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."

Comments

W's morally inconsistent position

[renard]

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.

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

Re:W's morally inconsistent position

[Tetsujin28]

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.

The point is not some arbitrary date. The point is the idea that "What's done is done, but don't do it again."

Here's a very close analogy: It's OK for medical students to work on cadavers for educational purposes. It is not OK to go out and kill people to ensure an adequate supply of cadavers.

Adult stem cells

[ZaMoose]

...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?

Misconceptions

[raaum]

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.

Bush's plan was unworkable anyway due to patent...

[hillct]

It doesn't really matter, because Bush's plan was unworkable anyway, due to a patent held by the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation as mentioned in the Testimony of Maria Freire, Director of the Office of Technology Transfer at the National Institutes of Health before the Senate Subcommitte on Labor, Health & Human Services back in 1999 - meaning the patent rights exclusively licensed to Geron Corporation were well known long before Bush's policy decision and the stories oh stem cell research 'discovered' this patent issue. In her remarks, she said in part:

The University of Wisconsin provides us with a good example of how the Bayh-Dole Act is implemented. Early work by Dr. Thomson on non-human primates, such as Rhesus monkeys, was federally funded and therefore, the patent obtained on stem cells arising from this work is governed by this Act. In accordance with the law, the invention was disclosed to the NIH, a patent application was filed by the University, through the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), and WARF licensed the technology to a small company (Geron). Because federal funds were used for this non-human primate work, the government has a non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use the patented cells by or on behalf of the government. This would allow the government laboratories and contractors the right to use the patented cells for further research. In addition, in handling this invention the University must ensure that the goals of the Bayh-Dole Act -- utilization, commercialization, and public availability -- are implemented.

Based on this, I'd have to say that Bush purpetrated a fraud against the American People, since it was known that this patent would get in the way of research on any existing (and potentially future) stem cell lines. Unfortunately this doesn't matter, with respext to the existing lines because it appears they may be tainted, as the article suggest may have occurred.

--CTH

left-wing science's morally inconsistent position

[Karmageddon]

This is not flamebait. I'm using the word "left-wing" as shorthand for the position that "abortion is ok because a fetus is not a human, and therefore fetal tissue is ok to experiment with". This viewpoint is more prevalent among liberals than conservatives in my experience, and among scientists. But if you disagree, you'll understand what I'm saying just the same now that I've explained it, and you won't need to object on those grounds: my left equals liberal (in the American sense), and I think this is a liberal position.

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.