The Stem Cell Decision Greeted Cautiously by Research Community

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread
"Date" ="2001-08-10"
Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report

Friday, August 10, 2001

The Stem Cell Decision

Bush's Decision Greeted Cautiously by Research Community; Many Express Doubt Over Number of Available Cell Lines

      President Bush's decision last night to allow federal funding for research on stem cells already extracted from embryos was greeted as a step forward for the research, but as a "baby step, rather than a giant leap, for medical research," the New York Times reports (Stolberg, New York Times, 8/10). Cell lines are "genetically identical colon[ies] of cells that can replicate indefinitely." In stem cell research practices, a parent cell is derived from a human embryo and then replicates itself in a petri dish to create the colony. Bush declared that he will allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells derived from 60 existing cell lines, a figure that surprised many in the research community. "The president seems to have information far different from that of the bulk of the medical community," Dr. Michael Soules, president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, said, adding that the society was "only aware of a very small number of stem cell-derived tissue lines and cannot confirm the existence of the large number the president mentioned in his speech" (Hall, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). Fewer than 10 lines have been reported in scientific journals and another 10 may have been "described" at scientific forums; an NIH report earlier this summer estimated that perhaps 30 lines existed (Weiss, Washington Post, 8/10). According to a senior Bush adviser, the president had "grown frustrated with vague estimates on how many stem cell lines exist" and asked policy adviser Jay Lefkowitz to request that the NIH determine the actual number (Friend, USA Today, 8/10). The determination that there are 60 lines resulted from NIH officials "calling around the world to talk to researchers." Various lines have been derived in the United States, Austria, India, Israel, Singapore and Sweden, according to another senior administration official, and represent a "diverse genetic and ethnic pool."

Quality Control
Many researchers also questioned whether all of the lines reportedly available would prove useful for research. Cell lines have a "precarious existence" and are liable to "'crash' at any time, disappearing into a shriveled gelatinous mess beyond hope of resuscitation," the Washington Post reports. Of the six cell lines created by Geron Inc., the biotech firm that has funded most American research on embryonic stem cells, only two have been "deemed sufficiently stable and useful to be distributed to stem cell scientists." Furthermore, even 60 cell lines would be "woefully short of representing the genetic diversity of a nation of 200 million Americans, not to mention the rest of the world," Dan Perry, president of the Alliance for Aging Research, noted. Cell lines also have "subtle genetic differences" and those differences "can affect how they behave and what they can teach," the Post reports (Washington Post, 8/10). Dr. Harold Varmus, head of the New York-based Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and former director of the NIH, said that the limited number of lines "would be a very poor investment federally, and a very cruel investment if we ended up with knowledge of how to make differentiated cells to treat people and then we were stuck" because of a lack of cell lines (New York Times, 8/10). Gail Martin, the University of California-San Francisco researcher who "laid the groundwork" for human embryonic stem cell research by first isolating stem cells in mice, said that limiting the number of cell lines "puts restrictions on what's going to be possible," and added that "[h]aving a big pot" of cells available was a "very big plus" to her early research (Torassa, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). Timothy McCaffrey, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at George Washington University Medical Center, called Bush's decision to limit the number of cell lines made available "quite ... fair," adding, "Obviously, as a scientist, you want as few restrictions on your work as possible. But this doesn't disable the field at all. Compared with being unable to use federal funds, period, for stem cell research, this is a big step forward" (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). It is unclear whether the cell lines Bush mentioned will have to meet ethical guidelines established by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and the NIH. Those guidelines "explicit[ly]" require that "informed consent" must be obtained from the couples that created the embryos for in vitro fertilization treatments before they can be used for research (Friend, USA Today, 8/10). James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin researcher who first isolated human embryonic stem cells, said the lines derived from his work do not meet those standards, but added that he was "prepared to produce additional lines ... that did" (Lane, Newsday, 8/10).

The Effect on Biotech
Bush's decision "will do little to help or harm most biotech firms in the short run," the San Francisco Chronicle reports. However, "over time, his tepid support could drive research abroad and slow the pace of new discoveries." There are only a "handful" of companies are currently conducting stem cell research in the United States and it will be years before research will "yield discoveries with commercial importance." But many researchers were "concerned" that limiting the number of cell lines available in the United States will "let other nations tale the lead" on the research. "We saw this in the late 1970s when the United States didn't allow cloning to be done on pathogens," allowing researchers in Europe to "t[ake] the lead" on research of diseases such as hepatitis B, Ed Penhoet, co-founder of Chiron Corp. and dean of public health at the University of California-Berkeley, said. Stem cell research is already permissible in Great Britain, Japan, Israel and parts of Australia (Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). The fact that the majority of cell lines in the United States are controlled by a few companies is also troublesome to some researchers. Geron, which funded Thomson's work, controls many of the lines and "can effectively lay claim to anything commercial that arises from those cells," the Boston Globe reports. "You have to agree to their conditions, which most researchers find unacceptable. We would be de facto reporting to a company on the research we want to do," Melton explained. But Geron CEO Thomas Okrama said his company has "no desire to constrain research." However, Geron "will defend its intellectual property rights," he said, adding "Patents are what patents are. We funded the work, we have the rights" (Shadid, Boston Globe, 8/10). Michael West, CEO of Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology, Geron's chief competitor, said the stem cell debate is already giving way to the next issue: cloning. "Stem cells will be history. This will shift the fight to nuclear transfer," he said (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/10). Advanced Cell is attempting to derive stem cells by taking human eggs, removing their DNA and replacing it with genetic material from a mature adult skin cell to create what West calls an "ovumsum." This process has yet to create a viable stem cell (Elias, AP/Baltimore Sun, 7/16).

Bush's Position on Stem Cells 'Left Liberals Unsatisfied, Brought Accusations from Conservatives,' Washington Post Reports

      While President Bush hoped that his "measured" decision last night to allow limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would "mute criticism," the Washington Post reports that the decision "left liberals unsatisfied" and "brought accusations from conservatives" that the president "set the country on a 'slippery slope' toward the killing of embryos for study" (Milbank, Washington Post, 8/10). Bush faced a "no-win situation" on one of the "most complex issues -- both politically and ethically" -- that he has addressed, the AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch reports (AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/10). Although Bush aides said that "political considerations" had "no place" in the decision, the New York Times reports that the decision will have "enormous political ramifications" for the president. The White House considered the political "pluses and minuses" before Bush announced his decision, but the "arithmetic most favorable to the president was never clear" (Bruni, New York Times, 8/10). Cox News Service/Contra Costa Times reports that Bush's "personal anguish" over the decision "softened the criticism" from opponents of embryonic stem cell research and "could shield the president from serious political backlash" (Shepard, Cox News Service/Contra Costa Times, 8/10).

Conservative Schism
According to the Washington Times, Bush's decision has "split" social conservatives and abortion-rights opponents (Curl, Washington Times, 8/10). The AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Republicans "are hardly in agreement" over the issue (AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/10). The New York Times reports that many Republicans expressed "relief" or "resignation" about Bush's decision (Bruni, New York Times, 8/10). However, leading up to the announcement, some social conservatives said that the decision "could permanently damage Bush" and leave him a "one-term president" (AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, 8/10).

Move to the Middle?
During his address last night, Bush "wended his way to his relatively narrow decision, leaving himself future wiggle room." Several analysts "wondered" if he "laid the groundwork" for support of future "congressional authorization" of the destruction of frozen embryos in fertility clinics. In addition, Bush "did not take a clear position" on "whether an embryo is a human life," the New York Times reports (Bruni, New York Times, 8/10). The address may represent a sign that Bush is "returning to the more moderate 'compassionate conservative' image he built" during his presidential campaign, but according to the Washington Post, it is "far too soon to tell" whether the decision marks a "real shift" by Bush. Few analysts predict an "outright rift" with social conservatives but expect the president "to be pulled back and forth between moderate exigencies and conservative instincts." Although Bush's decision "displeased" many religious conservatives, he "risked alienating moderate voters" by banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Republican strategists predicted that Bush "will be hurt less by dispiriting conservatives than by alienating moderates" (Milbank, Washington Post, 8/10). According to some Republicans, Bush "could afford to make that move because he had placated social conservatives" with his decision to ban federal funding for international groups that use their own funds to offer counseling on abortion (Bruni, New York Times, 8/10). Many conservatives had feared "much broader" federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the New York Times reports (Toner, New York Times, 8/10).

On Capitol Hill
Bush's decision also "virtually guarantees" that the "emotional debate" over the stem cell research issue will "continue on Capitol Hill," and legislative "showdowns appear inevitable" USA Today reports. Lawmakers have introduced a number of bills that would expand embryonic stem cell research "beyond what the president has proposed," and this fall, Congress will set the federal budget for science and medical research (Kiely/Lee, USA Today, 8/10). In addition, the Washington Post reports that new legislation "may arise in the light of Bush's announcement" and that lawmakers "may find it difficult to break their five-year-old habit" of attaching an amendment to the HHS appropriations bill that limits funding for embryo research (Weiss, Washington Post, 8/10). Each year since 1996, Congress has placed a ban on federal funding that "involves the destruction of human embryos" (USA Today, 8/10). NPR reports that majorities in both the House and Senate have expressed support for federal funding of the research (Rovner, "Morning Edition," NPR, 8/10). However, Congressional Quarterly reports that Bush's decision "is likely to be the last word for now" on the issue, noting that although the debate has "spurred hearings, bills and lawsuits," neither supporters nor opponents of federal funding "can muster enough votes to override a presidential veto" (Goldreich, Congressional Quarterly, 8/9). Still, Jim Langevin D-R.I.), a quadriplegic, said that Bush "will have to revisit his decision" when researchers find that "more stem cells are needed" (USA Today, 8/10).

Bill Summaries
Some of the bills related to embryonic stem cell research that lawmakers have introduced this year include:



-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 16, 2001

Answers

A prediction: as soon as a private company makes a profit from stem cells, some on the Left will claim that Dr Evil invented them.

Call it a Liberal schism.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), August 16, 2001.

Lars, When will you understand that making money and a profit is not something "liberals" are against. What they do have a problem with is when it is done dishonestly.

Now, the rest of this post is not directed towards you personally, Lars, -it is for whomever the shoe fits.

I was raised to be honest, not to steal, lie or cheat. I have had many opportunities to profit illegally or use immoral methods in order to profit, financially or status wise. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with way too many people and situations where dishonesty, greed and/or corruption has been used for profit, even to the extent of people's lives.

I, probably more than most people have experienced the wrath of others because of of my successful accomplishments and ability to make above average wages. I have received the hatred, wrath, attempts to destroy me and all I had achieved, simply because I was able to succeed, and to do so honestly and fairly.

Now people sit here and label me with the same attributes that have been used against me.

I'm sick and fucking tired of narrow-minded, blind, arrogant sheep who refuse to use their brains enough to see what is right in front of their eyes. It's like a game of "my side is always right", they can do no wrong (because they are "my" team) and there will always be an excuse when they are exposed doing something immorally, legally, or ethically wrong.

Just like some parents do when their kids do something wrong- the parents make excuses, blame others, justify the child's actions, or just plain refuse to "see" what "their" child is doing wrong. Which gives their kid the message that it is ok to do these things because they can get away with it. That they aren't going to be called on to account for their actions. These "kids" have grown up with these (lack of) morals ingrained as their code of ethics.

I am sick of seeing people who do not do their job but who will bull-shit, lie, cheat, use corruption and/or brown-nose their way to "success", financial and social. I'm sick of the big farce that is constantly being played out. I'm sick of seeing "financial gain" as justification for wrong things being allowed to happen, even to the point of people loosing their lives, DYING so someone can make a profit. The lies, the cheating, society turning a blind eye to the moral corruption that appears to be so damn socially acceptable these days, justified because "everyone" does it.

Yea, I post a LOT of things about the current administration, because I am actually shocked that such blatant corruption is so blindly accepted without question. I cannot comprehend how anyone with a moral sense of justice could make excuses for and justify many of the things that are going on. I don't care which "side" does it, republicans or democrats, it's wrong. And the media puppets who act like horny dogs sniffing the crotches of whomever they are led over to snif at.

Stop assuming you know what "I" think and believe about anything. I did not change from being a lifelong republican to voting against them because I had some epiphany, I saw the actions and corruption that slithered into the party and the gutless wonders too afraid to fight against it, going along with it, finally becoming the same themselves. I see a financier use his money to finance a scandal for the sole purpose of attempting to get rid of a president that the american people voted into office. I see a dork sitting in an office not by the choice of the majority of those who voted, but manipulated into office by every underhanded means that could be managed. I see this person who is admittedly ignorant of the most basic duties and responsibilities of the office act in a selfish, self-centered, spoiled bratted manner, just as a spoiled child does what he wants without a concern for others, favoring his friends over his school-yard rivals. This man, who's only knowledge of most of the important social issues were learned and re-inforced by his drinking buddies during 25 years in southern redneck saloons over shots of Jack Danials-black label.

All the daily coaching by his keepers cannot change the man's mentality. He cannot be trusted to speak, using his own words, even with a monitor.

This country has spent the last 30 +years slowly and deliberately making changes to better itself, to make it safer for it's citizens, to right many moral wrongs that had historically continued without justification, to set standards and impose limits in order to reduce corruption and immoral business practices. The past 30+ years we have redefined our social standards, creating a more humane and moral society. We had done more in 200 years to break down the "cast" systems that we were trying to get away from by breaking away from England, then they did in most of their history.

We have gone from a society were it was socially acceptable to call a black person a "nigger" to one where children have grown up without ever having uttered the word.

Until recently, when it has been starting up again.

All of the positive advances that have been receintly ingrained into the structure of our society were fought against and despised by a small minority who didn't want the changes. Receintly they have worked very hard to tell a twisted version of history, spreading misinformation and a selectivly inaccurate and shortened version of actual history, complaining about the restrictive, unfair and "reversed bias" laws that were socially sanctioned and overwhelmingly accepted by the majority, while neglecting to mention the reasons it had been necessary to make the laws in the first place. As the social changes these laws were made to happen slowly came about, the need for the strictness of some of them faded. But instead of acting rationally and bringing the improving changes to the attention of society and lawmakers, discussing rolling back or easing then off as need be, those "paragons of society" who made the laws necessary in the first place, still harbor the same old attitudes. And they are back with a vengeance, using all the propaganda methods they are so well versed in, to convince those inexperienced in the "old ways" that the laws are unfair, unjust, and unnecessary.

In other words, it's the kind of people who caused a lot of the problems in the first place who are back trying to cause them again.

If businesses and industries could be trusted to police themselves, there never would have been a need for the laws to have been made. If individuals could be trusted to act civilized on their own, it would not have taken a presidential decree to force public institutes of learning to accept black students.

Before people go around with a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth spewing racial generalities, they had better read the history of WHY it was necessary to force integration, diversity and quotas in the first place. The same goes for labor laws, antitrust laws, laws limiting monopolies, laws protecting the safety and health of citizens and workers.

These rules and laws didn't spring out of a void, they were not legislated and put on the books for no reason. It was necessary to create them in order for us to live in a free and safe and fair society in which the majority of us choose to live.

If you want to go back to where your local lake is the dumping ground for the neighborhood sewers, if you want your children poisoned by eating fresh fruit, if you want their cloths to be so flammable that 1 out of 30 receive burns from being near an open flame, if you want the neighborhood teenage bully to beat the hell out of your kid and get away with doing it because "he just being a boy", then go ahead and remove all of those restrictive and "financially burdensome" laws all those socialist, tree hugging, nigger loving, sappy mouthed liberals have shoved down your throats.

If you do not learn history, you are doomed to repeat it. And trust me, those of us who are too polite to scream garbage mouthed obscenities like you do to anyone who you disagree with, are getting tired of your obvious agenda. It is very similar to the methods neo nazi's use to recruit young, impressionable, testosterone overdosed teenage boys.

And we have not forgotten what we had to do 30 years ago to prevent the very same old agenda's from coming to fruitation.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 16, 2001.

The fact of the matter Cherri, is that LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ legislation was all about him pimping our country off for the black votes. Simple as that!

-- Stupid (woman@stupid.ideas), August 16, 2001.
This was a real pitiful attempt to irritate.

Johnson was forced by the uprising of "white" voters in addition to the black voters into taking action. Society as a whole demanded change.

You just disgorge the same decades old tired spin without giving any thought to it don't you?

Hey mr brilliance, are you implying that it should have been left the way it was, the segregation, the open bigotry, the lynchings, grandmothers having to stand up from her seat on a bus because some white man wants to sit in it? Blacks not allowed to drink out of "white only" drinking fountains? Only the the ones labeled "colored only".

Back to the days of sayings like "I like niggers, I think everybody should own one"?

Yeppers, it was ignorant, insecure, deluded morons with attitudes like yours that caused the majority of normal, moral, rational, mentally secure people to rise up and demand government backed and enforced laws to be put in place in an attempt to force an end to the continuation and propagation of public displays of your kind of mentality. And to put a stop to your kind of wrong minded, ethically and morally wrong discrimination.

Flap yer gums all you want anonymously, because the world has changed, and your kind is dying off at an ever increasing rate. There are some pockets of holdouts, but they are glaringly obvious. Even if people don't do it to your face, they are laughing at you. Get over yourself, generations of people have been born into and raised in a completely different world than existed 30-40 years ago.

You just keep spouting your garbage, it shows your lack of self esteem. Your ego is so weak you need to try to belittle others in order to build yourself up, and you still come out a bottom feeder. Those you try to belittle project more assurance in their sense of self then you and feel little more than contempt for people like you.

What you sow, you shall reap.

What you have done to others has now come back on you. You are so beneath contempt that society generally only feels pity for people like you.



-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 17, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ