In his national radio address last Saturday, John Kerry said the following:
"At this very moment, some of the most pioneering cures and treatments are right at our fingertips, but because of the stem cell ban, they remain beyond our reach"And later, from the same speech:
'We're going to lift the ban on stem cell research,' he said. 'We're going to listen to our scientists and stand up for science. We're going to say yes to knowledge, yes to discovery, and yes to a new era of hope for all Americans.'A recent press release from John Kerry's website reads, "Edwards Calls for an End to Stem Cell Ban and a Return to Scientific Excellence in America." As the Wall Street Journal points out,
Reinforcing this misimpression are the headlines and commentators talking up a "ban" on research. "First lady Laura Bush defends ban on stem-cell research" is how the Philadelphia Inquirer spun Mrs. Bush's talk. A sampling of other headlines shows the Inquirer is far from alone: "Rethink the stem-cell ban" (Des Moines Register); "Stem cell ban stays, despite Reagan pleas" (Newark Star-Ledger); "Kerry says he'd reverse stem cell ban" (The Grand Rapids Press); "Kerry 'would lift stem cell ban' "(BBC).The trouble is that there is no "ban", as such, despite what this talk of bans might lead one to believe. President Bush is, after all, the first President to expand federal funding for stem cell research. He did limit federally funded stem cell research to embroyos whose lines had already been harvested, agreeing with an appropriations rider passed back in the 90's by Congress "forbidding federal funding for any research that creates, injures or destroys human embryos."
Though his decision didn't limit private interests from moving forward with the type of research that destroys human embryos, such private interests haven't done so. As a matter of fact, supply of embryos currently outpaces demand for them in research. If stem cells are so promising, then why isn't private industry jumping for the chance to get a piece of this biotech pie?
Most likely because stem cell research is still in an embryonic stage itself. While the potential for undifferentiated cells is indeed amazing, it has yet to be proven in any signficant way - it's not as if we have the power to heal today and simply aren't using that power. As such, the Biotech industry is waiting for government funding to conduct the basic research, rather than using their own money to do it. They want to have a better idea that the use of stem cells will yield them revenue down the line. If the promise were higher, they would be investing. It should be said that many University researchers are also hoping for grants that are not currently covered under Bush's 25 million dollars in funding.
Article comments
1 - Wayner
Are you saying that a private biotech company could harvest their own stem cells any way they wanted as long as they are not using federal money to do it?
2 - Justene
Wayner, that is correct.
Jeremy, do you have any idea about the relative research into embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic stem cells? I have read but have been unable to verify that the stem cell success thusfar has mostly been from non-embryonic stem cells and it is mostly theoretical that embryonic stem cells would produce greater results.
3 - Jeremy Chrysler
Wayner, Justene is correct here. I'll defer to Congressman Tom Weldon, an embryonic stem cell research opponent, who describes the situation as follows:
I think the issue is *debatable, but that's not what Kerry's camb are currently doing...they are manipulating the facts of both the situation and the orgins of any actual debate to discredit Bush as someone against science and discovery.4 - Jeremy Chrysler
Justene,
I am by no means an expert on the Science of stem cells, and my attempts to become more knowledgable about said cells have been made difficult by the unfortunate politicality of the issue. There is, however, an interesting interview with David Prentis, a molecular geneticist at Indiana State University that you can read here. It's from February of 2001, but it lays out (with some prescience to this week's debate) some of the issues surrounding stem cell research. As far as I know, there have not been any significant advances in embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. of late because, well, there's not a whole lot of money or brains behind the issue right now. It is my understanding that there are no guarantees about the success of embryonic stem cells in the future, but that the potential of undifferentiated cells is something to be harnessed, not unlike that of undecided voters, I guess...:)
5 - JR
I am by no means an expert on the Science of stem cells, and my attempts to become more knowledgable about said cells have been made difficult by the unfortunate politicality of the issue.
How hard is it to just look it up at the NIH?
6 - Jeremy Chrysler
How hard indeed? Thanks.
7 - Mark Saleski
yep, it's no more difficult than looking up items (say, at factcheck.org) about kerry's supposed flip-flopping.
this is what i find so disappointing about most media coverage on campaign AND the voters take on it. tv sound bites just don't tell the whole story and repeated misrepresentations become 'fact'.
it's almost like willful ignorance (on both sides.)
8 - Justene
Not hard to look it up. Just hard to get a straight answer. Look at subsection VI. Figure 4 talks about the use of adult stem cells in the heart. Then the text which refers to the figure says a recent study shows you can use adult cells or embryonic cells. Then at the end, it says that NIH has a wide array of studies into embryonic stem cells.
Those dots don't necessarily connect. Maybe there is a connection and NIH is dumbing it down for the rest of us. Or maybe NIH likes their studies and therefore, omits some things.
Most of the NIH discussion has a lot of "may" and "could" and "potential". Usually those are red flags to me. I can't tell if they should be here.
9 - JR
Not hard to look it up. Just hard to get a straight answer. Look at subsection VI. Figure 4 talks about the use of adult stem cells in the heart. Then the text which refers to the figure says a recent study shows you can use adult cells or embryonic cells. Then at the end, it says that NIH has a wide array of studies into embryonic stem cells.
The reference to Figure 4 should follow the previous sentence, which talks about injecting bone marrow stem cells, which I believe are implicitly adult stem cells, directly into the heart. The last sentence of that paragraph talks about a different experiment: creating heart muscle cells "in cell culture", basically on a petri dish. Maybe they don't know how to put their references in the middle of the paragraph. Or they're just sloppy. I didn't see any reference in the text to the right side of Figure 4, so that's just kind of sitting there with no explanation, perhaps just as another example of what you can do with stem cells, for people who just like to look at pictures (which is most of us).
The "wide array" comment looks like an ad for the NIH. Hey, researchers have to market their product too, often more desperately than people with real jobs.
Most of the NIH discussion has a lot of "may" and "could" and "potential". Usually those are red flags to me. I can't tell if they should be here.
Yes, that's called honesty. It's the most important part of a scientist's job. It should raise a red flag when you don't hear those words - like everytime a politician or pundit speaks.
10 - boomcrashbaby
Yes, that's called honesty. It's the most important part of a scientist's job. It should raise a red flag when you don't hear those words - like everytime a politician or pundit speaks.
I agree. It's called stem cell research. In research, one cannot say 'will', 'can' and 'certainty'.
11 - Justene
I think you guys are sidestepping the issue. If the research on adult stem cells is promising and it's only theoretical that embryonic stem cells are better, then I am against that research. I expect that many Americans who now support embyonic stem cell research may also change their minds.
On the other hand, if there's some hard data showing an advantage or some research into adult stem cells that shows the limitations, then I *may* still be reluctant but I expect you will have the support of most Americans.
The problem is that the politicians suggest that the latter is true when I can't find any backup. In this thread, someone points to the NIH which has the same problems -- it's all theoretical -- and the response from some of you that support embryonic stem cell research is that is doesn't matter.
I'm still wondering why there's opposition to taking all of that money and throwing it into adult stem cell research.
My proposed answer is not "disregard for embryos". I think there are scientists who want to make a huge leap, think their shot for glory lies in embryonic stem cells, and want the taxpayer to stake them. I think they are obfuscating that by saying "oh look at those narrowminded pro-lifers" whenever someone raises the issue.
If I were going to oppose this on pro-life grounds, the answers to any of this wouldn't matter to me.
12 - JR
I'm still wondering why there's opposition to taking all of that money and throwing it into adult stem cell research.
I believe the embryonic stem cells are inherently better because they can be turned into more different types of cells - adult stem cells come from embryonic stem cells and in the process become less potent. The "promise" of adult stem cells is that we might be able to turn them back into embryonic stem cells, or at least get them to do some of the things embryonic stem cells can do. If we can't cure a disease with embryonic stem cells, we won't cure it with adult stem cells.
Waiting to see what adult stem cells can do before you spend money on embryonic stem cells is like waiting to see what the internal combustion engine can do before you try to develop the wheel.
13 - Justene
JR, that's a nice theory but it's still a theory and again, I have not seen any evidence. Even the NIH site says that there are disadvantages to embryonic cells such as risk of rejection. I have also read that another problem with embryonic cells is that they are too undifferentiated and may not do what they are expected to do -- the tale was that one experiment went horribly wrong because of that. Is that the truth or propaganda from the other side?
Again, the fact that you believe that embryonic cells are better seems to be based on the current line being sold and it may be right or it may not. We've overpoliticized this to a point where we don't know.
14 - Jeremy Chrysler
JR,
The problem is that I'm not sure if we can know the potential of ESC's without doing more research. That's the difficulty with the situation. I believe that the goverment gave $200 mm to adult stem cell research last year (compared to $25 mm to ESC research on the 20 or so approved "lines" currently in existence). I wonder if some of our breakthroughs in ASCs will not provide insight for potential future usage with ESCs.I'm not necessarily against embryonic stem cell research. That's not really the point of my post, but I do think that all other things being equal, it is less ethically complicated to do research from tissue that already exists. David Prentiss, an Indiana State University professor of life sciences had the following to say about the adult vs embryonic stem cell debate:
15 - RJ
Great post. It needed said.
16 - Jeremy Chrysler
There's also a good article by Slate editor William Saletan that I found a bit later today. This article has sums up, I guess what I was trying to say quite succinctly:
Kerry seems to be doing a lot of this and hoping that he'll get a free pass on it. If the debates take a wrong turn, then he could have some trouble getting out of these holes he's dug (or as Bush might say, "digged").