News Can Political Promises Truly Accelerate Medical Breakthroughs?

[Moonbear]

I just want to clarify a few things for those who don't bother to follow the links to the NIH site.

1) No, there is no ban on conducting stem cell research, but there is a huge hindrance on progress due to severe restriction of funding.

2) Yes, there is Federal funding available for stem cell research, as long as you use one of those handful of cell lines developed before 2001, which have real problems.

3) Yes, you can conduct research that is not Federally funded on other cell lines, however, you have to figure out some way to ensure NO federal monies pay for anything related to that, directly or indirectly. That means every penny must be accounted for, including such mundane things as purchase of lab glassware, and nothing used for unapproved lines can come from Federal money. While it isn't too difficult to divide up supplies purchases, it's incredibly difficult to separate out the overhead and physical plant costs.

4) Aborted fetuses are not the ideal source of human stem cells, the ideal source is fertilized eggs discarded from fertility clinics because they can be harvested at the earliest stages of development, before cellular differentiation begins. The abortion issue is really a diversion by those opposed to any use of stem cells. We could effectively ban obtaining stem cells for research from aborted fetuses without hindering scientific progress, as long as we were able to use stem cells from fertilized eggs discarded from fertility clinics. Incidentally, there are no standards for the disposal of these fertilized eggs. Some fertility clinics will incinerate them, some will just let them thaw and dispose of them with the biohazard trash, some will give them to the patients to do with as they want rather than the clinic disposing of the fertilized eggs (once they thaw, the cells die fairly rapidly), some include a ceremony at the time of disposal, and some do nothing special, some require the patient to be present for the disposal and some entirely discourage it, and some will store the embryos frozen forever.

 

[Mercator]

Oh, I get it. Like: there is no ban on cars, but we ban gasoline. Try water instead, right?

 

[chroot]

Oh, I get it. Like: there is no ban on cars, but we ban gasoline. Try water instead, right?

Yes, that's pretty much the idea. Go Bush!

- Warren

 

[kat]

Oh, I get it. Like: there is no ban on cars, but we ban gasoline. Try water instead, right?

Uh, no I don't think you get it...or if you do, you're purposely being disingenuous.

It's more like...there is no ban on automobiles and furthermore, we will allow federal grants derived from tax paying american citizens to help you purchase fuel efficient vehicles but we will not allow federal grants derived from tax paying american citizens to pay for your gas guzzling suv's because the left finds it morally reprehensible.

 

[Locrian]

What's morally apprehensible about using eggs discarded from fertility clinics?

I'd like to see Moonbear's statement dealt with instead of more play on words. This need to analogize and reanalogize, and to make everything into a semantic argument has done nothing positive for this thread. Bush has effectively ended medical progress by stem cell research. Maybe this is justifiable, but no one has made even the tiniest attempt to do so in this thread.

The abortion issue is really a diversion by those opposed to any use of stem cells. We could effectively ban obtaining stem cells for research from aborted fetuses without hindering scientific progress, as long as we were able to use stem cells from fertilized eggs discarded from fertility clinics.

Even if you find this practice not morally atractive, it doesen't add up. Is there currently or has there been legislation to end all fetus discarding in these clinics? I doubt it. If not, then the ban on funding for use in new stem cells did only harm and has not furthered anyone's objectives at all.

I cannot fathom why anyone would support the current status quo, as it accomplishes no conservative goals, yet still hinders possibly great medical progress.

Someone enlighten me.

 

[kat]

What's morally apprehensible about using eggs discarded from fertility clinics?

I'd like to see Moonbear's statement dealt with instead of more play on words. This need to analogize and reanalogize, and to make everything into a semantic argument has done nothing positive for this thread.

This dialogue would not break down into one of semantics if people did not put forth distorted and misleading statements such as you've made here:

Bush has effectively ended medical progress by stem cell research.

 

[Locrian]

Moonbear has made an excellent case that says that terminating federal funding for new stem cell lines prevents medical progress in the area. It is well known that solid pure scientific research is not done in the private arena. Now it cannot be done in the public arena. I can only assume that since you have not responded to his information making this case that you have no response to give.

Am I also to conclude that you are unable to respond to the moral quandries I presented and that you have no argument with respect to that either? I find it unlikely that, after the time you've put into this thread, you have no reasoned opinion on the heart of the matter at all.

Your argument that stem cell research is not banned is well taken; I never had issue with that in the first place. However, the fact is that the US is no longer making progress in the field. I would be interested to hear your justification of this.

 

[russ_watters]

Just my $.02 - I'm in favor of stem cell research, but I don't feel that strongly about it. This thread, on the other hand, is highly entertaining.

 

[tumor]

W.House wants to stop stem cell research on moral grounds while bombing defensless man,women and children in Iraq.HAHAHAHAHAHA.How stupid they think Americans are?

 

[kat]

Moonbear has made an excellent case that says that terminating federal funding for new stem cell lines prevents medical progress in the area.

I'm not sure that you can qualify a post with no supporting links or reference as "an excellent case" nor do I see him saying that it "prevents" medical progress. It may impede it to the extent that other arrangements need to be made BUT it has not "prevented" anything.

It is well known that solid pure scientific research is not done in the private arena.

Well, if it's so well known that "solid pure" (whatever you mean by that) Scientific research is not done outside of government finding then I'm sure you'll have no problems supporting that with links, facts, figures. I don't belief this statement to be true.

Now it cannot be done in the public arena.

But it is being done in the public arena via private funds. Harvard has opened a new multi-million dollar lab, New Jersey is opening a private center to focus on New Embryonic stem-cell research and I believe California is also floating a huge $$ referendum.

I can only assume that since you have not responded to his information making this case that you have no response to give.

Or you could assume that I was A. too tired B. too busy

Am I also to conclude that you are unable to respond to the moral quandries I presented and that you have no argument with respect to that either?

I don't find my correcting decietful and erroneous statements to have any relevence to any "Moral Quandries". The facts are the facts whether you want to tinge them with morality or not. It took the major part of this thread to get people to finally agree that the truth is that there are no bans on stem cell research.
However, I will give my personal opinion on the moral quandries as I see them. I personally think it is immoral to waste leftover fertilized eggs from from fertility clinics that could possibly cure multiple diseases and injuries. I am concerned with creating fertilized eggs only to be harvested..but I'm also aware that there may be line that I'm feeling a need to draw that isn't necessarily rationsl.

I find it unlikely that, after the time you've put into this thread, you have no reasoned opinion on the heart of the matter at all.

My reasoned opinion is...I didn't care for the misleading and false statements that were being put forth as factual in this thread...and the more they tried to twist their misleading and fallacious statements the more resolute I became in getting them to correct their misleading and fallacious statements.

Your argument that stem cell research is not banned is well taken; I never had issue with that in the first place. However, the fact is that the US is no longer making progress in the field.

Well, I dont' think that it's an honest statement to say "no longer making progress" So, you could support that with links, facts and figures or we can argue that point for another 2 or 3 pages until you admit that is a misleading and fallacious statement.


Gotta run!

 

[chroot]

Well, if it's so well known that "solid pure" (whatever you mean by that) Scientific research is not done outside of government finding then I'm sure you'll have no problems supporting that with links, facts, figures. I don't belief this statement to be true.

kat,

Please read the thread. The evidence you're asking for has already been provided. What, do you think we're just making this stuff up?

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/fig04-06.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/c4s1.htm#c4s1l6a

"Moreover, the Federal Government funded 61.8 percent of the basic research performed by universities and colleges in 2002."

"Industry devoted only an estimated 5 percent of its total R&D support to basic research in 2002, representing 18.5 percent of the national total."

It took the major part of this thread to get people to finally agree that the truth is that there are no bans on stem cell research.

It's a word choice issue. A funding decision was made, for "moral" reasons, that has resulted in stifling research. You can call it whatever you want.

I personally think it is immoral to waste leftover fertilized eggs from from fertility clinics that could possibly cure multiple diseases and injuries.

Then WHY OH WHY are you the one saying "Hurrah Bush?" It was his policy that is preventing their use!

Well, I dont' think that it's an honest statement to say "no longer making progress" So, you could support that with links, facts and figures or we can argue that point for another 2 or 3 pages until you admit that is a misleading and fallacious statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5652274/

"Bush’s decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to only the 78 stem cell lines in existence Aug. 9, 2001.
...

Only a fraction of those initial 78 stem cell lines — 21 at last count — are yet available to researchers because of problems with the lines’ growth or their ownership. In March, a National Institutes of Health count cast doubt on how many ultimately would be usable.

...

Proponents and members of the medical community say more than 100 new cell lines have been created worldwide since Bush’s decision — some with new techniques that may make them more scientifically useful — and could be studied under more open rules. An exact count isn’t possible because private funding means much of the work is done without any public scrutiny."

- Warren

 

[motai]

4) Aborted fetuses are not the ideal source of human stem cells, the ideal source is fertilized eggs discarded from fertility clinics because they can be harvested at the earliest stages of development, before cellular differentiation begins. The abortion issue is really a diversion by those opposed to any use of stem cells.

Since I have been lied to by so many political advertisements, I didnt even know of the existence of this information. I guess it is to the Republican's advantage to continually portray stem cell production from "living fetuses" to draw on the emotional side of their constitutents.

It reminds me of Florida's Amendments 3 & 4. The commercials on both sides promise different things but both seem to have horrible catches and riders. It is all very confusing.

 

[Locrian]

I'm not sure that you can qualify a post with no supporting links or reference as "an excellent case"

Then you failed to read his post. He refers to references in his previous post. I'm not sure how you could have missed them. If you could, please add this above quoted statement to your list of false statements made in this thread. Not "misleading," but under the "dead wrong" category.

I don't belief this statement to be true.

Chroot beat me to some links on this issue. I'll provide more if necessary, but a brief review of major advances in physics, chemistry and medicine should make the point abundantly clear. A science background would help in this subject area.

But it is being done in the public arena via private funds. Harvard has opened a new multi-million dollar lab, New Jersey is opening a private center to focus on New Embryonic stem-cell research and I believe California is also floating a huge $$ referendum.

This is excellent inforamtion and I appreciate it. Its worth noting however that this does not meet the criteria necessary for it to be in the public arena. The researchers have no obligation to reveal their findings, we are just hoping they will. I don't want you too think your point isn't taken, this is evidence of research in the field despite the lack of funding. I'm just making sure misleading statements are avoided before they cause another 4 pages of posts.

You posted no references but I've found information and am following it up; thank you again.

I personally think it is immoral to waste leftover fertilized eggs from from fertility clinics that could possibly cure multiple diseases and injuries.

I agree. So what then on the ban of federal funding? Stem cell research has the potential to relieve the suffering of people in great pain. Since this research can be done using those discarded eggs, do you feel it is in societies best interest to pursue this area of research? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

So, you could support that with links, facts and figures or we can argue that point for another 2 or 3 pages until you admit that is a misleading and fallacious statement.

That's interesting, you have yet to post a reference to suggest there is research, and yet you demand references to show that there isn't. You'll need more than word games to have me admit anything, I'm afraid.

 

[kat]

kat,

Please read the thread. The evidence you're asking for has already been provided. What, do you think we're just making this stuff up?

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/fig04-06.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c4/c4s1.htm#c4s1l6a

"Moreover, the Federal Government funded 61.8 percent of the basic research performed by universities and colleges in 2002."

Croot- "not done" That's what he said..."is not done" ..."outside of" how do you equate the absoluteness of "not done" with the remaining 38.2 of basic research?! This is all I'm pissing and moaning about. Can you guys be straight up and cut the hyperbolic BS? You could say not enough, not sufficient...but no, you guys give decietful and misleading statements that lead to people making statements like the one that began this thread. How can people have trust in what you say if you exagerate and give fallacious statements?

It's a word choice issue. A funding decision was made, for "moral" reasons, that has resulted in stifling research. You can call it whatever you want.

actually the word they used is "ethical" I believe. Lots of decisions are made on an ethical basis. I believe that the private and corporate sector needs to take up the slack... in fact I believe the private and corporate sector should be replacing a lot of the federal funding for a greater amount of the research being done. I feel like we're paying on both ends of the bargain...through the nose in research and then through the nose in application. Some where along the way someone is making a hell of a lot of money on miy (and others) backs.

Then WHY OH WHY are you the one saying "Hurrah Bush?" It was his policy that is preventing their use!

I said "hurrah" over 300 million in funding is a good thing (if you support the funding). Whether you want more or not, 300 million is still better then what there was when there was 0 funding.

Proponents and members of the medical community say more than 100 new cell lines have been created worldwide since Bush’s decision — some with new techniques that may make them more scientifically useful — and could be studied under more open rules. An exact count isn’t possible because private funding means much of the work is done without any public scrutiny."

- Warren

Oh, hmmm, private funding...but, I thought...Oh, nevermind!

 

[chroot]

Since I have been lied to by so many political advertisements, I didnt even know of the existence of this information. I guess it is to the Republican's advantage to continually portray stem cell production from "living fetuses" to draw on the emotional side of their constitutents.

That's correct. The funding restriction was based on ethical objections to using aborted fetuses, but actually unfairly applies to all embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that the best stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses anyway, but from unused IVF embryos -- which don't seem to present any ethical dilemmas to anyone on either side of the fence.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

but no, you guys give decietful and misleading statements that lead to people making statements like the one that began this thread.

The 61.8% includes all basic research, not just biotechnology. I am trying to find a concise report that indicates how much money the entire biotechnology field uses for research; if someone can provide that number, I'd appreciate it. The statistics are hard to find because the field is so new.

Here's how much money the NIH spends each year on research: over $200 billion dollars.

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/budg9303.htm

You keep begging for proof of things that are well-known, such as the government's involvement in basic science research. It's just another diversionary tactic, like all your pointless posts about the definiton of the word "ban."

I believe that the private and corporate sector needs to take up the slack...

You said you have no moral objections to using IVF embryonic stem cells. So why would you support legislation that eliminates public funding for this research?

I said "hurrah" over 300 million in funding is a good thing (if you support the funding). Whether you want more or not, 300 million is still better then what there was when there was 0 funding.

You again seem to be missing two points which have already been expressed here. Please read more carefully:

1) The first stem cell research was published in 1998. Bush was the first President to ever see the research, so of course he was the first President to fund it.

2) The stem cells that GWB funded are no longer useful. Many new and better lines exist that are more promising, but publicly funded scientists cannot study them. As I've said before, what good is funding black & white television?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Oh, hmmm, private funding...but, I thought...Oh, nevermind!

Most of those lines were created overseas, under governments which support the research, not by privately-funded ventures.

- Warren

 

[kat]

You said you have no moral objections to using IVF embryonic stem cells. So why would you support legislation that eliminates public funding for this research?

It has not eliminated public funding, it has eliminated federal funding...

You keep begging for proof of things that are well-known

I'm asking you and others to prove your absolute statements. Using words such as "none" "banned" etc. These statements are not supportable. No amount of twisting or adjusting your statements will make those absolute statements true. It's really that simple. Maybe instead of continueing to make such absolute statements you might first check your statements to see if they really are factual or if you are again indulging in hyperbolics.

 

[chroot]

It has not eliminated public funding, it has eliminated federal funding...

And since state governments contribute so much to biotechnology, this distinction is really relevant!

So why don't you answer the question? If you have no objections to stem-cell research on IVF embryos, why do you support legislation that eliminates federal funding of it?

indulging in hyperbolics.

What, and complimenting Bush in being the first to fund stem-cell research is not hyperbole? You're pathetic.

- Warren

 

[kat]

Most of those lines were created overseas, under governments which support the research, not by privately-funded ventures.

- Warren

"most", thanks..that I can believe without even checking.

 

[chroot]

"most", thanks..that I can believe without even checking.

Do you never do any reading of your own? Fine, I'll go track down evidence for this one, too.

- Warren

 

[kat]

You're pathetic.

- Warren

Back to the personal attacks again I see. Let me know when you're able to manage a dialogue without resorting to this type of crap. Until then I'm done.

 

[kat]

Do you never do any reading of your own? Fine, I'll go track down evidence for this one, too.

- Warren

eh...I just said I believed it...

bye!

 

[chroot]

Back to the personal attacks again I see. Let me know when you're able to manage a dialogue without resorting to this type of crap. Until then I'm done.

Until you can stop labelling other's statements as misrepresentation and hyperbole without doing the exact same things yourself, I'm done too. Good luck to your fearless leader.

- Warren

 

[GENIERE]

As Kat stated, there are no bans on stem cell research. There are restrictions, allowing federal dollars to fund only preexisting cell lines. Most of the posters in this forum (myself included) would prefer there were no restrictions, but is it proper to ignore a high percentage of the population (35%, just a guess) who prefer no research on stem cells be done at all? What distinguishes research for a better defense system, which the Democrats usually oppose (star wars) and that for stem cell research? Possibly, not probably, a defense system may save more lives, improve our lives, more than stem cell research. I would opt for the latter, but who can say for certain?

One thing can be said; there may be less a chance of a paraplegic walking as a result of stem cell research then tens of thousands being alive due to a research on a missile defense system.

Which is the correct choice? No one can know. Is the president bound to defend the country or to provide social benefits?

And to the real matter of this thread, as I intended it to be: Edwards statement is b*llsht and unsupportable.

 

[Gokul43201]

Croot- "not done" That's what he said..."is not done" ..."outside of" how do you equate the absoluteness of "not done" with the remaining 38.2 of basic research?! This is all I'm pissing and moaning about. Can you guys be straight up and cut the hyperbolic BS? You could say not enough, not sufficient...but no, you guys give decietful and misleading statements that lead to people making statements like the one that began this thread. How can people have trust in what you say if you exagerate and give fallacious statements?

Of all the numbers around, the 38.2% is probably the most misleading. And you'll know why this is true if you are involved in basic science research. It's got to do with how your money gets used, and what restrictions are on it.

Nearly all basic science research happens in Universities. (are you going to need proof for this ? this will have to do for now : http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/frontiers/archives/biomed_v1n3_0002.html)

Most research groups get funded entirely by government agencies like NSF, or NIH. Some groups get a large chunk of funding from Industry, that usually goes towards specific research related equipment. Basic costs like infrastructure and personnel are mostly funded by NSF and partly by the University.

There are a couple of groups in my department that get a big chunk (say 70%) of their funding from industry, but if you asked them to continue doing research without using NSF money, they won't be reduced to 70% efficiency. They'll be knocked down to damn near 0%. It'll take several months (maybe years) of rewriting proposals, and only if they're very lucky, will they get back up to 70% efficiency. The rest of the groups in the department may as well pack up and go home. They can't get anything done with a 10 or 20% share of the funding.

So, you see, the industry funding can only support basic research...it really can't single-handedly sustain it.

 

[chroot]

kat,

I repeat. If you have no objections to stem-cell research on IVF embryos, why do you support legislation that eliminates federal funding of it? Why do you support a President who imposes such legislation?

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Sure, embryonic stem cell research continues, in other countries. Does it make sense to allow Federal funding of work using cell lines that are suboptimal and cannot be used for therapeutic uses, or but not allow research to use the more currently available lines that have greatly improved in the past few years? I'd rather see research on the more recently derived lines, and toward developing even more improved lines that have greater therapeutic potential.

Since some don't want to believe my words, I'll let the published works speak for themselves.

Biology of Reproduction 68, 2150–2156 (2003)
Human Feeder Layers for Human Embryonic Stem Cells1
M. Amit3,4, V. Margulets4, H. Segev3, K. Shariki3, I. Laevsky5, R. Coleman4 and J. Itskovitz-Eldor2,3

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,3 Rambam Medical Center, The Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine,4 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Genetic Institute,5 Cytogenetics, Rambam Medical Center, 31096 Haifa, Israel

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/6/2150?ijkey=PWdHbmNVRV7xc

The first reports on the derivation of human ES cells described the necessity for a mouse embryonic fibroblast (MEF) feeder layer to grow continuously in an undifferentiated stage in culture [3, 4]. Contrary to human ES, mouse ES cells can be grown directly on gelatin-coated plates with the addition of leukemia inhibitory factor [5]. Handling the simultaneous growth of both ES cells and MEF requires meticulous care and may prove to be rather expensive. In addition, the dual growth of these cells exposes the human ES cells to mouse retroviruses, which may prevent their future use in cell-based therapy.

Another suggested solution is a culture system based on a human feeder layer. Recently, Richards et al. [8] reported the possibility of growing human ES cells on human embryonic fibroblasts or adult fallopian tube epithelial feeder layers. Cultured with these human feeder layers in medium supplemented with human serum, human ES cells were found to maintain ES cell features, including pluripotency, morphology, and expression of cell-surface markers, for at least 20 passages. This condition was also found to support the derivation of a line similar to human ES cell.

In the present study, we offer an alternative and completely animal-free culture condition for human ES cells based on foreskin feeders and a serum-free medium.

Reproduction (2004) 128 259-267
Derivation, growth and applications of human embryonic stem cells
Miodrag Stojkovic, Majlinda Lako, Tom Strachan and Alison Murdoch1

Institute of Human Genetics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 3BZ, UK and 1 Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life, NHS, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4EP, UK
http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/full/128/3/259
From the abstract:

Human embryonic stem (hES) cells are pluripotent cells derived from the inner cell mass cells of blastocysts with the potential to maintain an undifferentiated state indefinitely. Fully characterised hES cell lines express typical stem cell markers, possesses high levels of telomerase activity, show normal karyotype and have the potential to differentiate into numerous cell types under in vitro and in vivo conditions. Therefore, hES cells are potentially valuable for the development of cell transplantation therapies for the treatment of various human diseases. However, there are a number of factors which may limit the medical application of hES cells: (a) continuous culture of hES cells in an undifferentiated state requires the presence of feeder layers and animal-based ingredients which incurs a risk of cross-transfer of pathogens; (b) hES cells demonstrate high genomic instability and non-predictable differentiation after long-term growth; and (c) differentiated hES cells express molecules which could cause immune rejection. In this review we summarise recent progress in the derivation and growth of undifferentiated hES cells and their differentiated progeny, and the problems associated with these techniques. We also examine the potential use of the therapeutic cloning technique to derive isogenic hES cells.

Sufficient numbers of donated embryos and an in vitro culture system that allows development of early embryos into blastocysts with well-formed ICMs are crucial factors in the successful derivation of hES cells. To date, the majority of described hES cell lines were derived from day 5 to day 8 blastocysts produced for clinical purposes after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Meanwhile, one hES cell line has been derived from blastocysts developed from embryos reconstructed using a somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique (Hwang et al. 2004).