Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Time for stem cell research

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbob
    And how long should we wait? The same amount of time we had to wait for science to when the geometrical war over the shape of the earth?
    Bob, I don't know how long we will wait. SCNT is not here, nor are any other methods.

    Science will arrive when it arrives. Why do you support an unproven method of generating human ESCs and criticize other unproven methods?
    ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

  2. #22
    So, while there are over 400,000 leftovers from IVF, we should discard them and look for an alternative to make you and James Dobson happy?

    Wouldn't using them now make sense, and look for an alternative? But, I haven't heard one pro-lifer suggest that. They just want to curtail esc research.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Dr. Young, I have but one overriding political goal: to get ESCR approved for federal funding so we don't waste time and money on alternative farfetched research like dedifferentiation etc. And of course I am also working at the State level for state funding of ESCR.

    I agree with you and am glad the Smith bill passed for UCB and would hope Pro-Life phylanthropists would help in that area rather than hold back ESCR.
    Faye, I share your goals. Wise.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbob
    So, while there are over 400,000 leftovers from IVF, we should discard them and look for an alternative to make you and James Dobson happy?

    Wouldn't using them now make sense, and look for an alternative? But, I haven't heard one pro-lifer suggest that. They just want to curtail esc research.
    Bob, please, I have not yet heard Steven say that we should abandon HR810 or that we should not use the "leftover" blastocysts to derive embryonic stem cells. There is and should be room for both. It is as big of a mistake to say that embryonic stem cell research is the *only* hope as it is to say that umbilical cord blood or bone marrow stem cell research is the *only* hope. I hope that you will support both. I strongly oppose any bill that will push one at the expense of the other. We do have to read the bills carefully and make sure that they do not push one at the expense of the other. If you can point out to me the language of the bills that indicate that the "decoy" bills forbid NIH to fund one or the other research, or even discourage them, I would be glad to change my mind. To date, I just have not seen such language and do not consider some of the bills to be a threat to HR810 or bills that propose funding for embryonic stem cell research. I strongly support embryonic stem cell research but not at the expense of not funding other kinds of stem cell research.

    Wise.

  5. #25
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    Bob, please, I have not yet heard Steven say that we should abandon HR810 or that we should not use the "leftover" blastocysts to derive embryonic stem cells.
    Dr. Young, please don't attempt to pull the wool over our eyes on Steven's intention. We all know he considers embryos human life, uses the same jargon as the ESCR opponents etc.. Just because Steven has not actually said we should abandon HR 810 or not use the "leftover" blastocysts to derive embryonic stem cells, doesn't mean he actually supports ESCR.

    His preference for a farfetched idea like dedifferentiation over already available ESCR techniques speaks volumes.

    Regarding your idea that the decoy bills and HR 810 can co-exist, I'd like to turn the tables on your question whether the other bills forbid NIH funding of ESCR, and ask you why it is that ALL ADVOCACY groups STRONGLY URGE US TO STAY AWAY FROM THE DECOY BILLS?

    Of course I already know the answer and have even posted this many times. But I think it would be interesting to see your opinion on the position of the ADVOCACY GROUPS vis a vis the decoy bills.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  6. #26
    Faye, I can't speak for Steven, only that I have seen his posts say that he strongly supports HR810 and that I have not seen any posts by him that says that he opposes embryonic stem cell research. In any case, I have named several bills that I do not think threaten embryonic stem cell research whereas you don't seem to have named the bills.

    Why don't we discuss a specific pending bill instead of referring vaguely to "decoy" bills. What specific bill do you consider a decoy bill? I would be glad to go through the bills point for point with you. As I have said, if the bill forbids NIH to fund embryonic stem cell research (with other funds), criminalizes SCNT, or otherwise discourage embryonic stem cell research, I would oppose it. Otherwise, I think that we should focus our attention on getting SCREA passed and getting appropriations for the research.

    Wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Dr. Young, please don't attempt to pull the wool over our eyes on Steven's intention. We all know he considers embryos human life, uses the same jargon as the ESCR opponents etc.. Just because Steven has not actually said we should abandon HR 810 or not use the "leftover" blastocysts to derive embryonic stem cells, doesn't mean he actually supports ESCR.

    His preference for a farfetched idea like dedifferentiation over already available ESCR techniques speaks volumes.

    Regarding your idea that the decoy bills and HR 810 can co-exist, I'd like to turn the tables on your question whether the other bills forbid NIH funding of ESCR, and ask you why it is that ALL ADVOCACY groups STRONGLY URGE US TO STAY AWAY FROM THE DECOY BILLS?

    Of course I already know the answer and have even posted this many times. But I think it would be interesting to see your opinion on the position of the ADVOCACY GROUPS vis a vis the decoy bills.

  7. #27
    Mr young australia needs to get its ass into gear with stem cell reasearch tell me where the best place to start banging heads together would be
    Darryl

  8. #28
    The other issue i have is why cant they use cord blood to do the same things

  9. #29
    I have been looking for groups that have been opposed to so-called "alternative" or "decoy bills". The following is an article concerning Senator Jim Talents' withdrawal from an anti-cloning bill (presumably this is the Brownback bill) to propose a $20 million prize to the first institution that harvests genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human embryo. There was mixed response to this proposal.

    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...A?OpenDocument

    Stem cells — without the ethical division
    By Eric Hand
    ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
    02/25/2006


    <snip>
    On Feb. 10, Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., gave the ideas a boost when, in a Senate speech, he withdrew support from an anti-cloning bill. He now proposes a $20 million prize to the first institution that harvests genetically matched stem cells without cloning a human embryo.

    Some scientists question the proposal, saying it's already easy to get stem cells for research: Use the tens of thousands of frozen human embryos destined for disposal at fertility clinics.

    <snip>

    Other scientists, such as Washington University's Steven Teitelbaum, believe that the treatment of incurable diseases is more important than a "pinpoint-sized ball of undifferentiated cells." Efforts like ANT are a diversion from already existing ways of getting stem cells from embryos, he said.

    It remains to be seen how Talent's proposal will affect a bill by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., which would open up frozen embryos for stem cell work and match the bill passed last year by the House. Specter has 40 co-sponsors. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is a co-sponsor and has indicated he would push for a vote this spring.

    <snip>

    Lanza, who believes that life begins about a week after fertilization when an embryo is implanted in the womb, says existing and alternative approaches to harvesting stem cells could co-exist. Perhaps Specter's bill and Talent's proposal both will go forward.

    "This research needs to be pursued side by side," Lanza said.
    Unfortunately, this article mixed up somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and embryonic stem cell research. For those who are still confused about the terminology, SCNT is the process by which a nucleus is transferred from a person's cells into an egg and the egg is stimulated to produce a blastocyst from which an embryonic stem cell line is produced. These stem cells should then be genetically matched to the person who donated the nucleus. Embryonic stem cell research (particularly the type that would be allowed by a HR810 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005) does not necessarily involve SCNT. It is also possible to derive embryonic stem cells from fertilized blastocysts that are donated for research by parents who no longer want them and would have discarded them. With enough stem cell lines, it may be possible to create a library of embryonic stem cells that can be matched to people, just like umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, or organ transplants are matched.

    What Senator Jim Talent is proposing is a $20 million prize to encourage groups to find ways to derive embryonic stem cells without killing any blastocysts. There are several scientists who are working on this problem. For example, Kevin Egan at Harvard recently showed that it is possible to fuse somatic cells with embryonic stem cells and produce pluripotent cells that express the genes of the somatic cells. The cells still express the genes of the embryonic stem cells but it should be possible to make embryonic stem cells that would eliminate its own nucleus once it has fused with a somatic cell. Such an achievement would get the $20 million prize. Another possibility is to find the specific factors in human egg cytoplasm that tells a nucleus that it is in an egg and to start dividing and behave like a stem cell. A third possibility is to remove one cell from a blastocyst and use this cell to produce embryonic stem cells. Bob Lanza of ACT recently accomplished this with mouse cells and he believes that this can be done with human blastocysts without harming the blastocyst. There are several other approaches. If it is successful, this would provide a means of producing embryonic stem cells without having to use blastocysts.

    So, on the surface, this proposal may not seem to be challenging or restricting embryonic stem cell research. However, several stem cell advocacy groups are worried about bills that propose alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells. However, a search of all current bills in Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/) revealed only the following bills (I include only the latest versions and a brief summary of the bills.

    • HR2520/S.1317 The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act (Chris Smith, R-NJ). This bill appropriates $265 million for cord blood and bone marrow stem cell treatments. $79 million will be used to collected umbilical cord blood with a goal of achieving a U.S. inventory of 150,000 units, enough to treat 90% of patients. It would spend $186 million over 5 years and combine both bone marrow and umbilical cord blood into a single program. The House of Representatives passed this bill 431-1 on December 19 (Source). While everybody expected the Senate to bill (S.1317, Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005) directly and has 34 co-sponsors in the Senate, it has been held up due to an agreement in the Senate that all the stem cell bills will be voted on and passed together.
    • H.R.3144.IH/S.1557.IS Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005. Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett introduced this bill in the House with 22 co-sponsors. Senator Coburn and Demint have introduced a senate version. This amends the Public Health Service Act to provide $15 million per year in fiscal 2006 and each year from 2007-2010 as necessary to fund human pluripotent stem cells by means that do not harm human embryos. The funding is restricted to research that do not involve use of human embryos, use of stem cells not otherwise eligible for funding by NIH, use of stem cells to create a human embryo, or poses a significant risk of creating a human embryo by any means. Introduced in 6/30/2005, the bill has not been voted on in the House and is currently in the Subcommittee on Health in the House. In the Senate, the Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions is considering the same bill.
    • H.R.162.IH Stem Cell Replenishment Act of 2005. Introduced in the House by Ms. Millender-McDonald, this bill would authorize the use of Federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cells irrespective of the date on which such stem cells were derived, and for other purposes.
    • H.R.3444.PCS Cures Can Be Found Act of 2005. Introduced in the House by Representative Paul, this bill would provide credits against income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood. The credit can be up to $2000 for each qualified umbilical cord blood donation made by the taxpayer during a taxable year. This is restricted to married individuals filing joint tax returns and to umbilical cord blood or cord.
    • H.R.810.RDS/S.471 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The House of Representatives passed this bill on 6/6/2005 by 248-194. It amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos: (1) have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics; (2) were created for the purposes of fertility treatment; (3) were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment); and (4) were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements. The bill is currently on the calendar to be voted in the Senate.
    • H.CON.RES.155.IH expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not infringe on State or private programs that fund embryonic stem cell research (introduced into the House by Representative israel)
    • H.R.1650.IH Stem Cell Research Investment Act of 2005 (Introduced in House). To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax credits to holders of stem cell research bonds. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. BOSWELL, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. LEE, Mr. RAMSTAD, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. SIMMONS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
    • H.R.3932.IH/S.1520.IS Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005 (Introduced in House). To prohibit human cloning. The term `human cloning' means implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus. The bill also prohibits shipping of the products of nuclear transplantation across state borders or foreign commerce, to export to a foreign country an unfertilized blastocyst if such country does not prohibit human cloning. Criminal penalties include up to 10 years imprisonment and $1 million or 3x the gross pecuniary gain resulting from the violation.
    • HR 2541 IH Joe Testaverde Adult Stem Cell Research Act of 2005 (Introduced in House). To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of the National Institutes of Health regarding qualifying adult stem cell research, and for other purposes. The bill specifically requests the Director of NIH provide for establishment of not less than five centers of excellence for up to 5 years. Appropriate appropriations are to be authorized as necessary for the research.
    • S.876.IS/H.R.1822 Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This is a pro-embryonic stem cell bill, which prohibits human cloning and protects stem cell research. Introduced by Senator Orin Hatch, Feinstein, Spector, Kennedy, and Harkin, the bill prohibits human cloning defined as implantation of a product of nuclear transplantation into the uterus but allow SCNT and derivation of embryonic stem cells from cloned blastocysts up to14 days from first cell division. Representative Bono, DeGette, Castle, Markey, and Bass introduced the equivalent house bill ).
    • S.2104 A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish the American Center for Cures to accelerate the development of public and private research efforts towards tools and therapies for human diseases with the goal of early disease detection, prevention, and cure, and for other purposes. Sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, this bill will establish a center at NIH to promote translational research, clinical study registry and results database, and other offices to enable to cure research.


    Of these bills, only one H.R.3144/S.1557.IS Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005 can be construed as funding "Alternative Nuclear Transfer" or other methods of producing pluripotent stem cells without killing blastocysts or embryos. Although the bill restricts the appropriated funds for research that does not harm a blastocyst or embryo, it does not forbid such research approved by other legislation.

    Several bill support umbilical cord blood and bone marrow stem cells. For example, Chris Smith introduced H.R.3932.IH/S.1520.IS The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, which supports umbilical cord blood and bone marrow stem cell collection, and research. HR2541 Joe Testaverde Adult Stem Cell Research Act of 2005 is for adult stem cell research. Neither of these would prevent nor forbid embryonic stem cell research.

    The remainder of the bills is supportive of embryonic stem cell research. For example, HR810/S471 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 would allow NIH to fund research on embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date of origin, from fertilized blastocysts that donated by parents. HR2520 The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act and companion senate bill S1317 Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act would fund collection and research on umbilical cord blood and bone marrow stem cells.

    Several bills aim to ban human cloning. For example, HR3932/S1520 prevents transportation and implantation of unfertilized blastocysts into a uterus, with severe penalties. Likewise, S876/HR1822 Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005 prohibits implantation of unfertilized blastocysts into a uterus but explicitly allows SCNT and derivation of stem cells from human blastocysts up to 14 days after initiation of cell division.

    Wise.

  10. #30

    bone marow

    Dr Wise Young
    in an adult person do stem cells from bone marow slow down in production compared to younger persons or do we all produce them at the same rate
    Darryl

Similar Threads

  1. Dr. Young on Cloning & an Opposing View
    By James Kelly in forum Cure
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 08:56 PM
  2. Republican Senate Leader Frist to back ESC research!
    By Donny247 in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:00 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2005, 05:22 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2004, 01:14 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2002, 11:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •