White House rejects calls for change of stem cell policy

Fox 12 via Drudge ^ | 6/14/04

[areafiftyone]

WHITE HOUSE -- The White House is rejecting calls by former President Reagan's family to change its policy on stem cell research.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan says flatly, "The policy remains the same." He adds, "We are looking at other ways to combat disease."

Reagan's widow Nancy and his daughter Patti Davis have been outspoken advocates of expanding medical research using embryonic stem cells. Biologists think these could help create treatments for diseases ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, which afflicted Reagan for a decade.

In 2001, Bush signed an executive order limiting federally funded research to 78 lines of embryonic stem cells then in existence. However, researchers say the number of lines actually available is now 19 -- and contamination may make those unusable.

McClellan says Bush believes his policy still provides enough lines to continue research.

[GovernmentShrinker]

And what about all the genetically defective embryos, such as the ones which Reproductive Genetics Institute announced yesterday that it had used to establish stem cell lines carrying specific serious genetic defects, for use in research on those diseases? Do you really think those embryos are going to be adopted? Are you going to adopt and carry to term an embryo which you know has muscular dystrophy or Fanconi's anemia, when there is a huge supply of genetically normal embryos? And in the case of these new defect-carrying stem cell lines, the biological parents WANTED the embryos used for research (likely because most of these parents already had a child afflicted with one of these horrible disease, and hope to spare others from it). Should the government really be able to force these parents to leave these embryos languishing in a freezer with no realistic chance of adoption?

[GovernmentShrinker]

I've noticed a huge advertising push re Alzheimer's research lately (starting well before President Reagan's death), using scare-style statistical sound bites, and urging people to "call for more government funding" for Alzheimer's research. Obviously the incidence is going to increase somewhat as the population ages, but I'd scrutinize the alarmist statistics carefully before putting any stock in them.

[MHGinTN]

When researchers remove the stem cells from an embryo (in the current practice, they want embryos just starting to form the inner bud that is the start of the body to be born months later), those stem cells can become any tissue of three fundamental tissue lines of the human body. If these cells are used in an experimental therapy, they are too potent to control, thus a later differentiation is more desirable because unwanted tissues can be avoided. But if the embryonic stem cells are directed to differentiate further before injecting into a patient, tissue compatibility begins to be an issue ... tissue rejection is a real possibility unless anti-rejection meds are used. To avoid this snag, the next phase in the use of embryo stem cells is to conceive a clone of the patient, raise the clone embryo to fetal age, then harvest the stem cells from this clone to treat the parent/twin of the clone. Some have already realized that if they can manipulate the public into demanding concession to fund the conception and harvesting of 'leftover embryos' in fertilization clinics, the next step of cloning for therapeutic reasons will be a breeze. The current cry for relaxing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is tied directly to the next step the researchers want to take, a step they call therapeutic cloning (they called it research cloning also). Their explanation for why it would be acceptable to do therapeutic cloning and killing of cloned fetuses is, 'the clone would not be allowed to grow old enough or big enough to be born'. In other words, the end use defines whether the procedure is moral or not. Embryo harvesting for body parts is directly tied to the next step these people want to take, though they will lie through their teeth and claim it is not. Of course, the democrats are crying for relaxation of federal funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research because they believe they have a trap from which a moral president cannot escape without the democrats demagoguing him into losing the election. The moral issues are irrelevant to the democrat party of goons, liars, and leftists thugs. Cannibalizing the youngest alive members of the human species is of no consequence to democrats.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Now it's time to do a LOT of education on the subject, and to get some federal research money out there

I'm thrilled to see both embryonic and adult stem cell research move ahead at full speed. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of more government spending on any of this. The private sector can handle it; all that's needed is for government to stay out of the way and not impose any onerous restrictions.

[GovernmentShrinker]

In lieu of changing the IVF policies, allowing the embryos to die a natural death if not placed in the womb is preferable to cannibalizing them.

Uh huh. Sure. Because MHGinTN, the self-appointed arbiter of what life should be about, decided for these embryos that they would rather "die a natural death" than contribute to the advancement of medical research. Please try to grasp that your personal emotions are not a valid basis for public law.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you doctor mengele, we will file your smarm where it belongs.

[MainFrame65]

> 'There is no scientific basis to conclude that embryonic stem cells won't "produce real information, and eventually, real treatments and cures."' <

And no reason to conclude that they would provide any more information than cells obtained from ethical sources, by ethical means. Let's keep Josef Mengele dead and buried instead of resurrecting him through his ideological clones.

Mengele did actually do some research. So did the US Government in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and the North Koreans, more recently, in testing poison gases on political prisoners. But all of these were immoral, unethical and condemned by everyone with a conscience. If you can tolerate the questionable ethics of involuntary transplantation, pay for it yourself, and keep your hands out of the public trough.

[GOP Soccer Mom]

I'd have to find them, but I'm on a discussion board on another site, and it's just for Pro Life information. There have been several articles that people have posted there that outline the many successes with adult stem cell research. The best thing about it is that no one must die for it.

With ESCR, even if you are unsure about the zygote being a human life (which is basically, IMO, denial of scientific fact), you are not erring on the side of caution by supporting such research. It creates an ethical dilemma that is just not present when you proceed with adult stem cells.

BTW, adult stem cells do not mean cells from grown-ups. It means that the cells are collected from born people rather than embryos. For example, one source rich in such stem cells is umbilical cord blood, which is typically discarded. Another source, which would be plentiful, esp. in the US, is fat. :) They are finding that adult stem cells are actually very malleable and do not cause the mutation problems that embryonic stem cells seem to cause (not to mention the possibility of cancerous growths from ESC).

[GOP Soccer Mom]

For me, there isn't much contradiction. I'm also opposed to IVF, for this very reason. Children are created, then just left frozen. BTW, did you know there are couples who would adopt those frozen embryos? It's happened in the past.

[GOP Soccer Mom]

Those are excellent reform ideas. It's unfortunate that IVF is proclaimed as some wonderful advance that works so well. It's only about 25% successful at best, not to mention horribly expensive.

[RightWhale]

limiting federally funded research to 78 lines of embryonic stem cells

How many lines of embryonic stem cells exist outside the Federal ones? Also, it seemsd like hopes are riding high on a lot of maybe and could be.

[GOP Soccer Mom]

But why do research on embryos (tiny humans) when research can be done without sacrificing human life for it? If killing one man means that there is a possibility to save ten, would you willingly do it if there was also a way to possibility save them without the killing?

Man, that doesn't look like it makes sense. :P

[GOP Soccer Mom]

Okay, imagine this:

Parents have several children, and they all have a genetic disease. Turns out the parents are carriers, and the odds have been against them. So, with their fourth child, when they realize that he has this disease, they decide to donate him to science so that they can research the disease. The parents WANT him to be used for research, you know. In fact, they went through genetic testing before he was born, just to be sure they were providing a child with the disease. They give him up just after birth, so that there is no real attachment to him.

If this is horrifying, then GOOD. It ought to be! But, my real question to you is, why is it NOT horrifying to have the parents do this with their child before he is born? You are the same entity you were when you were conceived (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus) as you are today. The only difference is that you are more developed. Creating a human life just for the purposes of research on that human is deplorable, and fit for Nazis. ESCR is just that: creating a life in order to kill him/her.

[Your Nightmare]

Because embryonic stem cells have a different potential that adult stem cells (e.g. not every organ has adult stem cells). Also embryonic stem cells are capable of prolonged, undifferentiated proliferation in culture meaning an unlimited supply.

I, personally, don't consider an egg stuck with a needle and injected with a sperm and allowed to grow in a petri dish for a couple of days a human being.

[Your Nightmare]

Creating a human life just for the purposes of research on that human is deplorable, and fit for Nazis. ESCR is just that: creating a life in order to kill him/her.

Except that these embryos weren't created "just for the purposes of research." They are the embryos left over after a couple has successfully had IVF.

[MHGinTN]

Well, let's see, the conceived is growing, duplicating its own unique orders for construction, and within two days has already differentiated cells to build his or her own placenta (yes, the sex can be determined at this age) for life support if he or she can locate 'mommy'. The stem cells now circulating in your blood stream are the duplicate program you've been expressing ever since you began cell division growth. When you were two cells, you were already a distinct human ORGANISM, and each and every cell you made from then to now has had the exact same rpogram within it, and the 'now stem cells' merely have to reach a site in your body and receive chemical signals in order to leap into differentiation to replace a damaged or dying cell. The recent discovery of multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs- pronounced map seas) and subsequent very wide range of tissues they can and do differentiate into means your body has a virtual endless supply of stem cells already matched to your unique histamine patterns of your immune system, so tissue rejection isn't a factor. And, oh yes, they can be extracted from your blood and cultured, to increase the numbers for re-injecting into your prime delivery system. All this complexity started with one mega-cell, the zygote of you, and has continued as you ever since. You proved you were an individual human organism when your first cell divided to form two cells and you've been the same individual organism ever since. It would matter not a whit if your conception and first cell divisions occurred in a petri dish or your mother's fallopian tube, the idiocy of Orrin Hatch not withstanding.

[CyberAnt]

NO NO NO NO NO! They're not inseparable.

If Kerry wants stem cell research so badly and he thinks it's such a great thing - then his wife and her elitist immoral friends can FUND THE RESEARCH.

What is it about that statement that you refuse to accept.

The President said he will not use TAXPAYER DOLLARS to fund this research.

But .. THERE IS NO LAW STOPPING Kerry from doing it with DONATED MONEY.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The difference is that the newborn baby is capable of feeling pain, hunger and thirst, capable of feeling trust for another human being, capable of all sorts of important things that an early stage embryo is not capable of.

Please remember that the stage at which embryonic stem cells are extracted, is a stage at which it is not yet even certain whether the embryo, should it continue to develop, would develop into one baby or into two or more genetically identical babies. It is most certainly not "a baby" at that point.

[MHGinTN]

The twinning action that 'could occur' would be in response to some trauma to the capsule in which the embryo is existing, a capsule that is the residuals of the woman's ovum outer cell coat. When in natural gestation the embryo breaks out of the capsule to seek implantation, the stem cells can become jumbled or split and two masses can form that begin the work of repairing their arrangement of stem cells, which leads to two fetuses. Just because twinning can occur doesn't mean that at least one human ORGANISM isn't present from the very start of mitosis. In fact, there has to be at least one hman ORGANISM present in earliest embryo age else no human would exit the womb months later.

[Undivided Heart]

Unfortunately the debate never deals with what is at stake. It used to be about choice. Government was going to remain neutral (though that's impossible since by not protecting the unborn the government has taken a position that the unborn is not worthy of protection under the law). So if I take the government-sanctioned pro-abortion stance, only the mother can decide what the thing is inside of her. Since there is not necessarily mother in the picture here, one could argue then that it would be immoral for the government to determine what a human embryo is, if the Court wants to continue this facade of being neutral.