BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill

 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
18:28 / 19.07.06
Bush uses Stem Cell bill as his first Presidential Veto.

My favorite part:

Said Bush: "As science brings us every closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity."

Because torturing civilians who are held without trial doesn't violate human dignity. Meh.

I'm at work, so I haven't time to write much of a reaction to this, other than to say I'm not terribly surprised. Still, what does everyone else think? I'll react more to it later.
 
 
Dragon
03:08 / 20.07.06
From what I've read, it seems there is more promise from adult stem cells, which does puzzle me why people are so enamored with embyronic stem cells which currently have more problems. Adult stem cells have had more success. President Bush is right, bur for the wrong reasons. I would agree that some day, embryonic stem cells will be a great thing.

Another thing that many people wrongly think is that we cannot do embryonic stem cell research. The only issue is whether or not federal money will fund embryonic cell research.
 
 
Topher, Bicycles for Everyone
15:03 / 20.07.06
I concur with Dragon. The feds are not coughing up the money, but we don't need the health industry federally subsidized anyway. Private companies in California will continue to do research in this field.

This is just another example of 1) people being misinformed and 2) people looking to the federal government to push for change, which in my opinion, is never a good thing.
 
 
grant
16:03 / 20.07.06
That's not what that article is saying.

What it's saying is that embryonic stem cells are longer than most people think from providing actual medical benefit.

Despite the risk of dragging this topic squarely into Laboratory turf, here's a crash course in stem cells.


graphic from the NIH



  • Totipotent stem cells are, basically, zygotes. These are the cells that divide and make up a total human being. The ultimate cell, formed immediately after conception, when sperm enters egg and DNA begins combining. Nobody's talking about working with these.



  • Pluripotent stem cells are stem cells that can be differentiated into any tissue type in the body with very little prodding (except placental tissue, which is necessary to keep a fetus alive in the womb). Thus far, our only source of pluripotent stem cells are embryos. There've been stabs at making other kinds of stem cells pluripotent (what they call increasing plasticity), but nothing has happened with that yet.


  • Multipotent stem cells are derived from fat, cord blood and other sources. They're currently used in a few experimental therapies... but the idea that adult stem cells can do what embryonic stem cells can do with current technical expertise is what scientists call "hooey."


  • In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a technique for making babies for couples who are having trouble making babies by just having sex. Doctors isolate a bunch of sperm cells insert them into bunch of egg cells, creating embryos. Not "an embryo." Not even "twins." For one couple, a median number of 6 to 16 eggs, or "oocytes" are fertilized. In the UK, only 2 can be implanted at once; in the U.S., it's often more like 3 or 4. The rest of the embryos -- which can be 16 or more, but let's say 12, minus the 4 implanted, giving us 8 embryos (or "pre-embryos" as the IVF clinics like to call them) -- are surplus to needs. The cute little tykes look like this, if you're interested.

    There are over 500,000 of these on ice in the United States. Most of these will never be used. The parents are already pregnant.


  • Embryos as legal entities -- Currently, there's no standard for the treatment of embryos, pre-embryos or blastocysts. Some are treated as medical waste and chucked with the infected gall bladders and ingrown toenails, some are given formal funerals. The laws are all over the place.

    So far, you can keep 'em in a cooler or chuck 'em in a hospital incinerator, but you can't take stem cells out of them.



-------
By the way, the NIH says the related PASSED legislation was malarkey, too: "...such research proposals would undergo the same review process regardless of if a bill (S 2754) is passed...." That's this successful bill, not the one vetoed (or the other one passed) in the same package.
 
 
grant
16:06 / 20.07.06
Private companies in California will continue to do research in this field.

Not if they want to use any federal money for anything ever done in any of their facilities.

Or, if they ever want to lease/use equipment (like, say, a scanning electron microscope or something) in a federally funded facility. Like a university.

Do you know how science is done in the United States?
 
 
Evil Scientist
17:03 / 20.07.06
President Bush is right, bur for the wrong reasons. I would agree that some day, embryonic stem cells will be a great thing.

How exactly are they going to be a great thing, Dragon, if Bush continues to block and disrupt any potential research on them?

1) people being misinformed

Mis-informed how Topher? Please expand.
 
 
Evil Scientist
17:07 / 20.07.06
Dragon, regarding the link you use to explain why it's a great thing that Bush continues to block medical research because of his religious beliefs. Could you please explain how it is relevant? The article simply warns against over-hyping stem cell research for fear that, a few years down the road, people get stroppy because we can't regrow an entire human body.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
20:06 / 20.07.06
Thanks grant for giving us that quick crash course into what the legislature we’re talking about is actually all about. I think it may prove very useful (although the final link you provided seems broken for me).

As grant more elegantly states, it’s not as if we’ve a shortage of embryo’s we’re raiding or something. Despite what Bush and people like Senator Brownback are trying to suggest, no individual is being harmed by this science. Unless you seriously believe that every single human embryo is somehow the same as a living baby, the only thing damaged or destroyed in this research is a collection of cells (and if you really do believe that a single celled embryo is, in fact, a human being, I’m curious what thoughts you have on that link grant posted regarding the number of frozen embryos in America).

Also, it’s hardly as if every fertilized embryo makes it past the zygote stage, let alone to birth. I can’t find a link listing the estimated statistics, but I read somewhere that the odds of a fertilized egg making it all the way through it’s development into a human baby were 50 to 1. (If someone has a link to either confirm this or correct me, I’d greatly appreciate it) I don’t believe that it’s unethical to experiment on an undeveloped human embryo, because as far as science and I are concerned, it’s not a human. It’s an embryo. It’s not a concious being, it’s a mass of protein. But then again, I think don’t think it’s ethical to forceably stop research into cancer other fatal diseases using small bits of cells that are human in origin*, so I suppose the President and I are at something of a disagreement on what is and isn’t ethical.

*=RE: HeLa, though I do feel that it’s wrong that the Lacks family naver received any consulation for the use of the cells. But that’s a different argument entirely.
 
 
grant
21:01 / 20.07.06
Broken link: It's HR 810, the House bill that was submitted to the Senate last year. The new (vetoed) stuff is what that House bill turned into.

There's another link to HR 810's text here (and the Senate companion bill, the link for which also expired, should be found here, but the Library of Congress is a little weird, I guess.)

Important thing is President signed one thing, scientists say "that's silly!", vetoed another thing, scientists say "that's stupid!"
 
 
Dragon
02:53 / 26.07.06
I do see more adult stem cell advances in the news. Today:
Researchers from the David Geffen School of Medicine and the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science at UCLA today announced they have transformed adult stem cells taken from human adipose – or fat tissue – into smooth muscle cells, which help the normal function of a multitude of organs like the intestine, bladder and arteries. The study may help lead to the use of fat stem cells for smooth muscle tissue engineering and repair.

It looks to me that Typher is correct. Universities with private donations as well as private companies are pursuing embryonic stem cell research.
 
 
grant
15:51 / 31.07.06
The problem is that science in practice tends not to work well that way -- institutions typically lease out or share tools or lab space. Like, there are several different teams buying cargo space on the Space Shuttle, or leasing time on the big radio telescope at Arecibo. Same thing happens with lab work. But with the current ban, any of these private enterprises are crippled because they can't lease the space or the tools that other private enterprises can.

Which is why the latest Time magazine can run this story.

Here's a couple quotes from the part you'd have to subscribe to read.


Over the past six years, Yeo has been roaming the world, trailing talented scientists in Washington; San Diego; Palo Alto, Calif.; Edinburgh and elsewhere, and spiriting them back to his home country of Singapore. Like any proud collector, Yeo never tires of ticking off his most prized trophies: former National Cancer Institute star Edison Liu, American husband-and-wife team Nancy Jenkins and Neal Copeland, British cancer researcher David Lane. "I'm a people snatcher," he says unashamedly.

What distinguishes Yeo from other kidnappers, of course, is that his targets go willingly. They happily relocate to Singapore's new 2 million-sq.-ft. Biopolis research center, where they can concentrate on one thing they can't always study so easily back home: stem cells.

...

The idea that buttoned-up Singapore, better known for punitive caning and a onetime ban on chewing gum, should emerge as a center of enlightenment seems unlikely. But the government sees both scientific and fiscal promise in the biomed field. This month, Singapore announced a doubling of its R&D budget, to $8.2 billion over the next five years, making it a regional research hub, particularly in stem cells. That's attractive to frustrated American scientists--and worrisome to people who want to see the U.S. retain its scientific edge.

"I think there is a risk of a brain drain, and we are seeing it," says Christopher Thomas Scott, executive director of the Stanford Program on Stem Cells in Society. Yeo, for one, is blunt about taking advantage of the American political climate. "I go to the U.S., and I tell those scientists, Come to Singapore and finish your work," he says.

Singapore's leadership in stem-cell research is not new. In 1994, Ariff Bongso, a Sri Lanka--born embryologist at the National University of Singapore, became the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells, and in 2002 he discovered a way to grow stem-cell lines without the use of animal cells, which could make it easier to find clinical uses in human beings. Bongso achieved those breakthroughs nearly alone, but that would not be the case anymore, thanks to Biopolis, the government's $300 million bet on bioscience.

...

Late last year the government launched the Singapore Stem Cell Consortium, chaired by Cambridge University--based stem-cell scientist Roger Pederson, which will set aside $45 million for research in the field over the next three years. Money also comes from university grants and offshore organizations like the U.S.-based Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The diabetes group has helped fund biotech start-up ES Cell International (ESI), home to Briton--and now Singapore resident--Alan Colman, who was part of the British team that cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996. ESI manufactures its own embryonic-stem-cell lines and is working on shaping those cells into insulin-producing pancreatic tissue and cardiac muscle, which could be given to patients suffering from diabetes or heart disease. It's exactly the kind of potentially profitable research Singapore wants, and the company hopes to begin clinical trials next year.


So, this is how private industry is researching stem cells.

By going to Singapore, where the government is happy enough to provide funding.

Since before the Manhattan Project, the U.S. managed to ensure its position in the world by doing exactly this sort of thing with various breakthrough technologies -- recruiting computer scientists, atomic physicists, rocket engineers, and so on. Not so any more.

We might be (as that New Scientist article says) training the scientists, but without the support and permission of the federal government, the best of them are going elsewhere.
 
 
ibis the being
17:14 / 31.07.06
Dragon, it's simply untrue that adult stem cells are more useful than embryonic stem cells and I think "I see more about them in the news" is a rather poor way to arrive at that conclusion.

For some solid, basic factual information about stem cell research you might want to listen to this On Point show called Stem Cells: The Facts, Not The Debate which attempts to take an apolitical look at the science of stem cell research. The two main guests are Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, who works primarily with embryonic stem cells, and Dr. Amy Wagers, who works primarily with adult stem cells. Both researchers said that the two types of stem cell research are equally important and mutually beneficial.

I'm curious about why Bush vetoed this bill - the very first and only bill he has vetoed the entire time he's been in office. Why did he not just pass it with a signing statement that would effectively nullify it, the way he has done over 800 times in the past? I figure the veto is some kind of PR statement but still, why this issue, why now?
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:12 / 31.07.06
I'm curious about why Bush vetoed this bill - the very first and only bill he has vetoed the entire time he's been in office. Why did he not just pass it with a signing statement that would effectively nullify it, the way he has done over 800 times in the past? I figure the veto is some kind of PR statement but still, why this issue, why now?

My guess is, with the mid-term elections around the corner, he wants to rally support from his fundamentalist religious constituence, who's been pissed off at him for not signing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage like he's promised them in the 2004 re-election campaign. A veto is flashier than the statement, thus it serves his demagogical intent even better.

I'm not surprised at all, are you?
 
 
ibis the being
23:05 / 31.07.06
Why would he care about midterm elections?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:49 / 01.08.06
Why would Bush care about mid-term elections? Am I missing something? Totally non-snark, I promise, I just figured he would be very interested in stocking up support for his party for the coming elections. He's been attempting to do so for the better part of a year, anyway, according to NPR.
 
 
Dragon
04:50 / 01.08.06
Hmm, well it may depend on who you read.

There is a good possibility we won't need the usual sources of embryonic stem cells. “We have found a unique group of cells [cord blood] that bring together the essential qualities of both types of stem cells for the first time,” says Colin McGuckin
 
 
grant
16:35 / 01.08.06
That's still a ways in the future. Cord blood is great stuff, but it's not being donated at the rate it could be, and it's still not as useful as the embryonic stem cells.

Note words like "We're now developing" in that article (from 12 months ago). It's still around 3-5 years (barring unforeseens) before anything other than embryonic stem cells can be used pluripotently.

Bear in mind that even Republican bigwig Bill Frist has said that these cells are "uniquely necessary" to cure diseases. He's a medical doctor as well as the Senate majority leader.
 
 
ibis the being
21:01 / 01.08.06
Umbilical cord cells don't have as many possibilities and are more limiting than other stem cells. I have a TIME magazine open here in front of me (big article about the science, not the politics, this week's issue if you're interested.) On umbilical cord cells it says -

Why they are useful - Although they are primarily made up of blood stem cells, they also contain stem cells that can turn into bone, cartilage, heart muscle and brain and liver tissue. Like adult stem cells, they are harvested without the need for embryos
Drawbracks - An umbilical cord is not very long and doesn't hold enough cells to treat an adult


I also heard on the NPR show that I mentioned above that the main use of umbilical cord cells would probably be in treating childhood blood diseases of the specific child whose cord blood is being stored... for a price by the way.

Sorry this is threadrotty, but my comment above was made because I don't believe Bush really gives a rat's ass about whether "his" party (is it really? they disagree on most things these days) does well in the midterms. Second term presidencies are traditionally about "legacy" more than anything else, and Bush has never shown much concern for his party before so I don't know why he'd start now.

Anyway, if that was the purpose of the veto it was a very bad play. 66% of Americans are in favor of embryonic stem cell research. And among Republicans specifically, support is split right in half, making it a wedge issue rather than a rallying cause.
 
 
grant
21:15 / 01.08.06
I'm nearly sure the use of the veto rather than a signing statement was intended as a "fuck you" to Frist, for daring to split from the party line on this when he decided to back the bill.

Of course, there's also the thing with Bush actually *believing* the stuff he does.

For being a member (more or less) of his own base.
 
 
Dragon
01:43 / 02.08.06
A more recent Forbes article: ...PrimeCell Therapeutics has taken adult stem cells found in testes, reprogrammed them, and created human heart, brain, bone and cartilage cells. This marks a breakthrough in developing what are known as "pluripotent" adult stem cells–cells that can be turned into most other cell types. That pluripotent ability, and the fact that stem cells self-renew, is the main attraction of stem cells from human embryos. One challenge with embryonic stem cells, however, is preventing them from creating tumor cells. So far, the PrimeCell researchers have been able to reprogram the cells they extract from testes without any tumor growth.

I got a number of hits in Google Scholar using the key words: "pluripotent adult stem cells".
 
 
Dragon
01:46 / 02.08.06
Grant, I suspect they were going to take a run at passing the bill regardless of what the president was going to do, just for their own constituents. This way they'll be able to say they voted for it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:20 / 03.08.06
I know I'm a little in the extremist camp here, but I find it utterly insane that cells from human embryos- which are not yet actual living beings- aren't allowed to be used, yet animals- which ARE actual living beings- are fair game.
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:54 / 04.08.06
[sarcasm mode]

Hey, animals have no souls, remember? They can't feel pain like we do. God made them for us to use, anyway.
 
 
Evil Scientist
18:07 / 04.08.06
I know I'm a little in the extremist camp here, but I find it utterly insane that cells from human embryos- which are not yet actual living beings- aren't allowed to be used, yet animals- which ARE actual living beings- are fair game.

and

Hey, animals have no souls, remember? They can't feel pain like we do. God made them for us to use, anyway.

We have gone over this in the various threads discussing the rights and wrongs of animal testing. But the basic difference between the two is that, for instance, a rabbit is not capable (currently, as in the next million years) of even approaching the level of sapience/sentience/cognition that a human embryo could conceivably attain if allowed to gestate. It's not just a matter of having a "soul", or animal testing being okay because an Israelite War God said so.

Pro stem cell research btw. Just pointing this out.
 
 
grant
23:48 / 04.08.06
I got a number of hits in Google Scholar using the key words: "pluripotent adult stem cells".

Well, yeah. That's where all the research is heading right now because of the funding. Somebody who figures out a way to make non-embryonic stem cells *truly* pluripotent is gonna be in a heap of money, and probably on the cover of Time magazine. But for now, that stuff with the heart cells and brain cells and that? That's where embryonic stem cells were in the 1990s.

Grant, I suspect they were going to take a run at passing the bill regardless of what the president was going to do, just for their own constituents. This way they'll be able to say they voted for it.

I can't argue with that -- supporting this kind of research is something that most Americans seem to be solidly behind for one reason or another.
 
 
grant
21:38 / 24.08.06
New technique allows scientists to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.

The long-term risk to future babies/grown humans remains to be seen, but it looks pretty good -- healthy babies have already been born from embryos that have had single cells removed.

But the way the law currently stands, these are still embryonic stem cells, and thus off-limits. This may well change, and will almost definitely be up for debate soon -- probably leading to some interesting, new definitions of life, origins of life, and what counts as "baby."

I'm interested in knowing if the embryonic cells tricked into replicating this way could ever become viable embryos (or in other words, clones). I *think* they won't with the current process, but with maybe a smidge of effort? Anybody who knows more care to speculate?
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:28 / 25.08.06
The Guardian feature on this made a good point about why it'll be difficult to rely entirely on this technique. It requires stem cells to be extracted from healthy embryos which are going to be brought to term.

From the feature:

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "We still don't know the dangers of taking a biopsy from an early stage embryo, whether it has any effect on the baby's future development. On paper it looks like an ethical solution, but that requires the biopsy to be completely harmless."

and

Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem cell expert at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, said that while the work was important, it was inefficient and unlikely to lead to plentiful stocks of embryonic stem cells. "It requires couples having IVF to give permission to have cells taken from their embryos and it's extremely unlikely a couple would want to do that," he said.

It is good news though. Assuming that the biopsy is harmless it should hopefully provide us with a source of stem cells that can be used in research without so much opposition.
 
  
Add Your Reply