An Answer to Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Wise Young]

An Answer to Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Wise Young, Ph.D. M.D.

Since 2001, when President George W. Bush restricted NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research to cell lines created before 2001, pro-life groups have done their best to stop embryonic stem cell research. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Congressman David Weldon from Florida repeatedly introduced legislation to criminalize somatic cell nuclear transfer, seeking to impose severe penalties of 10 years imprisonment and a $1 million fine for each act, more onerous than maximum penalty imposed for involuntary manslaughter. Both Senator Brownback and Congressman Weldon have used the same litany of arguments developed by conservative think tanks, i.e. research will destroy embryos, adult stem cells are already curing many conditions, and there is no evidence that embryonic stem cell therapies are beneficial.

These same arguments are now being repeated against state legislation. On 26 March 2006, Arlene Sawicki writes in a MichNew.com article that the Illinois legislature should not fund SB-3170, which proposes to fund stem cell research. Some people have suggested that there is no point in arguing against opponents of embryonic stem cell research because they are using a faith-based logic. This is not true. Sawicki is using the "talking points" developed by conservative think-tanks for Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Dave Weldon to attack embryonic stem cell research in Congress. The false principles and misinformation contained in these talking points can and should be rebutted.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_12239.shtml

Illinois Stem Cell Research Funding
By Arlene Sawicki
MichNews.com
Mar 26, 2006

As usual, nothing prevents ignorance and misinformation from masking itself in ethical and humane terms. Numerous articles regarding a pending Illinois appropriations bill SB-3170 have applauded Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) and Comptroller Dan Hynes (D) as being right, and, of course, President George W. Bush (R) for being wrong on a hotly debated moral and ethical issue, the use of embryos -- the tiniest form of a human being -- as a hope for curing a variety of incurable diseases.

<snip>

Human life is not a "commodity" whereby a human embryo can be destroyed in order to use its content in dubious scientific research. ...

<snip>

In contrast, discoveries in the use of a variety of "adult" stem cells and cells found in umbilical cord blood has already produced outstanding success and authentic results in diseases

<snip>

There is no record of anyone benefiting from human embryonic stem cell therapies after years of research.

<snip>

Dr. Peter Hollands, a stem cell biologist from Cambridge University, has said, "If we focused more time and funding on collecting umbilical cord blood from most births and storing the samples in a public bank, there would then be a suitable match for almost everyone."

<more>

Sawicki begins her article by accusing others of “ignorance and misinformation”, perhaps because these are the charges most commonly leveled against opponents of stem cell research. Sawicki then points out that “human life is not a ‘commodity’ whereby a human embryo can be destroyed in order to use its content in dubious scientific research.” This statement is misleading on many levels. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from blastocysts. A blastocyst is not yet an embryo and will not be until it develops a midline and implants into the uterus. It is a clump of cells that is barely visible to the eye. The suggestion that it is being treated as a commodity, i.e. a item of commerce, is wrong. The parents do not want it and have donated it to research to save lives.

Embryonic stem cell research is not dubious scientifically. In fact, opponents of stem cell research are afraid that science will show that embryonic stem cells can cure diseases. This is why they are working so hard to stop embryonic stem cell research before it reaches the clinic. Perhaps to assuage their guilt feelings that they may be causing deaths and suffering of people, they are claiming that embryonic stem cells are not necessary because umbilical cord blood and bone marrow stem cells are already curing diseases. Sawicki claims that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are “already producing outstanding success and authentic results in diseases”. This claim clearly does not apply to brain and spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and many other conditions that currently have no effective therapies.

The claim that adult stem cells are curing diseases has been beaten to death in Congress. On July 14, 2004, Senator Sam Brownback held a senate hearing on adult stem cells Source, featuring Susan Fajt, a person with spinal cord injury, to illustrate how adult stem cells can cure spinal cord injury. Susan had received nasal mucosa autografts to her spinal cord in Portugal. Susan was neither cured nor treated with adult stem cells. In 2005, Congressman Dave Weldon repeated the claim in Congress that adult stem cells had cured Susan Fajt’s spinal cord injury, a claim that she repudiates (Source). A medical doctor, Congressman Weldon is fond of showing a list of 65 conditions that he claims are cured by adult stem cells, neglecting to mention that most are hematopoietic conditions, the treatments often failed and have serious side-effects, including graft-versus-host disease.

The claim that embryonic stem cells have never cured anything is ironic. Sawicki said, “There is no record of anyone benefiting from human embryonic stem cell therapies after years of research.” It is ironic because she, Brownback, Weldon, and other opponents of embryonic stem cell research have done their utmost to stop embryonic stem cell research and its application to humans for nearly a decade. So, now they trumpet their success in stopping embryonic stem cell research as a reason why the research should be banned. Although many animal studies have shown beneficial effects of embryonic stem cell transplants, opponents of the research ignore the positive results in animals, secure in the knowledge that these cells have not yet been tried in humans due to their efforts.

The most puzzling part, however, is why proponents of adult stem cell research have done so little to support funding for adult stem cell research. Although several bills have been introduced in Congress to increase funding for bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placental stem cell research, none have passed to date. President George W. Bush has not proposed increased funding for adult stem cell research at NIH to make up for his restriction of embryonic stem cell research. In 2005, NIH funding for adult human stem cell research was less than $200 million. Even Singapore is spending more on stem cell research. Could it be that opponents of embryonic stem cell research don’t believe in the promise of adult stem cell research but they are just using the argument to bash embryonic stem cells?

Finally, Sawicki quotes Peter Hollands of Cambridge University arguing for public banking of umbilical cord blood, claiming that this would provide a “suitable match” for everybody. But Sawicki has not thought seriously about the problem. At the present, about 100,000 units of umbilical cord blood are available in public banks worldwide, sufficient to allow matching of 10,000 umbilical cord blood transplants per year. Even if the collection rate of umbilical cord were to increase by tenfold (a huge and expensive undertaking), it would be barely sufficient to treat 100,000 people per year. If umbilical cord blood turns out to be effective for any major medical condition, e.g. diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, brain injury, or spinal cord injury, what do we do? Should umbilical cord blood units be distributed by lottery or only to the wealthy? As long as we don’t have a cure, it is okay to cluck sympathetically. But once a cure is available, we must ensure that enough stem cells are available to treat millions of people. Otherwise, we have a humanitarian and moral crisis on our hands.

[Leif]

Thanks for writing this and explaining. There are many obstacles I can see. The debate over this subject is continuing as I came over this article today. This is from the situation in Florida.

TALLAHASSEE — State legislators have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lure the biomedical giant Scripps Research Institute to the state, a big player in the world of stem-cell research.

State financing for adult stem-cell research already is written into Florida law, and the legislature appears poised to pass a bill that would spend $120 million over four years on cancer and Alzheimer's research with some of that money going to adult stem-cell research.

But once the word "embryonic" gets thrown into the stem-cell discussion, things quickly change in the Capitol.
"They're afraid to say the word," said Rep. Shelley Vana, D-Lantana.

With four weeks remaining this session, bills in both chambers that would dedicate $150 million over 10 years to embryonic stem-cell research haven't cleared a single committee. Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee and House Speaker Allan Bense have all come out against the practice.

But a small group of lawmakers has successfully forced the leadership to at least engage in the debate in the controversial issue, causing a small but growing rift in the Republican party while giving Democrats an issue they believe is a sure-fire winner at the polls come November.
More. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/state/epaper/2006/04/08/a8a_xgr_stemcell_0408.html

[howboutdis]

Originally posted by Wise Young
The most puzzling part, however, is why proponents of adult stem cell research have done so little to support funding for adult stem cell research

Maybe it is time to stop pushing non-controversial agenda to satisfy these people who won't do a dam thing for sci anyway.

Right now McDonald and Hans would not gain any support from the CR non-controversial bills, while there are still strict limits on ESC funding, infact if you keep saying the CR bills are non-controversial you are even giving credence to the opposition of stem cell research.

My dad stood up exactly for this and Dr. Young Banned him. Let the good Dr. take a look at all the vulgar, hyjacking threads on his forum, and then, let him give reason why he chose to make an example of BigBob. BTW, on this site it was really hard to stick up for ESC or anything un-ordained by CareCure. If BigBob didn't speak up and rock the boat, CareCure would have been sending Steven to Lobby for the anti esc alternative decoy bills, yes the ones Dr. Young said he wasn't familiar with. Come on give me a break. And also I would like to see a generous support from leaders on CareCure for StepNow. Isn't it worth it. And not just best wishes either, Real support, unless other organizations frightens carecure. I don't like that carecure is being controlled to only really support an un spoken agenda and not all areas. It sure seems that way.

Please go to stepnow.org and register, it won't mean you are against Carecure or Dr. Young or the queen of doms.

[Wise Young]

The link to the site is http://www.stepnow.org/index.html

[ASilveus]

Would any qualified professional care to reply to this post? If so, please elaborate

1. Are you for or against government funding of embryonic stem cell research?

2. At what stage do you believe human life starts?

3. If any, who should determine the moral rights of embryonic cells?

4. Is parthenogenesis a valid alternative to current procedures?

5. Do you believe that Kantian respect should be given to embryonic cells?

6. Some believe that embryonic stem cell research would open the door for abortion. Do you agree?

7. Do you believe that there is a risk for exploitation of women for their eggs?

8. Some think that embryonic in comparison to adult cell research is hyped. Do you agree?

9. Do you believe Liao's Blastocyst Transfer Method is a valid compromise for those against embryonic research?

10. Do you believe that non-therapeutic procedures dealing with embryonic cells are immoral?

Thanks

[NoDecafPlz]

Wow, how did you ever come across THIS page Silveus?

[Leif]

Originally Posted by NoDecafPlz

Wow, how did you ever come across THIS page Silveus?

Tsk tsk I think Silveus is Finkel, she has been quite vocal on the cure lately.

[Steven Edwards]

Originally Posted by Leif

Tsk tsk I think Silveus is Finkel, she has been quite vocal on the cure lately.

Genie: You are down by one boy!



[i.e., you're wrong.]

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Steven Edwards

Genie: You are down by one boy!



[i.e., you're wrong.]

Hmm: "and curing us." http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=95282

[adi chicago]

as you know i am a country boy lol....excuse my french.....why these idiots politicians ,[ass holes]do not want to cure sci?do they must broke their damn necks to understand what means pain ,suffering and one of the most devastating injury around the world?if i am wrong ...please forgive me......