Slashdot Mirror
US Stem Cells Contaminated
Croaking Toad writes "According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall. The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses. New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush." To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well. Update: 01/24 19:40 GMT by J : Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines. What a curious genetic heritage we have...
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. Private and state funding can still be used for that purpose (like the money that California will be pumping into stem cell research).
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush
Just thought I'd help back up the parent there.
moo
See ya later, Johnny (1925-2005) and thanks for the memories!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Since the OP didn't seem to bother reading the executive order:
"Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.
No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above."
Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.
This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You forgot another important word: human.
The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
This was mentioned back in the Presidential debates. Bush said we have X Stem Cell Lines available, while Kerry said that the available lines are contaiminated with mouse DNA and probably other DNA.
Last I checked, it was still ok to harvest adult stem cells for research.
Oh, and even if you could harvest any embryonic stem cell in the world, you would still have the "transplantation" immune response problems that you see with those contaminated cells; after all, you are taking the DNA of a human (we can argue if that human was ever "alive" later) and implanting it into another "live" human, you better be sure that your significant proteins match.
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
The embryonic stem cells have certain desirable biological characteristics, such as pluripotency. In practice, it's somewhat difficult to separate non-federal funding from federal financing. E.g, previous federal grants may have been used to build and equip a laboratory, necessitating the building of separate, redundant facilities.
Did you even read what you copied? Funding wasn't just cut off for harvesting. It was cut off for any research using newly harvested stem cells.
So, yes, a private company can harvest more cells and give them away, but any researcher who touches them can kiss his funding good bye.
New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.
This is slashdot, with the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather.. I should not have expected any different.
Stem cell harvesting is not illegal, so harvest away. What you can't do accoring to that 2001 executive order is harvest stem cells and expect the government to pay for it. It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.
That's fine with me anyway, it's beyond me why the government pays for reasearch that does not go into the public domain. Let pfizer pay for their own research! They don't need my subsidy.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Everyone seems to forget that embryos are not the only sorce of stem cells.... bood from the ambylical cord contain stem cells, these cells are already being harvestead and used to treat spinal cord injuries.... as posted in this Slashdot Artical.
Which is itself a bit of a misleading statement, as stem cell research is a very recent thing. It would be like saying "President Britany Spears III was the first president to fund time travel research" in the year 2145.
The same story ran on dateline NBC last night, and in their "in-depth coverage", they failed to point this out, as well as stating that stems cells are "byproducts from fertility clinics", without mentioning abortions. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this is nowhere near in-depth coverage.
From The Corner:
Well, fundamentally it's an effort to make an argument for new stem cell lines, by undermining the viability of all the existing lines, including those federally funded. There's not much new to it, except now it's dressed up in a "new" study, when everyone has always known that these lines (not just the Bush-approved ones, but almost all ES cell lines developed past a certain stage) were developed with so-called mouse feeder cells. To call this "contamination" is simply dishonest. A good number of cell products used in humans are developed with feeder cells from animals, and some of these (not embryonic cells, but other cell products) have been successfully developed into medical treatments in the past.
A couple of key points. First, it is not true that all the Bush-approved lines were developed with these mouse feeder cells. There are sixteen lines (not counted in the LA Times's "20 or so" available lines) that have been frozen in an early state, so as to wait for better cell development techniques. These have never been exposed to mouse feeder cells or any other cells, they are frozen and could be used if these folks had a better method to suggest.
Second, the FDA has a lot of experience dealing with cell products (again, not embryonic stem cell, but others) developed with such animal cells. Then-administrator of the FDA Mark McClellan, in testimony before [the president's bioethics council] in September of 2003 [found here] was asked about the mouse feeder layer issue in embryonic stem cells, and he replied: "We've certainly had experience, successful experience, in thousands of patients in documenting the safety of cells that have been exposed to animal feeder cells, mouse feeder cells, and the like."
This new study strikes me as a partially dishonest repackaging of old worries in an effort to put new pressure on the Bush administration's funding policy. The trouble with it, as with all similar efforts by the researchers, is that the policy is based on a moral conviction, not a scientific assessment. Even if what they are saying were correct, it doesn't change the moral problem with embryonic stem cell research, and so will not change the policy. And from what I can see, it isn't correct either.
Par for the course, alas. What a course!
thank God, Allah, Buddah, Abraham, the Latter Day Saints, Harry Krishnah, and even Brian Boytano i'll be dead by then.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off.
That's correct, but also misleading. The executive order banned embryonic stell-cell research by any organization, group, or researcher receiving federal funding.
Not federal funding for stem-cell research. Federal funding for any research, related or not. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).
The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
60 Minutes had a piece several weeks ago about the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation. They provide lots of private funding for medical research. And one of the projects they mentioned was the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines for research.
Did the Clinton administration receive any requests to fund stem cell research? If it didn't, then your point is meaningless. Maybe stem cell research didn't really exist before Bush became president?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The Belgian scientist, Catherine Verfaillie, who was leading the Stem-cell research department of the University of Minnesota is coming back to Belgium because of the whole anti-stem cell research climate in the US and because it is becoming harder and harder to find appropriate funding. If this kind of thing goes on, the US will quickly lose its leading position in some kinds of research. And I think that another four years of Bush might quickly accelerate this trend.
I wouldn't say it's pure FUD. The "small subset" of experiments you're referring to are the ones relating to human trials. So yes, you could do experiments to look into cell development and such, but the FDA wouldn't approve any procedure that used these cell lines.
That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.
That's not true, Federal funding for any research done on new stem cell lines is denied. It's not just the harvesting. Huge difference.JWall: GUI client for IPTables
"...any researcher who touches them can kiss his [Federal] funding good bye."
Very important distinction.
I submitted this twice and for some reason it wasn't accepted. Not that i'm holding a grudge, but i have diabetic friends and this is major news for me, and perhaps could change some people minds' about stem cell research (not embryonic stem cell research though, which is a more delicate subject).
It's amazing how many people believe that stem cells come from abortions. The religious right does an amazing job of spreading bad information and nobody ever promotes correct information with as much zeal or money.
Stems cells are very much "byproducts from fertility clinics". When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab. After a certain ammount of time, the healthiest embryos are chosen and implanted. The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions. Those embroys were never destined to be born. Why not help people with them?
-B
I wonder which lobby would have more influence -- corporate or Christian? Right now, I'd say Christian cause the funding is not there.
You'd very likely be wrong. Bush's tax cuts have plainly delivered tens of billions to rich individuals and corporations already (with the deficit climbing precipitously largely due to these changes). His various regulatory policymakers have made it easier for polluters to pollute and tax cheaters to cheat.
As for policies that would suit the Falwell/Dobson wing of the Christian Right...hmm, the fed. money stem cell research is one small step. Partial birth abortion ban would be another small one. But he couldn't even begin to get "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman" enacted as a Constitutional amendment (died on both chamber floors), and recently declared the federal DOMA ("Defense of Marriage Act") law would be sufficient to stop gay marriage, while it obviously isn't (states' rights, people, states' rights). And what's he starting with this term? An abortion ban? Nope, Social Security privitization, a boondoggle for brokerage houses, not the Christian Right. He may serve two masters (the moral conservatives and the fiscal conservatives), but he knows who's gonna cut the check.
RW
Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.
That is a campaign speech lie. He was not the first president to fund stem cell research. Under previous presidents, stem cell research was undertaken with federal funds for that purpose. However, to prevent controversy, they projects were labled "paralysis research" or such.
So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes. In fact, recent studies are showing the stem cells extracted from fat cells or even from hair cells (you know, the white thing at the end of the hair follicle you pull out) are a great source of stem cells. These stem cells are also more tame and easier to control than embryonic stem cells.
I really hate it when somebody says President Bush is against stem cell research. He's not. He's against harvesting embryonic stem cells. He's even funding already harvested embryonic stem cell research, as the parent posters pointed out.
I also hate it when people say stem cells can cure disease X. It isn't true, yet. Stem cells have yet to cure anything. If stem cells could cure diabetes or paralysis or brain damage or nerve damage, don't you think you'd hear a lot more about it in the press? Don't you think there would be advertisements on the radio asking for people with disease X to participate in a research project using stem cells? But you don't. That's because stem cells have yet to produce anything. Some researchers are beginning to fear that stem cells are just too hard to control and useful remedies won't be out for decades or even centuries.
There are other more promising routes of research. For instance, the Atkin's diet has been proven to lower blood cholesterol and to reduce the severity of diabetes. Why aren't we spending as much money on that as we are on stem cell research?
This whole stem cell fiasco has been a hammer to pound President Bush on the head, and I think every sane human out there has seen it for what it is. "Christopher Reeves died because of President Bush" just doesn't ring of truth at all. Let's stop politicizing science and just approach it with objectivity and skepticism for once, folks. And please, when science starts stretching the bounds of morality, let's make the right decision to limit science and not limit morality. That's what makes us different from the research that German and Japanese scientists did in WWII.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
There's an astonishing report out of China; it can be read here. (The story, already quite poignant, is made even more so by the realization that the author is himself tetraplegic and is considering the procedure himself.) Essentially, the Chinese have already abandoned stem cells, and have moved onto nasal cells from four month old fetuses. They're working. Read this:
Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, and morality will inexorably be rewritten to allow whatever is required to survive. This is ultimately what will end the abortion wars, and pro-lifers are horrified at this (likely) endgame.
I see this as an interesting prospect. If we mix JackRabbit with Antelope stem cells we may finally have the fabeled "Jackelope"! No longer will we have to resort to glueing horns onto a stuffed rabbit!
The contaminants cause human antibodies to attack the transplanted cells. This has been demonstrated in experiments. All of this was covered in "TFA." This makes them dangerous and probably useless for human beings without some dubious attempts to remove the contaminants. I say dubious because they are unlikely to succeed, and in addition likely only handle the particular contaminations we already know about.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Pardon me? From the story:
"The problem is that current stocks have taken up a "non-human molecule called N-glycolylneuraminic acid or Neu5Gc" - probably when they were grown in a lab culture containing animal-derived materials from mice and calf foetuses. Neu5Gc is found on the surface of animal cells, but the human immune system attacks it - the major reason for transplanted animal organ rejection in humans."
But hey, if you say they're fine, they must be fine. After all, you're posting to Slashdot.
It is accurate. If your research depended on use or construction of stem cell research prior to Bush, your federal funding was cut unless you were already using one of the mentioned preexisting cell lines. There was federally funded research involving production of stem cells, some of which led to the already existing lines of stem cells. I have no idea where you got your information, but if I were you I would consider any information you get from political sources to be highly suspect, whether from Republicans or Democrats.
As inflamitory as the following may be to you, you post is equally inflamitory to me. In my viewpoint pregnancy is a medical condition, and a cureable one at that. It should not matter if that cure is morally offensive to you or I as we are not the one making the decission. Morals are a personal thing and I don't believe they should be forced upon others. You may want to compare it to murder, but in my mind I can see a difference. If you are morally objectional to abortion, please don't have one, but please do not try to make that decission for everyone.
blah blah blah....
drightler@technicalogic.com
Not true. Some Germans cared, some didn't. To say that no Germans thought that mass murder was wrong is simply wrong.
>>The slaveowners actually thought they were doing a service by beating their slaves and forcing them to labor.
Only those who believed their own lies. Just because you keep up a front doesn't make it the truth.
What I find most ridiculous is that the same group of people who said that a black man is less than a white man and that kidnapping and enslaving africans was the "white man's burden" are the same group who pretend that they are the worlds single moral authority, and claim that as the basis for everything they are for. Infanticide has a longer history than civilization. Longer than our species. As far as opinions go, mine is that the fetus isn't a child until there's brain activity. None of this "potential" tripe that so many people bandy about. Until then it's just a lump of flesh.
You want to rail against "child murder"? How about the foetal deaths caused by pollution? How about all those dead kids in Iraq? Conservatives have no moral authority because they have continuously contradicted themselves.
If murder is murder, why have a death penalty? Why start preemptive wars? Political convenience, that's why. It's all a lie.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
_My_ tax dollars go into those research coffers and it makes me _really_ angry that they can't be used for this research to better the survival chances of our species because of some phony pseudo-morality political pandering.
I actually get more angry that our tax dollars go to support medical research that is then patented and sold back to us a insane rates.
I wish people would top being "technically correct" and discuss the real issue at hand . . stem cell research outside of the current lines of embyronic stem cells. was seriously hindered by the actions of this government
Are you under the impression that the federal government EVER funded embryotic stem cell research? It didn't.
Finkployd
Finkployd
If I still had mod points I'd mod you into flaimebait oblivion.
As it is I am personally pro-life. My vote, however, is firmly pro choice. Why? Because as soon as you legislate what is acceptable and what is not (as to when an abortion is legal when normally banned), you will inevitably run into a condition where an abortion would make logical sense, but is not covered by the law, and thus is illegal.
I am pro-life because my mother had me ten days after she turned 18. I was put up for adoption, and was loved and raised by a couple who could not have children. They are mom and dad. I now enjoy a wonderful relationship will all my parents, (I have three "dads", two "moms", and one step-mom). I know full well I could be an aborted fetus, but I'm not, thus I'm firmly pro-life. I will not, under darn near any circumstance, impose my belief on another, thus my vote being firmly pro-choice.
You're trying to equate the Holocaust with abortion. While abortion is abominable, even in my eyes (partial birth particularly so) it is not the Holocaust. The Holocaust was about eliminating a human genome from the planet, a far more insidious thing. Get over your bible belt, moralistic, dictatorial views on abortion.
Roe V Wade was a Good Thing (tm) and should be allowed to stand.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
My point is not meaningless. What I was saying is that you cannot cut funding that does not yet exist. It is not accurate to say that he cut funding as some people are saying.
Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses. If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives, why not ban organ donation? Does anything in the bible say "thou shalt not help fund researching [new, human, embryonic] stem cells if thou art the [federal] government?" If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding, or the research itself? If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research? Can anyone make sense of this policy? It scares me, not in how sweeping the effects are, but because The President, the "Leader of the Free World," is using executive orders to dictate where scientific research funding goes based on personal, nonsensical, unpopular religious motives.
I think the rest of government should do what the Pentagon does, and ignore it. There's no basis in law for "executive orders" anyway. I doubt any president would allow a case based on violating an executive order to go to court, in case the Supreme Court ruled that Executive orders don't exist. Chances are, Bush can't do anything but get grumpy if the whole Federal Government simply ignores his ban.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I guess it makes you feel superior to those on the other side of the debate by defining a pregnancy, even one in its embryonic stage as equal to a fully-formed and developed baby regardless of whether or not that pregnancy has developed to the stage where it has a viable chance of life outside the womb.
I find it funny that the same people who are so adamant that abortion is murder are almost always the same people that are opposed to the dissemination of methods of birth control as well as the same people who are quick to make single mothers the scapegoats for all of society's ills.
And what right do you have to tell a pregnant woman, regardless of how her child was conceived, just what exactly she is allowed to do with her own body?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I don't have much of a problem with the state funding the research, but dammit, we don't have the money to be doing this right now. That $3B borrowed will cost the state $6B, possibly more if the state's credit rating doesn't improve in the next few years. Lets get our house in order, and then wait a couple of years before we go into this.
:/
Not to mention the questions about just who would be profiting under this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Since the original comment was censored by right-leaning moderators, here is a recap:
It's technically correct, but also misleading, to say that federal funding of embryonic-stem cell research is all that has been banned. While technically true, the reach of federal funding extends so wide and deep in the research community that the net effect of banning embryonic stem-cell research by any group, organization, or individual is indistinguishable from outlawing it completely to most organizations.
It isn't just federal funding for stem-cell research that has been banned. Federal funding for any research, related or not, bans any embryonic stem-cell research from being conducted, anywhere, by anyone associated with the organization involved. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).
The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
That doesn't make any sense. There would be no need to conceive only to abort. There are plenty enough abortions occurring to supply plenty of stem cells for research. It's a bogus argument that's used to shield a religious motive.
It was an executive order that sent West coast Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. An executive order effectively has the power of law.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
To be consistent then you have to be against invitro fertilization. As the techniques necessitates a certain amount of waste in the production of fertilized eggs which have to be destroyed anyway, and their is really no way around this (the irony, a way for invertile couples to have a baby requires the destruction of fertilized embryos). Protest and try and ban invitro-fertilization if you believe that life begins with fertilization and thus destroying fertilized eggs is immoral, but if you choose not to do not split hairs protesting stem cell research.
Umbilical cord stem cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells, though they are still useful. Also to say that one form works while the other doesn't is trying to second guess the research, as extrodinarily enough the stem cell research is designed to find out how exactly what the stem cells are capable of and what they are useful for, so we don't know what each type of stem cell will work for a particular situation and that is one of the reasons for doing research.
I have absolutely no moral or ethical objections to harvesting stem cells. I don't consider undiferentiated cells to be " a human life". I also have a close family member who has Parkinsons disease. I am strongly-pro stem cell reasearch.
But I take issue with Dr Ajit Varki foisting fake science on the public.
from The Register:
"The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.
The argument for the necessity of harvesting new human stem cells goes like this:
Having established that culturing stem cells in a serum replacment derived from animal products contaminates the cells with Neu5Gc, scientists attempt to rid existing cell lines of Neu5Gc by culturing them in serum replacement derived from animal products. This fails to rid the stem cells of Neu5Gc. Therefore, they conclue that existing cell lines can not be rid of Neu5Gc by growing them in a in serum not derived from animal products. It is therefore necessary to harvest new cell lines and grow them in culture not derived from animal products.
Try growing existing cell lines in serum not derived from animals and see if that rids them Neu5Gc. Then get back to us.
So, logically... If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!
Same thing, different century.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
What about unmarried couples? Wait, you're one of those religious right-wing zealots aren't you?! Quit pushing your propaganda! Burn him at the stake!!
parent is (99%) correct:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry Mr. president, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away.
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Abortions are one thing; stem cells are another. Stemcells do not come from abortion; nor do they have anything to do with them. Stem cells are infact harvested when a couple undergoes IVF(in vitro fertilization).
It goes like this:
A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.
The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN AWAY. So all of those activists out there that are attempting to convince you (including the president who said that stem cells crossed a "fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.")
I'm sorry jgardn, but that line gets crossed every time an embryo from an IFV clinic gets thrown away. So your problem is not with stem cells but actially with in vitro fertilization.
Here's a good primer:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings.
I could get rich mining irony ore here. If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand. Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing.Sustainability and energy independence essay
Whose purpose? The "purpose" of sex is to make a baby, so rubbers are illegal? All those living, human sperm cells (and that lonely egg cell), doomed to death when they were faithfully obeying their purpose. The purpose of marriage is to make a baby, so childless couples are criminals - divorce is a crime, girls who don't put out on dates where my purpose is to get laid are criminals.
--
make install -not war
"The potential of embryonic stem cells became apparent in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the National Institutes of Health announced that it would fund stem-cell research as long as the actual extraction of cells from embryos was done by someone else. President Clinton strongly supported this policy." [Source]
And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.
"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source]
I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.
Anything else you need me to prove?
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
For the purposes of this post I will treat these embryos as if they are a human life. Whether I believe this myself is not an issue, since I am trying to see this from Bush's point of view and he clearly sees them as 'hav[ing] the potential for life'.
President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq and has justified that by saying that the war is beneficial to the Iraqis in the end as it brings them democracy. His opinion therefore must be that the benefit of life without pain and persecution for the many now and all those who will live there in the future is worth the sacrafice of a few thousand actual, adult, human lives. All of this was done using many billions of tax dollars.
President Bush accepts that stem cell research has 'promise and potential' for saving lives and relieveing pain by forming treatments for currently incurable conditions. Some embryos need to be sacraficed (not really my first choice of words, but it illustrates the point) to benefit the many now and all in the future. Yet Bush now thinks that saving the potential lives of the few outweigh the benefits to the many, at least where tax money is concerned.
Whether you agree or disagree with me on either of these issues, don't you think that this is a serious case of double-standards?
No, he wasn't. Clinton funded research as of 2000 on embryonic stem cells, though would not allow said cells to be extracted with federal funds. Because these stem cell lines were new to the federal research budget, this represented federal funding of new stem cell lines.
Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.
Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.
Moral of the story, do your own research rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
There are two things that puzzle me about the United States of America: fear of human sexuality and fear of progress.
Blowing things up on TV and showing violence on the news is okay. People start complaining only if a part of a naked female body appears on the tube or if those *damn* scientists try yet another method that could potentially save us from suffering and premature death. Whoever thinks that U.S. is a country of freedom has never tried to get an abortion in Mississippi or teach evolution in Georgia's public schools. I do not even want to start talking about stem cells...
Although federal funding is cut, I suspect that it will not stop research in the long run. I hope that my state decides to follow California and raise its own money for embryonic stem cell research. And if I ever become a millionaire, I know where I am going to spend my money. Moreover, you do not have to be rich in order to achieve something. Although I do not have education in biotechnology and other related fields, I think that there are some kids at MIT and Harvard that can achive something that I can't. If we provide enough financial support through small donations, we can fund public labs that rely on money, not religious influence of our government. If this country was able to raise millions of dollars for the victims of the recent tsunami, I believe we can rase enough money for small scientific projects. Once these projects start returnig results, companies will jump on the bandwagon and the industry will be able to support itself without Mr. Bible's say.
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Not really true.
The ban (in place since 1995) was pushed through as a rider on an appropriation bill by the GOP. NIH sought help from HHS on how the ban applied; in 1999, HHS responded that research on stem cells can be funded by NIH (public funds) so long as the stem cells themselves were produced via private funds. In short, so long as government funds weren't used for the first step, any ethical research could be conducted. Government funds *were* going into research on these cells, just not at the creation stage.
However, under the Bush guidelines, this is changed. If the stem cells are not part of the original "64" lines (not really 64 lines, but that's beside the point), no government funding can go into research involving them. So, apart from the fact that it doesn't change the fact that government funds couldn't be used for the creation of stem cell lines, it bans research on any line that hasn't already been created - in short, making it a more restrictive policy, not less.
Here's some details about the history of the lines and their current status:
AAAS Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research
It also explains why there is animal contamination.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.
p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Instead of relaxing, maybe those people could spend some time in a NICU, taking care of the babies who were born and are kept alive in neverending pain because "life is precious". I do not believe in late term abortions (my son was born at 24 weeks gestation, just over 1 pound, and nobody can tell me he was not alive and aware of his surroundings at that stage) but placing a unilateral ban on any type of pregnancy terminations will result in more pain for more people than you could imagine.
How about here?
Whether or not a little network of nerve cells that can fly a plane can reasonably be considered to be conscious (and I think that the universal answer among neuroscientists would be "no"), these cultures at least have one crucial feature--there are actual neurons present, which are certainly necessary, albeit not sufficient, for consciousness.
But at the early stage at which stem cells are harvested, the embryo doesn't have any neurons.
First of all, embryonic.
Secondly, don't believe the hype. One of the things we learned from Dolly (the cloned sheep) is that adult cells are quite different than fetal cells -- the loss of telomeres creates significant problems with aging and long term survival. We don't know entirely how stem cells are going to work; from the article, the Chinese have already abandoned them in favor of nasal cells from four month old fetuses. (In a counterpoint, I've read there are attempts to harvest the same cells from adults. It might work.)
Fundamentally, we don't really know what cures we're going to get out of stem cells. But this isn't an argument about whether they'll work or not; like you say, it's an argument about whether it's right to take the cells from fetuses. What I'm saying is that if a cure is found, the ethics will be rewritten, because while a fetus might be human, a six year old child and a seventy two year old grandfather definitely are.
So that's the fight. That's why you started by insisting that embryonic cells are useless. That's why the non-embryonic studies are getting funded so richly. Your only hope really is that the non-embryonic cures will be so fantastically effective that embryo-harvesting approaches won't be able to keep up. This is imaginable -- reimplanting one's own stem cells neatly avoids all sorts of rejection issues -- but it's not likely.
Those cells can be, and are, harvested from embryos that are otherwise discarded by fertility clinics. Do you really think scientists are going to order up a bunch of embryos and surgically remove eggs from human donors, in expensive and potentially dangerous procedures, while all these free embryos get trashed?
You're saying you'd rather those embryos just go to waste.
As long as we have fertility treatments that create surplus embryos, you can't take the moral high road on this. Those embryos are going to be destroyed, regardless. Might as well put them to some use. If you think embryos are lives, you're going after the wrong people. Go after the fertility clinics. In the meantime, let's lessen the waste and possibly save some lives.
The HLA is not as simple as blood type, but it is not like the donor has to be a monozygotic twin of the recipient.
...
0 03 /11_10_03.html
To have stem cell-based therapy you need to bank common HLA types.
The neoconservatives won't pay for it unless making Christian septuplets is somehow involved. "Use the existing '60' lines," they say. So, federal funding blackout on anything likely to be useful in the field. Ever wonder why the Bush compromise was inadequate? This is one big reason.
What we just found out is that, even if you are HLA-compatible with one of the Bush-sanctioned lines, you probably can't use them anyway. That's big news, IMHO.
I quote:
Complicating matters is that common combinations of versions of HLA proteins vary considerably within ethnic or racial groups, and quite dramatically between racial groups. No information is available on the federally approved cell lines' particular combinations of HLA proteins, but the lines' small number and their derivation from embryos created for reproductive use indicate their HLA diversity is likely to be woefully inadequate.
Instead, researchers will need access to a group of human ES cell lines that match as many people as possible. Because there would be limited resources for establishing such a "bank" of ES cell lines and because of concerns for early human life, the panel carefully considered how to optimize Americans' "biological access" to future therapies with these cells.
African-Americans have a greater variety of HLA profiles, so more cell lines would be needed in the bank to potentially match the same percentage of that population as, say, white Americans. According to the panel's calculations, 40 cell lines representing the most common HLA varieties of white Americans would be expected to match about 71 percent of that population. By contrast, 40 cell lines matching the 40 most common HLA types of African-Americans would cover just over 45 percent of that group. Regardless of what percentage of the population is covered, however, new cell lines would have to be established, the panel said.
"No matter how we look at it, the federally approved cell lines are inadequate," says Gearhart. "We can do a lot of work with them, but we can't move into clinical trials or offer therapies with them."
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!