Posted on 03/19/2007 6:27:12 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
Lifting the ban on taxpayer funding of research on new stem cells from fertilized embryos would better serve both science and the nation, the chief of the National Institutes of Health told lawmakers Monday.
Allowing the ban to remain in place, Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni told a Senate panel, leaves his agency fighting "with one hand tied behind our back."
"It is clear today that American science will be better served — the nation will be better served — if we allow our scientists to have access to more cell lines," Zerhouni told two members of the Senate health appropriations subcommittee during a hearing on the NIH's proposed 2008 budget. The NIH, with a nearly $29 billion annual budget, is the main federal agency that conducts and funds medical research.
Zerhouni's comments appear to be his strongest yet in support of lifting President Bush's 2001 ban that restricted government funding to research using only embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. There are just 21 such lines now in use.
Bush issued the first and so far only veto of his presidency last year when he killed legislation that would have expanded federal funding of stem-cell research. In January, the House passed a revived proposal.
Stem cells are created in the first days after conception and typically are culled from frozen embryos, destroying them in the process. Because they go on to form the body's tissues and cells — Zerhouni called them "software of life" — scientists say they could unlock the mystery of many diseases and one day lead to cures.
Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, said contamination of the 21 embryonic lines available under the ban make it unlikely they ever will be used in treating humans.
Zerhouni, in answering questions from Harkin and Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the only subcommittee members present for his testimony, said the limited number of cell lines aren't sufficient to do needed research.
"We cannot, I do not think, be second best in this area," Zerhouni told the two, both ardent supporters of stem-cell research. He later said other countries, including China and India, are increasing their spending on overall medical research.
Congress doubled the NIH's budget between 1998 and 2003, but it's remained essentially flat since then, when adjusted for inflation.
On the Net:
National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov/
Private? ... Sorry, what I did for Searle and Schering is none of your business.
To get to what the point was, you could merely track the exchange back. It is not difficult. The point was the discussion of what NIH does - it distributes, and denies, research grants. With that function of it I have to be familiar, having written a few applications myself. No grants so far.
The government of Singapore would like to extend its sincere thanks to the government of the United States for doing all it can to stifle research into embryonic stem cells.
This has allowed Singapore to set up a world class research facility in a cutting edge field of science with some of the top talent from the US for dirt cheap.
Keep up the good work!
At this rate, not only will all the doctorates in physical sciences in a generation be Asians, but the few talented Caucasians will be working in Asia.
I was asking not WHAT you were doing there [could not care less- it's out of date anyway], but in what capacity you were there - marketer, researcher, production supervisor, building custodian, company executive, security guard- they employ all kinds of people. Merely being there does not a pharma researcher make.
Reasearch, development, and sales. Don't ask for further clarification 'cause it isn't forthcoming. One piece of relevant data however is why I left Searle ... I'm pro-life and certain company products are the antithesis of same. [If it helps you, I'm past 60.]
Well, after 30 years in R&D I'm yet to meet a researcher worth his salt who would agree to work in sales. Administrative/careerist types might, but they have never been much of researchers. Although, two more individuals come to mind - they had to do it after a layoff, but one jumped the sales ship at the first opportunity, and another has never been a researcher to begin with. You must be a rare bird.
A veiled insult is still meant to be an insult; you aren't nearly as stealthy as you imagine. You and I do not share the same value system so it isn't surprising when we find a point of disagreement at FR.
I was not trying to insult - when I do, I do not use veils. If you were a researcher, then you must be a rare bird. And as for our value systems - you are absolutely correct, they are different.
Let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we?
OK, the NIH as a funding agency: during my grad years I participated in writing 3 grants applications to them - none got approved; a friend of mine, working on a research side in a Chicago hospital, has written [over the years] probably 8 or 10 of them for her boss, and got 2 or 3 approved. The big name researchers enjoy a greater rate of success: I heard about a guy at MIT with something like 50+% success rate, but it is hearsay.
Perhaps when the director of the NIH stops throwing away 30x as much money per casualty on AIDS research as on the most frequent killers of Americans he'll have something valuable to say.
The plans and directives for NIH are not usually founded in the reality of year-to-year scientific development ... when spending taxpayer monies, never focus upon right and wrong (morally) and always check the source institute from whence cometh the request (the politics of research funding; see GSlob for more on THAT).
A question to you both:
Since most testing is done on animals prior to humans, what types of stem-cell tests have been done? If not, why not?
Thanks.
There are a few (scant few) research programs devoted to harvesting of embryos for ESCR in other mammals, but the push is to go directly to human models without extensive other animal models. And that's sad because 'xeno-transfers' could solve many stubborn medical problems if ESCR in higher mammals other than the human is successful in genetic pathway extensions.
I do not have information to answer your question, as I am on the chemical, and not on biological or clinical side of the field.
Thank you both.
I too find it strange that there is little being done outside of the governmental enclaves here with all the hoopla from the grant-seekers. As someone else noted, if there was that much promise, I doubt that the major drug houses or research centers would not be moving forward.
If you think about it, why try to grow a kidney from ESC when the entire organ is so complex and requires so many months to reach utility and so many years to reach a size quantification?
If, on the other hand, pluripotent stem cells could be observed differentiating into the various tissue types of the organ, the target tissues (such as neutron tubules) could be isolated for transplantation into a needy patient.
The holy grail is to figure out how to de-differentiate our own circulating stem cells (usually multipotent, not pluripotent) and direct them to develop the tissues we need for cures ... our own stem cells would be 'tissue matched' for each of us individually, thus process would be the money maker, not some 'oral or injectable' med. In differences to GSlob, this lack of 'one pill cures all' may be what holds back corporate investment in the research. On the other hand, most differentiation is regulated and instigated by enzymes, etc., which may in fact be produced to result in the 'miracle' portrayed in Star Trek, The Journey Home, with the 'new kidney' Bones' pills grew for the elderly woman on the gurney in the hospital where they rescued Chekov.
"neutron tubules" ... the FR spell check might have changed 'nephron' into 'neutron'. Sorry about that, folks, I was referring to nephrons, a subject with which I'm very familiar.
Because the Culture of Death desires the approval of the general public implicit in taxpayer funding.
BTW, studying 'how' pluripotent stem cells (embryonic stem cells) differentiate is not hindered at all by the President's withholding federal dollars from newly conceived embryos harvested for their stem cells.
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.