Not a good decision ?why?

[Steve]

Hello everyone
I m a bit confused....I read that some of you not agree with Bush decision about ESC ...why ? He allowed federal funding of research with ESC...That s a good thing, no?
Maybe I don t understand some of the issues, because my english is not perfect.
I would apreciate explanations about that by one of you

Thanks

Steve (c4)

[Wise Young]

There is divided opinion about the decision. My personal opinion is that, on balance, our current situation is much better than it was just a week ago when NIH was absolutely forbidden to fund any human embryonic stem cell research and almost all the work was concentrated in a few relatively small companies that do not have the resources to expand the research rapidly to a point of human application. Many scientists have questioned whether there are indeed 60 usable human embryonic stem cell lines, whether this represents sufficient genetic diversity for the lines to be used for therapy, and even whether these lines (which are mostly owned by private companies) are available for use without commercial ties. In the coming weeks, we should have more information about the stem cell lines that are available. In the next year or so, as studies commence on these lines, we will know whether these lines are of the diversity and quality needed for research and therapy.

President Bush obviously agonized over this decision, balancing his conviction that destruction of embryos is immoral with the knowledge that this research will save and improve the lives of millions of people who are already living. He decided to compromise by allowing NIH to fund research only on existing stem cell lines, so that no additional embryos will be destroyed. This is obviously an artificial line because the decision does not save any embryos. The original proposal was for NIH to use stem cells from fertilized eggs that are slated for destruction anyway. Therefore, whether the stem cells will be used for research or therapy will not change whether the eggs will be destroyed. In short, the decision does not save any embryos.

Wise.

[Steve]

Thanks a lot Dr. Young

I apreciate a lot what you are doing here.
You are the best!

Steve

[davecarl]

In a few short words: He did not go far enough. He should have provided far more funding and flexibility. He is afraid politically of the conservative religious right wing votes that he might loose. (He sure lost many votes from those suffering from many diseases.)

[Wise Young]

I was just wondering what Canada is planning to do about cloning and also stem cell research. It is true that the Medical Research Council (the equivalent of the National Institutes of Health) in Canada does not fund as much research as the NIH does. However, I have not heard much about the policies of Canada regarding cloning or stem cells. Does anybody know what is going on in this regard?

According to Susan Johnson in a recent article http://www.canadacomputes.com/v3/sto...?tag=81&sb=121, Canada appears to be following in the footsteps of the U.S. regarding cloning. Legislation has been proposed to ban the creation of embryos for research and therapy although it does not eliminate the possibility of using stem cells from in vitro fertilization clinics http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-03-canada.htm but I am still not clear whether this law will allow therapeutic cloning, i.e. the creation of a cloned blastocyst that will not be implanted in the uterus but will be used for stem cells . Please note that if the latter is the case, therapeutic cloning can be carried out in Canada.

Wise.

[Steve]

Dr. Young
That s what I found:
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.../10/stem010810

[Wise Young]

The U.S. Congress will be debating the stem cell and cloning issues when they come back into session in September.

• Stem cells. Tom Daschl, the Democratic leader of the Senate, has announced that he plans to introduce legislation broadening the ability of the NIH to create new stem cell lines as required for research and therapy. It will probably be introduced as an amendments to the NIH appropriations bill. I was part of a press conference in Trenton NJ yesterday when Senator Toricelli of NJ announced this. Because the pro-life movement is adamantly against the use of frozen eggs as a source of stem cells and believes that such a move will lead to widespread use of embryos for therapeutic purposes, this will be a subject of vigorous and impassioned debate.

• Cloning. As you may know, the House of Representatives passed a stringent anti-cloning bill several weeks ago, criminalizing somatic nuclear transfer (the insertion of a nucleus into an egg) with penalties of $1 million and 10-year prison term. This will essentially stop all human cloning efforts in the U.S. but it would also prevent the possibility of therapeutic cloning or the production of cloned eggs for artificial insemination for women who are infertile due to lack of eggs. Therapeutic cloning is the process of inserting a nucleus into an egg (any egg, even from an animal), growing that egg to a blastocyst, and harvesting the stem cells from the egg for therapeutic purposes. Neither of these cases have anything to do with the production of a cloned human.

The potential closing of the door on therapeutic cloning places much greater pressure on having diverse embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic purposes. I think that President Bush honestly believes that the 60+ stem cell lines that are said to be currently available are sufficient to supply the needs of research and therapy. At the present, most scientists are skeptical that this many lines exist and are available without commercial encumbrances for NIH funded research. However, nobody knows for sure and the number and quality of available stem cell lines needs to be verified. There is also a major question whether these stem cell lines are of sufficient genetic diversity and quality to be used for therapy. The need for genetic diversity stems from the need to match cells with recipients so that the cells would not be rejected when transplanted.

Let me try to summarize the arguments of those who oppose the use of embryonic stem cells. First, many believe that there are other sources of stem cells that are not adequately developed for the purposes of therapy. Chief amongst these are fetal stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells obtained from bone marrow and fat. The former has been reported to be quite versatile and are able to produce neurons in the central nervous system when injected systemically. Second, sanctioning government funding of research that destroy embryos breaks a longstanding rule that prohibited such activity. Those opposed to this activity believe that it is the start of a slippery slope that will lead to widespread production of embryos for therapeutic purposes.

There is widespread misunderstanding of the stem cell and cloning issue.

1. Fertilized eggs vs. embryos vs. fetuses. Many people do not understand that stem cells are obtained from fertilized eggs and not embryos or fetuses. Although some people believe that these are mere semantics, there are important distinctions between fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. A fertilized egg of course results from the union of a sperm and an egg. A fertilized egg does not become an embryo until it develops a "primitive streak" at about two weeks, defining the midline of the structure. Until that time, it is called a blastocyst, a clump of cells that really bears little resemblance to an embryo. An embryo is a fetus at about 6 weeks, when it develops recognizable organs and limbs.

2. Saving embryos and fetuses. There is a widespread false belief that prohibiting NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research will save embryos or fetuses from destruction. The proposal is to use fertilized eggs from fertility clinics with the full permission of parents who were intending to destroy the embryos anyway. These embryos are generally too old to be used for implantation and therefore for adoption. Prohibiting the use of these fertilized eggs for research will not save these embryos. Even more important, because there is currently no source of human embryonic stem cell and no control of private use of these cells, all companies and laboratories that want to study these cells must create their own. This is actually leading to destruction of more embryos than is necessary.

3. Armies of Hitlers. From movies and science fiction, people have visions of armies of clones if clones were allowed. This is, in my opinion, not just unlikely but virtually impossible given the technical difficulties and expense of creating clones. At the present, it takes many tries to create a clone of even a sheep. In order to grow up, the clone must be implanted and undergo gestation in a human uterus. Nobody will be able to do this on a large scale. Nor will anybody want to do this on a large scale. It would be much cheaper and more efficient to simply breed people of similar traits, just like they breed dogs or horses, to achieve this goal.

4. Therapeutic vs. Reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the creation of cells that can be used for therapy. Reproductive cloning is the creation of an individual. Both of these would be banned by the anti-cloning bill passed by the House of Representatives, i.e. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 1644, S. 790). Congress could just as easily pass a law that prohibits the transplantation of any cloned embryo derived from a single individual into the uterus of a woman. If this is accompanied by penalties of $1 million and 10 years prison term, no hospital administrator or doctor would undertake the risk of such a procedure because it would be so easily detectable and punished.

5. Warehouses of embryos and babies. At the present, there are very effective laws against the sale of human organs and embryos. These laws could clearly be applied to prevent the formation of commercial enterprises. These laws, however, would not be applicable to individuals who may clone cells for therapeutic purposes for themselves or who may want to take advantage of technology to produce eggs that can be fertilized, so that millions of infertile women can have children.

Finally, almost everybody who speaks on the subject of stem cells have been referring to them as "promising" and how they "may" revolutionize treatments of diseases. After hearing and thinking about this (in fact, using this language myself), I am thinking that this is inaccurate. Do I really think that stem cells is just "promising" and "may" lead to important therapies? The answer is no. I believe (and I believe that most scientists believe) that it is not a matter of if stem cells will play an important role in therapy but rather it is a matter of time before they become useful. While we can quibble about whether we use stem cells or progenitor cells, there is no question that cells that produce other cells and particularly stem cells that produce a variety of cells will produce therapies that will benefit millions of people.

I have been trying to think of equivalent examples in the history of humankind where the Roman Catholic Church has opposed scientific advances and has held back society. Two examples come to mind. The first was when the Church decided that the earth is the center of the universe and persecuted Galileo and other leading astronomers when they tried to publish and apply their scientific observations. This probably held back the development of accurate navigational devices and understanding of our universe for several centuries. The second was when the Church decided that dissection of human cadavers is sacriligeous and this decision probably held back the development of surgery in the Western world for centuries. During those years, other countries such as Persia were the centers of surgery because they allowed autopsies.

The current direction of the United States is frightening in several respects. I think that both sides of the debate want the same things: medical research to benefit the most people and the destruction of embryos to be minimized. Unfortunately, what is happening is a compromise policy that is doing exactly opposite of what everybody wants. It is holding back the research that will help millions of people and at the same time promoting greater destruction of embryos in the United States and around the world.

Wise.

[The Human Cannonball]

Thanks for continuing to educate. Your time and effort are very much appreciated here.

John/Chicago

[Patrick]

Thanks for the summary Dr Young.

Here in the UK, research on stem cells has been allowed since early this year. It is not restricted to any cell lines and allows limited cloning since stem cells can be harvested.

I think this happened thanks to the fact that we are a much less religious country than the US, and have far fewer Catholics. The RCs put up vigorous objections but in the end the new legislation passed easily through parliament and the house of lords. Also helping is the history of fertility research in the UK, with the first test tube baby born here.

It is gratifying that the ethics of this sort of research can be debated without too many religious hang-ups or political agendas getting in the way. I think we're lucky in the UK in that sense.

Patrick