Do you really think Bush will use his veto pen, considering that he's never done it yet?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush Likely to Make First Veto Since Taking Office
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
BOB KEMPER July 18, 2006
Washington --- President Bush's administration warned the Senate on Monday that if it passes a bill today expanding the kinds of stem cell research that can receive federal funding, Bush will issue his first veto since taking office.
"The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells," the White House said in a statement.
The bill, which received approval in the House, is expected to pass, though supporters appear to lack to the 67 votes needed to override a veto, which could come as early as Wednesday.
Bush in 2001 restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to the limited number of stem cell lines available prior to his order --- a decision scientists say greatly hampers their development of therapies that could lead to cures for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.
As debate on the bill opened Monday in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician and potential presidential candidate in 2008, called on colleagues to lift the ban on federal spending on new lines. "I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive," Frist said.
The bill would allow federal funding for research on embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that were not implanted and were slated for disposal.
A number of other prominent Republicans, including Nancy Reagan, support expanding stem cell research, despite the concerns of anti-abortion advocates who equate the destruction of the embryos with the taking of human life. Among leading opponents is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who in a statement Monday said that "while researchers in the private sector are free to destroy young human lives through embryonic stem cell research, the government should not be in the business of funding this ethically troubling research with taxpayer dollars."
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson sought to introduce a compromise but was unable to get Frist to include it in the legislative package. The Republican from Cobb County said he spent the past year developing a proposal with the help of professors at Emory University and the University of Georgia that would allow federal funding only for embryos that fertility clinics determine are incapable of developing into fetuses and therefore would never be implanted.
He said such an arrangement would eliminate the conflict between scientific goals and moral concerns.
"I respect human life," Isakson, who backed Bush's restrictions in 2001, said in a speech on the Senate floor. "I also respect the wonder of science and innovation and the great discoveries that brought. And I stand here today believing you can do both."
Three such lines of stem cells, developed with private funding, exist at the University of Georgia, and other lines have been developed at other universities. Yet, before Isakson's proposal, neither the administration nor Congress has considered drawing distinctions between viable and unviable leftover embryos.
"It's out there. People for one reason or another are not paying attention or not wanting to pay attention," said Steve Stice, director of the Regenerative Bio-Science Center at the University of Georgia.
This week's debate is the only one the Senate will have on stem cells before the November elections, but Isakson's aides said he will introduce a compromise bill after the election, or possibly after Bush issues his veto.
"This debate won't be over," Isakson said.
Will Bush really use the veto?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
On this point, I think he will, as he has always strongly opposed stem cell research.
I, for one am in favor of it, but then, what do I know..I am not the president.
How much of what the president does or does not veto, do you think, should be based on his personal feelings, or shold the voice of the majority be taken into consideration??
I, for one am in favor of it, but then, what do I know..I am not the president.
How much of what the president does or does not veto, do you think, should be based on his personal feelings, or shold the voice of the majority be taken into consideration??
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: If I may say so, that's an excellent question. I'll be interested to read responses.
As I understand it, the presidential veto can be overcome by a vote of the Congress, is that correct? I don't know the details (I could google it of course but that would defeat the multi-layered purposes of my asking in the first place) but I believe it requires a pretty decent vote of the legislature to overcome the veto.
Yes, I think Congress can override a veto..with a certain majority
As I understand it, the presidential veto can be overcome by a vote of the Congress, is that correct? I don't know the details (I could google it of course but that would defeat the multi-layered purposes of my asking in the first place) but I believe it requires a pretty decent vote of the legislature to overcome the veto.
Yes, I think Congress can override a veto..with a certain majority
Will Bush really use the veto?
The articles I'm reading this morning say that 70% of citizens polled felt stem cell research should be explored/funded by the government. I'm no Bush fan and I'm delighted to see him in the position of having to either placate his conservative religious buddies or follow the wishes of the American people and recommendations of scientists.
Do I think the needs of people with debilitating diseases/conditions outweigh the (alleged) "rights" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue? Do I think the needs of those same people are less important than the (alleged) "soul" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue?
Do you need to ask me that question? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes: (As someone who lives daily with considerable pain, doing everything possible to delay replacing both deteriorating knees, I'm solidly in favor of any technology which might make regrowth of cartilege possible.)
But, I digressed. You asked if Bush will really use the veto? Even though I imagine his staff has spent sleepless nights trying to extricate him from this mess, I believe he'll ultimately climb on his sanctimonious soap box and veto it. If there's not enough support to override him THIS TIME, I believe that time will come.
Do I think the needs of people with debilitating diseases/conditions outweigh the (alleged) "rights" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue? Do I think the needs of those same people are less important than the (alleged) "soul" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue?
Do you need to ask me that question? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes: (As someone who lives daily with considerable pain, doing everything possible to delay replacing both deteriorating knees, I'm solidly in favor of any technology which might make regrowth of cartilege possible.)
But, I digressed. You asked if Bush will really use the veto? Even though I imagine his staff has spent sleepless nights trying to extricate him from this mess, I believe he'll ultimately climb on his sanctimonious soap box and veto it. If there's not enough support to override him THIS TIME, I believe that time will come.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Will Bush really use the veto?
70% Lulu? Interesting. Did not think it was that high. I am definatly in favor, too.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Bush is prepared to veto it, this afternoon at 2:15 pm.
I am properly in the minority, and am supporting Bush's decision. I am against embryonic stem cell research. I base this on my religious beliefs.
I may have to in the future think of this, if stem cell research is proposed as a possibility for treatment for my husband. At this point in time, it would be a tough call for me to make. Another reason for people to leave Living Wills so loved ones do not have to make these decisions.
I am properly in the minority, and am supporting Bush's decision. I am against embryonic stem cell research. I base this on my religious beliefs.
I may have to in the future think of this, if stem cell research is proposed as a possibility for treatment for my husband. At this point in time, it would be a tough call for me to make. Another reason for people to leave Living Wills so loved ones do not have to make these decisions.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
First Bush will use the veto and in this case he should. Even President Clinton did not authorized the funding of stem cells to the extent that Congress has authorized. But let's just make a few points clear.
#1. Bush is not against stem cell research and neither am I. Other forms of research, other than embryonic, have shown more promise without the ethical concerns. A couple of examples of these are adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research which has resulted in 74 medical breakthroughs for diseases ranging from brain cancer to MS to lymphoma. Embryonic stem cell research has not provided any known benefit to date and in the process destroys a human embryo.
#2. Federal funding for existing lines of embryonic stem cells is available but funding does not allow new stem cell lines to be created or new embryos to be destroyed.
#3. The law coming out of Congress will allow the harvesting of embryos as I understand it. Research labs can actually create embryos for the purpose of using them for stem cells. In other words, create life just so they can destroy it.
Why the insistance on controversial research that has not shown as much promise as non-embryonic stem cell research? Have you noticed that so-called supporters of stem-cell research focus almost exclusively on embryonic stem cells? Notice they never mention the promise and success of adult stem cell research and umbilical stem cell research? What about the promise of bone marrow stem cells? These are stem cell lines available in abundance.
Stem cell research is still in infancy itself. Initial research focused on embryonic but it is not showing the results that adult and umbilical stem cells are. However to researchers and pharmaceuticals, the name of the game is funding and profit. Opening up stem cell research that could lead to human cloning for the purpose of research, along with federal funding, will mean almost unlimited dollars. What scientists would oppose that?
#1. Bush is not against stem cell research and neither am I. Other forms of research, other than embryonic, have shown more promise without the ethical concerns. A couple of examples of these are adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research which has resulted in 74 medical breakthroughs for diseases ranging from brain cancer to MS to lymphoma. Embryonic stem cell research has not provided any known benefit to date and in the process destroys a human embryo.
#2. Federal funding for existing lines of embryonic stem cells is available but funding does not allow new stem cell lines to be created or new embryos to be destroyed.
#3. The law coming out of Congress will allow the harvesting of embryos as I understand it. Research labs can actually create embryos for the purpose of using them for stem cells. In other words, create life just so they can destroy it.
Why the insistance on controversial research that has not shown as much promise as non-embryonic stem cell research? Have you noticed that so-called supporters of stem-cell research focus almost exclusively on embryonic stem cells? Notice they never mention the promise and success of adult stem cell research and umbilical stem cell research? What about the promise of bone marrow stem cells? These are stem cell lines available in abundance.
Stem cell research is still in infancy itself. Initial research focused on embryonic but it is not showing the results that adult and umbilical stem cells are. However to researchers and pharmaceuticals, the name of the game is funding and profit. Opening up stem cell research that could lead to human cloning for the purpose of research, along with federal funding, will mean almost unlimited dollars. What scientists would oppose that?
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
AZeeee
Thank you for your informed post.
I usually learn something when I read your stuff :-6
Thank you for your informed post.
I usually learn something when I read your stuff :-6
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
I haven't read a whole lot on this but it is my understanding that the new embryo's that will be harvested for research use are ones that have been harvested for invitro-fertilization and are no longer needed. "Garbage" - so to speak.
Personally, if this is the case, then tossing these embryos in the trash (or however they are disposed of when they are not needed) is even more reprehensible then using them in such a way that to help thousands or millions of people down the road.
Personally, if this is the case, then tossing these embryos in the trash (or however they are disposed of when they are not needed) is even more reprehensible then using them in such a way that to help thousands or millions of people down the road.
Sandi
Will Bush really use the veto?
In a rush, but this just crossed my monitor...thought I'd share it.
Stem Cells Dividing
President Bush exercised his veto power for the first time on Wednesday, knocking down a bill that would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The restrictions have been in place since August 9, 2001, when the president signed an executive order limiting federal funding to research on existing stem cell "lines."
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said. Many in Congress disagree, including Republican Senator Arlen Specter. "Those lives will not begin," Specter said, "but many other lives will end if we do not use all the scientific resources available." As stem cell politics heat up again, we're conducting a cool review of stem cell science.
Generic Generators
Imagine you're a stem cell. As cells go, you're not very sexy. Your cellular chums even call you "generic." You don't secrete hormones, form protective layers, digest food, or otherwise perform an immediately productive role in the body. But that doesn't mean you're a freeloader.
Like little factories, you and the rest of the stem cell clan produce all of the 220 types of cells that do the jobs that keep people alive. Without stem cells like you, embryos couldn't develop, and adults, unable to replenish blood and tissue, would soon die. Not bad for a generic little cell.
Cellular Destiny
In fact, generic little stem cells shape everyone's cellular destiny. Every human begins as a single cell, the zygote. Almost immediately after its creation, the zygote begins to divide, in a process called mitosis. This process will repeat over and over throughout embryonic development, infancy, and childhood. It will slow down a little for adults, but it will never stop. The end result is a human body made up of 10 to 100 trillion cells.
This amazing cell division usually works like a biological Xerox, making copy after copy of the original cell. Yet in some cases, a biological fine-tuning occurs, whereby the dividing cell--a stem cell--doesn't make copies of itself but instead gives rise to a different-looking cell that performs some specialized function. This differentiation is what keeps us from growing into 4-foot-wide basketballs of undifferentiated flesh, and stem cells make it happen.
No one knows exactly how stem cells pull off this neat trick. When specialized cells--skin cells, muscle cells, bone cells, and others--divide, they give rise only to cells like themselves. They just can't differentiate into other cell types. They generally do contain a full set of DNA, coding a complete you. Yet specialized cells express only some of the genetic information they contain, just what they need to perform their specific job.
Potent Stuff
Scientists recognize three different types of stem cells: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent. Totipotent stem cells, as the name suggests, have total potential--the ability, given the right conditions, to grow into a complete person. If one of these cells splits off from another, it can grow into a fully formed, separate, but genetically identical twin. Such cells exist only for a few short days after conception. After that, the totipotent cells will have divided into somewhat specialized cells that can't produce a person on their own.
These somewhat specialized cells fall into the second stem cell category: pluripotent cells. Pluripotent stem cells exist in the inner layer of a small ball of about 100 cells called a blastocyst. They can grow to become the hands, feet, digestive system, and other complex parts of the human body. Yet like totipotent cells, pluripotent cells don't last long. As cell differentiation continues, they give way to the last stem cell type: multipotent.
Multipotent stem cells are further specialized cells that can grow into only a few cell types. For example, multipotent cells in your bone marrow continually make red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Although multipotent cells have lost most of their ability to differentiate into various cell types, they do have one distinct advantage. They exist throughout life, replenishing the cells you need to live.
Big Breakthrough
Scientists have known about stem cells, and their role in embryonic development, for some time. But no one realized how useful they might be until 1998, when a team of researchers led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin successfully cultured human embryonic stem cells in the lab. Not only that, Thomson's team maintained the cultured cells in a pluripotent state, preserving their ability to become many other cell types.
Scientists have been working to build on this breakthrough ever since. Some researchers are trying to harvest different types of stem cells and culture them in large, medically useful numbers. Others are trying to discover the various hormones and developmental signals that cause stem cells to differentiate into specific cell types. Still others are trying to implant stem cell-derived cells and tissues into patients in a way that allows them to regain lost abilities or lost organs.
Controversial Research
All this research can involve either embryonic or adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research uses multipotent stem cells that researchers can extract from practically anyone. Embryonic stem cell research uses the pluripotent stem cells of embryonic development. Researchers obtain these from the inner layer of a blastocyst, in a process that out of necessity destroys the embryo. It's this process that sparks most of the current debate on stem cells, since many people regard destroying an embryo as killing a human being.
Because embryonic stem cells can give rise to the greatest variety of cell types, most experts say they hold the greatest hope for medicine. Research into the benefits of adult stem cells has so far produced mixed results. Some studies indicate that adult stem cells may be induced to become something more than multipotent, expanding the range of cells they could produce. Other research contradicts that finding.
No one knows what future stem cell research will reveal. Yet many researchers have seen enough from the studies done so far to think that stem cells might revolutionize medicine. They hold out hope that paralyzed people might walk, that the blind might see, or that lifetime diabetics might never again need insulin needles. Stem cell science, and the ethical debate over it, is just getting started.
Christopher Call
July 19, 2006
Stem Cells Dividing
President Bush exercised his veto power for the first time on Wednesday, knocking down a bill that would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The restrictions have been in place since August 9, 2001, when the president signed an executive order limiting federal funding to research on existing stem cell "lines."
"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said. Many in Congress disagree, including Republican Senator Arlen Specter. "Those lives will not begin," Specter said, "but many other lives will end if we do not use all the scientific resources available." As stem cell politics heat up again, we're conducting a cool review of stem cell science.
Generic Generators
Imagine you're a stem cell. As cells go, you're not very sexy. Your cellular chums even call you "generic." You don't secrete hormones, form protective layers, digest food, or otherwise perform an immediately productive role in the body. But that doesn't mean you're a freeloader.
Like little factories, you and the rest of the stem cell clan produce all of the 220 types of cells that do the jobs that keep people alive. Without stem cells like you, embryos couldn't develop, and adults, unable to replenish blood and tissue, would soon die. Not bad for a generic little cell.
Cellular Destiny
In fact, generic little stem cells shape everyone's cellular destiny. Every human begins as a single cell, the zygote. Almost immediately after its creation, the zygote begins to divide, in a process called mitosis. This process will repeat over and over throughout embryonic development, infancy, and childhood. It will slow down a little for adults, but it will never stop. The end result is a human body made up of 10 to 100 trillion cells.
This amazing cell division usually works like a biological Xerox, making copy after copy of the original cell. Yet in some cases, a biological fine-tuning occurs, whereby the dividing cell--a stem cell--doesn't make copies of itself but instead gives rise to a different-looking cell that performs some specialized function. This differentiation is what keeps us from growing into 4-foot-wide basketballs of undifferentiated flesh, and stem cells make it happen.
No one knows exactly how stem cells pull off this neat trick. When specialized cells--skin cells, muscle cells, bone cells, and others--divide, they give rise only to cells like themselves. They just can't differentiate into other cell types. They generally do contain a full set of DNA, coding a complete you. Yet specialized cells express only some of the genetic information they contain, just what they need to perform their specific job.
Potent Stuff
Scientists recognize three different types of stem cells: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent. Totipotent stem cells, as the name suggests, have total potential--the ability, given the right conditions, to grow into a complete person. If one of these cells splits off from another, it can grow into a fully formed, separate, but genetically identical twin. Such cells exist only for a few short days after conception. After that, the totipotent cells will have divided into somewhat specialized cells that can't produce a person on their own.
These somewhat specialized cells fall into the second stem cell category: pluripotent cells. Pluripotent stem cells exist in the inner layer of a small ball of about 100 cells called a blastocyst. They can grow to become the hands, feet, digestive system, and other complex parts of the human body. Yet like totipotent cells, pluripotent cells don't last long. As cell differentiation continues, they give way to the last stem cell type: multipotent.
Multipotent stem cells are further specialized cells that can grow into only a few cell types. For example, multipotent cells in your bone marrow continually make red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Although multipotent cells have lost most of their ability to differentiate into various cell types, they do have one distinct advantage. They exist throughout life, replenishing the cells you need to live.
Big Breakthrough
Scientists have known about stem cells, and their role in embryonic development, for some time. But no one realized how useful they might be until 1998, when a team of researchers led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin successfully cultured human embryonic stem cells in the lab. Not only that, Thomson's team maintained the cultured cells in a pluripotent state, preserving their ability to become many other cell types.
Scientists have been working to build on this breakthrough ever since. Some researchers are trying to harvest different types of stem cells and culture them in large, medically useful numbers. Others are trying to discover the various hormones and developmental signals that cause stem cells to differentiate into specific cell types. Still others are trying to implant stem cell-derived cells and tissues into patients in a way that allows them to regain lost abilities or lost organs.
Controversial Research
All this research can involve either embryonic or adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research uses multipotent stem cells that researchers can extract from practically anyone. Embryonic stem cell research uses the pluripotent stem cells of embryonic development. Researchers obtain these from the inner layer of a blastocyst, in a process that out of necessity destroys the embryo. It's this process that sparks most of the current debate on stem cells, since many people regard destroying an embryo as killing a human being.
Because embryonic stem cells can give rise to the greatest variety of cell types, most experts say they hold the greatest hope for medicine. Research into the benefits of adult stem cells has so far produced mixed results. Some studies indicate that adult stem cells may be induced to become something more than multipotent, expanding the range of cells they could produce. Other research contradicts that finding.
No one knows what future stem cell research will reveal. Yet many researchers have seen enough from the studies done so far to think that stem cells might revolutionize medicine. They hold out hope that paralyzed people might walk, that the blind might see, or that lifetime diabetics might never again need insulin needles. Stem cell science, and the ethical debate over it, is just getting started.
Christopher Call
July 19, 2006
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Will Bush really use the veto?
As I was walking past the TV, I saw a blurb crawling across the bottom of the screen on CNN that the Senate came just short of the necessary vote to over ride the veto.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
This is a definite tough one.
There are other places to get stem cells without destroying life. Our society regards human life far too cheaply already. Anything that further cheapens it should be resisted.
There are other places to get stem cells without destroying life. Our society regards human life far too cheaply already. Anything that further cheapens it should be resisted.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
But the promise is in adult stem cell research. That has been clearly shown. As LuLu's link pointed out there are different types of stem cells - totipotent, pluripotent (both found in embryonic stem cells), and multipotent (found in adult stem cells). Research has shown that the potential for the first two is greater than that of the latter. So we must use embryos correct? What if adult stem cells were far more malleable than thought? What if adult stem cells could actually become totipotent or pluripotent? From Science and Technology Magazine:
"Behind this description (of the three types of stem cells) lies the conception that a linear process of differentiation is played out, in the development of the individual, toward increasingly "mature," specialized cells in the individual tissues, from totipotentiality to tissue specificity. This process is supposed to run only forward, but never backward. That is, as soon as a cell has reached a certain degree of "maturity," the way back to earlier stages of development is closed off. So it is evident that a stem cell’s capacity to perform is increasingly limited to specific functions, and it loses, correspondingly, the manifold capabilities still present in earlier developmental stages.
According to latest reports, however, this dogma of developmental biology does not hold. Evidently, tissue-specific stem cells have the ability–as has been impressively demonstrated in experiments with animals–to "transdifferentiate" themselves when in a different environment–that is, to take on the cell functions of the new tissue. Thus, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves into blood stem cells and produced blood cells. Indeed, there are indications of another capability of adult stem cells: Apparently they have the potential to be "reprogrammed." Not only can they adjust to the specific conditions of a new tissue environment, but they can even assume more generalized, earlier levels of development, so that it even appears possible that they become totipotent again.
The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
Stem cells are of wide interest for medicine, because they have the potential, under suitable conditions, to develop into almost all of the different types of cells. They should therefore be able to repair damaged or defective tissues (for example, destroyed insulin-producing cells in the pancreas). Many of the so-called degenerative diseases, for which there are as yet no effective therapies, could then be alleviated or healed.
It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.
On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.
Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are. In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole.
It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.
This shows that in tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all possible emphasis. If stem cell research were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation."
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... _cell.html
I've posted the link to the entire article. It is extremely informative and if you have the time, please read it in full. Here's another tidbit below that shows the promise of adult stem cells while embryonic research has shown little.
"A recent human study on Parkinson's patients at Johns Hopkins University was a blow to fetal stem cell research. Stem cells from aborted fetuses were injected into the patient's brains. The stem cells reproduced and grew into neural cells but also over-produced dopamine, causing severe involuntary jerking and twitching.
Orlic said fetal and embryonic stem cell researchers have not been able to show the regeneration of heart cells, even in animals.
"This study alone gives us tremendous hope that adult stem cells can do more than what embryonic stem cells can do," he said."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... page_next1
Finally The Institute Of Science In Society compared ESCR to ASCR and found the following:
"So, how do ES and adult stem cells score at this point?
These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich."
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
"Behind this description (of the three types of stem cells) lies the conception that a linear process of differentiation is played out, in the development of the individual, toward increasingly "mature," specialized cells in the individual tissues, from totipotentiality to tissue specificity. This process is supposed to run only forward, but never backward. That is, as soon as a cell has reached a certain degree of "maturity," the way back to earlier stages of development is closed off. So it is evident that a stem cell’s capacity to perform is increasingly limited to specific functions, and it loses, correspondingly, the manifold capabilities still present in earlier developmental stages.
According to latest reports, however, this dogma of developmental biology does not hold. Evidently, tissue-specific stem cells have the ability–as has been impressively demonstrated in experiments with animals–to "transdifferentiate" themselves when in a different environment–that is, to take on the cell functions of the new tissue. Thus, neuronal stem cells of mice have transformed themselves into blood stem cells and produced blood cells. Indeed, there are indications of another capability of adult stem cells: Apparently they have the potential to be "reprogrammed." Not only can they adjust to the specific conditions of a new tissue environment, but they can even assume more generalized, earlier levels of development, so that it even appears possible that they become totipotent again.
The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
Stem cells are of wide interest for medicine, because they have the potential, under suitable conditions, to develop into almost all of the different types of cells. They should therefore be able to repair damaged or defective tissues (for example, destroyed insulin-producing cells in the pancreas). Many of the so-called degenerative diseases, for which there are as yet no effective therapies, could then be alleviated or healed.
It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.
On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.
Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are. In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole.
It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.
This shows that in tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all possible emphasis. If stem cell research were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation."
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... _cell.html
I've posted the link to the entire article. It is extremely informative and if you have the time, please read it in full. Here's another tidbit below that shows the promise of adult stem cells while embryonic research has shown little.
"A recent human study on Parkinson's patients at Johns Hopkins University was a blow to fetal stem cell research. Stem cells from aborted fetuses were injected into the patient's brains. The stem cells reproduced and grew into neural cells but also over-produced dopamine, causing severe involuntary jerking and twitching.
Orlic said fetal and embryonic stem cell researchers have not been able to show the regeneration of heart cells, even in animals.
"This study alone gives us tremendous hope that adult stem cells can do more than what embryonic stem cells can do," he said."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... page_next1
Finally The Institute Of Science In Society compared ESCR to ASCR and found the following:
"So, how do ES and adult stem cells score at this point?
These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities. The risks involved in using the cytomegalovirus promoter to drive over-expression of the transcription factor are undetermined. To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumours. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimising intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich."
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: Now, why don't we use both embryonic and adult stem cells?For the same reason we don't do experimental surgery on death row inmates.
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: I don't see these things as humans, you do. We should save everyone from ennui and end it there.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: Your source is dodgy.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html
Now, why don't we use both embryonic and adult stem cells?
Your link in no way suggested the research is "dodgy". Perhaps you could challenge the facts presented in the article if you find then less than reliable.
We do use both embryonic and adult stem cells for research, it's just that ASC (adult stem cell) research has proven to be more promising with fewer disadvantages.
The primary advantage to ESC(embryonic stem cells) has been the pluripotency found in the stem cells. But recent research has found that ASC contain the same properties as ESC thus eliminating that advantage. But the disadvantages of ESC still exist. First, the result in the destruction of a human embryo. You may say it is not a life but at the least it is a nascent human being, it certainly doesn't change species. An embryo at that stage contains every genetic component that you have at adulthood. It is undeniably human and will grow into a being like Diuretic. Do you not see an ethical problem with using human offspring as research material and cloning further offspring as guinea pigs?
Another disadvantage to ESC is immune rejection, a problem non-existant in ASC research since the stem cells can be taken from the patient that will be used to treat.
ESC can be difficult if not impossible to control and can differentiate into unwanted cells once implanted into the host body. Not so with ASC.
ESC can undergo chromosonal alterations which can lead to tumor growth. Again, not so with ASC.
ASCs clinical applications have shown remarkable results. ESC clinical trials are still years away and still hold all the disadvantages listed above.
Considering the above, why the dogmatic insistance on promoting ESC research as the panacea for all ills when any promise of regenerative cures is only theory? ASC have shown a pratical therapeutic benefit without any ethical controversy. ASC is the way to go.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html
Now, why don't we use both embryonic and adult stem cells?
Your link in no way suggested the research is "dodgy". Perhaps you could challenge the facts presented in the article if you find then less than reliable.
We do use both embryonic and adult stem cells for research, it's just that ASC (adult stem cell) research has proven to be more promising with fewer disadvantages.
The primary advantage to ESC(embryonic stem cells) has been the pluripotency found in the stem cells. But recent research has found that ASC contain the same properties as ESC thus eliminating that advantage. But the disadvantages of ESC still exist. First, the result in the destruction of a human embryo. You may say it is not a life but at the least it is a nascent human being, it certainly doesn't change species. An embryo at that stage contains every genetic component that you have at adulthood. It is undeniably human and will grow into a being like Diuretic. Do you not see an ethical problem with using human offspring as research material and cloning further offspring as guinea pigs?
Another disadvantage to ESC is immune rejection, a problem non-existant in ASC research since the stem cells can be taken from the patient that will be used to treat.
ESC can be difficult if not impossible to control and can differentiate into unwanted cells once implanted into the host body. Not so with ASC.
ESC can undergo chromosonal alterations which can lead to tumor growth. Again, not so with ASC.
ASCs clinical applications have shown remarkable results. ESC clinical trials are still years away and still hold all the disadvantages listed above.
Considering the above, why the dogmatic insistance on promoting ESC research as the panacea for all ills when any promise of regenerative cures is only theory? ASC have shown a pratical therapeutic benefit without any ethical controversy. ASC is the way to go.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
There is one point that I'd lost sight of for a bit:
There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research.
The bill was to spend yet more of the money the government doesn't have by funding research. There are plenty of interest groups that can fund it without my tax dollar.
If lobbies spent as much money on their cause as they do lobbying Congress to get my money .... well .... they wouldn't need my money!
There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research.
The bill was to spend yet more of the money the government doesn't have by funding research. There are plenty of interest groups that can fund it without my tax dollar.
If lobbies spent as much money on their cause as they do lobbying Congress to get my money .... well .... they wouldn't need my money!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: Accountable is quite right - it's about federal funding. So while Bush decides that federal funding will not be spent on this research because it "destroys life" it's okay for privately funded researchers - funded by corporations and other private bodies that can provide the money - to do so. It's okay for them to "destroy life". Anyone else think this is hypocritical?Absolutely not hypocritical. It respects those citizens who believe that it's life when it has complete DNA by not forcing them to pay, while respecting the remaining citizens by not prohibiting them from proceeding as they see necessary.
I would say the move is a great representation of the American Ideal.
Diuretic wrote: But is it really about protecting the private interests of those corporations that can then go ahead and patent the results of their research?
Not here. The gov't funds all kinds of research through private industry without claiming the patents.
I would say the move is a great representation of the American Ideal.
Diuretic wrote: But is it really about protecting the private interests of those corporations that can then go ahead and patent the results of their research?
Not here. The gov't funds all kinds of research through private industry without claiming the patents.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic, your point about the magazine is well taken. I am refering to the information in the article I posted which can be found in many different places including Nature, which requires a subscription to access and has its own inherent biases like most publications do. I know nothing about 21st century Science and Technology Magazine other than what you posted. I've read a bit about this issue and the information is accurate.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: So it's okay for a private company to use embryonic stem cells but not for federally funded researchers to use embryonic stem cells.[quote=Diuretic]
It's not okay with me, but this is America, where I can't/won't dictate the values of others. I can't remember if you specifically posted about respecting differences of opinion, but I've seen it here many times and would bet folding money (thanks for that phrase, Anastrophe) that you agree with that sentiment.
[quote=Diuretic] But if Bush vetoed the bill for federal funding because of his objection to the use of embryonic stem cells does that not mean for consistency he should have vetoed any bill that allows a private enterprise to use embryonic stem cells? Nothing to do with funding. If Bush truly believes that using embryonic stem cells is not moral then he has a duty to be consistent and prohibit any researcher from using embryonic stem cells.
He hasn't. At the very least he is inconsistent,
Yeh, it sucks when moral obligation, legal obligation, et al collide. I'm sure it's eating him alive that he can't prohibit the research full stop. This is a type of compromise I'm sure most politicians are used to. Personally, I would not stop private enterprise from their research even if I could. Not so long as the embryo is not considered human, legally. I'll stay off that particular soapbox for this thread. Lots of disgusting things happen in the US I wouldn't stop.
Diuretic wrote: No I meant the private companies will claim the patents. The govt stays out of it courtesy of the veto, the private companies get to claim the patents on the cures that come from the stem cell research. The veto stops federal funding, not funding by private companies using either/both embryonic and adult stem cells.
If there's a cure for diabetes then what if that one cure is patented by a corporation? The corporation would patent it and then have the field to itself. But if that corporation were doing so with federal funding then it's likely the govt would have a big say in how the patent was registered or how the cure was to be distributed.
You know sometimes it's important to think outside of a particular ideology and see the bigger picture. To you it might be the American Ideal but you know if 80% of the world can't access that cure doesn't that begin to make you think about the morality of the situation? That's what I'm getting at. I'm pretty sure private companies are free to claim patents on discoveries/developments even when subsidized with my tax dollar, but I'm out of my depth on that subject.
I'm not sure what you mean about thinking outside a particular ideology. I'm not used to being accused of having blinders.
Diuretic wrote: Bush has made this a moral issue but what for? He won't get another term as president. The information I've read indicates that the overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to his veto on this bill. So why has he pandered to his right-wing religious base when he doesn't need them? It just doesn't make sense in political terms and it doesn't make sense in moral terms (at least in my morality) so it makes me think there's something else going on here.
Your answered your question with that first following sentence. He isn't pandering, at least not this time. He really is that right-wing, that religious. He is doing what he can to stop the killing of babies (my view of his view).
I'm sure if he really were King George, abortion, homosexuality, and cohabitation without marriage would be felonies - and Baptist would be the official US religion. :rolleyes:
It's not okay with me, but this is America, where I can't/won't dictate the values of others. I can't remember if you specifically posted about respecting differences of opinion, but I've seen it here many times and would bet folding money (thanks for that phrase, Anastrophe) that you agree with that sentiment.
[quote=Diuretic] But if Bush vetoed the bill for federal funding because of his objection to the use of embryonic stem cells does that not mean for consistency he should have vetoed any bill that allows a private enterprise to use embryonic stem cells? Nothing to do with funding. If Bush truly believes that using embryonic stem cells is not moral then he has a duty to be consistent and prohibit any researcher from using embryonic stem cells.
He hasn't. At the very least he is inconsistent,
Yeh, it sucks when moral obligation, legal obligation, et al collide. I'm sure it's eating him alive that he can't prohibit the research full stop. This is a type of compromise I'm sure most politicians are used to. Personally, I would not stop private enterprise from their research even if I could. Not so long as the embryo is not considered human, legally. I'll stay off that particular soapbox for this thread. Lots of disgusting things happen in the US I wouldn't stop.
Diuretic wrote: No I meant the private companies will claim the patents. The govt stays out of it courtesy of the veto, the private companies get to claim the patents on the cures that come from the stem cell research. The veto stops federal funding, not funding by private companies using either/both embryonic and adult stem cells.
If there's a cure for diabetes then what if that one cure is patented by a corporation? The corporation would patent it and then have the field to itself. But if that corporation were doing so with federal funding then it's likely the govt would have a big say in how the patent was registered or how the cure was to be distributed.
You know sometimes it's important to think outside of a particular ideology and see the bigger picture. To you it might be the American Ideal but you know if 80% of the world can't access that cure doesn't that begin to make you think about the morality of the situation? That's what I'm getting at. I'm pretty sure private companies are free to claim patents on discoveries/developments even when subsidized with my tax dollar, but I'm out of my depth on that subject.
I'm not sure what you mean about thinking outside a particular ideology. I'm not used to being accused of having blinders.
Diuretic wrote: Bush has made this a moral issue but what for? He won't get another term as president. The information I've read indicates that the overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to his veto on this bill. So why has he pandered to his right-wing religious base when he doesn't need them? It just doesn't make sense in political terms and it doesn't make sense in moral terms (at least in my morality) so it makes me think there's something else going on here.
Your answered your question with that first following sentence. He isn't pandering, at least not this time. He really is that right-wing, that religious. He is doing what he can to stop the killing of babies (my view of his view).
I'm sure if he really were King George, abortion, homosexuality, and cohabitation without marriage would be felonies - and Baptist would be the official US religion. :rolleyes:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Diuretic wrote: I have to admit to myself being a bit black and white on this and you've brought up some points worth thinking about. I won't bang on about my views because it will be repetitious. No I didn't mean to accuse you of being close-minded I can see in retrospect my phrasing may easily be taken that way. I was thinking of the apparent predominant point of view in the US that private enterprise trumps government and communal enterprise. My very own stereotyping exercise. I'll need to be more careful in future how I think on that.
Di, you consistently peg my respectometer. I do believe private and communal enterprise are far superior to government bureaucracy in almost every circumstance. I'd be willing to discuss that with you, if you promise not to tax my ADD.
Di, you consistently peg my respectometer. I do believe private and communal enterprise are far superior to government bureaucracy in almost every circumstance. I'd be willing to discuss that with you, if you promise not to tax my ADD.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Will Bush really use the veto?
Again, non-embryonic stem cell research shows tremendous promise while embryonic stem cell languishes in labs with only hype, propaganda, and politics to propel it. Micheal J. Fox should educate himself. He made an emotional plea to reject a candidate that supports and promotes the following stem cell research while championing a candidate that continues to emphasize stem cell research that has provided no results. There are currently 75 or more therapies using non-embryonic stem cells, 0 therapies using embryonic stem cells.
Emergency heart attack patients will be injected with their own stem cells in a dramatic new treatment.
The procedure, being pioneered by British doctors, holds out hope of a 'cure' as the stem cells repair damaged heart muscles.
The low-cost treatment, which involves removing stem cells from the patient's bone marrow, could be given within a few hours of a heart attack.
It is intended to stop patients suffering further attacks and developing heart failure, something existing treatments fail to do in many cases.
If the initial trials in London are successful, the treatment is likely to be extended to NHS hospitals across the country.
Researchers have called the project - the first of its kind in the world - "very exciting" and say it could have a significant impact on the annual toll of deaths from heart disease.
As well as saving lives, it would also reduce the £7billion-a-year burden of heart attacks on the economy through hospital admissions, drug prescriptions and lost working days.
Stem cells are the basic building block cells that can grow and change into different types of tissue.
They have been shown to help people who already have heart disease by aiding the regrowth of damaged tissue.
Professor Martin said last night: "This is the first time in the world that stem cells have been used to stop the damage of acute heart attack.
"It is very exciting. We feel we can make a considerable reducstemtion in deaths and suffering from heart failure."
Full Article
Emergency heart attack patients will be injected with their own stem cells in a dramatic new treatment.
The procedure, being pioneered by British doctors, holds out hope of a 'cure' as the stem cells repair damaged heart muscles.
The low-cost treatment, which involves removing stem cells from the patient's bone marrow, could be given within a few hours of a heart attack.
It is intended to stop patients suffering further attacks and developing heart failure, something existing treatments fail to do in many cases.
If the initial trials in London are successful, the treatment is likely to be extended to NHS hospitals across the country.
Researchers have called the project - the first of its kind in the world - "very exciting" and say it could have a significant impact on the annual toll of deaths from heart disease.
As well as saving lives, it would also reduce the £7billion-a-year burden of heart attacks on the economy through hospital admissions, drug prescriptions and lost working days.
Stem cells are the basic building block cells that can grow and change into different types of tissue.
They have been shown to help people who already have heart disease by aiding the regrowth of damaged tissue.
Professor Martin said last night: "This is the first time in the world that stem cells have been used to stop the damage of acute heart attack.
"It is very exciting. We feel we can make a considerable reducstemtion in deaths and suffering from heart failure."
Full Article