Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Stem Cell Debate


Democrats better hurry and pass their bill to use government money to destroy human embryos before science obviates the need.

Oops, too late

We have heard for years how EMBRYONIC (can't use adult or cord blood cells, have to sacrifice embryos) stem cells were going to cure every malady known to man (except global warming which can only be cured by Socialism, evidently). Funny thing that the cure is always right around the corner. This is close to the same con pulled by faith healers and charlatans for ages. "If you just had enough faith, Christopher Reeve would get out of that chair and walk. Except for in the case of the Faith Healers, they just want YOUR money, not a blank check to the Government Treasury. And you know it would be a blank check, "Don't short our funding and force us to drag out Michael J. Fox again!"

Again, call me a skeptic and uninformed if you wish, but I at least want to see some, or at least any tangible results, before we start handing out government checks and destroying embryos, something that a great portion of the American taxpayer considers a terrible wrong. Most liberals snit over the fact that a child might receive a quality education from a Catholic nun somehow using government funding, so the concept is not that hard to understand.

Now it appears that we don't have to destroy embryos to get the special magical brand of stem cells after all. Do you think this will be reflected upon, before a full embryo destroying bill is put before congress? Nope, because the purpose never was completely about obtaining cures through stem cell research. At least part of the measure was to desensitize the public about destroying embryos in general, and to soften us up for the eventual announcement of cloned fetuses (which are, at least at this point, looking unnecessary as well.)

To demonstrate this, look at the end of the article.

Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said that finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection.

Nonetheless, Daley said the discovery shouldn't be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research.

"While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development," said Daley.

He began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.

So here we have the discovery that breaks the Gordian knot and makes the miracle of Embryonic Stem Cell research available almost controversy free, and he is thinking "Hold on a minute, this may throw a crimp in my plans to clone an embryo." Is this the guy you want to give the keys to the Treasury to? Scientists are not Gods. They are just as self-interested and in many cases selectively honest as any oil executive. The discovery of Dr. Anthony Atala and his fellows has the potential to upset the whole apple cart of investment, funding, and grants. Do you really believe that the science community as a whole will give up a gravy train in the name of ethical science? Do you think that the cloning industry which is so close to convincing huge swaths of voters that "cloning is the answer" will sit back as an ethical and most definitely cheaper method of harvesting stem cells is introduced?

We should at least get a good look at which politicians Big Cloning has bought and paid for. Look for Dr. Atala and his colleagues to get savaged by their fellow scientists and then we will also know it was never just about embryonic stem cells.

4 comments:

Framer said...

My understanding from the articles that I have read thus far is that the stem cells harvested from the ambiotic fluid are identical, even containing Y chromosomes, which means they are built of the same stuff as the fetus, rather than the mother.

In the article, Dr. Clone doesn't dismiss this. He states, "While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development."

From my albeit feeble understanding, the reason for embryonic stem cells is that they are not yet tasked to any specific purpose by DNA, and are therefore able to adapt to any need. "addressing a host of other interesting questions in early human development" is not really in the scope of this reasoning is it?

Again, my challenge to you is to demonstrate that current legislation is not directly tied to Cloning interests. Because the nasty secret is that these are the firms that under current legislation receive the greatest benefit. The ethical considerations on this are enough that the issue needs to be dealt with honestly, with sunlight, and without John Edward's hysteria. Would you say that this is the current climate?

The thing is that even if the bill passes the House, then the Senate, it WILL be vetoed by Bush. And this latest discovery will give him plenty of cover for that veto. There will more than likely be a compromise bill introduced on on the Ambiotic Stem cell source that will be more easily separated from cloning interests. How exactly is this a bad thing for anyone?

Framer said...

Sorry, I have more. The fertility clinic embryos about to be destroyed is at best a dishonest argument. The fertility clinics are privately owned, the clinics wishing to expand the lines are privately owned, what exactly does government funding have to do with it? Is there a law that says these fetuses cannot be used for stem cell research? Nope, not in the least. Why do supporters of the bill attempt to make it seem like there is? The Federal money is needed to cover the tremendous expense that CLONING these embryos will take. Again, Sirocco and a lot of other people of all political pursuasions should be uncomfortable with this.

The American drug industry has seemed to do well with Private funding, almost TOO well by some of the rantings I see about Big Pharmacutical. Why not pour federal funding into our current drug manufacturers who have shown almost miraculous results? What makes stem cell research different?

Possibly that any breakthroughs made in Stem Cells will be held in the public domain and not patented and expoited by those who develped them on the back of the American tax payer. I bet that resolution is included somewhere in the legislation, I just haven't been able to find it yet. I will refrain from holding my breath however.

Bruce P. Murchison said...

The very fact that one life is destroyed with the hope that someday another might be saved is disturbing. Above, Sirocco said... "I can't see why, if the embryos are about to be destroyed anyway, they shouldn't be allowed for research purposes ... but I would love to see what others think." I repeat, that a life needs to be sacrificed bothers me. Do you honestly have no problem knowing that a cure or body part you receive was created only by destroying another persons life? It pains me to think that these embryos are being discarded. Nevertheless, allowing them to be "researched" only offers another excuse to destroy more. A soldier who goes off to war volunteers their life. It is a concious decision. The child (or for those who don't believe it is one, the "potential" child)doesn't have that choice. If other stem-cell research (cord blood, amniotic fluid, etc.) shows promise, why not pursue it? I certainly don't want tax dollars going to destroy life. I wish no dollars would, but that is a dream.

Framer said...

Sirocco,

Sorry, I have not had time to get back to this like I wanted to.

1. I did see Atala's letter. Of course he had to publish that somewhere, or risk becoming a scientific pariah. I didn't notice anywhere in the letter where he claimed his stem cells to be inferior or of less promise. I would argue that just the opposite he released his findings when he did on purpose, to maximize his return on results. After the Bush veto, he will be sitting quite pretty for funding.

2. I strongly disagree. If taxpayer money is going to be spent. I want strict oversight, I want to know where the money is going and for what. I want guidelines that guarantee that these cells will not be used for cloning, I also want guarantees that at least a portion of the findings would be open-sourced, and available for others to use. None of that is covered, or approached in the bill that was offered and voted on. It has little to no oversight and appears as if it could have been written on the back of a napkin, for all of it's generality. Look at it and tell me it is not a blank check.

Government oversight and regulation is the price for taxpayer funding. You don't like it, secure your own funding outside of government purview. Bruce's rights on helping determine how taxpayer funds equals yours and Michael J. Fox's, and even probably surpass it as his group is not the ones with their hands out.

3. I am going to require that you back this up. I do not believe that it is accurate to say that all medicine is just a minute variation of what was discovered decades ago. Obviously this may be the case in specific instances, but is not generally the rule. There is also plenty of private funding sources in biomedical that did not exist decades ago. Of course they are not going to invest if there is the possibility of Government money swamping their staked interest. They would be perfectly happy to wait until some company gets a taxpayer funded patent, and then invest.

4. Nope and Nope. There is no altruism required in the bill, nor will it be granted. Any breakthrough will be patented and tied up as fast as they are developed. I sense you wish to liken this to technology developed by NASA, so let's go there. NASA is a government agency, and they own their own patents. They will also license their patent to you in a fair manner should you wish to use it commercially. Under the stem cell bill offered, the government own no patents and holds no power to enforce that their investment is leveraged in a fair matter.

In conclusion, even if you remove the pro-life considerations that Bruce and I share, it is still a bad and sloppy bill, pure and simple. Support for the bill has been built on exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies (see original John Edwards link). It is a blank check to certain industries that will have little to no oversight. You cannot simply say that if the government invests 3 billion in tax revenue, Alzheimers will be cured, as what the current thrust is. You don't know, the scientists don't know, and it is not under constitutional purview for the government to spend ALL of the treasure to find out.