From CNN (oddly, it was on the front page for about an hour this morning, but now you have to search for this): http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/stem.cell.ap/index.html Senators ask Bush to ease restrictions on stem cell research Reagan's death elevates issue Tuesday, June 8, 2004 Posted: 9:27 AM EDT (1327 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fifty-eight senators are asking President Bush to relax federal restrictions on stem cell research, and several said Monday that the late President Reagan's Alzheimer's disease underscored a need to expand the research using human embryos. The senators' letter to Bush was sent Friday, before Reagan died after a long struggle with Alzheimer's. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said: "This issue is especially poignant given President Reagan's passing. Embryonic stem cell research might hold the key to a cure for Alzheimer's and other terrible diseases." Last month, Nancy Reagan appeared at a fund-raising dinner in Los Angeles to promote stem cell research. "We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping," the senators wrote Bush. The letter was signed by 43 Democrats, the Senate's one independent and 14 Republicans, among them conservatives who oppose abortion. In April, 206 House members sent a similar letter to Bush. Stem cells typically are taken from days-old human embryos and then grown in a laboratory into lines or colonies. Because the embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion. Executive order Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 limiting federal research funding for stem cell research to 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. But the letter complains that only 19 of those lines are now available to researchers and those available are contaminated with mouse feeder cells which makes their use for humans uncertain. Signers include Democratic Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Republicans Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "Maybe one of the small blessings that will come from (Reagan's) passing will be a greater opportunity for Nancy to work on this issue, which of course means so much to her," Hatch said. "I believe that it's going to be pretty tough for anybody not to have empathy for her feelings on this issue." White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Bush stood by his stem cell policy. "The president remains committed to exploring the promise of stem cell research but at the same time continues to believe strongly that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by funding or encouraging the destruction of human embryos," Lisaius said. "The president does not believe that life should be created for the sole purpose of destroying it. He does believe we can explore the promise and potential of stem cell research using the existing lines of stem cells." Because stem cells develop into the various types of cells that make up the human body, scientists believe they could be grown into replacement organs and tissues to treat a wide range of diseases, including Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer's. --------------------------------------------------------- B-Bob commentary: I am not a scientist working on stem cell research, but I know people in that field. Apparently, the available stem cell lines (the so-called "presidential lines") are pretty useless. Only seven of them are really viable at all, and they're too primitive for serious research. Here are a couple of appropriate analogies. (1) Imagine telling American computer scientists that they were welcome to do computer research, but they had to use punch-card machines, while the rest of the world could use semiconductor chips. (2) Imagine telling American scientists that they could study the nature of light, but they could only use candles, while the rest of the world could use lasers and all other modern equipment. From what I understand, it's almost that bad. The president has a "bioethics committee" to advise him on these issues, and that committee now has ZERO true scientists on board. He forced the last one (Elizabeth Blackburn) to step down (and the administration smeared her with false charges of her missing "most" meetings, while she attended most meetings and attended more than the average committee member, and being "hard to work with," ... this for a wonderful woman who used to be the president of the American Society of Cell Biologists). The committee is composed exclusively of conservative political scientists, conservative ethicists and anti-abortion medical doctors (doctors are not research scientists, sorry). I welcome all those voices in any discussion of this importance, certainly, but shouldn't the bioethics committee have a scientific component, and shouldn't it avoid such a narrow philosophical outlook?
i think i agree with the president's position on this one. if there are existing stem cells...great. but i'm not sure i want to be in the business of creating embryos for harvest. help me out on this, though...this is admittedly something i know just enough to be dangerous about.
Max, it is very tricky. The stem cells grow to a very small clump (I believe seven cells or less is the benchmark of an "allowed" embryo in this case). Many people, yourself included, I assume, call that a human already. I have two main points I'd like to make (1) If Bush et alia have a problem with these seven-or-fewer cells being used for research, okay, but we should all be honest. His order has essentially stopped real stem cell research in the US (while it is moving quickly abroad, leaving us very behind technologically). This is because the "presidential lines" suck ass. They just do. So let's be honest and say our country is too conservative to pursue this technology. Most of the general public hears about his great "compromise," but this is scientifically false. I will say I think he had true intentions of compromise, but since he doesn't really get to hear from scientists, unless he reads their letters and petitions, he doesn't understand this fact. (2) Make a real compromise. I saw Dr. Hurlbut (yes, his real name) from Stanford U. give a talk on this recently. He is very conservative and argues passionately that even one cell is a complete human. He is, of course, on the presidents bioethics committee. After he denounced my friend Liz (using exactly the prescribed Rove language, down to exact phrases again) and I successfully defended her and he apologized, we actually had a nice exchange. He, and I, and other people believe a real technical compromise is possible. We can make a few alterations in the genetic material of the egg before fertilization so that the stem cells would *never* actually be viable. We could program them ahead of time to make sure they would never have the potential to be human. He is okay with that, and then stem cell research could move forward. What do you think about it?
I heard about the stem cell debate recently. I'm definitely no expert, but... I do understand that cloning for stem cells is not cloning for human life, and the two are different. I'm in favor of more restrictions on abortion, but I don't believe that 7 cells equals a human. That 'life' certainly doesn't have any sort conciousness, and doesn't have near the conciousness of grown chimps which are used in numerous experiments daily. The chimps actually have more conciousness than a fully newborn baby. I don't believe that's the line we need to draw about what's ok to kill and not kill, and it may speak more to the need to monitor animal testing, but it is an important factor, IMO. I hadn't actually heard about the compromise that B-Bob mentioned, but it sounds very workable as long as the cells will still be able to be used in the research.
Most of the embryos that were used in stem cell research came from in-vitro fertilization procedures that had excess fertilized eggs that were to be discarded anyways. We're allowing a technique that creates potentially one or two lives out of several embryos while hampering another technique that could potentially save thousands of lives out of those same embryos. I'm interested in any links or specifics about the compromise you can provide, B-bob. I think it's a great starting point to get research back into American hands. But does that mean that researchers can genetically alter a stem cell back into an embryo? Just wondering about some mad scientist slippery slope arguments....
I'll look for some, and I hope it ends up in one of the committee's reports, but I have no links for now. This was part of one of William B. Hurlbut's recent presentations in the Bay Area, and the conversation about it sprung out of the Q&A. One person (not me!) asked him about Elizabeth Blackburn being essentially fired from the committee. He said the standard nasty things about her. I stood up and defended her, and he backtracked, and here's how it went. (near quotation) "Well now, I liked Liz. We worked well together. In fact, Liz and I had discussed my proposed compromise and she was in favor of it." me: "She thought those intentionally flawed stem cells would still work for the research?" "Absolutely." --------------------------------------- I don't know if the altered cells would be "as good," but from what I understand, they should be. You can tweak things pretty specifically, to where this embryo's brain would never be able to control its heart (made up example), but everything else about the cells would be fine. In answer to the slippery slope argument, and mad scientists turning these stem cells back into real embryos, I don't quite understand the worry, but I don't know how possible it is to undo the proposed damage in any case. And Max, I don't believe you. I'm sorry if I got confusing, but what about a microscopic "embryo" that could never become a living human baby. Would those cells be okay to work with? I think that should make everyone happy, because it usually goes like this... Pro: "Those cells could never exist on their own and they cannot become a person on their own." Con: "But if implanted like a normal embryo of that age, they have the potential to become a full human life. The potential is all you need to be considered human." So if Pro and Con both see a clump with ZERO potential, we should all be happy. Again, I'll try to find links.
Well, here's an update. No big surprises, but more misleading rhetoric. Here's the LINK ------------------------------------- Bush rejects calls from Nancy Reagan, John Kerry to relax stem-cell policy SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer Monday, June 14, 2004 (06-14) 11:01 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House rejected calls Monday from Ronald Reagan's family and others to relax President Bush's restrictions on stem-cell research in pursuit of potential cures for illnesses. Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 that limited federal help to financing stem cell research on 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. Because day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion. Shortly before Reagan's death, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and 57 other senators asked Bush to relax the restrictions. Nancy Reagan has long argued that using stem cells from embryos could lead to cures for a number of diseases like the Alzheimer's that afflicted her husband. Bush opposes using embryos for stem cell research. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to believe that his policy is the right one. "The president came up with a policy that will allow us to explore the promise of stem-cell research, and do so in a way that doesn't cross a certain moral threshold that he set," McClellan said. "And I think he articulated his reasons for arriving at that decision. And that is his position, and that remains his position." Moreover, he said, "we are still at a phase where we are conducting the basic research so that we can better understand the promise of stem-cell research. There's a lot we don't know at this point." McClellan would not directly answer questions about whether Bush would be open to relaxing his policy if current "basic research" begins to show promise. ------------------------------------------------- response to bolded portion: other nations will be the ones who better understand the promise of stem-cell research (which is not unknown, contrary to his statements), and other nations will be the ones with the technology and benefit. Great. Again, the "compromise" is a sham. Stem cell work is basically dead in the US, despite broad-based support.
Thanks for the update B-bob. I feel really awful, about not being able to conduct the kind of research necessary. I wish there was a way to get the facts out there and show comparitively what can and can't be done, and how we are falling behind in this field.
Are other nations proceding with stem cell research on embryos or are they grappling with these issues too?
I think some are grappling, certainly, but from what my friends in that field say, it's full speed ahead in most cases. To be fair to the executive order, let me make one additional point: it only forbids government-funded research on new (and relevant) stem cell lines. Private industry is free to go forward using their own money, if I understand this correctly. The catch is that most new technologies are fostered by substantial government spending (semiconductors, internet, lasers, ad nauseum). mr.paige, that's a good question. Since I had four years of Texas history and almost zero US government, I simply do not know.
Nope, most other nations (aside from some theocratic regimes)aren't burdened with our status as being the world's leading purveyor of hypocritical morality.
You, in particular, understand why I want stem cell research to move forward, don't you? Or do you fail yet again to grasp my unbeatable plan for the final extermination of Spectreman?
Many nations are grappling with the same issues, but it appears many of them are proceeding with their research, including England, Israel, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, South Korea, etc. But it appears that countries such as France, Austria, Spain, Ireland and Germany have heavier restrictions than those in the preceeding paragraph.
I figured you started running out of ideas after this one. What a total lame-o that Kitoto was! Just a couple of shots of spectre-heat vision and boom -- DOA.
Ha! So my trap is working. You are overconfident after watching dozens of episodes. Perfect! Ha ha ha! My Laker strategy will have you looking like Pistons after game 7! mr.paige, I think even the countries you mention with restrictions are less stringent that the US guidelines, but perhaps not in every case.
Breaking character for a second, let's just do a little monday morning quarterbacking about your last hurrah to get me: OK, let's review this strategy of yours. You're going to defeat me by building a guy who can go faster than me? How's that going to defeat me? Is there some unwritten rule of the cosmos, that, when bested in a 100m sprint, Spectreman must concede defeat to Gori and abandon earth to your evil designs? Second, even if this were true, what the hell were you thinking stealing a brain of a professional boxer to do it? I mean, it's not even clear that you needed to steal any brains at all, stem cells or no...but why a boxer? If you want to get a dude who was faster than me, why not steal Carl Lewis' brain or Smarty Jones brain.....etc? I'm not even going ot bring in Moguz... .025 seconds? Some diversion that was. A space simian super genius with a 300 IQ and a PhD came up with this lousy plan? Uhh...OK. Another horrid plan. Rah (Karas) is your hired muscle I know, but Special Training? What did you rent a Tae-bo tape and think that heu could beat an invincible hundred foot tall flying cyborg with super powers? Another brilliant plan by Dr. Gori And let's just say your reaction was melodramatic. Rah/Karas was lucky to not be working the late shift at the local Chuckie Cheese, no way he's going to beat me. After I kicked his ass, rather than go straight, you not only jump off a cliff, but you jump off a cliff and explode. Right...that made perfect sense.
Sam, It is obvious who you've hired to write those pathetic press releases: You spin more than a Bush employee in a global-warming-induced tornado! So I do not need to refute you line by line. Like, how obvious is it that I did not jump off a cliff and explode if I'm still all posting and ripping you up on the internet. I'm so sure. Anyway, once I steal the brain of Imam Bam as-Lamma and transplant it into Oliver Miller's body, Spectreman is finished!
