stem cell research

my friend told me the united states is banning stem cell research because it has the potential to cure so much it would put the pharmaceutical industry out of business. im not sure if this is true but if anyone knows anything about it?

 

Thats absurd, the pharmaceutical industry has the most to gain from stem cell research, that and the consumer. Stem Cell research hasn't technically been banned, it was a loophole under which no new stem cells can be harvested. It was orchastrated by the religous right, who likens it to abortion. and has nothing to do with the pharmacuetical industry. Your friends just making things up.

 

July 20, 2004
Previous | Next
US plans stem cell bank

But researchers and advocates call plan 'too little, too late' | By Anne Harding



A National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan announced last week (July 14) to grow and distribute Bush administration–approved stem cell lines remains in the very early stages, and researchers and advocates call the proposal a political move that will do nothing to get stem cell therapies to the clinic.

No site for the proposed stem cell bank has been chosen, no steering committee has been named, and while a small amount of funds has been set aside for planning for the remainder of this fiscal year, spending for fiscal year 2005 has not been determined, an NIH spokesperson told The Scientist. "It might involve some construction and will certainly involve negotiation with the holders of the stem cells," the spokesperson said.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) described the stem cell bank plans in two sentences in a three-page fact sheet on embryonic stem cells published July 14. DHHS says that the central location would cut costs and help maintain quality control. NIH chief Elias Zerhouni told the Associated Press the bank would lower the cost per shipment of stem cells from several thousand to several hundred dollars.

"Research conducted at the bank will provide important insights about which cells might be most useful for a specific basic or translational research activity by exploring the functional diversity of the cell lines," the fact sheet reads.

Last month, the United Kingdom's Medical Research Council announced that it was opening a stem cell center in Cambridge.

But stem cell researchers and their supporters say the bank would do little, if anything, to advance the field. "The White House has found itself painted into a corner by its embrace of this severely restrictive policy," Dan Perry, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, told The Scientist. "They're looking for a way to look better."

"Not one patient in America should believe that today's announcement in any way expands access to more cell lines, which is what we really need to deliver on the promise of embryonic stem cells," US Representative Mike Castle (R-Del.) said in a statement published July 14.

"Creating a stem cell bank of this type had been suggested years ago," Doug Melton of Harvard University told The Scientist. "I'm pleased to see they are now finally doing it, but it strikes me as being too little, too late. What's really needed is free and open access to all human embryonic stem cell lines and their general distribution." Melton noted that his own lab has published on 17 of its own cell lines and is distributing them worldwide.

The July 14 fact sheet also announces an NIH plan to establish Centers of Excellence in Translational Stem Cell Research. According to published reports, the agency would allocate $18 million over 4 years to fund three centers. The NIH spokesperson said this is not a final figure, but noted that the centers are further along in planning than the stem cell bank.

The presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged to overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines if he is elected.

Links for this article
National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Information
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

A.Harding, "US stem cell rules loosening?" The Scientist, May 20, 2004.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040520/04/

Associated Press, "NIH to open national stem cell bank," CNN, July 14, 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/14/stemcells.ap/

P. Hunter, "UK to open stem cell center," The Scientist, June 22, 2004.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040622/04/

"Castle, Degette: Stem cell bank should not be substitute for new, genetically diverse stem cell lines," Congressman Mike Castle news release, July 14, 2004.
http://www.house.gov/castle/pr_04_StemCellResponse.html

Douglas A. Melton
http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/faculty/melton.html

C.A. Cowan et al., "Derivation of embryonic stem-cell lines from human blastocysts," N Engl J Med, 350:1353-1356. March 25, 2004.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/350/13/1353

"Kerry: We must lift the barriers that stand in the way of science," Kerry–Edwards Campaign news release, June 12, 2004.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0612a.html


©2004, The Scientist Inc. in association with BioMed Central.

 

OK, so I copy & pasted the above article. But, let me ask you something...

The beings living on this planet's surface biggest problem with we humans is our Overpopulation. The environment, in which we All live, suffers from that overpopulation. Short of blowing the atmosphere, the earth will survive and recover from human occupation following our extinction.

In the meantime... Why? Just tell me why, do we want to put an end to disease and illness when it serves so well as a population control?

I mean... the artificial extention of human life expectancy in Ho-hum years, only adds to this problem. Everything that lives - dies. And so should we humans when our time comes.

Now, don't get me wrong. My opinion doesn't originate from political or religious thinking. I like science, and I like discovery as well as the next person. But, in my science fiction fantasy mind, I see a Star Trek plot... shoulder to shoulder we stand with no room to move... and your card comes up and you wait your turn in line to step into the Vaporizor to make room for a new life just born.

I'll volunteer to step into the Void... Me first... after you.

 

The outright deception surrounding this issue is astounding. See http://www.stemcellresearch.org.

 

Just tell me why, do we want to put an end to disease and illness when it serves so well as a population control?


Unfortunetly most of these diseases are accompanied with years and years of suffering for the victim and their families...I think promoting birth control is a better way to curb overpopulation

 

If you want a site about the science and technology of stem cells (not a particular ethics stance) see:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

 

Yeah I'd have to disagree about the whole

thing. As disease DOES serve a useful purpose, it's just not right to rationalize death like that. Suffering from something that could be cured if we just do more research.

I had an uncle who died of cancer, my Dad has alzheimers and is in a retirement home with barely any memories left, and my Grandfather died of heart problems a few years back, which could all be a thing of the past in a few years from now if the research is done properly.

 

In the 'developed' world the population has more or less stopped increasing, there is no reason to believe that as the rest of the world catches up it wont do the same. For the geographers ut there I believe its going to be the 5th stage of the Demographic Transition Model. Indeed a couple of European countries (Germany and I think another) have seen a small population decrease recently. As we get to the point where we expect to get away with 1 or 2 children and have them both see adulthood it becomes very important to make sure they survive.

 

For everyone out there concerned with the ethics of how we get embryonic stem cells you can relax a bit. A new procedure has come out that gets embryonic stem cells from the umbilicial cord of a baby after it is born. The new processes is actually easier, cheaper and able to harvest more then the old way and is harmless to mother and child.

 

The advances in non-embryonic stem cell research are thoroughly described on the web site I cited previously. The proponents of embryonic stem cell research seem determined to obscure the whole issue. Christopher Reeve was apparently even oblivious to research conducted by his own foundation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kelly200410210859.asp

 

People involved in embryonic stem cell research are not trying to obscure the issue. Christopher Reeve wasn't oblivious to research conducted by his own foundation.

The NIH site:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

 

Thanks for straightening me out, Shaggie! Your bald assertions are quite compelling . . .

 

I posted the NIH site because it is a science site and not ideologically or religiously driven.

.

 

You already posted the NIH site here. Do you want to post it yet again, or do you actually have something to say? Moreover, there's plenty of science presented in the links I've cited.

 

Im never quite sure with the religious argument is the strem cell research you object to or the way stem cells are aquired. I can see the religious argument against some current methods of obtaining stem cells. Needless to say that these will be unecessary in teh near future. I hear people say that the baby is alive from the moment of conception, well I'd say that a tree or a reed is alive, yet im sure many christians read a bible (possibly, i've met some exceptions to that rule) made of paper or papyrus. So clearly from a religious perspective the more important question is when does a baby have a soul.
I don't know and I suspct nor does anyone else. But stem cell research (in the public domain at least!) is meant only to help people. There are many people alive now who will at some point in the future have a disease that stem cell research could cure. From a christain perspective stem cell research could be a good thing because it would give some people extra time to accept Jesus. To me holding back research that could save so many lives is the unforgiveable sin.

 

No. The question is whether we want to deny developing humans the status of "persons" based on arbitrary criteria of size and age.

The "unforgiveable sin" is obsessively clamoring for the destruction of human embryos while ignoring the promising medical breakthroughs offered by other forms of stem cell research:

http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp

 

The point at which something could becomes human is a fairly arbitary distinction in its own right. Each sperm has the potential to become a human, on the condition it fertillises an egg. An embryo has the potential to become a human providing it survives inside the womb. These boundaries are all purely arbitary and based on a purely personal opinion of when life starts.
I do agree that there are better ways of getting stem cells and the use of embryos will go down in history as part of the first faultering steps of the field. But I dont think its fair to say that people are clamouring over themselves to use embryos, it just happens to be the best way right now and possibly not for much longer.
I heard a ballpark figure for the number of civilian deaths in Iraq today, if only we though about them like we do embryos in the west. Im not trying to make a political point but I am trying to make point about the value of human life. How it seems so dependant on which continent you live in.

 

Upon fertilization, a sperm and egg cease to exist, and completely new organism is formed. An embryo doesn't "become" human; it simply develops as one.

On what basis do you claim that embryos are a "better" source? Did you even read the article I referred you to? See also http://www.ortl.org/life_in_oregon/04_09/specious_logic.html.

Did you also hear about the latest of Saddam's mass graves that was recenty discovered, in which remains of women clutching their children were found, riddled with bullet holes?

 

I dont agree with your first postulate. To my mind 4 8 or 16 cells does not constitute a human. It represents a potential human much like a sperm an egg.

If you'd my post read with any more than a cursory glance you'd have realised that I didnt say anything like 'embryos are a better source'. I actually said 'I do agree that there are better ways of getting stem cells and the use of embryos will go down in history as part of the first faultering steps of the field.' I did read your article, and I tried with an open mind. The trouble with this is that its hardly an impartial article much like Shaggies. Its someones opinions, viewed through their own life tinited specs. For a more impartical view try the journals Lancet and Nature. They're written by the peole who did the people who did the work and governed by the rules of scientific paper writing (no emotive language, though occasionally some over valuing of their work).

As for the mass graves of Sadam Hussain, I did see those. This left me with one question, why did teh west do nothing when they actaully happened? Its notl ike we dind't know I remeber it being on TV. The worst attrocities happened before the first Golf war. Oh no this war had nothing to do with those attrocities, most of that was in the late 80's and early 90's. It's all to do with fear, we're no longer told to vote for someone becuase they'll make our life better, we're told to vote for someone because they'll protect us form our nightmares. I dont know about you but im going to spend my life chasing my dreams not running from my nightmares., even if that goes against the current philosophy of our respective countries.