Hentoff: The Stem Cell Clashes (George W. Bush Can’t Stop Science)

There are so many question marks, and I believe further study is needed, both of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.
—Dr. Piero Anversa, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, a leader of a team that used adult stem cells to create heart-muscle cells, Wall Street Journal, August 13

There is no way the pro-lifers are going to win this battle. They agree, as I do, with professor Dianne Irving, who wrote in "When do human beings begin?" (International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1999) that "This single-cell human zygote [produced by the union of sperm and egg] is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species."

But the bountiful promises of embryonic stem cell studies are so wondrous that despite George W. Bush's restrictions limiting research by federally funded U.S. scientists to 60 already existing lines of embryonic stem cells—and the House's outlawing of human cloning—the new world of smiting disabling and deadly diseases cannot be held back.

Stem cells—which have the potential to grow into any organ or tissue in the body—will one day, we are told, repair heart, brain, and nerve damage, as well as other presently dread conditions to come.

Whatever Bush and future presidents and Congresses decide, private laboratories—openly or in secret—will pursue human perfectibility and their own profits, as will scientists in other countries freed of restrictions. As the August 13 Wall Street Journal reported, Britain, in about a year, will have set up "the world's first embryo stem cell bank."

"Initially," the article said, "the bank would serve as a repository for stem cells [for use by researchers and companies] around the world." Eventually, "the bank could generate fresh cell lines from new embryos," who would be killed in the process. Note that I said "who."

But amid all the American media's expansiveness on our coming deliverance from some of our worst fears, it's worth noting that with regard to stem cell regenerations of our bodies, it will be some years before we know which of these visions will be fulfilled. Furthermore, because so much media attention is on embryonic stem cell research, much less attention has been paid to what adult stem cells have already done to change the lives of human beings, not only of mice in labs.

The intense current focus on stem cells is due to the fact that the most visible and contested issue is about cultivating many fresh lines of cells derived from embryos—with the accompanying destruction, some of us believe, of human life. Even the pro-life individuals are split on this one, with some supporting the Bush plan. But many scientists are convinced that the 60 already existing cell lines—with the originating embryos already destroyed—are not nearly enough for essential life-serving research ahead.

A sign of the pressure to get media and popular support for embryonic stem cell research was the July 6 Washington Post report that a finding raising troubling questions about embryonic stem cell research had been deleted at the last minute from an article in the prestigious journal Science. The censored material, said The Washington Post, showed that "embryonic stem cells are surprisingly genetically unstable, at least in mice. If the same is true for human embryonic stem cells, researchers said, then scientists may face unexpected challenges as they try to turn the controversial cells into treatments for various degenerative conditions."

But according to The Washington Post, part of this finding was omitted to avoid giving ammunition to opponents of embryonic stem cell research.

As for the much undersung adult stem cells, the headline in the August 13 Wall Street Journal heralded: "New Findings Point to Huge Potential of Adult Stem Cells." In the story, Laura Johannes reported:

"The discovery, published today in the September issue of Nature Cell Biology, is part of a growing body of work suggesting that stem cells found in adults have an incredible ability to morph into many types of tissues. If this is true, these cells could potentially be used instead of embryonic cells to treat many diseases, offering a way around the acrimonious debate over whether a cluster of cells in a laboratory petri dish represents a human life."

Adding more specific information, David Prentice, professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and adjunct professor of medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University School of Medicine, points out:

"[Adult stem cells] are actually being used now to treat human patients [by generating] new corneas for restoring sight to the blind. In the animal models and actually the adults themselves, I believe they have shown more success than have any of the embryonic cells—reversing diabetes in mice [and] treating Parkinson's."

Professor Prentice goes on: "The potential biomedical application of embryonic stem cell research faces significant risks such as the tendency toward tumor formation, as well as instability in gene expression. And embryonic stem cells face the very real possibility of immune rejection, while use of a patient's own adult stem cells is free from this problem. Hence, adult stem cells have many advantages as compared with embryonic stem cells for practical therapeutic application." (Emphasis added.)

Adult stem cells can potentially be taken from the blood, fat, bone marrow, brain, pancreas, muscle, and retinas, with maybe more sources to come.

As to the charge that adult stem cells are in relatively limited supply, Prentice reports that "the number of available adult stem cells can be expanded greatly in culture. In March of 2000, researchers identified the conditions necessary to allow for a large-scale expansion (a billionfold in a few weeks) of adult stem cells in culture." (His scientific source: D. Colter, at al. 97 Proc. National Academy of Sciences, 3213, March 28, 2000.)

So why isn't there a campaign—crossing all political, religious, and other ideological lines—to get more federal funding for adult stem cell research too?

So why isn't there a campaign—crossing all political, religious, and other ideological lines—to get more federal funding for adult stem cell research too?

Because adult stem cell research does nothing to further the idea that abortion is beneficial to society.

George W. Bush is not trying to stop science. He is not going to allow FEDERAL funding for certain forms of stem cell research. And not even the most promising stem cell research. Only that which would be fueled by aborted fetus commerce.

The one line of development that is most likely to provide the greatest benefit is adult stem cell research, taken from the bone marrow of the afflicted patient, which some preliminary research indicates may be used to do some extraordinary things like regrowing damaged or missing organs, or reversing certain degenerative diseases.

So why isn't there a campaign—crossing all political, religious, and other ideological lines—to get more federal funding for adult stem cell research too?

Because adult stem cell research does nothing to further the idea that abortion is beneficial to society.

Bingo bingo bingo.

You are 100% right on the mark.

This "controversy" is not about medical research or stem cells, but abortion and the baggage surrounding it.

They want to use it for what you say, and also politically to bash Bush.

The latter makes no sense because Clinton had the same proscriptions on the funding of the research and Bush simply inherited the policy.

But truth is of secondary importance for these zealous crusaders for abortion.

Even the pro-life individuals are split on this one, with some supporting the Bush plan.

Ain't that the truth! I've definitely seen this in the press, and even here on FR.

Although it is sad to read of the kind of censorship mentioned in this article, I think it is a sign that the other side realizes that ESCR is not as promising as ASCR. It is encouraging to read about the lives ASCR is helping today, and the more likely promise for even more treatments in the future. No doubt ESCR will diminish as ASCR grows.

Thanks for the bump! Some good observations here.

I see a parallel with what W said, to wit:

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells. ...Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations

It's my hope and expectation that his panel will make this conclusion and announcement, and that embryonic stem-cells will be abandoned in favor of the other routes, as Hentoff discusses.

Dan

It's my hope and expectation that his panel will make this conclusion and announcement, and that embryonic stem-cells will be abandoned in favor of the other routes, as Hentoff discusses.

Your expectation?

You don't get it, do you?

Is it likewise your hope and "expectation" that the GOP rape/incest compromise on abortion is the vehicle by which all will one day understand that abortion ALWAYS is an essentially EVIL act which deprives another innocent human being of life?

C'mon Dan ... wake up.

ESCR is about money, about wealth beyond avarice, my friend. Here's how:

Companies like Geron want to establish tissue and organ banks that varying in ethnic/racial category, to cover as many varieties as possible, from which medical people will draw (at greatcost/corporate profit) to treat patients; a monopoly will exist for the companies who can develop these fast-grown tissues and organs; embryos are very fast to transition from pluripotent to multipotnet and there is an unending supply of embryos, IF the society can be duped and the pro-life voices squelched such that the corporation can create and kill at their whim.

In the above scenario, the thing that will be lost (if not discovered in the public sector to prevent patent protection/hording) is the process whereby a patient's own stem cells may be coaxed into producing ALL the tissue lines needed and thus achieve PERFECT histocompatibility (read, no anti-rejection meds needed to assuage entry of foreign tissues of embryos). [Incidentally, it is that fact, that embryonic stem cells will be different antigen-wise from the patients body tissues and thus require anti-rejection meds, that at once proves the embryos are individual human beings different from the rest of more advanced nearly infinitely different individuals.]

I've posed the profit/loss reasoning. The moral ethical loss, if embryos are routinely created and killed for exploitation, will be the founding principle that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, that individual human life begins at conception, and that arbitrary assigning of personhood and thus individual right to life is NOTa governmental function, because it comes from our Creator by endowment not governmental proclamation. The right to life as endowed by the Creator was once one of the founding principles of this now fading-morally nation. With broad somnambulent acceptance of abortion on demand came the subtle lie that the pre-born are not fully human bbeings, that the pre-born are tissue, to be exploited if a woman chooses to stop life support. This is nothing less than the loss of moral character by a nation. With that final loss, the Republic will be no more. IT IS THAT BIG AN ISSUE and that principle is getting only radical treatment by Alan Keyes, who, in his near insane ravings, is driving more people away from the essential truths than he is awakening! [Don't read my negative toward Keyes as a positive toward Bush; I'm not that either/or in my arguments.]

It's okay just to ignore me, Dan. I'm used to that. (Like you, the atheists and libertarians often have no answers for me or run out of rational defenses for the statements they make.)

"Two pennies" ... like their "Bzrrtt, thwip" sorts of responses ... ruin any chance of a bluff by underscoring the fact you're holding nothing but ponies.

I still would give anything -- even throw in the six cents I've earned on this thread -- to understand the logic you're using with regard to your hopes and expectations.

In the meantime, I guess I owe 'ya for bumping the thread.

(Might want to drop that "two pennies" line into your boilerplate. As the site's premiere Biblical Christian and the first I noted who used Scripture to defend the "Solomon-like" act that was actually splitting the babies on this ungodly stem compromise, I probably will be dogging you. Nothing personal, of course. Ask OWK.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.