonic stem cell lines by restricting the funding to 60 existing cell lines"
Bush only restricted the use of US Federal Funds in regards to stem cell research. People using private funds can still do whatever they want with stem cells, and given the lucrative market for medical techniques/products derived from such reasearch, they will do so.
I would like to see a higher percentage of computer-related articles.
We are in the middle of one of the biggest and most amazing social revolutions in history. More than 100,000 very well-educated people have decided to form a loose brotherhood and sisterhood to give the world a complete computer operating system. There are many stories in that!
I like the general science topics, but I think there should be more about software development. Many of the big issues aren't being discussed enough, in my opinion. For example, there needs to be a more vigorous debate about computer language development, in my opinion.
Bush's education improvements were
Cloning will kill embryos, (They are babies when we want them, and embryos when we don't.)
Another reason for embryos is test tube babies. A lot of embryos have to be discarded because of complications.
Some day people will want a custom built cloned child. They will probably discard one that doesn't have pretty eyes or birth-defects.
With current technology, most cloned animals die shortly after death, as the body slowly breaks down. So obviously a cloned human is going to suffer because the system will not be perfected for awhile.
Clones would be abused as property to make our lives better at their expense.
Think further into the future when clones do exist. If we can clone a perfect soldier, or perfect housekeeper, can we feel comfortable when we abuse/kill them, because they are a comodity that can be replaced in a lab?
Anyone who's seen Blade Runner knows what I'm getting at. Will cloning just make us devalue life? Should clones in essence be our slaves? Are they going to have citizenship? Already we value the life of the mother above the one of an aborted baby.
We are going to rationalize cloning to ignore our real problems of gluttony, sloth, greed, vanity(custom building of embryos), --hell, maybe even lust, when we can design sex slaves.
I can understand the moral delimma of cloning/abortion -- The value of life. Where do we draw the line?
Oh, I agree. Xenotransplantation is risky-- and even though waivers may be obtainable from the FDA, transplants may cause serious epidemiological problems. The solution may lie in creating new "mouse-free" lines, but because federal funds will not be made available to support the creation of such lines, private enterprise will have to step in...
But private, commercial research poses its own set of problems. Firstly, it's much more difficult to regulate. Secondly, it is almost ceratin that these discoveries will be patented to the nth degree, making it much more difficult for academic investigators to conduct research without signing non-disclosure agreements. etc.
(Corporate sponsored research often includes a clause about not publishing negative results, and other perversions of traditional academic freedom.)
One common argument in favor of a zygote's not being a life is the argument that it is just a ball of cells. This same argument is carried further to early stage fetuses before the nervous system is developed to the extent of anything resembling consciousness. [some take it even further. I am trying to summarize a variety of arguments quickly here and have probably not captured every nuance. Please do not quibble unless you think there is some way of phrasing it that is especially useful]
Recently, findings were published from a study which entailed injecting live human fetal cells into a developing monkey fetus brain. The experiment was a success in that the human cells developed fully and were incorporated into the monkey brain... huh? When the researchers were killing these monkeys, did they give any thought to the notion that they were killing a being with partial but fully developed human nervous system?
Am I taking sides in this issue? Well, you decide after I tell you where in the middle I stand. Between what isn't a human life and what is a human life there is a vast grey area. Clearly we need to draw a line somewhere, but wherever we draw a line we are going to be able to find seeming "inconsistencies". But draw a line we must. I am in favor of drawing a more conservative line that errs on the side of preserving more of what "might be" humans, because I think devaluing humanity is a slippery slope. Is this an inconsisten position? Not more than any other. But is it a "costly" position in terms of "humanity"?
We know that there are plenty of scientists among us who would be perfectly willing to experiment on human adults or children in the name of science. Certainly we'd get the best results that way, and the cost of a small number of botched experiments would be more than made up for by the millions of lives improved and saved with our new knowledge. If we experimented on volunteers, what's the diff? Most/many scientists give at least lip service to the supposed ethical problem they see with experimenting on actual human subjects. Well, limits on fetal research or stem cell research are simply a small extension to the "keep off the grass" area. The cost is less knowledge about human biology, only more slowly developing cures to defects and frailties. But defects and frailties are part of what makes us human. What we have in common with our ancestors is that we are mortal. We live, we love, we die. (interesting: I'm applying the leftwing/romanticized/artsy view of humanity, liberal arts if you will, as opposed to the cold calculations of cost-benefit... now who is the hypocrite?) What if we could eradicate death... should we? Really?
What I find disturbing is the insanely egotistical drive for prolonging the lives of those close to us that this medical research represents. If prolonging and improving human life is your goal, well dig deep and save the children of Africa. If prolonging and improving your life is the goal, I have trouble joining in. Or maybe it's the "Nazi-scientist's" pursuit of knowledge for its own sake without regard to the humanity of the subjects that disturbs me. Or maybe these scientists are just buried in their research and don't even want to think about the issues, and it bothers me that they draw a conclusion without much thinking? Or maybe there is some merit to my suspicion that politics plays a role and if it's "conservative" they hate it and if it's "liberal" they like it, for what else could explain the way the two sides seem to line up?
I don't expect you to instantly come around to my postions here, but I hope you walk away realizing that there is more to think about here than "oh, the other side just doesn't get it". I, for one, think I've shown that I get a lot more of it than you do.
I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells created after that date.
If scientists can live with a ban on experimenting on humans, they ought to be able to live with an only slightly more liberal definition of what is a human. Different people have different opinions and we reach middle ground in the political arena. I'd guess that Bush doesn't think he knows all the answers either, but realizes there are solid pros and cons and powerful political forces on both sides, and his decision was a compromise--generally, the ability to compromise is extolled as a virtue, you will recall.
Pre-Taliban Afghanistan (at least if you were a woman). The Roman Empire. For all practical purposes, contemporary Europe and Japan. Most Arab nations, insofar as they were far more secular 50 to 100 years ago than they are today. Iran.
How much does it take to "pass judgement?" Considering that a history full of religion gives us virtually no where with as much peace as Europe and Japan have enjoyed in the past 50 years - in fact, I'm hard-pressed to recall the last 50-year stretch of peace anywhere - I have to ask just what you need to pass judgement?
Afghanistan during the socialist and Russian eras was pretty secular. Not ideal, mind you, but better than what they have now - which was what we were asked for. Only a Western-armed theocracy ended it.
I turn the challenge around, in fact: cite me a civilization whose essential secularness created a worse society than their religious epochs did.
If by religion you mean following any ethos at all, then the USSR was "religious" by that standard.
Do you really believe that the Russian-backed government was worse than this?
I would think that the USA would be pretty quick to fund research using the Canadian skin cells since it would help get fetal cells out of the limelight.
See the CBC story.
I am not talking about the post-invasion Afghanistan. You are talking about the war crimes that the Soviet army committed I am talking about the PDPA government that the Soviets backed before the invasion. They waged a campaign against illiteracy, started a debt forgiveness program, improved the health and lot of women in Afghanistan, etc. Of course, they were doomed - and the Soviet invasion was brutal. But the Taliban are far worse for the majority of Afghani people than the PDPA were.