When President George W. Bush authorized funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001 he limited it to existing embryonic lines due to the moral implications of utilizing aborted babies for that purpose. At the time, I opposed Bush's limitation. I favored unlimited stem cell research, including the creation of new lines of embryonic cells. President Bush and everyone else, of course, also supported research into adult stem cells, though critics complained they were far less useful.Bush's limitation only applied to federal-funded research. State- and privately-funded researchers were free to create new embryonic stem cell lines and they did. However, one of the results of the federal limitation was funding for adult stem cell research that might have gone undone.
Well, here it is some eight years later and what do I read in US News Weekly, Feb. 27, 2009? "Why Embryonic Stem Cells are Obsolete" by Bernadine Healy, MD, cardiologist and a former head of the National Institutes of Health and the American Red Cross:
"... embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors. ... research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern."But, the news is not all bad, according to Healy:
"Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types like brain and heart cells in the laboratory. (Such stem cells can be removed almost as easily as drawing a unit of blood, and they have been used successfully for years in bone marrow transplants.)"Best of all, adult stem cells exactly match the recipient, because they are his or her own cells.
Ira Glickstein
6 comments:
Very interesting. Does that imply that embryonic stem cell research should cease? That government should continue its refusal to funded embryonic stem cell research?
JohnS, what it shows is that the qualified scientific experts who cried the loudest at the limitation of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research turned out to be mistaken. Those who objected to embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons turned out to be right only by accident.
Despite this one example of mistaken experts, I'd rather bet on the opinions of responsible scientists. I expect President Obama to reverse President Bush's limitations on stem cell research. I support such a reversal. Government funding should continue to go to both embryonic and adult stem cells, with the latter getting more money based on higher success rates.
Ira Glickstein
I'm shocked, I agree with you completely.
Ira,
You conclude that Bernardine Healy’s article shows, “that the qualified scientific experts who cried the loudest at the limitation of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research turned out to be mistaken. Those who objected to embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons turned out to be right only by accident.”
This is not only an unfair statement, but it also is an ignorant and simplistic view of fetal tissue research.
Since the 1950s scientists have recognized the promise of research involving human embryos and fetuses for the advancement of basic developmental science as well as for finding lifesaving vaccines and therapies that included the polio and rubella vaccines. Many kinds of research use human fetal tissue because it has many unique advantages such as rapid growth and, the fact that it is human tissue, not rats’. The danger of potential malignant growth of embryonic cells is well known, and is obvious from the nature of the cells. This is why fetal tissue is uniquely useful for cancer and developmental research. Some 20% of all pregnancies are naturally aborted because of developmental errors.
The Bush administration politicized science, and anything like embryonic cells remotely related to abortion and birth control was specially targeted. Many at NIH and other scientists claim that Healy was a tool of the Bush administration and showed disrespect for scientific objectivity. For example, Healy lobbied against provisions in a congressional bill concerning the NIH that would make the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical studies a legal requirement. At the same time, she lobbied against overturning the Bush Administration's ban on fetal tissue research, despite her previous support (at Johns Hopkins) for such research.
Another controversy involved gene patenting. Despite the objections of scientists, including James Watson, head of NIH's human genome project, Healy approved patent applications for 347 genes. (I would not trust the opinion of anyone who favors patenting genes!)
Healy’s latest media show (as a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report) was the false claim that "several" neurologists "evaluated" Terri Schiavo and determined that she had "a functional mind" and was "minimally conscious."
Ira, I think your “qualified scientific experts” will turn out to be anti-science political conservatives with good media connections like Healy. The religious conservatives were not right, and the scientists who actually do the research will not “turn out to be mistaken.” They were just ignored.
My last paragraph doesn't make sense. I meant to write:
Ira, I think your “qualified scientific experts” are really those with good media connections like Healy. The anti-science political and religious conservatives were not right, and the scientists who actually do the research will not “turn out to be mistaken.” They were just ignored.
Howard: As I wrote in my earlier Comment, I was one of those who, at the time, opposed Bush's limitation on federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem cell research. My only point was that that limitation did not really impact embryonic research, which continued apace under state- and private funding, as well as continuing research in other nations. I said I will support President Obama when he overturns Bush's limitations.
On the other hand, it is almost certainly true that adult stem cell research in the US is farther ahead than it would have been absent Bush's religious/political decision. The key point is that the claims made in 2001 against the prospects for adult stems cells turned out to be mistaken. I make no political critique of those who thought adult stem cells would always take a back seat to embryonic. Their opinions were based on expert knowledge at that time. Let us celebrate the advances in adult stem cells and move on.
I did not know Healy had weighed in on the wrong side of the Schiavo case. At the time I supported Schiavo's husband and said the Republican Governor, President, and Legislators were wrong to intervene in the decision of the court in that case. My respect for her has diminished.
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment