Slashdot Mirror
US Finalizes Stem Cell Research Guidelines
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Cosmos Magazine, to wit: "The US government unveiled final rules for embryonic stem cell research, laying out ground rules for 'ethically responsible, scientifically worthy' studies eligible for federal funds. The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. ... The US National Institutes of Health's (NIH) guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a draft document released in April in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines, in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures. ... The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines."
Which, for more than a few labs or research centers, was effectively a ban.
While some locations were able to get private funding (and thus get around the relatively useless lines approved by the Bush govt), this sort of blue sky health research has generally seen a lot more money from the government.
Because of that ban, for example, DARPA couldn't effectively spend money on research into experimental treatments for spinal cord injuries involving stem cells. Now they can. And, quite likely, will.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The fear, rational or not, that seems prevalent in those with a 'conservative' mindset is not that the embryos are going to waste, but that if the discarded embryos are going to be used for stem cells it may encourage doctors to create many more than they need. That IVF happens may be something that individuals agree or disagree with, but there is a general disagreement with encouraging doctors to create even more extras.
Actually, with IVF, many embryos are normally grown simultaniously, with only the best two or three candidates considered for implantation.
Given the inherant dangers of the egg harvesting procedures, it is unlikely that any ethical doctor would purposefully subject a woman to that, just for the purpose of additional stem cell lines.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
You put it extremely crudely, but this is more a problem than most people realize. Hospitals are not a strong business. They lose money on a lot of cases because the current costs of treating patients are ridiculous, and many insurers refuse to pay such costs - so the hospital swallows it. The most common surgery, cataract removal, typically costs its hospital thousands more to perform than they get paid, and they can't just turn the patients away. It's not all going to filthy-rich doctors and their heated pools. So many physicians are being sued for malpractice in some MSAs that the definition of "malpractice" has lost all meaning. I learned from my father (rated the 2nd best physician in the state, at what he did, when he was in practice) that there's more money in being a 100K-a-year engineer than a 400K-a-year physician -- and a much less-stressful life to live.
New technology means better healthcare means more costly healthcare means we either A) Cannot treat everyone or B) must reduce the quality of healthcare we are dispensing to sustainable levels. If these sciences find cheaper ways to fix a broken hip or perform a bicuspid valve replacement then they will aid society. If they simply come up with more expensive (albeit better) ways of current healthcare we have, then we're only digging the hole deeper. When it's 100 times cheaper to give you a 90% chance to live than to give you a 91% chance to live, they are typically compelled to spend 100 times more -- and who is going to pay for that?
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.
You wonder then why so many researchers at premier institutions are trying to study ESC when such credible sources as stemcellresearchfacts.com could tell them they're dead ends. I mean, it has FACTS right in the title!
I bet they the research will never lead anywhere so they can keep the gravy-train of state grants coming.
Sarcasm aside, no, the above statment is as wrong as you'd expect from such a biased source. hESCs are being used as research models in labs currently. If you want to study cell differentiation for example, you need to be studying some type of ESC. Studying embryonic cells maturing into, say, neurons will tell you something about how that happens naturally.
If you only care about applied research and think basic science research is worthless, you're in the wrong corner of the internet, and you should also keep in mind that embryonic stem cell research has already given us induced pluripotent stem cells, which are more promising for treatments than adult stem cells OR embryonic stem cells.
I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done. At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead. Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.
Same thing with a stem cell. Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases. Either way the embryo is still dead.
The problem many have is that in order to extract stem cells from an embryo, you have to coax it into starting to grow and mature. At this point, it no longer becomes a single cell fertilized egg, but a developing embryo, zygote, baby or whatever you want to call it, that you have to destroy to "harvest" stem cells from it.
IMHO, there are way too many other methods to get new stem cell lines that are more useful and do not involve the destruction of any human life at all to even consider extracting new embryonic stem cells. The scientist that discovered the methods for extracting embryonic stem cells agrees with me (read my sig). The only point in harvesting new embryonic stem cell lines is to jab a thumb in the eye of "pro-lifers" and to try to remove any legislation that shows any respect at all for the unborn. "Pro-choicers" have a constant fear that legislation that provides any protection for the unborn is a step toward making abortion illegal.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion, and anti-sex education positions of conservatives is primarily motivated by sin.
Is there a fallacy of stereotyping? Doesn't matter. Let me give you some advice: If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. As a conservative, allow me to correct you and alleviate your ignorance.
Some of us conservatives are against embryonic stem cell research because it is killing human life for research purposes. I know, it's only a few cells, so it doesn't count right? So, tell me then, when do human beings earn the right to not be destroyed and experimented on? Is it at birth? Is it after the first trimester? How about voting age? Don't have an answer? Me neither. That's why I'm "conservative" in my answer and simply say, "NO RESEARCH ON HUMANS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, PERIOD!"
Is the right to not be experimented on so unimportant that you guess when people get this right?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Big corporations love technologies that keep costing customers after the customers have made their initial purchase. In the case of stem cell procedures, if a cloned organ or other implant is based off stem cells not derived from the hosts on body, then the big corporations get to profit off a life time of drugs necessary to prevent rejection of said medical treatment.
Don't fool yourself. Big business does NOT want technologies developed that allow stem cells to be created from patients own bodies. Making embryonic stem cells more accessible will lead to miraculous treatments that BTW require a life time of expensive procedures / medications that wouldn't have been needed if the technology for converting patients own cells into stem cells had been available.
Someone asked why on earth anyone would object to embryos being used for research - since they would be destroyed anyway.
.
The best way I can answer this is to ask why we don't take organs when people on death row are executed. The people are going to die anyway, so why not take their organs and use them for someone else's benefit.
.
I think the answer to this question is that are afraid that juries might be more likely to pass the death penalty if they are aware that there is a potential benefit to other people from the death of the prisoner. This might not be a conscious thought, but lets say you were 95% sure that the person was guilty, but you weren't totally sure. If you knew that the organs would be used to help someone else, you might think - "Hey, I'm pretty sure this person is guilty, and even if he (or she) isn't guilty, at least someone will benefit."
.
For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end. Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them.
.
I know that many folks won't agree with that, and that's ok. I just wanted you to understand why people don't want them used for another purpose, even if they will be destroyed anyway.
.
The second thing I wanted to bring up is that researchers have discovered ways to "reprogram" cells, so that adult cells can be made to behave like embryonic stem cells. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090227112303.htm) Furthermore, any therapies based on this technique could lead to new organs or tissues that are an exact DNA match for the patient, which would probably eliminate the risk of organ rejection. As I said, these reprogrammed adult cells seem to have all of the characteristics of embryonic stem cells, which means that there may no longer be any scientific need to use embryonic stem cells. In that case, the reverse of the ban could just be a cheap political ploy to devalue the embryo and to make Bush look bad - even though there is not scientific benefit. (I agree that more research may be necessary to make sure that the reprogrammed adult cells do indeed have all of the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells).
.
Finally, I have to point out that even though Obama claimed to eliminate the false choice between ethics and science, he still implemented some ethical rules - specifically a ban of reproductive cloning. I happen to agree with this, but I thought it was disingenuous of him to pretend to get rid of ethical barriers that restricted science. All he did was eliminate the barriers that he disagreed with and retain the barriers that he did agree with. He had the right to do that, of course - he is the president - I just wish that he had spoken more clearly about what he was doing.
.
In fact, I think this whole debate suffers from major political posturing. I think that most American are completely unaware of the advances that I wrote about earlier - for the reprogramming of adult stem cells. If people were aware that there was a valid alternative to embryonic stem cells, I think there would be much less support for the destruction of embryos. Even if you aren't pro-life, I would guess that if you had two equal choices - one which destroyed an embryo, and one which did not - then you would pick the one that did not destroy the embryo.
.
I have probably written too much already. In addition to all of that, I just want to say that I hope that all of the folks who are desperately waiting for cures are able to find some help from the research. I just wish that it didn't have to come at the expense of an embryo.
Oh and your sig is 100% pure bullshit. It should read: "If embryonic stem cell research makes you uncomfortable, you're an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
Wow! This AC just called the pioneer of embryonic stem cell research a "hopelessly ignorant idiot." WOW! The irony is too thick to cut!
Here's the whole quote:
"If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough"
-- Dr. James Thomson, pioneer of embryonic stem cells
Don't take my word for it. Google the quote.
Let me reiterate that this AC just called Dr. James Thomson, THE pioneer of embryonic stem cell research, "an unthinking hopelessly ignorant idiot."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Perhaps because you haven't thought of the consequences of the deep bioethical debates behind it. I preface this by stating that I am a fan of regenerative technologies and think a great deal of good can and will come out of them in time.
Eugenics is a sinister topic that deserves a great pause. There are several key issues and parallels at play:
1) Treatments that increase the quality of life effect the population as a whole in mortality rates, and what established medical industries will it harm?
2) Possibilities this work lead to genetically superior "super men" , opening the pandora's box to designer babies and other man-made chimeras and monsters.
3) Life devaluation issues ex: Will people start blending up of lower class/poor/minority babies just to get their stem cells because life has become so "cheap" and abundant?
4) Can we label anyone a "volunteer" for anything that we want to do research on?
Oddly enough this is one thing that Bush got right for all the wrong reasons. He was correct in giving some time for the application of unproven technologies to sink in and let society stew a little on the ramifications.It was important for him to pick a side and get people to polarize their opinions to help along the public policy.
"Either way the embryo is still dead."
As a species, we have a certain amount of respect for our dead, whether or not you agree with it. There are laws on the books about how the dead must be prepared for burial, how casket vaults must be made around coffins to prevent the ground from sinking. Grave robbing laws came about because of the high demand for understanding anatomy by means of dissection. For a human grave we treat it with respect and attempt to protect it from desecration. Organ donation as a choice has evolved as an important act of volunteerism. One really big reason that people take issue with using a dead embryo is because they were not sentient volunteers acting on their own free will -- hence making them victims, and then adding insult to injury. Whether or not you believe them to be victims doesn't matter nearly as much as the idea that *someone else* might, and throw roadblocks up to block your agenda. There are people out there who believe that the means needs to justify the ends.
I've read many books on eugenics,genetics, and bioethics over the years but none of them stands out so nearly as well as
When Medicine Went Mad I've been spending several months absorbing the debates and came to the conclusion that it is extremely important in terms of public opinion to do your research in such a way that is ethical, professional, and will not raise doubts or fears about the means in which your data is acquired to preserve and maintain the public trust.