Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against Stem Cell Policy

Posted by Soulskill on from the two-steps-forward,-two-steps-back dept.

An anonymous reader sends this quote from Reuters: "A US district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue. The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos. '(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,' Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling."

18 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...

    Why distinguish?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not exactly a bio chem geek per say, but I have done a fair amount of research, particularly into the embryonic stem cell thing.

      The problem is, destroying embryo's purposefully is what people think it always entails, in reality thats just a shortcut. Once they have embryonic stem cells from a source(something like a miscarriage etc, cells that would have been destroyed anyways) they can basically grow them in a petri dish almost indefinitely and multiply them almost infinitely. After they have a line of embryonic stem cells going they add a slurry of your DNA to them and viola, embryonic stem cells tailored to you without all that nasty purposely killing embryo's. The thing is, they need more lines of embryonic stem cells as the closer the original is to your line the easier it is for your own tailored cure, but that goes for both types of embryonic stem cells, however it adds more layers of difficulty to the non embryo destroying method than the embryo destroying one, hence the need for more lines.

      There are so many miscarriages and abortions anyways that theres no need to not use the byproduct for something useful. Its either use it or it goes in the garbage anyways.

      Any real bio chem geek feel free to correct me if I've jumbled things badly, but from what I understand, the funding was also conditional upon no embryo destruction, but lifted the blanket restriction against research into stem cells originating from embryo's period.

    2. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

      Federal funds used to conduct research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway...
      Why distinguish?

      Because it was the manifest and obvious intent of Congress to forbid the Federal funding of such research. See, e.g. the dickey amendment which provides in no uncertain terms that no funds are to be expended on research in which embryos are destroyed irrespective of the origin or fate of those embryos.

      SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
      (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
      (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).
      (b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

      It is absolutely galling that Obama (& his subordinates at HHS/NIH, for whom he is responsible) would just ignore the clear language of the statute and decide to fund this research. There is just no way to square it with the statute.

      [ As an aside, as a personal political matter, I would vote against such an amendment and for unrestricted funding for stem cell research. As a legal matter before the court here, the question is whether the NIH policy comports with the law not whether the law is a good, or even coherent, one. ]

    3. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not a biochem geek either, but it is my understanding that embryonic stem cells are not harvested from fetuses but from blastocysts - a much earlier stage in the human lifecycle which consists of a sphere of undifferentiated cells, not yet even implanted in the uterus wall. They can't be obtained from abortions or miscarriages, which occur later, but rather are typically surplus IVF embryos. They sidestep a lot of ethical objections by not having any sort of nervous system, or indeed any tissue differentiation apart from a separate type of cell on the outside of the sphere that is destined to form a placenta.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by fysician · · Score: 2, Informative

      One thing you are grossly misunderstanding if where you describe how ESC are tailored for individuals by mixing with "slurry" of one's DNAs. Usually, "customization" of ESC with someone's DNA entails very risky process of nuclear transfer. In essence, you suck out the native nucleus and replace it your own, so ESC becomes your own cell line to transplant to whatever tissue you need to regenerate. Being able to achieve nuclear transfer with acceptable reliability alone would be a Nobel prize worthy accomplishment. Anyway, there is a good reason to avoid embryonic stem cell altogether. The biggest reason is because we have no good ways to control its potential to form teratoma, which is basically cancerous mass of tissues of all types. That's what's happening at those rogue Russian stem cell clinics. Although it is true that ESCs have the biggest potential to regenerate, it's also most potent cancer forming cells. Some theorize that cancer is actually rogue stem cells. Another practical reason why ESCs could be avoided is because adult stem cells have been shown to be able to transform to embryonic counterparts. This is a complex topic of its own. If you are interested look up IPS = induced pluripotent stem cell.

    5. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, so I really shouldn't answer you, but I'll repeat myself anyways since you didn't read my post.

      "they can basically grow them in a petri dish almost indefinitely and multiply them almost infinitely"

      This nearly infinite amount from a single line sort of negates your argument in its entirety, and new technology and methods are pushing that nearly infinite line further and further back into effectively infinite territory.

      Basically, as there is a finite amount of variation in human genetic code that needs to be accounted for, there is a finite amount of lines that could ever be needed. As research continues it may even cease the need for new lines almost entirely since they will eventually develop a method for creating entirely new lines from existing lines.

      Also, IVF is and will continue to be a major source of these stem cells for reasons I mentioned elsewhere in the comments on this story.

    6. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are so many miscarriages and abortions anyways that theres no need to not use the byproduct for something useful.

      Embryonic stem cells are not harvested from miscarriages or abortions. They are harvested from artificially fertilized eggs that grow into embryos and have reached the blastocyst phase and have grown to 50 to 150 cells in size.

      The blastocyst that is the source of ebryonic stem cells has never came into contact with a uterus, has never been implanted into the wall of a uterus and absolutely positively never will develop beyond the blastocyst phase since there is no uterus in which to embed itself and start the process of developing the umbilical cord.

      There are ethical issues that we need to deal with but it is important to have the facts on which to base conclusions as there are many people who try to confuse the uninformed and have them believe that the evil scientists are ripping babies from the womb and killing them to collect stem cells. This is nowhere near reality.

    7. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Abortions can and do occur at this stage, but you are correct on the miscarriages. Miscarriages mostly provide different types of stem cells, but there have been some research milestones made from research on them, but less in the stem cell area and more in the genetic toolkit areas.

    8. Re:Federal funds used to destroy embryos... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually embryonic stem cells are losing ground to adult stem cells, because adult stem cells have almost no chance at all of rejection, being the persons own genetic material. Also, the aborted fetuses are destroyed anyways, it would simply be putting the literally garbage (it is thrown out otherwise) to good use, and possibly saving lives. But I guess some people don't care about saving lives.

      Even though adult stem cells will be more useful, embrionic stem cells are more useful for the beginning stages of research, as we begin to get a clue as to how they work. And hundreds of embryos are made for some proceedures, to make sure at least one will take, many of them end up garbage, and that is simply a ball of cells, barely even at the point of specialization yet. And if that is a full human being, than so is a large percentage of all life on this planet, including monkeys.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  2. Personally I think this is ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Embryos created for IVF clinics that are unused are destroyed by the clinic anyway unless the "owners" want to donate them to other patients. I think it should be up to the people who the embryos are created for to begin with as to what happens to them after the IVF process is completed. Embryos aren't people, they're collections of cells. Apparently it's ok to dispose of them but not ok to use them for research that could eventually save lives or at least have positive benefits for humanity.

  3. Re:It's just the US by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's just federal funding. Private funding and state funding are both pushing forward.

  4. Re:Playing devils advocate here by esocid · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, but they accomplish different things. Somatic (adult) stem cells are pretty much isolated to tissues/organs. They might work well at that, but getting them to do anything else that pluripotent (embryonic) stem cells can is out of reach.

    About this claim that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded anything useful yet...
    1. January 20th, 2009: Researchers produced massive volumes of “universal donor” type O-negative blood from human embryonic stem cells, potentially making blood donation a thing of the past.
    2. December 5th, 2008: Harvard scientists created spinal motor neurons from hESCs, and were able to replicate the ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, process in a Petri dish.
    3. September 8th, 2008: Neural cells derived from hESCs showed effectiveness at reducing the clinical systems of multiple sclerosis in animals.
    4. March 15th, 2008: Scientists developed a way to convert human embryonic stem cells into dopamine-producing nerve cells, holding great promise for therapy for Parkinson’s disease.
    5. February 21st, 2008: Scientists at Novocell, Inc. created insulin-producing islet cells from human embryonic stem cells that effectively controlled insulin levels in diabetic mice.
    6. January 31st, 2008: Scientists coaxed hESCs into functional hepatocytes (liver cells) that may be used for treatment of liver diseases.
    7. September 21st, 2006: Vision was improved in rats suffering from a disease similar to age-related macular degeneration with the injection of human embryonic stem cells into the retina.
    8. July 14th, 2006: UCLA Aids Institute researchers used hESCs to create lines of mature T-cells that could fight viruses like HIV, which destroys certain types of T-cells.
    9. October 12th, 2005: Scientists used hESCs to create cancer-killing cells.
    10. September 24th, 2004: Scientists in Israel derived fully functional cardiomyocytes (heart cells) from human embryonic stem cells, paving the way for hESC-derived pacemakers and heart tissue repair.
    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  5. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by jfb2252 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Both Bush and Obama differentiated between creation of embryonic stem cells and their use in research. Bush did not allow the use of stem cell lines created after ~2000. Obama allowed the use of stem cell lines created with private funds in federal research. Both administrations viewed this as consistent with the 1996 law which prohibited Federal funds from being used to destroy embryos as the stem cell lines were created with private funds. The judge wrote that one can't make this distinction between funds used to create the lines and funds for research using the lines, that the law prohibits all research using embryonic stem cell lines. I trust that the Department of Justice will appeal.

    The judge was a Reagan appointee.

  6. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by fusellovirus · · Score: 5, Informative

    The absurdity of this "debate" is astounding. Blastocysts, which is the correct, but less headline grabbing, name for the clump of cells the "Embryotic Stems cells" are harvested from are all the result of in-vitro fertilization. The excess eggs that are a invariably a result of this procedure are then left in a freezer until become inviable and are discarded. "Embrytoic" stem cell research puts these cells to a use that benefits mankind rather that throwing them in a trashbin. Anyone who truly has a problem with destroying blastocytes needs to rail against the procedure that causes them, in vitro fertilization. But of course this makes for a far less compelling election speech or political rant.

  7. Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

    I never heard the argument about being pro-birth control but anti-abortion until I dated a couple women who'd had abortions.

    With the various morning after pills, norplant, birth control pills, Mifepristone and now a drug that works for up to 7 days, the surgical abortion procedures seem very archaic and dark age.

    When a very liberal and very feminist women who has had an abortion tells you its the worst thing that could be done to a human and should be outlawed, it made me think really hard about abortions.

  8. Re:More complicated than you think by fysician · · Score: 2, Informative

    Baumann, 2008, "Exploring the role of cancer stem cells in radioresistance", Nature Review Cancer. Thanks for asking. If you need the actual article, I will obtain it for your pastime reading. It's a fun read.

  9. Re:Wow, weak cause for harm by the plantiffs by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scientifically everyone is in absolute agreement that those embryos are 100% human

    That's an outright twisting of the truth. People agree that the material is human material, but so are my toenail clippings. Those aren't human, and that's the same debate here with blastocysts. So you're vastly overstating the case.

    I believe the lawsuit (see a few posts up in the thread) actually specifies the exact law they claim the other researchers are breaching. If you can name the exact law you claim your competitors are breaching, then yes you most certainly can go sue them...

    Nope, you also have to show harm. That's why the guy suing over "under God" in the pledge wasn't allowed to pursue his suit on behalf of his daughter, remember? (He wasn't the custodial parent.) If that's sufficient reason to dismiss a suit, it seems like this demonstration of "harm" is even weaker.

  10. Re:Was this one of Obama's first things to do? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting, but in my experience, most embryologists don't bat an eye at calling a blastocyst an embryo.

    I have not yet heard one person opposed to stem cell research suggest actually stopping in vitro fertilization,which would be the only way to stop these embryos from being killed.

    It's true, the talking heads aren't calling for an end to IVF in the ESC debate, but they're only the loudest voices. In fact people have been calling for an end on IVF for a while, at my catholic grade school they did emphasize that. Matter of fact, they also oppose birth control methods that don't prevent conception, such as IUDs unless I'm mistaken.

    Pretty callous group of that group of out of touch old men, demanding that any fertile woman gets saddled with as many babies as possible and any couple having trouble conceiving be cursed with no babies, but they are at least somewhat consistent.