Author Archive

By Andrew Plemmons Pratt | December 4th, 2008

A colony of undifferentiated embryonic stem cells.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Rick Weiss outlines a framework for a new federal policy that supports funding human embryonic stem cell research over on the CAP website. He writes that within the first week of taking office, President Obama “should call upon the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to devise a plan for dismantling the current, overly restrictive Bush administration policy on the funding of human embryonic stem cell research.” continue

Barack Obama was elected on the slogan “Change you can believe in,” and one of his announced targets is the Bush policies on embryonic stem cell research. As a physician, a spinal cord injured patient, and a citizen concerned about the future of healthcare, I applaud Obama for embracing this issue. Embryonic stem cell research has been held in political purgatory for too long.

What kinds of change can we expect the new president to make? In the short term, Obama can immediately repeal President Bush’s executive order restricting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to those stem cell lines derived from embryos left over at fertility clinics at the exact time of his edict (9 P.M. on August 9, 2001). But Congress will have to appropriate money and achieving adequate government funding in these perilous economic times will probably be a tough sell for two reasons. The return on this investment through therapies and cures cannot be guaranteed. And convincing  politicians and the public that funding this research is ethically sound will bring out the special interest groups that for decades have stymied any embryo related research.

When Bush effectively pushed the research into the private sector, he argued that he wasn’t against claimed to be against science, just concerned about “crossing any moral boundaries.” His comments were really about the elephant in the room:  the abortion debate masquerading as a discussion about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

Presidents since Richard Nixon have had to deal with the far-reaching ramifications of Roe v. Wade (1973), especially the basic flashpoint: When does life begin? The justices categorically refused to answer the question until a time when scientists have a more complete understanding of human development. Although they rejected the idea of a legal or scientific conclusion, they noted that for some theologies and philosophies, the answer is more definitive. So opponents of abortion have relentlessly tried to enshrine the idea that life begins at conception and, therefore, an embryo should have all the rights bestowed on any human being.  As a result of their efforts, religious dogma, and pumped up fears about what “brave new world” results could stem from scientific advances, there are significant historical precedents for restricting federal funding for embryonic research going back to the limitations on  in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the late ‘70s that forced the research overseas.

Make no mistake. This has not been a strictly Republican versus Democratic argument. In late1994, President Clinton rejected the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel’s recommendation that federal funds be used for creating embryos to study different diseases and human development. Congress went even further, banning the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is destroyed or physically harmed for research purposes. Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (1995), the ban passed as a rider attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. And Congress has actively renewed that ban each year since its inception.
Such was the state of affairs when, in 1998, using-by necessity-private funds, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin successfully created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. After the publication of the historic research, NIH director Harold Varmus said he would draft guidelines regulating the use of embryonic cells. He testified at a Senate hearing that “This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine.”  Again the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stood squarely in the way, . according to Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Once we questioned the ethics of mixing an egg and sperm in a petri dish to form an embryo and alleviate infertility. Today in vitro fertilization is readily accepted.  Still the mystique of the embryo remains and scientists remain unable to procure federal funding to work with microscopic balls of cells, invisible to the human eye, in order  to study different diseases and safely develop drug therapies . The power of embryonic stem cells to mitigate human suffering is yet to be unlocked?

There are no quick fixes to finding cures for 100 million Americans who suffer from devastating diseases -like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s Stroke, heart disease cancer, macular degeneration-the list goes on.

A repeal of that 2001 order is a welcome first step. The next important hurdle is educating the public and politicians. Clearing up misinformation and misconceptions -especially in the halls of Congress- is vital if science is to move forward. Real change, especially in healthcare, means teaching the people and their political representatives what embryonic stem cell research is about. Real change means revoking the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and articulating a meaningful policy to end the rhetoric that has demonized the issues involved in stem cell research.

Injections of Hope: Doctors Promote Offshore Stem Cell Shots, but Some Patients Cry Foul

By Brian Vastag, Special to The Washington Post | Tuesday, September 2, 2008; HE01

A vast human experiment is afoot. And no one is taking good notes.

Fueled by demand from desperate patients, dozens of companies around the globe are peddling stem cell injections for $15,000 to $50,000 and more. Based merely on the claims made by these companies, at least a few thousand patients from the United States have paid for stem cells overseas.

continue

Vatican lists objectionable reproductive procedures

By Philip Pullella |  Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:56am EST

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – A Vatican bioethics document Friday condemned artificial fertilization and other techniques used by many couples and also said human cloning, “designer babies” and embryonic stem-cell research were immoral. continue

Nov 20th 2008  |  From The Economist print edition

Stem-cell medicine takes a step forward

Ms. Castillo relaxes

IN THE hierarchy of transplant surgery, replacing a bronchus (the passage from the main windpipe, the trachea, into a lung) does not sound difficult compared with, say, plumbing in a new heart. In fact, until a few months ago, it had never been attempted. The reason was not that the surgery itself would be hard, but that the tissue in question, which is the first line of defence against the bacteria and viruses that come with every lungful of air, has a remarkably active immune response. So active, indeed, that if you transferred part of an airway from one person to another, the resulting immunological conflict would probably kill the recipient. Since a weak bronchus, though debilitating, is seldom life-threatening, transplant surgeons have left well-enough alone.

continue

By Steve Ruark, AP

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which held a semi-annual meeting this month in Baltimore, says lifting a ban on funding for stem cell research would alienate millions.

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama could reignite an emotional national debate over the promise and the perils of medical research using cells taken from human embryos.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is warning that Obama will alienate millions, and abortion opponents are bracing for a fight. Medical researchers, meanwhile, are rejoicing at the prospect of freedom from a government policy they say has stymied efforts to develop life-saving treatments.

continue