If I didn't know better I would probably think that any embryos used in research had been collectively plucked from a future of bibs, baby food and spit up by the ruthless and immoral supporters of ESCR, when in reality, any embryo used in research was slated to die before it was donated to research.
Further, those who argue against permitting the use of excess in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos in research, if you follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, must also argue for the abolition of IVF as it is currently undertaken.
Increasingly, couples having trouble conceiving are turning to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in their quest to have children. The most common type of ART is in vitro fertilization (IVF), which involves extracting a woman's eggs, fertilizing them outside of the body in a Petri dish (in vitro means “in glass”) and then transferring the resulting embryos into the woman's uterus with the hope that one of them will implant.
In most cases, however, more embryos are created than are used in the pursuit of implantation - and the right to determine the destinies of those embryos currently rests with couples who produced them. Ultimately, there are three options from which to choose: donate the embryos to another couple, donate them to research, or have them discarded by clinic personnel. There are those who would count leaving them in storage as an option, but storage is just an interim state; all of the frozen embryos will face one of those three aforementioned options eventually. And just so that we are clear, I will say that both donating an embryo to research and simply discarding it result in the destruction of the embryo.
If one believes that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in the course of research, then one must believe that it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period - whether it is in the course of research, or in the course of a day at the IVF clinic. From that it follows that if IVF were to be allowed to continue in an acceptable form, of the current three options available to couples - donate to another couple, donate to research, or simply destroy - the latter two would have to be eliminated, leaving only one option: donating to another couple.
However, that model, even if it were legally defensible, would only be acceptable if no other embryos were harmed in the IVF process - but other embryos are harmed. One IVF clinic describes in detail how the staff sifts through the embryos formed in one IVF procedure and decides which ones are viable for implantation - the others are discarded. And then there is the problem of freezing itself. There is a baseline attrition rate of anywhere from 10-25% when embryos are frozen and thawed. The attrition rate can be lowered by discarding embryos that may be viable under normal circumstances but are judged to be less likely to survive freezing. (Genetics & IVF Institute, Georgia Reproductive Specialists)
So, any way you slice it, if one argues that it is wrong to destroy an embryo in the course of research, one must ultimately argue for the abolition of IVF as it is currently undertaken.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Hurlbut, Bioethics, and Hypocrisy
Dr. William Hurlbut, a bioethicist, is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics (PCBE) and is staunchly pro-life, (as is Leon Kass, the head of the PCBE.) Some time ago, Dr. Hurlbut had an idea he hopes will provide a way around the controversy regarding embryonic stem cell research (ESCR.) If his idea works, it will be possible to obtain embryonic stem cells (ESCs) without harming embryos.* In and of itself, there is nothing fishy about his having such an idea.
However, when you look at it a little more closely, questions arise. One of the first that comes to mind is, why have I heard about this? Let’s face it – this is only an idea, nothing more. Indeed, in the words of the PCBE itself, in its May 2005 White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells, Dr. Hurlbut’s idea is “as yet untested experimentally (even in animals.)” Ordinarily, we don’t hear about research until it is finished, subjected to rigorous peer review and published in a respected scientific journal. Then it hits the papers. Can you imagine what life would be like if we were informed of every idea that was born in the scientific community? There would be no room for any other news.
So the fact that Hurlbut’s idea (along with one other) was announced to the country last winter with significant coverage in at least two major papers – the Boston Globe (11/21/04) and the Washington Post (12/3/04) – and was covered again in June of this year in Wired, not to mention the 184 hits a search on “Dr. William Hurlbut” +alternative yields on Google, begs the question - why? Let’s not forget, not only has zero research actually been done on these ideas, but Dr. Hurlbut is not even a scientist. How on earth could a non-scientist with a mere idea get the kind of coverage generally reserved for huge scientific discoveries in two major media outlets?
And there is more. Since November, Hurlbut has been traipsing around the country looking for support for his idea from religious leaders and others. But…why? Ordinarily, when a scientist has an idea for a research project, she or he writes a grant, secures funding, and does the study. It couldn’t be a question of whether such an experiment would be eligible for federal funding because it would have to be done in animals, first – there is plenty of federal funding available for research on animals. So why doesn’t Hurlbut find an actual scientist to undertake his experiment, secure funding, and get to work?
The only explanation I can come up with is that Hurlbut’s goal is not, as he says, to get this research undertaken – his goal is to publicize the idea and get it onto the internet and into newspapers all over the country; plant a seed in the minds of those who are only listening with half an ear that there is an alternative, that ESCR is really unnecessary, and thereby increase the misinformed base of support for the marginalization or elimination of ESCR.
That would be one goal of Hurlbut's crusade, but it was and is also intended to lay the groundwork for a more overarching goal: to derail the votes in the House and the Senate on HR 810, a bill that would expand federal funding for ESCR. It could not possibly be a coincidence that the PCBE published its White Paper, which announced four ideas, including Hurlbut's, theorizing alternative methods for obtaining ESCs, in the very same month House Majority Leader Tom DeLay finally allowed HR 810 to come to a vote. And because of Hurlbut's crusade, the White Paper has received plenty of advance press, all over the country. This is just the next step in a long series of political moves using inaccurate and misleading information (plenty of information on that subject on my blog) to convince the public that ESCR is unnecessary in an effort to create an atmosphere that would be amenable to retaining, or even expanding, restrictions on it.
The irony is that in choosing to promote research ideas, hypotheses, as its next step, the right is fixing the searchlight full force on the hypocrisy of its own anti-ESCR soundbites, which have been repeated like mantras since 2001.
One of those mantras is “false hopes.” All those irresponsible people, goes the mantra, who are “hyping” ESCR are giving those poor sick folk false hopes by leading them to believe that cures and treatments are right around the corner
But what about Hurlbut, et. al.? When it comes to these totally hypothetical ideas, they can’t be about anything BUT hope. Hope, quite literally, is all there is, because right now there is no research at all to support these hypotheses.
Another, particularly inane, mantra is "there are no guarantees that ESCR will ever yield anything,” First of all, does it even bear saying that there are never any guarantees that any medical research will yield results? And, secondly, Hurlbut and friends' experiments would be no different from any other – i.e., no guarantees – but that is not stopping the right from shouting the “news” from the rooftops. Suddenly, who needs guarantees?
Likewise with “even if ESCR does someday yield results, it won’t be for years and years.” With Hurlbut and company's completely untested ideas, there is virtually no mention of the fact that these hypotheses are even further from fruition (if they ever come to fruition) than your average ESCR.
I don’t see myself as particularly adept at reading between the lines, but, quite honestly, such a talent would be wasted here. Hurlbut’s crusade fairly screams “propaganda,” and the PCBE’s and the right’s support of it puts their hypocrisy on parade.
Fortunately, for whatever reason, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently broke with President Bush and announced his support for expanded federal funding for ESCR. If enough senators follow their career compasses or their consciences now (it matters not to me which it is) we just might end up with a federal policy on ESCR that actually reflects the will of the people.
If not, the right will go on stealing hope, time, and potentially much more, from those who need them most.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
*please see below for a short description of Dr. Hurlbut's idea.
However, when you look at it a little more closely, questions arise. One of the first that comes to mind is, why have I heard about this? Let’s face it – this is only an idea, nothing more. Indeed, in the words of the PCBE itself, in its May 2005 White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells, Dr. Hurlbut’s idea is “as yet untested experimentally (even in animals.)” Ordinarily, we don’t hear about research until it is finished, subjected to rigorous peer review and published in a respected scientific journal. Then it hits the papers. Can you imagine what life would be like if we were informed of every idea that was born in the scientific community? There would be no room for any other news.
So the fact that Hurlbut’s idea (along with one other) was announced to the country last winter with significant coverage in at least two major papers – the Boston Globe (11/21/04) and the Washington Post (12/3/04) – and was covered again in June of this year in Wired, not to mention the 184 hits a search on “Dr. William Hurlbut” +alternative yields on Google, begs the question - why? Let’s not forget, not only has zero research actually been done on these ideas, but Dr. Hurlbut is not even a scientist. How on earth could a non-scientist with a mere idea get the kind of coverage generally reserved for huge scientific discoveries in two major media outlets?
And there is more. Since November, Hurlbut has been traipsing around the country looking for support for his idea from religious leaders and others. But…why? Ordinarily, when a scientist has an idea for a research project, she or he writes a grant, secures funding, and does the study. It couldn’t be a question of whether such an experiment would be eligible for federal funding because it would have to be done in animals, first – there is plenty of federal funding available for research on animals. So why doesn’t Hurlbut find an actual scientist to undertake his experiment, secure funding, and get to work?
The only explanation I can come up with is that Hurlbut’s goal is not, as he says, to get this research undertaken – his goal is to publicize the idea and get it onto the internet and into newspapers all over the country; plant a seed in the minds of those who are only listening with half an ear that there is an alternative, that ESCR is really unnecessary, and thereby increase the misinformed base of support for the marginalization or elimination of ESCR.
That would be one goal of Hurlbut's crusade, but it was and is also intended to lay the groundwork for a more overarching goal: to derail the votes in the House and the Senate on HR 810, a bill that would expand federal funding for ESCR. It could not possibly be a coincidence that the PCBE published its White Paper, which announced four ideas, including Hurlbut's, theorizing alternative methods for obtaining ESCs, in the very same month House Majority Leader Tom DeLay finally allowed HR 810 to come to a vote. And because of Hurlbut's crusade, the White Paper has received plenty of advance press, all over the country. This is just the next step in a long series of political moves using inaccurate and misleading information (plenty of information on that subject on my blog) to convince the public that ESCR is unnecessary in an effort to create an atmosphere that would be amenable to retaining, or even expanding, restrictions on it.
The irony is that in choosing to promote research ideas, hypotheses, as its next step, the right is fixing the searchlight full force on the hypocrisy of its own anti-ESCR soundbites, which have been repeated like mantras since 2001.
One of those mantras is “false hopes.” All those irresponsible people, goes the mantra, who are “hyping” ESCR are giving those poor sick folk false hopes by leading them to believe that cures and treatments are right around the corner
But what about Hurlbut, et. al.? When it comes to these totally hypothetical ideas, they can’t be about anything BUT hope. Hope, quite literally, is all there is, because right now there is no research at all to support these hypotheses.
Another, particularly inane, mantra is "there are no guarantees that ESCR will ever yield anything,” First of all, does it even bear saying that there are never any guarantees that any medical research will yield results? And, secondly, Hurlbut and friends' experiments would be no different from any other – i.e., no guarantees – but that is not stopping the right from shouting the “news” from the rooftops. Suddenly, who needs guarantees?
Likewise with “even if ESCR does someday yield results, it won’t be for years and years.” With Hurlbut and company's completely untested ideas, there is virtually no mention of the fact that these hypotheses are even further from fruition (if they ever come to fruition) than your average ESCR.
I don’t see myself as particularly adept at reading between the lines, but, quite honestly, such a talent would be wasted here. Hurlbut’s crusade fairly screams “propaganda,” and the PCBE’s and the right’s support of it puts their hypocrisy on parade.
Fortunately, for whatever reason, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently broke with President Bush and announced his support for expanded federal funding for ESCR. If enough senators follow their career compasses or their consciences now (it matters not to me which it is) we just might end up with a federal policy on ESCR that actually reflects the will of the people.
If not, the right will go on stealing hope, time, and potentially much more, from those who need them most.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
*please see below for a short description of Dr. Hurlbut's idea.
Dr. William Hurlbut and Altered Nuclear Transfer
This entry is sort of an appendix to the entry entitled "Hurlbut, Bioethics and Hypocrisy." If you are unfamiliar with somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), you might want to read SCNT 101 (below) before you read this.
Dr. Hurlbut’s idea would use a slightly modified version of SCNT (which they give a different name, altered nuclear transfer, or ANT) to create what the PCBE calls a “biological artifact.”
Hurlbut theorizes that it might be possible to make genetic alterations in the somatic cell before it is transferred into the egg such that the resulting entity would not have the ability to form past a certain point, and therefore would never have had the potential to become a fully formed human being. For example, “the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis” PCBE White Paper, May 2005.
The resulting “biological artifact” would never have been a living organism, says the PCBE, and therefore its destruction by the extraction of stem cells would be perfectly acceptable. The genetic alteration would then have to be reversed in the extracted cells, but after that, they would be normal, pluripotent stem cells – or so says Hurlbut’s hypothesis.
For a full description of this idea, along with three others, along with analysis of the ethical questions surrounding each idea, please read the PCBE’s May 2005 White Paper entitled Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells.
Dr. Hurlbut’s idea would use a slightly modified version of SCNT (which they give a different name, altered nuclear transfer, or ANT) to create what the PCBE calls a “biological artifact.”
Hurlbut theorizes that it might be possible to make genetic alterations in the somatic cell before it is transferred into the egg such that the resulting entity would not have the ability to form past a certain point, and therefore would never have had the potential to become a fully formed human being. For example, “the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis” PCBE White Paper, May 2005.
The resulting “biological artifact” would never have been a living organism, says the PCBE, and therefore its destruction by the extraction of stem cells would be perfectly acceptable. The genetic alteration would then have to be reversed in the extracted cells, but after that, they would be normal, pluripotent stem cells – or so says Hurlbut’s hypothesis.
For a full description of this idea, along with three others, along with analysis of the ethical questions surrounding each idea, please read the PCBE’s May 2005 White Paper entitled Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells.
DNA Cloning and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer – a.k.a. SCNT 101
It might be surprising to some to learn that there is more than one kind of cloning. That is why it is important to differentiate between them by referring to them by their actual names rather than the umbrella term “cloning.”
DNA cloning, recombinant DNA, gene cloning – these all refer the “the production of many identical copies of a specific DNA fragment.” merckmedicus.com
However, when the word “clone” in any of its forms is used these days, what is being referred to is another kind of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
All of the cells in the body, with the exception of one type of cell, contain two strands of DNA – one from each parent – they are thus known as diploid (they are also known as somatic.) The exceptions are gametes, also known as germ cells, i.e., egg and sperm cells. They are haploid, i.e., they only have one strand of DNA, so that one day, when the egg and sperm merge, they will form a single cell, known as a zygote, with precisely the desired number of strands of DNA - two.
With SCNT, there is no sperm involved. Instead, the haploid nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced with a diploid nucleus taken from any other cell in the body, resulting in an unfertilized egg that nonetheless has diploid DNA. If, then, a little bit of electricity is applied to the unfertilized, diploid egg, that somehow jumpstarts the same chemical reactions that are triggered by the completion of the union of egg and sperm, and the egg begins to divide like an embryo would.
Barring any unforeseen difficulties, this entity will continue to divide like an embryo, and on the fourth or fifth day, it will be possible to extract stem cells from it, as would also be possible with an embryo. At this point in time, it is not possible to perform the extraction without destroying the entity or embryo. Alternatively, as with an embryo, in the absence of any interference, and with the provision of a suitable environment, the entity could go on dividing and potentially grow into a fully formed adult. SCNT has been used to produce many animals, including Dolly the sheep and Snuppy the dog. However, at this time, the failure rate on producing animals via SCNT is extremely high – for example, Snuppy was the only success out of 1,000 implantations.
That is a summary of SCNT in my words. NIH says it much more succinctly:
Somatic cell nuclear transfer —The transfer of a cell nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
DNA cloning, recombinant DNA, gene cloning – these all refer the “the production of many identical copies of a specific DNA fragment.” merckmedicus.com
However, when the word “clone” in any of its forms is used these days, what is being referred to is another kind of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
All of the cells in the body, with the exception of one type of cell, contain two strands of DNA – one from each parent – they are thus known as diploid (they are also known as somatic.) The exceptions are gametes, also known as germ cells, i.e., egg and sperm cells. They are haploid, i.e., they only have one strand of DNA, so that one day, when the egg and sperm merge, they will form a single cell, known as a zygote, with precisely the desired number of strands of DNA - two.
With SCNT, there is no sperm involved. Instead, the haploid nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced with a diploid nucleus taken from any other cell in the body, resulting in an unfertilized egg that nonetheless has diploid DNA. If, then, a little bit of electricity is applied to the unfertilized, diploid egg, that somehow jumpstarts the same chemical reactions that are triggered by the completion of the union of egg and sperm, and the egg begins to divide like an embryo would.
Barring any unforeseen difficulties, this entity will continue to divide like an embryo, and on the fourth or fifth day, it will be possible to extract stem cells from it, as would also be possible with an embryo. At this point in time, it is not possible to perform the extraction without destroying the entity or embryo. Alternatively, as with an embryo, in the absence of any interference, and with the provision of a suitable environment, the entity could go on dividing and potentially grow into a fully formed adult. SCNT has been used to produce many animals, including Dolly the sheep and Snuppy the dog. However, at this time, the failure rate on producing animals via SCNT is extremely high – for example, Snuppy was the only success out of 1,000 implantations.
That is a summary of SCNT in my words. NIH says it much more succinctly:
Somatic cell nuclear transfer —The transfer of a cell nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Surprise! Approved Lines Contaminated, Undesirable
I knew it wouldn't be long before my suspicion was confirmed - scientists don't want to work on the contaminated cell lines the government has to offer. John D. Gearheart, a Johns Hopkins developmental biologist and stem cell pioneer is quoted below during his testimony at a hearing held by the Senate Special Committee on Aging yesterday.
"Gearhart, who conducts research on stem cells from embryonic and adult tissues, said the lines available for research under the president's policy lack genetic diversity, are not disease-specific, are not adequate for researchers to apply to a wide variety of diseases and are contaminated with animal cells.
Earlier embryonic stem cell lines, including the 22 available for federal research, were grown with mouse "feeder" cells that helped the stem cells grow but also made them unsuitable for use in human therapies.
Gearhart said colleagues at the University of California, San Diego and the University of Wisconsin, Madison recently published methods for growing embryonic stem cells without such mouse cells.
"We'd rather work on lines that have no feeder layers," he said of the new, "cleaner" cell lines. "These are now available. This is extremely valuable and should be eligible for federal funding if we want to progress."
Here is the link to the article, but be warned, you might have to "register' with the baltimore sun in order to view it - it is free to register. Alternatively, you could go to baltimoresun.com and search on Gearhart - for some reason I didn't have to register when I did it that way.
Scientists back bill on stem cells, Baltimore Sun, 6/9/05
"Gearhart, who conducts research on stem cells from embryonic and adult tissues, said the lines available for research under the president's policy lack genetic diversity, are not disease-specific, are not adequate for researchers to apply to a wide variety of diseases and are contaminated with animal cells.
Earlier embryonic stem cell lines, including the 22 available for federal research, were grown with mouse "feeder" cells that helped the stem cells grow but also made them unsuitable for use in human therapies.
Gearhart said colleagues at the University of California, San Diego and the University of Wisconsin, Madison recently published methods for growing embryonic stem cells without such mouse cells.
"We'd rather work on lines that have no feeder layers," he said of the new, "cleaner" cell lines. "These are now available. This is extremely valuable and should be eligible for federal funding if we want to progress."
Here is the link to the article, but be warned, you might have to "register' with the baltimore sun in order to view it - it is free to register. Alternatively, you could go to baltimoresun.com and search on Gearhart - for some reason I didn't have to register when I did it that way.
Scientists back bill on stem cells, Baltimore Sun, 6/9/05
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
How Many Stem Cell Lines Was That, Again?
On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his policy on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, stating that “more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist… we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines.” He limited federal funding to “existing” lines because the embryos that were the sources of those lines had already been destroyed, so in funding only those lines, no one’s tax dollars would be spent on further destruction of embryos to create new lines.
Now, the way a stem cell line is created goes something like this (in extremely basic layman’s terms): 4-5 days after fertilization, what is commonly referred to as an embryo is known as a blastocyst and it contains embryonic stem cells. The first step toward deriving a stem cell line from a blastocyst is to extract the stem cells from it. At this point, those cells do not constitute a “stem cell line.” There are several more steps that must be taken, including “expanding” the cells (getting them to start dividing) before they can be said to constitute a line, and in the end, if the process works, the researcher will have created a “a permanently established cell culture that will proliferate indefinitely given appropriate fresh medium and space,” (www.biology-online.org) i.e., a stem cell line.
Today, almost four years after Bush’s announcement, only 22 of the over 60 existing cell lines are available for research. There are those who defend this low number by pointing out that Bush did not say that the lines were available, he said they existed, and indeed, that is what he said. However, not only could it be argued that the clear implication was that they either were or would someday be available (otherwise, how could they be “used for research?”) but that, in fact, a full 26 of the alleged “lines” were not, in fact, “lines” at the time of his announcement, and, further, these 26 and an additional 11 either definitively would never be available (27) or most likely would never be available (10).
In reality, 19 of what Bush called “lines” had not yet undergone the process of expansion and the subsequent steps necessary to establish a cell line (BresaGen, CyThera, Karolinska University, National Center for Biological Sciences in India), and therefore were not lines at the time of Bush’s announcement; as it happens, 16 of them failed to expand and so will never become lines; the status of the other three is unclear, except for the fact that it is illegal to export them from their country of origin. In the case of seven more of the alleged “lines,” they simply didn’t exist at all, in any form (Geron – these lines were attributed to both Geron and two academic institutions – i.e., seven lines were counted as 14). That means a total of 26 out of “over 60” “existing stem cell lines” were not, in fact, “existing stem cell lines” at the time of Bush’s announcement.
Of the 26 that did not exist, 23 will never be available (16 failed to expand, seven never existed at all). There are also an additional four that will never be available (1 was withdrawn by the donor, which would actually strongly suggest that this was also not yet a line… in fact, it would suggest that the derivation process had not even begun because it wouldn’’t make much sense for a donor to withdraw anything but an intact blastocyst, would it?; and three are only available to Korean researchers), bringing the total to 27 alleged “lines” that will never be available to be used in federally funded research,
Finally, there are 10 lines in India that will most likely never be available for research since the Indian government has prohibited the export of human cells, bringing the grand total of lines that either never existed or will never be or most likely never be available to 37, out of “over 60” “existing stem cell lines.”
Of the remaining 30 lines, eight are "not yet available for shipping," which, after four years, begs the question, will they ever be ready for shipping?
that leaves 22 that are actually lines and are available for shipping. However, all of these have been contaminated with mouse feeder cells. According to Dr. Ajit Varki of UCSD, they are still suitable for “in vitro or animal studies in the lab,"* but they are unsuitable for any human clinical applications, i.e., any studies involving human subjects. I suspect scientists will be less likely to use these lines as a result of the contamination, but I have not found corroboration of that suspicion anywhere as yet.
*http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=523557
Now, the way a stem cell line is created goes something like this (in extremely basic layman’s terms): 4-5 days after fertilization, what is commonly referred to as an embryo is known as a blastocyst and it contains embryonic stem cells. The first step toward deriving a stem cell line from a blastocyst is to extract the stem cells from it. At this point, those cells do not constitute a “stem cell line.” There are several more steps that must be taken, including “expanding” the cells (getting them to start dividing) before they can be said to constitute a line, and in the end, if the process works, the researcher will have created a “a permanently established cell culture that will proliferate indefinitely given appropriate fresh medium and space,” (www.biology-online.org) i.e., a stem cell line.
Today, almost four years after Bush’s announcement, only 22 of the over 60 existing cell lines are available for research. There are those who defend this low number by pointing out that Bush did not say that the lines were available, he said they existed, and indeed, that is what he said. However, not only could it be argued that the clear implication was that they either were or would someday be available (otherwise, how could they be “used for research?”) but that, in fact, a full 26 of the alleged “lines” were not, in fact, “lines” at the time of his announcement, and, further, these 26 and an additional 11 either definitively would never be available (27) or most likely would never be available (10).
In reality, 19 of what Bush called “lines” had not yet undergone the process of expansion and the subsequent steps necessary to establish a cell line (BresaGen, CyThera, Karolinska University, National Center for Biological Sciences in India), and therefore were not lines at the time of Bush’s announcement; as it happens, 16 of them failed to expand and so will never become lines; the status of the other three is unclear, except for the fact that it is illegal to export them from their country of origin. In the case of seven more of the alleged “lines,” they simply didn’t exist at all, in any form (Geron – these lines were attributed to both Geron and two academic institutions – i.e., seven lines were counted as 14). That means a total of 26 out of “over 60” “existing stem cell lines” were not, in fact, “existing stem cell lines” at the time of Bush’s announcement.
Of the 26 that did not exist, 23 will never be available (16 failed to expand, seven never existed at all). There are also an additional four that will never be available (1 was withdrawn by the donor, which would actually strongly suggest that this was also not yet a line… in fact, it would suggest that the derivation process had not even begun because it wouldn’’t make much sense for a donor to withdraw anything but an intact blastocyst, would it?; and three are only available to Korean researchers), bringing the total to 27 alleged “lines” that will never be available to be used in federally funded research,
Finally, there are 10 lines in India that will most likely never be available for research since the Indian government has prohibited the export of human cells, bringing the grand total of lines that either never existed or will never be or most likely never be available to 37, out of “over 60” “existing stem cell lines.”
Of the remaining 30 lines, eight are "not yet available for shipping," which, after four years, begs the question, will they ever be ready for shipping?
that leaves 22 that are actually lines and are available for shipping. However, all of these have been contaminated with mouse feeder cells. According to Dr. Ajit Varki of UCSD, they are still suitable for “in vitro or animal studies in the lab,"* but they are unsuitable for any human clinical applications, i.e., any studies involving human subjects. I suspect scientists will be less likely to use these lines as a result of the contamination, but I have not found corroboration of that suspicion anywhere as yet.
*http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=523557
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
How Many Stem Cell Lines Was That, Again? (continued)
With reference to the post above, have a look at the table below, and the sources I have listed below it.
Sources as of 6/5/04
*NIH classification which means that these stem cells failed to become "lines," and a line is defined as "a permanently established cell culture that will proliferate indefinitely given appropriate fresh medium and space." Obviously, if they have failed to become lines since 8/9/01, they were not lines at that time. . http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/ and http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/
**http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/cellartis.asp
***http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/geron.asp, http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/record.cfm?id=177851
****http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/maria.asp
*****http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/ncbs.asp, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/stem_cell_us_lines.php, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24621-2004Mar2¬Found=true, http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/May2002/StemCellResearchRunsIntoRoadblocks.htm
******http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/stem_cell_us_lines.php, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24621-2004Mar2¬Found=true, http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/May2002/StemCellResearchRunsIntoRoadblocks.html
Total # of lines ever counted as existing:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp
# of lines listed as either available or not available (# of lines accounted for):
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/index.asp
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/
| Total # lines ever claimed "existing" | # lines acctd for | # lines avail | # lines not avail | Explanation | |||
| | | | not avail for shipping | will never be available | did not exist 8/9/01 | ||
| BresaGen, Inc., Athens, GA | 4 | 4 | 3 | - | 1 | 1 | failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures (i.e., did not become a stem cell line)* |
| Cell & Gene Therapy Research Institute, Korea | 2 | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | none |
| Cellartis AB, Sweden | 3 | 3 | 2 | - | 1 | - | withdrawn by donor** |
| CyThera, Inc., San Diego, CA | 9 | 9 | - | - | 9 | 9 | failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures (i.e., did not become a stem cell line)* |
| ES Cell International, Singapore | 6 | 6 | 6 | - | | | |
| Geron Corp, Menlo Park, CA | 7 | 7 | - | - | 7 | 7 | Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., does not, and did not at the time of the pronouncement, have seven cell lines. The cell lines attributed to Geron are the same lines attributed to WiCell and UCSF, and a full 8 days before Bush's announcement, testimony was given before the Senate Appropriation's committee that made this very clear. It was also confimed two years later by Geron in its response to NIH's' query about its cell lines.*** |
| Goeteborg Univ, Sweden | 16 | 1 | - | 1 | ? | ? | none - 15 "lines" no explanation |
| Karolinska University, Sweden | 6 | 6 | - | - | 6 | 6 | failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures (i.e., did not become a stem cell line)* |
| Maria Biotech Co., Korea | 3 | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | only available to Korean scientists**** |
| MizMedi Hospital, Seoul N. Korea | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | | - | |
| National Centre for Biological Sciences, India | 3 | 3 | - | - | 3 | 3 | as of May 2002, India had prohibited the export of human cells until it developed a national policy for doing that sort of business, but in the case of these three "lines," as of 2003, NCBS had not yet even attempted to expand these cells, therefore they could not have been "lines" in 2001.***** |
| Reliance Life Sciences, India | 7 | 7 | - | - | 7 | - | as of May 2002, India had prohibited the export of human cells until it developed a national policy for doing that sort of business****** |
| Techion Israel lnstitute of Technology | 4 | 8 | 3 | 5 | - | - | none |
| UCSF | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | |
| WiCell Research Institute, WI | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - | - | |
| TOTALS | 78 | 67 | 22 | 8 | 37 | 26 | |
Sources as of 6/5/04
*NIH classification which means that these stem cells failed to become "lines," and a line is defined as "a permanently established cell culture that will proliferate indefinitely given appropriate fresh medium and space." Obviously, if they have failed to become lines since 8/9/01, they were not lines at that time. . http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/ and http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/
**http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/cellartis.asp
***http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/geron.asp, http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/record.cfm?id=177851
****http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/maria.asp
*****http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/ncbs.asp, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/stem_cell_us_lines.php, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24621-2004Mar2¬Found=true, http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/May2002/StemCellResearchRunsIntoRoadblocks.htm
******http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/stem_cell_us_lines.php, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24621-2004Mar2¬Found=true, http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/May2002/StemCellResearchRunsIntoRoadblocks.html
Total # of lines ever counted as existing:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp
# of lines listed as either available or not available (# of lines accounted for):
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/index.asp
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/unavailable/
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
More on Cloning Ban Bills
Since my January 31 post on this subject, I have learned a great deal more about what cloning ban bills there are (more than I thought) and how many have passed the House (more than I thought) and how many democrats voted in favor of them (you got it - more than I thought.) Here is the lowdown on the two bills that have passed the House.
1) Weldon (R-FL) introduced HR 2505 in 2001 and it passed the House 265-162, with 63 democrats voting in favor of it.
2) Weldon also introduced HR 534 in 2003, and it passed the House too, 241-155, with 42 democrats voting in favor of it.
Neither of these bills has made to to a vote in the Senate - I don't know why - but both of these bills passed the House with the language criminalizing not only cloning, but the importation of any product of cloning.
Democrats from the following states who are still in office voted in favor of HR 534: AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, VT, WA, WV.
The text of HR 534, which is virtually the same as the text of HR 2505, follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 534
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 15, the following:
`CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING
`Sec.
`301. Definitions.
`302. Prohibition on human cloning.
`Sec. 301. Definitions
`In this chapter:
`(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term `human cloning' means human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.
`(2) ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION- The term `asexual reproduction' means reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.
`(3) SOMATIC CELL- The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage of development.
`Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning
`(a) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowingly--
`(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
`(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; or
`(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
`(b) IMPORTATION- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
`(c) PENALTIES-
`(1) CRIMINAL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
`(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates any provision of this section shall be subject to, in the case of a violation that involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than $1,000,000.
`(d) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 15 the following:
301'.
SEC. 3. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
(a) IN GENERAL- The General Accounting Office after consultation with the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a study to assess the need (if any) for amendment of the prohibition on human cloning, as defined in section 301 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, which study should include--
(1) a discussion of new developments in medical technology concerning human cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer, the need (if any) for somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce medical advances, current public attitudes and prevailing ethical views concerning the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and potential legal implications of research in somatic cell nuclear transfer; and
(2) a review of any technological developments that may require that technical changes be made to section 2 of this Act.
(b) REPORT- The General Accounting Office shall transmit to the Congress, within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a report containing the findings and conclusions of its study, together with recommendations for any legislation or administrative actions which in considers appropriate.
Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 2003.
1) Weldon (R-FL) introduced HR 2505 in 2001 and it passed the House 265-162, with 63 democrats voting in favor of it.
2) Weldon also introduced HR 534 in 2003, and it passed the House too, 241-155, with 42 democrats voting in favor of it.
Neither of these bills has made to to a vote in the Senate - I don't know why - but both of these bills passed the House with the language criminalizing not only cloning, but the importation of any product of cloning.
Democrats from the following states who are still in office voted in favor of HR 534: AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, VT, WA, WV.
The text of HR 534, which is virtually the same as the text of HR 2505, follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 534
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 15, the following:
`CHAPTER 16--HUMAN CLONING
`Sec.
`301. Definitions.
`302. Prohibition on human cloning.
`Sec. 301. Definitions
`In this chapter:
`(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term `human cloning' means human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.
`(2) ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION- The term `asexual reproduction' means reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.
`(3) SOMATIC CELL- The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or deceased human body at any stage of development.
`Sec. 302. Prohibition on human cloning
`(a) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowingly--
`(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;
`(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; or
`(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
`(b) IMPORTATION- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, knowingly to import for any purpose an embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from such embryo.
`(c) PENALTIES-
`(1) CRIMINAL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
`(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates any provision of this section shall be subject to, in the case of a violation that involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000 and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than $1,000,000.
`(d) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH- Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 15 the following:
301'.
SEC. 3. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
(a) IN GENERAL- The General Accounting Office after consultation with the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a study to assess the need (if any) for amendment of the prohibition on human cloning, as defined in section 301 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this Act, which study should include--
(1) a discussion of new developments in medical technology concerning human cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer, the need (if any) for somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce medical advances, current public attitudes and prevailing ethical views concerning the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and potential legal implications of research in somatic cell nuclear transfer; and
(2) a review of any technological developments that may require that technical changes be made to section 2 of this Act.
(b) REPORT- The General Accounting Office shall transmit to the Congress, within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a report containing the findings and conclusions of its study, together with recommendations for any legislation or administrative actions which in considers appropriate.
Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 2003.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Letter to the Catholic Telegraph, Cincinnati
i wrote the following letter in response to an article arguing for complete bans on embryonic stem cell research and cloning for therapeutic purposes. i sent the letter to The Catholic Telegraph on Monday, January 24 and have yet to receive a response. for the moment, I will post my letter without, in some cases, at least, pulling out in the actual chunks of text on which i was commenting - just want to get this up for now.
*******************************************
hi there,
i realize that The Catholic Telegraph intends to present and represent a single point of view, but i wonder if you (in the general sense) are troubled when you see omissions in articles that present the opposite point of view - or any point of view, really.
Dennis O'Connor must be, because he wrote "New Challenge for a New Millennium," in part, at least, because he shares Tony Perkins' sentiments when Mr. Perkins says:
"More than 50 conditions are being treated with adult stem cells. That’s what is most promising. Not one patient has been treated with embryonic stem cells. Additionally, I think the media have done a grave disservice to the American public by promoting this notion that the only promise comes from embryonic stem cell research. That is why we are out here promoting this message, so that people will know the truth."
In other words, the media has omitted the good news about adult stem cell research, and Mr. Perkins and Mr. O'Connor, are doing their best to rectify that error.
If that is the case, however, I wonder whether Mr. O'Connor has brought the same critical eye to bear on his own contribution to that miasma of information produce by what we call "the media."
For example, Mr. O'Connor quotes Mr. Perkins as saying that more than 50 conditions are being treated with adult stem cells (ASC), but offers no substantiation. I have read that there are 50, 65 and 140 conditions being treated and even cured with ASC therapies, but not one of the people quoting those numbers provided a source for the number they cited - can you tell me which number is correct, or where Mr. Perkins got his number? Nor did any of them offer any information as to what kinds of diseases were being treated. I know that there *are* quite a few conditions being treated with ASCs, but the vast majority of them are diseases of the blood - lymphomas and anemias - which is terrific, but it is not the whole story. Not a single neurological disorder has yet been helped by any ASC therapy. Don't you think that is relevant information? (CorCell: Saving Baby's Cord Blood)
Likewise, when Mr. O'Connor cites Father Pacholczyk's assertion that "the bulk of therapeutic successes have been found in adult stem cell use," as opposed to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, he commits an enormous sin of omission by failing to point out that ASC research has been underway for almost 40 years (NIH: Stem Cell Basics), whereas ESC research has only been possible since 1998, or just over 6 years. Do you think that including that information would change the import of Father Pacholczyk's assertion?
And what about the amount of federal funding that each area of research has received? Between 1998 and the end of 2003, ESC research had received a total of $20 million in federal funding - that averages out to $4 million per year. In contrast, in 2003 alone, ASC research received $497 million in federal funding - $497 million vs. $4 million on a per year basis. I have been unable to find records of previous years' ASC funding levels, but when you consider some 40 years of federal funding, vs. $20 million total for ESC research, the enormity of this omission becomes clearer and clearer. (NIH: Research Funding Areas)
And given the gargantuan disparity in the level of federal funding that is being directed toward each of these research areas, isn't it a bit disingenuous for Father Pacholczyk to assert, and for Mr. O'Connor to affirm by inclusion, that ASC research "might suffer if research money is diverted for the embryonic research?" I think it is disingenuous - what do you think?
Another mammoth omission is any mention whatsoever of excess embryos at IVF clinics - Mr. O'Connor and his sources speak only of the creation of embryos for the purpose of harvesting ESCs, but you know, I have yet to read anyone arguing for that - not actual embryos in the historical sense, i.e., the product of the union of egg and sperm, anyway. No, the actual embryos that are under debate are those that are going to die anyway - those that have been donated to research by the only people who have the right to make such decisions. But Mr. O'Connor avoids that question entirely, doesn't he - and again, I think that is a particularly relevant little tidbit, don't you?
And this last observation is more of a bit of hypocrisy in the anti-ESC contingent than it is an omission, and it is one Mr. O'Connor touches on when he talks about the, perhaps, billions of dollars (again, completely unsubtantiated) that have gone into ESCR and the absence, as yet, of any therapies.
We are often warned by those who oppose ESCR that "there are no guarantees" that it will yield anything, and that even it it does, it won't be for years (see Leon Kass' article Playing Politics with the Sick for an example of the latter.) I am a little baffled by this argument, I must confess, because there are *never* any guarantees with *any* medical research, and *all* medical research takes years to reach a stage where a therapy can be used to treat people. So, what, exactly, is their point? It is like saying to a radio audience while standing in the middle of a parking lot full of cars, "there is a blue car in the parking space next to me." the implication is that its blueness differentiates it from the cars around it - but the reality, which is being omitted, is that *all* the cars are blue. It is brazenly and deliberately misleading.
It seems to me that Mr. O'Connor is guilty of quite a few sins of omission. I am not saying that the other side isn't guilty, too; nor am i saying that ASC research should not be supported. What i *am* saying is that if one is going to point the finger at someone else, one had better examine one's own behavior pretty closely first, or one might end up revealing one's own hypocrisy, as Mr. O'Connor has clearly done.
The sad thing is that anyone, it seems, can publish anything they want, and do so without providing any evidence to support it - and people will read it and believe it, just because it made it into print.
oh, and just a little FYI - regarding the assertion that "Embryonic stem cell research needs to be promoted in animals," *all* research must be first visited upon animals - ASC, ESC, cancer, what-have-you - before it can be tested in humans. And *all* therapies that would ever even be eligible to submit to the FDA for approval *must* be tested in humans first. So to say that ESC research needs to be promoted in animals is really a non-statement - and yet it made it into print, and you an bet your bottom dollar there are people out there now who think ESC research is not being done on animals first, or that doing ESC research on animals is sufficient in and of itself.
And one more little FYI - regarding Daniel Callahan's assertion that "much of the public discussion about embryonic stem cell research to date has amounted to little more than hype, underlining the concern about Hollywood endorsements and fear-mongering about the dangers of letting these kinds of research opportunities go overseas" - again, look to yourself before pointing the finger. If Mr. O'Connor's omissions and disingenuousness do not amount to hype, or spin, I don't know what would. And as far as ESC research, and its promise, being hype, try visiting the website Entrez Pubmed. In the search box, try entering embryonic stem cell research (no quotes necessary) and you will see that almost 18,000 published research papers come up. Is that hype?
i am looking forward to your reply,
anuket
*******************************************
hi there,
i realize that The Catholic Telegraph intends to present and represent a single point of view, but i wonder if you (in the general sense) are troubled when you see omissions in articles that present the opposite point of view - or any point of view, really.
Dennis O'Connor must be, because he wrote "New Challenge for a New Millennium," in part, at least, because he shares Tony Perkins' sentiments when Mr. Perkins says:
"More than 50 conditions are being treated with adult stem cells. That’s what is most promising. Not one patient has been treated with embryonic stem cells. Additionally, I think the media have done a grave disservice to the American public by promoting this notion that the only promise comes from embryonic stem cell research. That is why we are out here promoting this message, so that people will know the truth."
In other words, the media has omitted the good news about adult stem cell research, and Mr. Perkins and Mr. O'Connor, are doing their best to rectify that error.
If that is the case, however, I wonder whether Mr. O'Connor has brought the same critical eye to bear on his own contribution to that miasma of information produce by what we call "the media."
For example, Mr. O'Connor quotes Mr. Perkins as saying that more than 50 conditions are being treated with adult stem cells (ASC), but offers no substantiation. I have read that there are 50, 65 and 140 conditions being treated and even cured with ASC therapies, but not one of the people quoting those numbers provided a source for the number they cited - can you tell me which number is correct, or where Mr. Perkins got his number? Nor did any of them offer any information as to what kinds of diseases were being treated. I know that there *are* quite a few conditions being treated with ASCs, but the vast majority of them are diseases of the blood - lymphomas and anemias - which is terrific, but it is not the whole story. Not a single neurological disorder has yet been helped by any ASC therapy. Don't you think that is relevant information? (CorCell: Saving Baby's Cord Blood)
Likewise, when Mr. O'Connor cites Father Pacholczyk's assertion that "the bulk of therapeutic successes have been found in adult stem cell use," as opposed to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, he commits an enormous sin of omission by failing to point out that ASC research has been underway for almost 40 years (NIH: Stem Cell Basics), whereas ESC research has only been possible since 1998, or just over 6 years. Do you think that including that information would change the import of Father Pacholczyk's assertion?
And what about the amount of federal funding that each area of research has received? Between 1998 and the end of 2003, ESC research had received a total of $20 million in federal funding - that averages out to $4 million per year. In contrast, in 2003 alone, ASC research received $497 million in federal funding - $497 million vs. $4 million on a per year basis. I have been unable to find records of previous years' ASC funding levels, but when you consider some 40 years of federal funding, vs. $20 million total for ESC research, the enormity of this omission becomes clearer and clearer. (NIH: Research Funding Areas)
And given the gargantuan disparity in the level of federal funding that is being directed toward each of these research areas, isn't it a bit disingenuous for Father Pacholczyk to assert, and for Mr. O'Connor to affirm by inclusion, that ASC research "might suffer if research money is diverted for the embryonic research?" I think it is disingenuous - what do you think?
Another mammoth omission is any mention whatsoever of excess embryos at IVF clinics - Mr. O'Connor and his sources speak only of the creation of embryos for the purpose of harvesting ESCs, but you know, I have yet to read anyone arguing for that - not actual embryos in the historical sense, i.e., the product of the union of egg and sperm, anyway. No, the actual embryos that are under debate are those that are going to die anyway - those that have been donated to research by the only people who have the right to make such decisions. But Mr. O'Connor avoids that question entirely, doesn't he - and again, I think that is a particularly relevant little tidbit, don't you?
And this last observation is more of a bit of hypocrisy in the anti-ESC contingent than it is an omission, and it is one Mr. O'Connor touches on when he talks about the, perhaps, billions of dollars (again, completely unsubtantiated) that have gone into ESCR and the absence, as yet, of any therapies.
We are often warned by those who oppose ESCR that "there are no guarantees" that it will yield anything, and that even it it does, it won't be for years (see Leon Kass' article Playing Politics with the Sick for an example of the latter.) I am a little baffled by this argument, I must confess, because there are *never* any guarantees with *any* medical research, and *all* medical research takes years to reach a stage where a therapy can be used to treat people. So, what, exactly, is their point? It is like saying to a radio audience while standing in the middle of a parking lot full of cars, "there is a blue car in the parking space next to me." the implication is that its blueness differentiates it from the cars around it - but the reality, which is being omitted, is that *all* the cars are blue. It is brazenly and deliberately misleading.
It seems to me that Mr. O'Connor is guilty of quite a few sins of omission. I am not saying that the other side isn't guilty, too; nor am i saying that ASC research should not be supported. What i *am* saying is that if one is going to point the finger at someone else, one had better examine one's own behavior pretty closely first, or one might end up revealing one's own hypocrisy, as Mr. O'Connor has clearly done.
The sad thing is that anyone, it seems, can publish anything they want, and do so without providing any evidence to support it - and people will read it and believe it, just because it made it into print.
oh, and just a little FYI - regarding the assertion that "Embryonic stem cell research needs to be promoted in animals," *all* research must be first visited upon animals - ASC, ESC, cancer, what-have-you - before it can be tested in humans. And *all* therapies that would ever even be eligible to submit to the FDA for approval *must* be tested in humans first. So to say that ESC research needs to be promoted in animals is really a non-statement - and yet it made it into print, and you an bet your bottom dollar there are people out there now who think ESC research is not being done on animals first, or that doing ESC research on animals is sufficient in and of itself.
And one more little FYI - regarding Daniel Callahan's assertion that "much of the public discussion about embryonic stem cell research to date has amounted to little more than hype, underlining the concern about Hollywood endorsements and fear-mongering about the dangers of letting these kinds of research opportunities go overseas" - again, look to yourself before pointing the finger. If Mr. O'Connor's omissions and disingenuousness do not amount to hype, or spin, I don't know what would. And as far as ESC research, and its promise, being hype, try visiting the website Entrez Pubmed. In the search box, try entering embryonic stem cell research (no quotes necessary) and you will see that almost 18,000 published research papers come up. Is that hype?
i am looking forward to your reply,
anuket
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
