Seattle Democrat Jeanne Kohl-Welles (36th) is sponsoring SB 5594. Here's more, from the legislation:
..An estimated one hundred twenty-eight million Americans suffer from chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases, including diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, and spinal cord injury.....Stem cell research could lead to unprecedented treatments and potential cures...Washington state is home to several large medical research institutions and an expanding biomedical research industry. These organizations are committed to improving the lives of Americans suffering from chronic, degenerative, and acute diseases. Encouraging stem cell research is essential to realizing the promise of stem cell research....While stem cell research holds enormous potential for treating or even curing some diseases, the cloning of human beings is morally and ethically unacceptable.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. It is the policy of Washington state that research involving the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation, is permitted upon full consideration of the ethical and medical implications of this research.
....A patient who chooses to donate unused embryos for research after a consultation under subsection (1) of this section shall provide written consent.....A person may donate human embryonic tissue or human cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes.
Co-sponsors are Karen Keiser (D-33), Rosa Franklin (D-24), Adam Kline (D-37), and Pat Thibaudeau (D-43).
So. What do you think? Anyone care to make an argument in support? I'm still trying to make up my mind. Let's try not to get overheated, OK?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 10, 2005 02:33 PM | Email ThisNot really surprising, coming from the party of segregation and Jim Crowism: If they can't vote AND, by having their lives taken, can benefit those who CAN vote, they are fair game for the Democrats, be they black or unborn. Adolph Hitler would be proud.
Posted by: GH on February 10, 2005 02:29 PMIt seems to me that with one hand our politicians criticize their ancestors for the way they treated one group of human beings, and with their other they are determined to make the same mistake with a different group of human beings.
History repeats itself. It all depends on what you can convince the general population of.
First off, the ethics are questionable at best, reprehensible at worst. No one can claim that it's simply a non-issue. Scientists, by nature, will do anything they are allowed to do. But Western civilization has has a long history of coaxing science to (eventually) take the more difficult road when faced with morally questionable shortcuts (ie, experimenting on prisoners, stray cats, digging up corpses, etc). There's no reason that tradition should not continue.
Second, embryonic stem cells are distinctly second class when it comes to potential. Adult stem cells are easier to manipulate and easier to obtain. Money spent on embryonic stem cells is better spent on adult stem cells and other techniques. The only reason it's even an issue is because Democrats saw an opportunity to make political hay out of conservative moral qualms.
I have more to say about some dishonesty in the bill, but I can't get it past the cyber-censor for some reason. I'll post that momentarily.
Posted by: Timothy on February 10, 2005 02:41 PMIt claims that "the cloning of human beings is morally and ethically unacceptable," but then goes on to endorse "somatic cell nuclear transplantation."
Guess what? That's just another way to say "cloning." That dishonesty is insulting.
Posted by: Timothy on February 10, 2005 02:42 PMJames
Miracle cells
SCIENCE: Cutting-edge researchers are making unheralded breakthroughs with stem cells from umbilical cords˜but have a hard time breaking through the NIH funding wall. "I think people who want embryonic stem cells just don't want [alternatives] to work" | by Lynde Langdon
LAWRENCE, Kan. ˜ At the University of Kansas, Dr. Kathy Mitchell has two small labs that resemble high-school biology classrooms, just with more expensive equipment. In the smallest one, the size of a large supply closet, she pulls up a computer screen showing fluorescent dots in a sea of translucent green. She clicks her mouse, and the dots, which are stem cells, start to repair a gash in the green membrane, which is a layer of kidney cells.
Dr. Mitchell wants to test on animals what she has learned under the microscope about fixing kidney damage. It would bring her one step closer to healing the malfunctioning kidneys of people with leukemia, diabetes, and other disorders. She might someday save the healthcare system millions in dialysis costs, if she could just get a little funding for her research. The National Institutes of Health has shunned her grant applications three times. In one grant review, a fellow scientist commented that her stem cells come from tissue inside umbilical cords, not days-old embryos.
"We already have a good source of stem cells," the grant reviewer wrote. "Why do we need another?"
But ethical questions surround the practice of extracting stem cells from embryos. While stem cells from embryos can produce all the tissue in the body, recovering them destroys the embryo. Doctors can extract stem cells from an umbilical cord with no negative impact on the infant.
Dr. Mitchell and Harvard researcher Dr. Denise Faustman say they have little to contribute to the ethical debate of using embryonic stem cells but much to contribute to medicine. Those contributions, however, have been ignored and even delayed because of the public fray over embryonic stem cells, they say.
Dr. Faustman also said she believes some research, such as her studies of the role of proteins in diabetes, has had little support or recognition because it goes against the popular belief that embryonic stem-cell research is the answer to curing diseases.
Science has always had its own popular culture, Dr. Faustman said. "It's pretty typical for research to go through phases where one discipline is emphasized over another," she said.
Frequently, the scientists supporting the popular culture are the ones deciding which research projects receive grants from the NIH. The NIH provides the bread and butter for medical research in the United States˜more than $19 billion a year in grant funding since 2002. Before a scientist can tap into that money, a panel of peers must review and accept the scientist's research proposal. If a research proposal goes against the flow of popular science, it will have a hard time getting through the peer review process, Dr. Faustman says.
Drs. Mitchell and Faustman have both been frustrated by peer review. The problem, Dr. Faustman says, is that her peer reviewers also compete against her for different grants.
"The review is totally different than every other segment of the economy," she says. "If every time you wanted to open a dry cleaners you had to go to 90 percent of your competitors and get a consensus, what would be the chance you'd be able to open a profitable business?"
She says she would have abandoned her research several years ago had she not received a surge of funding from an unusual source. Lee Iacocca, former chairman of the Chrysler Corporation whose wife died from diabetes, funded a seven-year, $4 million research project for Dr. Faustman, with the promise of an $11 million fundraising campaign. Dr. Faustman used the initial money to test her ideas about diabetes in mice.
For almost 20 years, many scientists have hoped to cure diabetes by putting insulin-producing islet cells into the pancreas, replacing islet cells that were destroyed by white blood cells. Recently, they predicted that embryonic stem cells could be transplanted into the pancreas to produce the needed islet cells.
Dr. Faustman realized that such a treatment would be futile if white blood cells kept attacking the transplanted islets. She instead focused on why the white blood cells attacked the islets in the first place. She discovered a protein-processing defect was the cause and developed an easy way to treat it. The treatment cured the mice of Type 1 diabetes.
Successful experiments on mice are a critical step in getting approval to try a treatment on humans. One reason Dr. Faustman said she has not tried embryonic stem-cell research is because she has not seen research in which a diseased mouse was successfully treated with an embryonic stem cell.
"I was taught something pretty young, and that was: Don't follow the dogma, follow the data," she says. Despite the lack of mouse data, however, the NIH has set aside millions for research on embryonic stem cells.
Meanwhile, Drs. Mitchell and Faustman, who have credible data on treating strokes, kidney damage, and diabetes˜some of same diseases the NIH says embryonic stem cells can cure˜are denied funding. "I think people who want embryonic stem cells just don't want [alternatives] to work," Dr. Faustman said.
But the alternatives are working, miraculously. Four years ago, doctors diagnosed Steve Barsh's 1-year-old son, Spencer, with adrenoleukodystrophy. ALD, featured in the 1992 movie Lorenzo's Oil, is a degenerative brain disease that usually only affects boys. Doctors told the Barshes there was little they could do for Spencer. There was a 50 percent likelihood he would die before age 10, and a 75 percent likelihood the disease would affect his brain, most likely leaving him disabled.
The Barshes refused to accept those odds. They started the Stop ALD Foundation to drive research to find a safe therapy for the disease. The Barshes devoted themselves to the foundation until just after Spencer turned 2, when he had trouble healing from brain surgery, a complication of ALD.
"We ran out of time to do research," Mr. Barsh said. Although the foundation continued its work, and still does today, the Barshes focused on getting Spencer the best treatment available. They found Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg and her colleagues at Duke University Medical Center. With the help of a five-year grant from the NIH, doctors at Duke were using stem cells from the blood in umbilical cords to treat children with diseases like Spencer's.
The Barshes moved from Philadelphia to Durham, N.C., for seven months while doctors treated their son. ALD affects the body's ability to break down a kind of fatty acids, which leads to excess fatty acids eventually causing brain damage. Doctors transplanted umbilical cord blood stem cells into Spencer in hopes that the healthy stem cells would help his body break down the fat molecules.
The stem cells did what the doctors hoped; they stopped Spencer's ALD. But something else happened, too, something the Barshes and Dr. Kurtzberg discuss gingerly. The treatment not only stopped the disease, it also reversed the effects ALD had on Spencer's brain, contradicting the scientific notion that it is impossible to heal the brain. Today, Spencer is a normal, healthy 5-year-old boy.
With the five-year grant they received from the NIH, Dr. Kurtzberg and her colleagues successfully treated other children with ALD, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and severe combined immune deficiency, also known as bubble-boy disease. The same year President Bush set rules for federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the NIH chose not to renew the cord blood transplant grant.
"The NIH said, 'Congratulations, cord blood transplants work. We fund basic research. You are now beyond that. You now need to get funding from somewhere else,'" Mr. Barsh said. There was no money left for Dr. Kurtzberg to do clinical trials, but so much left to discover.
Dr. Kurtzberg thinks that further research into diseases such as ALD could lead to a cure for adult diseases like Parkinson's. "We still have a lot to learn about understanding why cells do what they do," she said.
The federal Health Resources and Services Administration received $10 million in appropriations last year for collecting and banking umbilical cord blood. Some of that money could eventually support research. The NIH, which bankrolls innovative medical research in the United States, has funded only 30 projects involving stem cells from umbilical cords. In contrast, it has funded 634 projects involving embryonic stem cells.
Though the priority for funding umbilical cord stem-cell research is low, the promise is great. A scientist in Denmark has shown stem cells from umbilical cord blood can turn into brain, bone, cartilage, liver, and heart cells. In Lawrence, Kan., Dr. Mitchell's research has led to stem cells from the inner tissue of umbilical cords, also known as the matrix, producing nerve cells.
But her passion is getting stem cells to repair damaged kidneys. Two years ago, her nephew died of acute renal failure, a complication of leukemia. At the time, a colleague in the KU medical school was urging Dr. Mitchell to apply her stem-cell discoveries to kidney damage. "I hate to tug at your heart strings," she remembers him telling her, "but this is the kind of thing maybe your stem cells could cure."
Despite her previous rejections, Dr. Mitchell plans to apply again to the NIH this February for a grant to test her stem cells in animals with damaged kidneys. She is a single mother who went to college for the first time after she had five children, and she has a calm patience when it comes to the NIH.
"I have high hopes that my research is going to get funded the next go-round," she says as she describes her greatest frustration as a stem-cell researcher. It is not the difficulty she has getting funded, but the way the public associates her with embryo-destroying stem-cell research. She supports research on embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization, but she despises the way some scientists insist that embryonic stem cells are the only way to cure diseases.
"If people were more aware of it . . ." she says, trailing off. "It's nothing short of a miracle to see the diseases (cured by umbilical cord stem cells). It's, gosh, mind-boggling." ˜?
Personhood: It Comes Naturally
by Dan Kennedy, C.E.O., Human Life of Washington
To say that a single-celled human being at conception is no larger than the dot at the end of this sentence is to simply give a description based on appearance. It is not an explanation or definition of what this human being is.
Aristotle 2400 years ago noted that to obtain a true definition of what something is, you must discover what its powers are and what it is meant to be. To judge by appearance alone is both ignorant and perilous. Genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing - history offers abundant witness to the brutal injustice that inevitably results from arbitrary judgments.
At conception each of us becomes a self-possessed human person. We possess our own future; it belongs to us uniquely and no one else. No matter our size, present within us at conception is the complete design of what we are meant to be and a guiding force or impetus that brings that development about. This power and the information necessary to direct it must be present at conception in order for development to occur.
Personhood is not dependent on whether one is currently manifesting all one's powers or not. It is not a temporary state that comes and goes with our degree of functionality. A machine could conceivably be designed to look like us, and mimic numerous human traits, but functional mimicry is not personhood. Indeed, there are already machines that actually function more efficiently than we do at specific tasks, but I seriously doubt your vacuum cleaner ever wonders about the fairness of it all.
You, however, are intrinsically oriented toward that unique human characteristic, evident even in young children, to desire and reflect on transcendent realities like justice and truth. Our dignity at conception is often obscured by labels assigned to stages of development such as zygote, blastocyst, fetus, or infant. But, an embryo is not less of a human being than an infant, anymore than a child is less of a human being before puberty than after. At every stage we are whole human beings.
This problem with labels is not new. In fact, Abraham Lincoln used to illustrate it by humorously asking how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is four, because it makes no difference if you call it a leg, it is still a tail. In the same way, how we label a stage of development doesn't change the fundamental nature or reality of that which we label.
Tragically, language has often been engineered for the very purpose of dehumanizing those who are different, who don't look like us, or those targeted for exploitation. Nor does the inability to perceive personhood in others serve as proof that it must not be present. One's own lack of clarity does not alter objective reality.
Ironically, those who would deny personhood under these circumstances, fancy themselves more sophisticated than their historical counterparts, who condoned atrocities based on appearance. However, they display the same shallow mentality when it comes to contemporary debates. Once again we witness ignorance and utilitarian motives corrupting what is both rationally and morally obvious, that we can not earn for ourselves, or bestow on others what is already ours by nature.
Our culture's eclipse of reason has resulted in untold suffering and a relentless violation of inalienable rights. The unborn, the elderly, the disabled are all targets of these self-appointed final arbiters of personhood. Inevitably, none of us are immune from their arbitrary judgments. Healing the culture must begin with acknowledging that at conception, a unique, self-possessed human person comes into being. Their future, as well as ours, depends on it.
"While stem cell research holds enormous potential for treating or even curing some disease"
The research of stem cells should continue and there is potential, huge potential, there. However, it has never been shown that Embryonic Stem Cells provide any more potential than any other type.
I'll also not support this bill because it includes clauses that would allow the use of cells harvested from aborted babies. That is just too slipery of a slope, and I don't think it's ethical or morally acceptable for congress to suggest it.
Posted by: Mikey on February 10, 2005 03:00 PMThere is a profound difference between the blastocyst caused by fertilization and the blastocyst resulting from SCNT. When fertilization occurs, there is a NEW AND UNIQUE combination of genes contributed equally by the father and the mother. However, a blastocyst resulting from SCNT contains only the same genes of the the person who donated the body cell nucleus used in the procedure.
The only way this procedure would create a new life would be if the blastocyst were then placed in to the uterus of a woman. This would, of course, be reproductive cloning. We're not talking about cloning. We're talking about tiny bundles of unfertilized cells existing in petri dishes. No legitimate biomedical researcher would think about this act. The ultimate trump card: the billions of dollars that would come from patents for treatment and cures.
There you have a small explanation of why we need this legislation. Now let me ask this: if you are opposed, please explain to the afflicted and their loved ones why you care more about unfertilized bundles of stem cells in a petri dish than you care about those who are afflicted and their loved ones.
Posted by: SCNT on February 10, 2005 03:01 PMIf something is worth doing there are private institutions, charities, and individuals who can choose to give their money and support. They are taking my money to fund a highly suspect "scientific" program and I highly disagree with it on those grounds. I'm no scientist, but the evidence I have read shows that adult stem cells are much more promising and an adult can give consent.
Posted by: megs on February 10, 2005 03:04 PMMy little cousin is paralyzed right now. It was a football accident and the doctors said he'd never walk again and would be paralyzed from the neck down.
So far he's recovered to the point of being able to feed himself and even stand up to take his Prom picture.
If there were a "cure" for his injury that could only be achieved by destroying potential life I would not be for it. And I highly doubt that he would be either. If there are other options that are more promising, why not focus on those. Throw the resources behind the research that is actually making a difference.
Additionally, if they are allowed to use cells from aborted babies (and I've seen too many photos not to call them babies), the abortion industry will become even more of a profit industry than it is currently. Planned Parenthood didn't shut down non-performing clinics because they were performing a lot of abortions...just the opposite. They weren't making enough $$$...maybe those particular clinics were actually more interested in preventing pregnancy or encouraged alternatives (*SHOCK* the horror! Adoption!).
I just think it's illogical to throw resources at something that, as of yet, has not been proven to be even potentially effective. And it's my money and I want to determine where it goes.
Posted by: megs on February 10, 2005 03:12 PMI was too young to remember the details of when test tube babies were controversial, but I'll bet many of the same arguments were used.
Also, perhaps some of the reason that ESC has not yeilded the same result as ASC, has something to do with the disparity in research funding.
IMHO, limiting research based on the religious ramifications is a bad idea.
Is it better to throw embryos away rather than find a use for them?
Posted by: BenJCarter on February 10, 2005 03:15 PMWill it help me get rid of my cold? It seems these stem cells are the fountain of youth. Well, I don't believe it.
Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2005 03:18 PMGregoire seeks $350 million biotech fund...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002167797_lifesciences02.html
"Though Gregoire's proposal was criticized by Republican gubernatorial rival Dino Rossi during the campaign, it has attracted backing from key leaders in both political parties.
Top Republicans in the Senate — Senate Minority Leader Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, and Senate floor leader Luke Esser, R-Bellevue — have signed on as co-sponsors. So have House appropriations chairwoman Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane."
Won't this fund the research wanted by SB5594? Why are Finkbeiner and Esser involved? I can understand Finkbeiner but I thought Esser was clearly against fetal stem cell research. Thanks for any help.
Posted by: Becky on February 10, 2005 03:22 PMI disagree with you that government should not spend money on pure science. Pure science can discover things that lead to applied science and wonderful inventions.
SCNT -
I have heard the same thing from a correspondent who supported the California measure, and I have three points I hope you will consider.
1) life starts somewhere and I want scientists and our culture to revere it more before taking large steps that are ethically questionable to the populace as a whole.
2) our government currently funds (as does CA) limited ESC research already. It's covered, even if it doesn't get results.
3) it is cruel to mislead people about the realities of ESC. Hope comes from venues that bring results- ASC and CBSC. If you want to give people hope tell them about victories with those lines of research and pour your passions into areas where there is achievement.
I can guaran-dam-tee that our homeless situation would be greatly ameliorated if we did a better job with mental health programs. Heck, I'll go a step further. If the great state of Washington would hand out Prozac or Lithium or counseling or whatever as freely as we hand out condoms, birth control pills and abortions, we'd all be better off.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 10, 2005 03:27 PMBrilliant basis for legislation. Virtually all disease is either chronic or acute.
Posted by: Bill on February 10, 2005 03:32 PMPlease note, this is JANUARY 4, 2005
Taiwan scientists say placenta could provide alternative to stem cells
Agence France-Presse
Taipei, January 4|17:52 IST
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1182681%2C00040006.htm
"Cells from the human placenta could provide an alternative to the ethically controversial use of foetal stem cells, a team of Taiwan scientists said on Tuesday announcing their research findings.
The team isolated "multipotent" cells from the placenta which they described as a "new type of cells" between embryonic and adult stem cells.
The new cells are called placenta-derived multipotent cells (PDMCs).
"Unlike embryonic stem cells, PDMCs are free from ethical considerations," Chen Yao-chang, head of the National Health Research Institutess Stem Cell Research Centre, said."
Testimony Against: The state should not pursue the questionable and risky outcomes associated with embryonic stem cell research when adult stem cell research is clearly proved to be effective. This bill should not also contain the cloning issue; it should be dealt with separately. This bill is not needed. There is currently no ban on human cloning or embryonic stem cell research in this state or at the federal level. Fertility clinics in this state currently offer patients the option of donating leftover embryos for research. This bill is not needed to allow adult stem cell research, which can be federally funded. The language in this bill would allow a cloned embryo to be cultivated for his or her body parts well beyond the embryonic stage. The term "human cloning" is not properly defined in the bill.
I think the poster above nailed it with the 350 million for biotech research. If this is passed, it if effective immediately. There would probably be a big press conference later after the court action. She is withholding her budget too. Could it be for the same reason? Make sure she is Governor and then slam us with new taxes. I read again about more taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and soda pops! The tax on cigarettes in Washington is one of the highest or the highest in the country at 18.50 per carton. I don't drink so I wouldn't know about the alcohol.
I fear we are getting ready to get slam-dunked all over the place with taxes. Our schools don't have any money according to our policy makers but maybe if they stopped spending it on porn stars like Ron Jeremy who has "starred" in over 1750 porno movies to speak Eastern Washington University maybe kids in Washington might be able to read!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 10, 2005 03:42 PMFirst the motiviation away from placenta stem cells and adult cells is largely one of avoiding patent infringement. Stem cell isolation in these tissues comprises a variety of techniques that were painstakingly discovered and are now patented.
Some will say falsely claim that adult stem cells and placenta stem cells are not somehow as 'viable', 'efficient', 'effective' and so on as are embryonic stem cells. This is false and there is no generally accepted evidence supporting embryonic stem cells over say placenta stem cells.
The embryonic stem cell proponents want research material without having to license or pay for a license to harvest stem cells from tissues that do not present ethical conflicts.
The embryonic stem cell proponents are tied to the abortion industry. Basically the permitting of harvesting embryonic stem cells opens a new business opportunity for the abortion industry. Most people do not want the abortion industry to be a growth industry but they are unaware of the connection with embryonic stem cells.
The promises of stem cell research are just that, promises. There are no guarantees that embryonic stem cell research, let alone stem cells in general will deliver any of the promised claims that are paraded around sometimes almost as if they are certainties.
Embryonic stem cell research is a wedge issue, it is a false issue as described above and it is designed to be used by demogogues.
Don't believe any of it for even a second.
Posted by: Michael on February 10, 2005 03:47 PMThe only cell that becomes fertilized per se is the egg cell. Once it begins replicating, then you could (I suppose) say that the cells produced are "unfertilized." But to insinuate that they are somehow fundamentally different than an embryo produced naturally is purely dishonest.
You are correct that it only contains the genetic material from one source--duh. That's why it's called cloning. Other than the source of the genetic material, there is no difference between a naturally occuring blastocyst and a cloned blastocyst.
This is why I wouldn't support this sort of thing even if I personally didn't have religious qualms. Too many of its advocates are simply dishonest.
Posted by: Timothy on February 10, 2005 03:52 PMI fail to see what is so promising from this research, other than the continued waste of money...as pointed out by: Timothy on February 10, 2005 02:41 PM
Moral arguments aside, adult stem cell research has consistently showed durability and viability in research. I read somewhere (I will need to do a search on the story) the stem cell lines President Bush allowed for research are already useless.
Oh, and it is immoral...
Posted by: smegma on February 10, 2005 04:01 PMyou asked for comments - one item near the end suggested donation of so-called unused embryos for research. I suggest people do their homework and find out about the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program (www.nightlight.org/snowflakeslanding.asp). Who knows? Maybe you can talk to one of those 'unused embryos' and ask THEM what they think about this. If not today, then in a few years... after they've learned to speak full sentences.
MO
Posted by: mary on February 10, 2005 04:17 PMRM
Posted by: rmueller on February 10, 2005 04:18 PMIt is purely a political statement. Our legislators should work on the real issues that exist in this state and not play national politics.
That said, this is brilliant strategy because it distracts everyone from the huge election fiasco that just occured. Let's not fall for this, so stop debating stem cell research on focus on real WA issues.
Posted by: mikeki on February 10, 2005 04:20 PMStem cells are the starter cells that create or even recreate all of the different kinds of cells and structure we have in our bodies, be it hair, bones, organs, etc.
The only advances made with stem cells to this point are from adult stem cells, or from one's own stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells have yielded NO successes, and in fact nothing but failures.
The embryonic stem cells are too unstable with respect to what kind of stem cell is actually being used. It could be an organ, or a bone cell that they try implanting in, say, someones brain.
Thus it can lead to unperdictable, and even catstrophic results.
As for philosophically, or morally; even if you think that this may yield a valuable result and are willing to go along with the Dem.s thinking...
consider this; Nazi SS officer Josef Mangella did similiar kinds of "experiments" on children in the death camps (supposedly)in the name of science, yet the majority of the world looks at him as one of the worst monsters of our time, if not in all of history.
Do any of you really want to be copible (with respect to allowing our legislators to pass this or any similar bill) in the very same type of tragedy?
I truely believe the Dem.s are fighting for this issue simply to keep any kind of protection from embryoes and fetuses so that no legislation can be enacted that may infringe upon the abortion debate.
Posted by: Boomer on February 10, 2005 04:25 PMIf anyone's interested in reading, here's some good articles discussing stem cell research by Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2072
and
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2362
I just e-mailed my Senator, Adam Kline urging him to withdraw his support from this bill.
Your last statement says it all.
Also, I recall on another thread yesterday - someone making reference to their children being exposed to pictures of "dead fetuses" - while I don't think those kind of photos should be displayed for everyone to see, I'm not opposed to someone going in for an abortion being shown those photos, so they can see the reality of abortion. Abortion is what this embryonic stem cell research is all about, it is not about parkinsons, m.d., m.s. or other diseases at all - all of the previous posts regarding adult stem cells, cord cells, etc.. are very informative and should be more publicized.
I think the funding is in HB1623 and SB 5581. They ALSO have declared an emergency in them and both were requested by Christine Gregoire and she testified for them.
They have already had public debate and are winding their way through the atate house and senate.
I copied & pasted below... check out the 1 billion dollar price tag.
"Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect on June 30, 2005.
Testimony For: The Life Sciences Discovery Fund represents years of thinking, talking and visualizing about what we, as a state, can do to revolutionize health care and agriculture. This fund provides the opportunity to provide jobs, as many as 20,000, and spur our economy by bringing together the research institutions, health care industry and high tech community. UW and WSU are among the finest research universities in the country but rank 49th in state contributions to support them. This fund provides an opportunity to leverage the bonus tobacco money with other private and public money to raise up to $1 billion to spur our economy, revolutionize health care to be predictive and preventive, to take the state's agriculture products and have greater yield and greater quality yield and also provide the state with very god jobs. This state has some of the finest researchers in the country and this fund would position the state to be able to attract and retain even more. To this end, the state needs to have more of an entrepreneurial relationship between the research institutions and the private sector.
Testimony Against: None.
Concerns: This bill could be supported if it prohibited public funding of human embryonic stem cell research. It would be preferred that some of the strategic contribution payments would still be used for low income health care and tobacco prevention programs rather than all of it going into the life sciences fund."
Posted by: sgmmac on February 10, 2005 05:57 PMIt's very likely that stem cells will become the future medical technology on which many life saving procedures will be built. It's distinctly possible for stem cells to wipe out cancer and other very devastating human diseases.
Conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives may literally be dead wrong on this issue. Similar to the abortion issue, conservatives would rather ruin an actual life for the sake of a potential life. That's really what this debate is about.
Even though embryonic cells may have the potential to mature in to a full human, I for one would gladly trade that embryonic potential for my own adult life and the value that my adult life provides to my young children.
While this may be hard for some religious people to stomach on an ethical and moral basis, it is clearly a technology that has the potential to save an enormous amount of human life and thus even on a moral and ethical level, it must be considered alongside any potential concern for the potentiality of organic human cells.
Furthermore, if there is something so sanctimonious about life qua life, then why are many more than happy to tolerate non-human animal lives used for science for the sake of human medical advancement when, physically there is almost no difference between human and other animal cells beyond a few gene sequences in the DNA?
It's luddite to simply dismiss stem cell technology for the future implications it may have for the human race, a race that may indeed extend far beyond the man made construct of religion.
I think you make a profound point, Jeff B. I don't think it was your intention, but profound nonetheless...Why are we mucking with human cells when we kill plenty of cows to feed the gene research?
Posted by: smegma on February 10, 2005 06:20 PMI could be wrong, but I don't think these bills are coming up on a ballot...... If they pass the democratic house and senate, the democratic gov will sign them into law. She requested the life sciences discovery fund.
Posted by: sgmmac on February 10, 2005 06:22 PMThe function of an embryonic stem cell is to produce many different types of cells, switching automatically among them since at the time the embryonic stem cell starts working, there's nothing else to direct it. The function of an adult stem cell is to produce many cells of the types selected by the host organism.
The biggest difference between embryonic and adult stem cells is that the former have a 'feature' which is absolutely vital when constructing a baby from scratch, but is worse than useless in the proposed therapeutic applications.
Consider also: if stem cells are taken from someone and used to generate some type of tissue when is then implanted back into that person, the tissue is a guaranteed genetic match. By contrast, unless someone had a twin that was sacrificed, any tissue derived from embryonic stem cells will almost certainly not be a perfect metch. With normal donor-tissue transplants, rejection is a serious risk; a therapy that can guarantee perfect-match tissue would thus have considerable advantages over one that could not.
Posted by: supercat on February 10, 2005 06:40 PMGary Johnson wrote:
If embryonic stem cell research really showed any promise, the biotech firms would be all over it, and no tax money would be needed.
Boomer wrote:
Embryonic stem cells have yielded NO successes, and in fact nothing but failures.
Whidbey Teacher wrote:
adult stem cells (ASC) and cord blood stem cells (CBSC) are the only stems cells that have proven medical value.
There are others.
I'm not going to get into the abortion debate here, as neither side is likely to be convinced by the other. Nor will I try to debate the morality, as each side seems to believe that the other is simply immoral and evil.
I will, however, correct statements that are in error on the facts. From The San Jose Mercury-News, Jul. 28, 2004: "Stanford breakthrough likely to rekindle stem cell debate
"the Stanford group reported finding that fetal brain stem cells may be capable of growing into neurons and thereby fill in the gaps in the brain that are often associated with debilitating strokes." (the link to the complete story is below)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9260863.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c
From the Feb 01, 2005 University of Wisconsin Daily Cardinal:
"UW-Madison scientists formed spinal motor neurons from human embryonic stem cells."
http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2005/02/01/News/Uw.Achieves.StemCell.Breakthrough-847536.shtml
This information took less than five minutes to find. Debate the morality all you want. Believe that the embryo has a soul. These are questions that I myself pray about, and do not have an answer. But, regardless of your position on the issue, please get your facts right.
Considering how controversial this research is, I'm frankly surprised to find anything. Researchers are very reluctant to publicize their work in this area, as it tends to get groups of picketers marching around their labs, calling them "baby murderers".
As to those stating that there is no news about adult stem cell research, I found lots of information. It doesn't make the front page because it isn't controversial at all, and as such doesn't sell newspapers.
Yes, I note the contradiction. Almost nothing about embryonic stem cell research as it's too controversial, very little about adult stem cell research because it isn't controversial enough. Go figure.
I don't buy any of it...
"may be capable"
"New developments involving motor neurons could eventually provide options[...]
"What we found was we needed to give [the stem cells] a cocktail combination of chemicals and this should be used in a specific window of time," she said. "If you miss this window you probably will not make the cells. This [research] can possibly be used to form other types of cells."
"In a move to promote biotechnology and stem cell research, Gov. Jim Doyle proposed a $750 million investment for research in November. Doyle will host a visit today from Michael J. Fox, a well-publicized sufferer of Parkinson's disease and advocate of embryonic stem-cell research, where the two will tour the Waisman Center and its science labs."
I love a good debate, but this is not one of them.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
- Mark Twain
Gee.....
Everyone gets sucked into the "cure" arguments.....Stem cells - adult vs embryonic...
Doesn't anyone else wonder WHY we are suddenly being plagued with these disabling and debilitating disorders? They weren't common just 30 years ago and were unheard of 50 years ago!
I'm in my late 40's.... (Yes - that means I was born in the 50's..heh) When I was growing up - these diseases were so rare they were not even registered as a norm in the national disease databases! The term *auto-immune* wasn't taken seriously until the late 70's....
Before we start looking to some cellular scrap junk yard for our cures.....I think we need to find out what is causing our illness....
Whether it's vaccines, flouride, hormones, modified food,pesticides, etc......Something is making us and our children ill. I just can't believe you all are ignoring that fact and rushing for a bandaid! If we continue to be exposed to whatever it is that is attacking our immune systems - then we will never be cured!
Posted by: Deborah on February 10, 2005 07:12 PMSaying that there haven't been any breakthroughs is easy if you simply ignore or deny any reports of breakthroughs. Since most reports of breakthrough research (in any field) include the fact that the researchers want more money, the fact that these researchers are also looking for more do not negate their findings.
Now, the real debate here is about whether or not embryonic research is moral, not whether it could help solve any problems. Denying that it has any benefit, when some has already been shown, seems counterproductive. It puts the rest of their argument in question.
Additionally, it could be argued that the adult and cord cell research is more productive. I haven't done enough research to have a real opinion one way or another on that.
But again, to simply deny any breakthroughs when some have been shown is to throw your whole argument into question.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 10, 2005 07:21 PMBut again, to simply deny any breakthroughs when some have been shown is to throw your whole argument into question.
The difference is not vague IMO...
"may be capable"+"could eventually" coupled with "can possibly" indicates cryptic language, at best. To get venture capital, cryptic language doesn't work, unless you are a government agency...
I am the father of a son (18 years old) with a deadly degenerative disease (he has not walked since he was 10, and will never walk again) and another son (13) who may have a different serious genetic problem (not diagnosed as of yet, he may be o.k.; but he does have a spine abnormality according to the MRI). I can tell you sincerely that I would do whatever it took to help my sons if I was sure of the end results. Legal, moral, whatever. However, should I, even if I could? No. It is hubris for humans to play God, but at what point that starts, I am not completely sure.
To use economics as a reason for further research makes me nauseous, but that is an emotional response, and not necessarily an intellectual response.
The idea of throwing government dollars at this I don't like either. There are so many other problems they we should already be dealing with.
I guess my problem is I am not sure I know where the slippery slope starts, but I do know that it is there in front of us. That is meant more as a comment on stem cell research in general than as a comment on any impending legislation.
Posted by: JG on February 10, 2005 08:06 PMThere is a very plausible explaination for what we observe that you are overlooking - that nothing is "causing" diseases, they are simply diagnosed more. In the '50s, there was no Alzheimers, there were just senile old people. People then used to die of "natural causes". No more. We've gotten better at pathology, and every death has a cause now. And by the way, in the '50s, antibiotics just started to be used, so far fewer people died of bactierial infections. BUT, mortality is still 100%, in the long run. THAT is why cancer rates went up in the 60s. It's because we have to die of SOMETHING, and we just took a big one off the table. There is nothing in the air, water or anything else. It's just statistics.
Posted by: Dogbert on February 10, 2005 08:09 PMWhy create embryos when adult stem cells are available? UCB is as effective as bone marrow, without the painful process.
My wife donated her cord blood, 170 grams of UCB, when Caitlyn was born Monday. There are 2 million births a year. If donation of UCB, currently treated as medical waste, becomes commonplace, we could wipe out sickle cell anemia and leukemia.
But embryonic stem cell therapies have only produced tumors and mutations. The reason there is any public call for it is because Bush opposed such research, and the reactionary left didn't consider the matter rationally.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on February 10, 2005 08:12 PM> Why not watch and follow what California is
> doing. They're spending like one billion on
> SCR ... what's a paultry few hundred mill.
> against that?
> Jobs?
If you look at the full text of SB 5594, you may note something that is conspicuous by its absence:
The "By line" does NOT include "at the request of the Governor". If Gov-Temp Gregoire had won by 200,000 votes I expect that additional phrase WOULD have been present (remember that candidate Gregoire made bio-tech jobs a key issue in her campaign). I'll bet that the main reason it is NOT there is that the Gov-Temp knows that there is a fairly good chance she will have to face the voters again real soon. And even though the "at the request of the Gov" phrase is not officially there, I'll bet there was close coordination with the office of the Gov-Temp before this was thrown in the hopper.
So yes: I expect this is an effort on the part of the Gov-Temp and legislators to pry some SCR jobs away from CA. I don't expect they will have much luck at doing that regardless of whether this bill passes in the current form or not:
Like James said:
CA is going to be spending at the billion-dollar level on SCR after the voters approved that expenditure. Leading scientists who are interested in pursuing that research will go to CA, not here.
Methow Ken
However, I don't see what the state has to do with it unless it is planning to fund research. People can donate embryos today for private or university research. So, just declaring that they can is nothin' more than show-boating.
Posted by: Iguana on February 10, 2005 08:56 PMSo, no.
And I thought they were close to a Type II diabetes breakthru?
Posted by: Sandy P on February 10, 2005 09:14 PMI'll take your truth challenge.
I looked up your url's and the only "break- through" they had was and I quote...
"Derived from human embryonic stem cells, precursor neural cells grow in a lab dish and generate mature neurons"
The operative words are "grown in a lab dish"
Now why don't you follow up on my referrence:
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/16/National/The-Stem.Cell.CoverUp-682587.shtml
In case you don't look it up here is a snipet of it;
there are no approved treatments - and have been no human trials - involving embryonic stem cells. Each of the above therapies and experiments has involved cells that require no use of embryos.
As you said, before you claim facts over another, perhaps you should look further, eh?
Thanks for the clarification. If it's spending our tax dollars, then I'm against it. We have far more important issues to address. This bill isn't economic development, it's politics pure and simple.
I personally don't think the government should ban stem cell research. If the private sector thinks legitimate cures are out there, and stem cell research will get us there, then they can make that investment.
However, funding it for a strictly political matter is complete nonsense.
Dogbert,
We were just as skilled in disease (at least these particular diseases) diagnosis and autopsy in the 50's as we are today....
Alzheimers and senility were rare - even in the elderly! Today we are seeing Alzheimiers in 40 and 50 year olds!. Parkinsons was also extremely rare back then. It could be diagnosed - it just wasn't common. Diabetes was also fairly rare - and has become a huge epidemic during the past 20 years. Today we are seeing diabetes in several types with type 2 becoming one of the leading causes of infertility on women in just the past 10 years alone. The increased rate of diabetes in children is astronomical! Hypothyroid was uncommon - my mother was diagnosed with it in the 60's. It was hard to find anyone else with the disease. (It is easily diagnosed at advanced stages).
Autism was almost nonexistent before the 70's. There were cases - but the stats were about 1 in 10,000 - today they are 1 in 200!
Rheumatoid Arthritis was an old persons disease....Now we are seeing cases in 20 yr olds!
Your theory that there have been no increases in these types of illness over the past 30 years is not statistically correct. It smacks of denial...
Something is happening to cause these illnesses. The data and statistics can be easily researched on the web and in medical journals.
The problem is - in another generation, people will forget that it is not normal to be so ill.
Our only hope is that she will be ousted by the judge, and everything will get put on hold til the next election.
I also agree with the comments above that this just doesn't belong in the legislature. It should be put to the people to vote on. I'm sure it would get wiped out then. Placenta and Adult cells are the way to go from all of the research I've read and heard about.
John Barelli, you really should have your facts straight before you speak (type). There is no evidence except for "in a dish" of any kind of promise the ESC. Most of the *real* experts that are not biased have all said at this point the money should be used elsewhere.
Becky, good post. You're correct it's not just statistics. I should know I'm a statistician. There are many factors that have been proven to have 'lent a hand' at why these new diseases, and old ones are killing and disabling at an alarming rate. Cancer has been around for years, and it has gone from attacking 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 3 over the last 40 years or so.
Not to sound like I believe in black helicopters or anything, but our government knows alot more about this then they let on. All one has to do is start to explore the soil/farm reports since '55 and look into the how the FDA and Pharmaceutical industry are in bed together, and how they get tucked in by some fat cat *on the take* politician to make sure that get their bed made every year.
This bill should die, and hopefully it will.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 11, 2005 12:10 AMSo why the rush to promote embryonic stem cell research when researchers have just discovered an ample source of stem cells in an uncharted area of the umbilical cord.
University of Toronto published the study in the February issue of Stem Cells.
A related article is at Medical News Today.com Article dated Feb. 9,05
www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19782 The area being researched, A jelly-like connective tissue surrounding the blood vessels, is rich in progenitor cells, the type of cells that generate bone, cartilage and other tissues. Researches claim these cells can be harvested to generate an abundant supply in a short amount of time.
So again I ask why embryonic stem cells? What could be an ulterior motive? Take Dolly the sheep, the cloned identical twin, is this one reason to promote research that has so far not produced positive results. Is cloning humans and harvesting body parts or organs a possible goal? Remember grow a human, kill a human, does that sound ethical? See this article ‘Dolly Creator’s… in Feb. 11,05 Medical News Today. “Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority approved a human cloning license for Ian Wilmut” (creator of Dolly the sheep)
www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19913
It’s here and it’s not going away…
Adult stem-cell breakthrough seen weakening case for embryonic cells
By Donis Tracy
Catholic News Service
BOSTON (CNS) -- Researchers at Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston have identified adult stem cells that may have the capacity to repair and regenerate all tissue types in the body, which experts say weakens the case for embryonic stem-cell research.
"This discovery represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy," said Dr. Douglas Losordo, chief of cardiovascular research at St. Elizabeth's. "Based on our findings we believe these newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate into most tissue types in the human body. This is a very unique property that until this time has only been found in embryonic stem cells."
Losordo, together with Dr. Young-sup Yoon, led the team of researchers whose findings demonstrating the unique properties of these cells were published in the Feb. 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center is the flagship hospital of the Boston's Caritas Christi Health Care System and a teaching hospital of the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Reviewing the study for The Pilot, Boston's archdiocesan newspaper, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, characterized the researchers' findings as "very exciting."
"It shows that there is a higher degree of flexibility in adult stem cells than many have thought in the past," he said.
According to Father Pacholczyk, supporters of research using embryonic stem cells have long argued that adult stem cells were not as flexible as embryonic stem cells, thus making them less useful in repairing or healing damaged tissues and cells in the body.
"What appears novel about this report is that they have carefully derived a single cell type from the bone marrow, which can be expanded and used to flexibly generate a number of tissues," explained Father Pacholczyk.
"Adult stem cells are incredibly powerful," he added.
Stem cells have a number of unique properties not found in other types of cells. They can divide and renew themselves over a long period of time and, while they are unspecialized in their structure, have the ability to generate into specialized cells for specific tissues.
Currently there are two different types of stem-cell research taking place -- embryonic and adult stem cells.
Adult stem cells can be found within tissues and organs, including bone marrow, the brain, blood vessels, peripheral blood, skin, and the liver. Embryonic stem cells can be found only in embryos, and to harvest these cells, a human embryo must be destroyed.
"Adult stem cells have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years," Father Pacholczyk told The Pilot. "To date, no therapies in humans have ever been successfully carried out using embryonic stem cells."
"The findings reported in Dr. Losordo's study is but another affirmation that we don't have to invest hundreds of thousands on dollars on something that is purely speculative, not to mention morally questionable," he added.
Losordo and Yoon led the preclinical study in which researchers extracted stem cells from human bone marrow and transplanted them into the damaged hearts of rats. The stem cells induced cardiac regeneration, including the growth of new muscle and blood vessels in the heart.
In addition, the researchers demonstrated that this specific subpopulation of stem cells has the capacity to develop into all types of cells, including those that make up the glands, digestive tract, hair, skin, nails, brain, nervous system and muscle.
While previous research has been conducted with stem cells derived from rat or mouse bone marrow, this is the first study to show how human bone marrow stem cells can be used in the generation of various tissue types.
Losordo and his team at Caritas St. Elizabeth's are planning to conduct further preclinical research with this subpopulation of stem cells. If the findings confirm their hypothesis, they will seek to begin Phase I clinical trials with human patients.
"In the future, we may be able to extract stem cells from a patient's bone marrow to repair a wide variety of damaged tissue in his or her body. Furthermore, by growing tissue from a patient's own stem cells, we could overcome issues related to cell therapy, such as tissue rejection," said Losordo.
END
Posted by: Dan on February 11, 2005 10:10 AMI will look at the websites you suggested when I have time. I try to add "humor" to the MS I am living with. For example: I lost total vision in my left eye as a result of an MS attack, so I tell people who know I have the disease, "I have vision in one eye, kind of like Mike on Monsters, Inc." Then I say, "After the results of my brain MRI, it looks a whole lot like a Dalmatian..."
In MS, lesions or "spots" occur. Click on my name, I keep very busy, my mind is not on the disease, I am planning my next "adventure" to Israel again. I make the most of it! I enjoy being around happy, joyful, adventurous people.
Posted by: Raylene on February 11, 2005 10:15 AMPlease understand you are being played as a useful idiot here.
As some who works in genetics and stem cell research at FHCRC, I can tell you that the successful harvesting of embryonic stem cells and growing them into neurons is possible but it is also possible to make placenta stem cells do the same.
This argument really is not scientific. It is really an extension of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.
The real issue to be debated is whether society wants the abortion industry to be a growth industry, because embyonic stem cell supply would surely be a business growth opportunity for abortion clinic waste removal.
And please understand when we say that many of the promises of stem cell research are just that, they are promises.
Posted by: Michael on February 11, 2005 11:08 AMFirst, the monkey man is co-evolved with his tools. Man will continue to do do because that's it's nature. This is just one more tool, by definition value-neutral. The "values" are in the wielder.
Furthermore, this is a very powerful tool. Others who do not let their value bias interfere with their evolution will develop this, cloning, and related sciences as well. Biotechnological tools will eventually be at least as powerful as any other.
"We" developed the "A" bomb to keep ahead of the competition. We must develop the "B" bomb for the same reason.
But at least as good a reason is that it p*sses off the neocons and further demonstrates their religions are just barbarous junk from the barbarous past.
Keep your nonexistent god out of my laws.
Posted by: gadfly on February 12, 2005 12:45 PM