STEM CELLS - THANKS PRESIDENT OBAMA

Posted By: June
Posted on: Mar. 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM

3 Comments

0.0 / 5

Based on 0 ratings.

Print

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

Yeah - President Obama gave very real HOPE for improving the quality of life to countless Americans and residents of Planet Earth when he rescinded Bush's ban on federally-funded stem cell research. Here's an opportunity to thank him for following through on yet another campaign promise.

Dear June,

Sign our card thanking President Obama today

This morning, I had the great honor of joining President Obama as he lifted the executive ban on federal funding for stem cell research.

Today's ceremony at the White House was more than eight years in the making. With one stroke of his pen, President Obama has given hope and potentially health to millions of Americans.

The President's courageous action today has also restored science to its rightful place in our national debates and will ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation, discovery, and growth.

As one of our dedicated grassroots supporters, today's victory is your victory.

Please sign our letter of thanks to President Obama for providing hope to millions through the promise of stem cell research.

Thank you again for standing with us in this critical fight.

Sincerely,

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Click here to view more articles by June

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

David granovsky

Mar. 12, 2009 at 11:53:19 AM

View Profile

'''A, E, iPS and Sometimes Why?'''

Does President Obama's lift of the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research benefit the American people? Let's look at the facts. There are Adult stem cells, Embryonic stem cells and Induced pluripotent stem cells. The debate over their research can be generalized into "the potential to advance our general knowledge for the future", "the religious morality debate" and "research towards the specific development of treatments for the ill."

For just one second, let's abandon the concept of researching embryonic stem cells for "the potential to advance our general knowledge for the future" and also "the religious morality debate".
Let us begin with the assessment of the lifting of the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research under the assumption that scientists, the government, the FDA and the AMA are interested in embryonic research for the development of specific treatments for diseases. In this context, embryonic stem cells will provide little immediate (in the next 10-20 years) benefit.

Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said: "...embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies." and "Ten or 20 years from now...there will be transplantation- based therapies (from ESC), but even if there was none, and it was a complete failure, this technology is extraordinarily important." Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments "reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells . . . are obsolete." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002842.html and "The iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) discovery even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers "may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate."

These are not individuals motivated by religious doctrine or even adult stem cell advocates; these are the top minds in embryonic research deciding, based solely on the scientific research potential of ESC that "embryonic research for treatments has little to no life left in it". Yet, the critics of ASC ignore these events and argue onward while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the huge advancements around the world that adult stem cells have made in therapeutic treatments. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/category/victories-success-stories/

'''Embryonic Stem Cells:'''
While Embryonic stem cells (ESC) were previously thought to be more powerful than Adult Stem Cells (ASC) because they can become any cell in the body (pluripotency), new studies on ASC are showing that they can become virtually anything. Scientists recently turned Skin cells into ASC into Neuron-ASC. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/researchers-make-nerve-cells-from-new-stem-cells-science-reuters/

A decade of ESC research around the world has resulted in no human treatments & because the ESC continue to divide beyond the scientist’s control, they can turn into tumors. ESC also require immunosuppressive drugs, which one of the most common forms of ASC (autologous) used in treatment do not.

'''Adult Stem Cells:'''
Over the same decade of research, adult stem cell treatments have given thousands improved health, extended lives, helped paraplegics to walk… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/spinal-cord-injury-sci-stem-cell-trials-japan-plays-catch-up/

and gave a man with AIDs 2 years (so far) free of symptoms… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/?s=aids+symptom+2+years

and successfully improved MS & Cerebral Palsy patients, the list goes on and on… http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/category/victories-success-stories/

ASC are already helping improve & extend the lives of patients with dozens of “incurable” diseases,” 73 diseases when you count only US published scientific papers & well over 100 if you read all of the papers from outside the USA and even the NIH is jumping into the ASC research and treatment pool. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/nih-says-adult-stem-cells-are-ready-for-the-prime-time-yah-baby/

'''Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells:'''
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSC) are ASC modified to be able to become any cell in the human body & seem to have all of the benefits of ESC with significantly less of a rejection issue; not to mention without the political & religious controversy. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/embryonic-stem-cell-alternative-has-another-advance-ips-cells-yield-nerve-cells/

And iPSC don’t have the tumor and cancer potential that ESC do. http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/cancer-threat-removed-from-stem-cells-scientists-say-los-angeles-times/

Does President Obama's lift of the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research benefit the American people? No doubt, in a general knowledge capacity, embryonic stem cell research can teach us a lot. But in the interest of generating actual treatments, embryonic stem cell research has very little immediate potential. The obstacles of cancer, rejection and the religious/morality debate though are significant and both ASC & iPSC seem capable of achieving everything ESC can do with a fraction of those obstacles. The world is treating thousands successfully with ASC and we are 8 years behind most of the stem cell research in the world and focused on embryonic stem cells research virtually to the exclusion of adult or induced pluripotent research.

It is time that the stem cell debate shifted from:
"why are we funding embryonic stem cell research?"
to:
"why are we not prioritizing the research, funding and media exposure of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research?"

Report Abuse

June

Mar. 12, 2009 at 02:04:20 PM

View Profile

Thank you for the thought-provoking comment, David - it’s a most welcome, refreshing change.

I’ll confess, I’m woefully unprepared to speak to the issues you raise here and in your article. You state there’s no doubt that the president’s lifting of Bush’s ban benefited all Americans and I’d like to focus on the political benefits of what he did and said.

In his nuanced signing speech, President Obama acknowledged the moral dimension of the stem cell debate head-on and reoriented the traditional Religious-Right frame - science vs moral values - by arguing that we can empower the former without sacrificing the latter.

Of further import, President Obama acknowledged the legitimacy of the opposition's morals-based case. That’s an up-front example of a brilliant win/win strategy: respect-the-morality-of-your-opponents even when you‘re saying “no“!!

By making it awkward, at least, for overzealous Christians to continue demonizing Democrats among religious voters, the president has cracked the door to open discussions of our differences. Need I add - as he promised to do?

Some contrast to Bush and his Religious-Right cronies‘ “my way or the highway!”, hunh?

And, as you point out, by overturning Bush’s prohibition of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research, President Obama has set the stage for the discussion you propose.

One question, David - why hasn’t this issue received more public attention until now?

Report Abuse

ObamaInCharge

Mar. 12, 2009 at 05:38:19 PM

View Profile

The two messages I am getting from your very thoughtful analysis are:

1. ASC research is far ahead of ESC research, and has already resulted in useful therapies today. On the other hand, ESC research is likely 10-20 years away from helping anyone.

2. Recent developments have enabled IPSCs to do everything that ESCs do, so there is no need to bother with ESC research, so opening up such research to government funding is superfluous.

To address the first point, ESC research lags behind ASC in large part due to the absense of federal funding for ESCs lines over the last 8 years (other than a few grandfathered in, dead-end ESC lines already in existence prior to the Bush ban). Federal funding is by far and away the largest driver of research in this field, so a ban on federal funds essentially means halting any useful R&D. That's the real reason why ESCs are not ready for any specific clinical application, and not because they are an inherently fruitless line of investigation. If you don't lay the groundwork today, the potential discoveries 10-20 years hence will never be made, which makes the alleged futility of such research a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now on to the second point. It is true that IPSCs are an exciting new development in stem cell research that largely sidesteps the ethical/religious/moral questions of using ESCs, and in some applications would obviate the need for ESCs. However there is no reason to conclude that IPSCs can or will do everything that ESCs are or might be capable of.

A little background here is needed. ESCs are the parent cells for all other cell types. In medicalese, these cells are the most undifferentiated and pluripotent cells -- the body's original progenitor cells -- and have built into their cellular machinery the potential to become any body tissue under the appropriate conditions. ASC are the residual stem cell lines still found in the adult human organism. They can become, under the right external influences, most other body tissues (but not all). For example, ASC cannot regrow neurons and thus are of limited value for use in severe spinal cord injuries. IPSCs are ASCs that have been modified to revert back to a more embryonic state -- in other words, their differentiation has been rolled back almost to the maximal pluripotency of an ESC.

Almost, but not quite. There is still a difference between what ESCs and IPSCs can do, and you have already alluded to it. The oncogenic (cancerous) features of improperly regulated ESCs in therapeutic treatments could have disastrous cancer-inducing results. The risk is much less with IPSCs, precisely because are less undifferentiated (less pluripotent) than ESCs. This doesn't mean we throw ESC research out the door because it is inherently too dangerous. In fact, this means that we have even more cause to do the research in the first place, to understand the chemical regulators and genetic signals that can control runaway cellular growth, and to eventually make ESC therapy safe. And if we understand these regulators that keep ESCs from resulting in cancers (which obviously is the case for most in utero embryonic growth, since women don't tend to give birth to tumors), then we have a fundamental insight into how cancers begin, and how to prevent them.

Don't get me wrong. I have high hopes for the IPSC. They could potentially replace the need for ESCs in most cases, but by no means all. With the Bush ban on ESC research, it was our best hope of making breakthrough medical cures. But ESC research is intrinsically of huge value in its own right. To understand how these clumps of cells in a blastocyst end up as a perfectly formed human being and not a cancerous ball of cells after nine months would unlock tremendous insights that go well beyond the handful of promising therapies we can foresee just down the road. Since IPSCs are not ESCs, we cannot assume that these insights will be obtained by only working with IPSCs. We also cannot assume that therapies utilizing IPSCs will be as effective as those using ESCs. Responsible research with ESCs, using embryos already destined for the IVF clinic dumpster, is sensible and defensible. The news of ESC research's death is premature, and I suspect that in 10-20 years this research will not only be beneficial to Americans but to all of mankind.

Report Abuse

Directory

STEM CELLS - THANKS PRESIDENT OBAMA

Yeah - President Obama gave very real HOPE for improving the quality of life to countless Americans and residents of Planet Earth when he rescinded Bush's ban on federally-funded stem cell research. Here's an opportunity to thank him for following through on yet another campaign promise.

Comments:

Thank you for the thought-provoking comment, David - it’s a most welcome, refreshing change.

I’ll confess, I’m woefully unprepared to speak to the issues you raise here and in your article. You state there’s no doubt that the president’s lifting of Bush’s ban benefited all Americans and I’d like to focus on the political benefits of what he did and said.

In his nuanced signing speech, President Obama acknowledged the moral dimension of the stem cell debate head-on and reoriented the traditional Religious-Right frame - science vs moral values - by arguing that we can empower the former without sacrificing the latter.

Of further import, President Obama acknowledged the legitimacy of the opposition's morals-based case. That’s an up-front example of a brilliant win/win strategy: respect-the-morality-of-your-opponents even when you‘re saying “no“!!

By making it awkward, at least, for overzealous Christians to continue demonizing Democrats among religious voters, the president has cracked the door to open discussions of our differences. Need I add - as he promised to do?

Some contrast to Bush and his Religious-Right cronies‘ “my way or the highway!”, hunh?

And, as you point out, by overturning Bush’s prohibition of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research, President Obama has set the stage for the discussion you propose.

One question, David - why hasn’t this issue received more public attention until now?