• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Closer to the truth about Embryonic Stem Cell Research

SMN Herf

Well-known member
I know this has been disgussed on here, but I think that the economics of it should be considered. We need to ask ourselves if this is money well spent.

I have a lot of questions. How much will the NIH spend? How much has private industry spent already? Will federal funding simply replace the private funded research? Are these scientists waiting in line for the NIH grant money simply those that cant or haven't been able to work in private industry? Where are the results of this research that has been already done both in the private sector in the US and public or private overseas? I said before that Obama decision is all about money. I will stand by it.

This article is from a bioethics analyst.

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000009583.cfm

Commentary: Embryonic Research is Financially Risky, Scientifically Unproven

by Dawn Vargo, bioethics analyst

Obama is demanding taxpayers pour their hard-earned dollars into risky investments and go where most venture capitalists and drug companies fear to tread.

President Barack Obama's decision Monday to open the floodgates of federal funding for destructive embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) is a step backward for science — and a step backward for the millions of Americans suffering from disease and disability.

Obama's statements were full of glowing hope for the promise of embryonic stem-cell research and medical miracles, but his decision to rescind the Bush policy — which limited federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research — takes us down the wrong road economically, scientifically and morally.

Embryonic stem-cell researchers have been saying for years that patients deserve cures. Patients also deserve the very best investment of our tax dollars, and embryonic stem-cell research doesn't make the grade.

If embryonic stem-cell research — which always requires the destruction of young human embryos — is so promising, where are the private investors? Overall, private-sector investors steer clear of ESCR because it's financially risky and scientifically unproven. Obama is demanding taxpayers pour their hard-earned dollars into risky investments and go where most venture capitalists and drug companies fear to tread.

Despite millions and millions of dollars spent on embryonic stem-cell research, it has failed to provide a single cure, anywhere in the world. Without significant advances, it looks like this is just the latest government bailout of a morally bankrupt and financially failing industry.

The fact is that embryonic stem cells are economically deprived because they are scientifically bankrupt. Over the last 10 years, we've heard many claims about the potential for cures. But with each passing year we've heard the grandiose promise of cures grow fainter — and patients' hope fade even more.

The real promise for treating disease has been in the unsung heroes: non-embryonic stem cells. Otherwise known as adult stem cells, these ethical cells are providing treatments and cures for more than 70 diseases and conditions. Heart disease, spinal-cord injuries, cancer, genetic disorders, diabetes, Parkinson's, and many other diseases are being treated with adult stem cells. Around the world, scientists and patients are energized not only by the promise, but the real-life results they see from adult stem cells.

Does the list of diseases that adult stem cells are treating look familiar? It should. It includes the same diseases the president said embryonic stem cells might some day cure. If Obama was really concerned, as he said, about making "decisions based on facts, not ideology," we would have seen a different decision this week — one that directed Congress to continue funding research that's helping patients.

A little-known detail of Obama's executive order is that he overturned a second Bush policy that directed the National Institutes of Health to encourage the pursuit of ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. This 2007 order provided the incentive for scientists to pursue new forms of stem-cell research — research like iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells, which are ordinary body cells that can be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. Many scientists have moved away from embryonic stem cells and started investing their time and money into iPS cells.

The Obama policy will use our tax dollars to fund life-destroying, archaic research that's been left in the dust in favor of ethical treatments that have already provided hope and successful treatments for patients.

Despite Obama's step backward, there is still much to be decided when it comes to stem-cell research. For now, Obama has left some of the decisions to Congress — specifically the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prevents our taxpayer dollars from going toward the destruction of embryos.

So what can you do? Next time you hear about the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, remember the frustration you felt over Obama's decision to pursue unproven research.

And don't lose hope.

While the latest political developments may paint a bleak picture, the reality is that science is leading researchers down an ethical path. But none of this would have been possible if pro-life voices had not persevered in their call for ethical research. The fight isn't over; pro-lifers must continue to speak out in favor of ethical research at both the state and federal level.
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
Apparently the messenger is more important than the message.

You post 2 opinion pieces about the organization behind the questions but nobody who is promoting this policy has yet to answer my questions or the issues discussed by Dawn Vargo. Is this money well spent? Is this simply putting money down a black hole that has already proven by private research to be a dead fish? Is it really just a money grab by some reasearch scientists to justify their job. Is it a political payoff? My answer is becoming clearer.


Brian
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Here is something to consider:

"Professor William Reville of University college Cork (UCC), writing in THE IRISH TIMES (Dec. 4, 2008) said, "Whether or not you consider human embryonic stem-cell research to be permissible depends on your evaluation of the ethical status of the human embryo. Science alone cannot settle this question, but it does provide information essential to forming an informed opinion. The scientific facts are clear, but science does not deal in values and cannot assign a moral value to any point on the continuum. To decide this we must turn to ethics and this is where disagreements arise. I will give you my personal position."

"Biology tells us the early human embryo is human, not aprtly human. Nevertheless, I can appreciate how some people feel that s/he, an undifferentiated little ball of cells, is not entitled to the same protection as a baby. But surely this is to discriminate on the basis of appearance and size. This is a wonderful 'little ball of cells'. The embryo is not sentient or conscious, but has great powers appropriate to its stage - the power to self develop into the conscious and sentintent. It is this fully human characteristic that makes the early embryo so valuable or research."

"Now let me turn to the 'greater good' that might be served by kililng th eembryo - curing human disease. The public is told that human embryonic stem-cell research is a reliable route to discovering early cures for many distressing diseases. This is an over-optimistic prijection. Certainly HESC research has great potential, but this potential does not exceed the combined potential of tow other types of stem-cell research that pose no ethical problems. I refer to adult stem-cell research and the new induced pluripotent stem-cell (IPSC) research."

"There has recently been a dramatic breakthrough in stem-cell research. Scientists have discovered how to make a new type of stem cell, the induced pluripotent stem cell (IPSC) that is just as potent as the embryonic stem cell. IPSCs are made by genetically reprogramming ordinary body cells, e.g., skin cells. A few years ago it was possible to argue that HESC research alone had more potential than adult stem cells, then the only other stem-cell research, but the new IPSC research looks just as powerful as HESC research, and without any ethical problems. Doing HESC research now merely adds another option in addition to adult stem cells and IPSC. In these new circumstances is HESC research worth its heavy ethical baggage" I think not."
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
If don't want to believe Dawn Vargo's, here are some physicians opinions for you.

Federal Stem Cell Research: What Taxpayers Should Know
by Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., Philip H. Coelho, The Honorable David Weldon, M.D., and Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
Heritage Lecture #888



June 24, 2005

Robert E. Moffit: We are in the midst of a major national debate on stem cell research. There are a vari­ety of ethical, moral, and religious views on this issue, and these perspectives are vitally important. But there are also practical and scientific issues, as well as pru­dential questions about the expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars. We have three outstanding speakers today who are going to enlighten us about the ethical, the scientific, and the policy questions involved in the ongoing debate on federal funding of stem cell research.

Our first speaker is Dr. Kelly Hollowell, who is a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent attorney. She is the senior strategist at the Center for Reclaiming America and a founder of Science Minis­tries, Inc. Dr. Hollowell got her Ph.D. in molecular and cellular pharmacology at the University of Miami, her Juris Doctor from Regent University, and her Bachelor of Arts from New College in Sarasota, Flori­da. She has published in Regent University Law Review, and the Journal of Neurobiology. Dr. Hollowell will talk about both the state of the science and the ethical aspects of stem cell research.

Philip Coelho is the chief executive officer and chair­man of the board of ThermoGenesis Corp., which pro­vides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used by major cord blood stem cell banks. He previously served as president, vice president, and director of research and development at the firm. He also serves on the board of directors of Kourion Therapeutics and Mediware Information Sys­tems. Before coming to ThermoGenesis, Mr. Coelho was president of Castleton, Inc. Phil has his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of California at Davis, and he will focus on the state of stem cell research, including the progress of using cord blood stem cells.

Representative David Weldon is our third speak­er. Dr. Weldon is a physician and an Army veteran who represents the 15th Congressional District of Florida. He is the first medical doctor to serve from the state of Florida and the second physician ever to serve on the House Appropriations Committee. He is also a founder and chairman of the Congres­sional Aerospace Caucus.

Dr. Weldon is a native of New York. He received his Bachelor of Science degree from the State Univer­sity of New York in Stony Brook and his doctorate in medicine from New York’s Buffalo School of Medi­cine. Completing his residency in internal medicine at Letterman Army Medical Center and military training in San Francisco, he did a three-year tour of duty at Army Community Hospital in Fort Stewart, Georgia. After completing his military service as a major in 1987, he entered private practice at Mel­bourne, Florida. In Congress, Dr. Weldon is known among his colleagues as an expert in health policy and biomedical ethics. He has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNC, MSNBC, and the Fox News Network.

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.



Dr. Kelly Hollowell: I’m going to address three questions: What are embryonic stem cells, how is stem cell research related to cloning, and is embryonic stem cell research a prudent investment?

Embryonic stem cells, as most of you know, are the unspecialized cells that form the basic building blocks for all of the 220 specialized cell types in your body. By harvesting and manipulating these master cells, researchers hope to treat diseases. Cur­rently the primary sources for embryonic stem cells are aborted fetuses and donated and unused embry­os housed in IVF (in vitro fertilization) facilities.

To obtain embryonic stem cells, an embryo is formed and allowed to mature for five to seven days. The inner mass of the stem cells is then removed, plated, and treated with chemicals to become specialized cell types. The problem is that in this process the embryo itself is destroyed.

How Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Relat­ed to Cloning? The distinction between “repro­ductive cloning” and “therapeutic cloning” is misleading because the technology involved is essentially the same. The most common practice for obtaining a clone is simply to enucleate an egg (that is, remove its DNA), take the DNA from the animal that you want to clone and inject that DNA into the enucleated egg, and voila! A clone is born.

We can already do this with just about every ani­mal. “Therapeutic cloning” was specifically devel­oped as an answer to the problem of tissue rejection. It entails the same process I just described—somatic cell nuclear transfer—using donor DNA from a cell of the patient to create a genetically identical embryo.

After a number of days the stem cells are extract­ed, destroying the embryo, and the stem cells are used to treat the patient’s disease or replace dying tissue. Both reproductive and therapeutic cloning begin by creating a human life. The distinction in the procedures is merely the intended purpose. In reproductive cloning the purpose is to actually give birth to the clone, or the genetic twin—“Dolly” the sheep in Scotland was the groundbreaker for this effort. In therapeutic cloning, the intended purpose is to create an embryo to be sacrificed for the donor/ patient using its genetically identical stem cells.

A major source for standard embryonic stem cell research is the donated embryos that are created with sperm and egg in IVF facilities. Currently, it is predicted that the number of these leftover embry­os housed in frozen storage in IVF facilities is some­where between 300,000 and 500,000. Another source of embryonic stem cells is the product of therapeutic cloning, in which you create a clone of yourself. The embryo you create is not created through an egg and sperm; it is created through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research a Prudent Investment? Beyond the financial issues, there are a number of ethical issues, but I will address only two.

The primary ethical question embryonic stem cell research raises is this: Are human embryos peo­ple or property when they are destroyed for the purpose of obtaining their stem cells? This is not a new question, and, more importantly, the answer is not new.

The United States Congress received the answer that life begins at conception most definitively in 1981. At the April 1981 hearings on the Human Life Bill (S. 158), held by the Senate Judiciary Commit­tee’s Separation of Powers Subcommittee, interna­tionally renowned scientists Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth (Harvard Medical School), Dr. Jerome Lejeune (the father of modern genetics), Dr. Hymie Gordon (chairman of the Mayo Clinic), and Dr. Landrum Shettles (the father of IVF) all testified that life begins at conception. This, as far as the medical and scien­tific community is concerned, is not an issue. The debate is in the legal and political realms.

Today’s medical technology enables us to affirm what we have known for decades: that life does begin at conception. From conception, we are bio­logically alive. We are genetically human, we are genetically distinct, we are sexually distinct, and we have the ability to direct our own growth. Twenty-four hours after conception, the new life splits into two cells, and eight days later, pregnancy officially begins.

My point in sharing the technology and biology with you is to illustrate the continuum that science affirms and has affirmed for many years. But tech­nology is additionally allowing wonderful new insights. With advances in ultrasound technology and neonatal medicine, we know that after four to six weeks, the heart has begun to beat, and by six weeks, brain waves can be detected. By 21 weeks, children have become patients in utero. At 24 weeks, children have reached viability and at 40 weeks are born. So, long before the child is born, it’s clear life remains on a continuum from the beginning. Again, I must emphasize that this is not a medical debate; the status of the unborn is really just a legal debate.

A second ethical issue lies in the extreme ineffi­ciency of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Specifi­cally, the process requires women’s eggs. To treat, for example, only the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States would require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. You can lit­erally envision women becoming egg factories. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a mini­mum of 85 million to 170 million women, and the total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000– $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.

Even more important than the dollars and the difficulty associated with therapeutic cloning is that the process of harvesting a woman’s eggs for stem cells places a woman at risk. Specifically, superovu­lation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain women’s eggs. The risks associated with high-dose hormone therapy are debated, but there is a growing body of evidence that these prac­tices, when used for standard IVF, can cause various problems. These problems include memory loss, seizure, bone loss, lupus, joint pain, baldness, stroke, brain damage, infertility, cancer, and death. And this is under the conditions of IVF, not under the conditions for which we would need to pro­duce eggs in large quantities for research purposes. Clearly, this points to yet another ethical issue: the future commercial exploitation of women, particu­larly poor women, to collect their eggs.

As for obstacles in standard embryonic stem cell research—research where you would not create a clone of yourself but would perhaps go after the embryos created through sperm and egg and cur­rently frozen in IVF facilities across the nation to the tune of 400,000 or so—no currently approved treatments have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. There are no human trials despite all the hype and all the media. After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven’t been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. When they are used in animal models they tend to produce tumors, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells. It will be a minimum of 10 years before treatments might be available, and that is a very optimistic prediction. The suc­cesses in animal models are modest and rare. What are those successes? They have had the success of teasing the master stem cells down into specific cell types, specifically neural cells, blood cells, heart cells, and pancreatic islet cells. One big problem that they have faced in the animal models is rejec­tion. This is almost predictable since it would be like you transplanting your organ into me without any efforts at a match taking place. So therapeutic cloning is introduced as an alternative to avoid this tissue rejection.

Successful Alternatives. The alternative research is adult stem cell research, which is an eth­ical alternative. For more than two decades, we have been treating more than 58 different types of diseases using adult stem cell research. Some of the most startling advancements using adult stem cells have come in treating Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. And the sources for this adult stem cell research clearly do not present any ethical problems because you use blood, placenta, fat cells, and, most notably, the cord blood, which Mr. Coelho will talk about in a few minutes.

To review: Standard embryonic stem cell research creates embryos with the sperm and the egg, and therapeutic cloning creates embryos of one’s self. Both procedures are fraught with obsta­cles. That means if you pursue therapeutic cloning for the purpose of extracting stem cells from the genetic clone, you are combining all of the risks and problems associated with embryonic stem cell research with all of the problems associated with cloning. Obtaining the high number of eggs required in cloning puts women at great risk. Embryonic stem cell research requires human sac­rifice, and there are currently no cures in sight. Adult stem cell research does not involve the same ethical obstacles. Nor does it cause rejection; nor does it cause tumors; nor does it cause genetic instability. In fact, it has been, for more than two decades, treating thousands of people.

The Use of Tax Dollars. So should our tax dol­lars be spent on embryonic stem cell research? The answer is: No. The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply do not support the con­tinued investment in research. Many researchers have failed. Even private investors are not backing this, and that is a strong indication of the lack of success. Even if it was successful, it is clear that embryonic stem cell research is morally bankrupt and endangers women, while adult stem cell research doesn’t present any of these problems.

I want to tell you something very personal as I close. A lot of people retort to me that perhaps I’m not interested enough in cures, but I’m very inter­ested in cures—and not just for people I don’t know. My own grandmother died of Parkinson’s disease; my father died of cancer; and my baby was diagnosed in utero at 15 weeks with a genetic dis­ease. That affects me tremendously.

Even if I did not have all of the ethical objections that I do to embryonic stem cell research, I assure you there is absolutely no hope being offered by embryonic stem cell research to cure my baby, to have cured my father or my grandmother. The cures are in adult stem cell research, and we need to turn the focus and attention to that and not to the exploitation of our unborn children and our wom­en as egg factories for this research.



Philip H. Coelho: Let’s take a look at three sources of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells, and neo-natal cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have theoretical advantages: they unquestionably can become all the different tissues of the body and they have long telomeres, which mean they have a whole life’s worth of cell divisions available to them. But har­nessing their possible clinical benefit presents daunting technical challenges. Embryonic stem cell lines are notoriously hard to obtain and maintain and it has been reported that they have triggered malignant carcinomas in animals. Knowledgeable researchers are cautious about expecting any clinical trials using embryonic stem cells in the near term.

Adult stem cells are typically drawn from the bone marrow of patients, and they also have advan­tages. They have been used clinically about 30,000 times. However, they do have some disadvantages: There are risks to the donor during extraction, there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease from donor to recipient; and the cells have the potential for fewer divisions.

My company, ThermoGenesis, has focused our activity over the last 12 years on neonatal cord blood stem cells because, although they have simi­larities with embryonic and adult stem cells, they have some dramatic advantages. Like embryonic stem cells, they can become several—and perhaps all—the different tissue types; unlike both embry­onic and adult stem cells, their harvest results in no donor risk; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; and, in contrast to adult bone marrow stem cells, they cause less graft versus host disease (GVHD), a medical condition in which the donor cells attack the tissues of the patient’s body.

The production of units of cord blood stem cells for clinical use must be done with great care if the cells are to be viable upon transplant—which may be years or decades later. Cord blood stem cells are harvested following the birth of a baby. Blood from the leftover placenta is collected and sent to the cord blood stem cell bank. Through some compli­cated processes, substantially all the stem cells are concentrated into a specialized freezing container, the red blood cells into a second, and the plasma into a third. Each container has bar code labels which tie it back to the original collection. The stem cell container is then inserted into a special Teflon over-wrap bag and placed into a stainless steel canister in preparation for cryopreservation of the stem cells. Next, the canister is placed into a controlled-rate freezer module which is then inserted into the robotic freezing and storage sys­tem. Each unit of stem cells receives a very precise freezing rate and then the robotic arm transfers the frozen unit directly into –196 degrees centigrade liquid nitrogen. At this temperature—colder than the surface of the moon—these cells will remain viable for many years.

Cord blood stem cells are clinically used right now to fill in behind the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) that maintains a registry of 6 mil­lion potential donors of adult bone marrow stem cells to treat leukemia, lymphomas, and a number of genetic diseases. A General Accounting Office (GAO) study in 2002 reported that, despite $50 million a year from the federal government, less than 10 percent of patients needing stem cell trans­plants actually received them from the NMDP. That is an astonishingly sobering statistic. Nine out of ten people were unable to be matched at all or were unable to be matched in time. When you are diag­nosed with these lethal diseases and told you need a stem cell transplant, you don’t have much time.

Luckily, a new, more readily available source of stem cells was becoming available. The first patient to be treated with cord blood stem cells in 1988 today shows no evidence of the Fanconi Anemia that he suffered from as a child. When he was diag­nosed, there was no bone marrow match, which is not unusual. Luckily, in his case, there was a match using the cord blood stem cells from his mother’s later pregnancy. On the basis of that success, Dr. Pablo Rubinstein, director of the National Cord Blood Program at the New York Blood Center, and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, director of the Pediatric Bone Marrow and Stem Cell Transplant Program at Duke University Medical Center, launched cord blood transplant medicine.

The very first transplant was in 1988. Four years later, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pro­vided money to set up the first public cord blood bank, because the greatest use for these stem cells would be to treat the patients who were unable to obtain appropriately matched bone marrow stem cells from the NMDP. In 1994, ThermoGenesis was asked by Dr. Rubinstein to develop a robotic cryo­genic freezing and storage system to provide the precision cryopreservation and archiving required to assure these cells would be viable when thawed and transplanted. Essentially, Dr. Rubinstein want­ed to elevate this process to pharmaceutical grade quality (GMP) standards. In 1996, Dr. Rubinstein obtained the first FDA IND approval to perform a large-scale clinical trial with cord blood stem cells. We delivered our BioArchive Robotic System to Dr. Rubinstein in 1999 and, as of December 31, 2004, there were 104 of these robotic systems in the major cord blood stem cell banks in 25 countries. Over 6,000 patients have now been treated, the FDA license of cord blood stem cells is under review, and there is legislation in Congress to estab­lish a national cord blood stem cell bank network.

Cord Blood Success. So far, more than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated with neonatal cord blood stem cells, includ­ing hematological malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma; the immunodeficiency diseases SCID, CID, CVID, and WAS; bone marrow failure syndromes; hemoglobinopathies such as sickle cell anemia and thalassemia major; and inborn errors of metabolism such as ADL, MLD, GLD, Tay-Sachs disease, and MPS I, II, III, and IV. Because stem cells from cord blood don’t cause nearly as much graft versus host disease, they do not need a perfect match the way bone marrow does; as a result, a national inventory of only 150,000 ethnically diverse cord blood stem cell units will provide 80 percent of U.S. citizens with a suitable match.

In 1998 there was a first look at the comparative rate of survival of cord blood and bone marrow patients at three years post-transplant. Many patients died in both cases because these patients all suffer from terrifying lethal diseases. At this time, cord blood was at a great disadvantage to bone marrow because the probability of obtaining an optimally matched cord blood unit was very low, as there was only an inventory of a few thou­sand cord blood stem cell units and, in contrast, the NMDP had a registry of more than 6 million potential bone marrow donors.

Nevertheless the results were very encouraging for cord blood stem cells. Survival of patients receiving a perfectly matched cord blood stem cell unit was 68 percent, compared to only 46 percent for those patients receiving a perfectly matched bone marrow. Equally as remarkable, patients receiving cord blood stem cells with two to three mismatches had a 30 percent survival. This degree of mismatch with bone marrow would have result­ed in no survivals. Most remarkable of all was that these results were achieved with cord blood stem cells with a patient population that was much more advanced in their disease than the patients receiv­ing bone marrow. Since bone marrow was the “standard of care” and cord blood was “experimen­tal,” the patients who received cord blood had been waiting and waiting and waiting for a bone marrow match until their condition was so dire—out of remission and in relapse—that they finally pro­ceeded with the “experimental” cord blood stem cell transplant. However, even in these cases, the data indicate that cord blood, even in its earliest stages, was very successful.

The clinical advantages of cord blood are prom­ising. A recent study from the University of Tokyo Medical Center reported a survival rate of around 70 percent among high-risk adults treated with cord blood. Results are even more promising with children. The same cell population is a proportion­ately larger cell population, and Dr. Kurtzberg has reported an 80 percent survival rate for children with immunodeficiency diseases. An article by Dr. Kurtzberg and Dr. Rubinstein in the New England Journal of Medicine last year showed a 90 percent success rate in treating a disease called Hurler syn­drome that affects the brain. For the first time, Dr. Kurtzberg noted that cord blood was not only arresting the disease, but it was beginning to reverse the symptoms.

The main nervous system diseases—Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and amyotropic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s dis­ease)—all involve neural cells and the loss of neural cells. Basically, the neural cells in the brain, the neurons, are supported by the function of the astro­cytes and oligodendrocytes, or glial cells, which provide comprehensive support for the neural cells. Dr. Kurtzberg has recently reported evidence that glial cells derived from the donor cord blood stem cells are growing in the brains of her patients who were treated for enzyme insufficiency genetic diseases.

CBS recently reported on a case in South Korea in which a woman who had been paralyzed for 20 years was able to take a few steps after being treated with stem cells from an umbilical cord injected directly into her spine. Now, that’s only one patient, and when there are 10, we can be a little more com­fortable with the accuracy of this initial report. There are other phenomena that might account for what she has been able to do, but it certainly falls within the pattern of other things we know about the ability to generate neural cells with cord blood stem cells.

There is an intensive focus on creating cord blood banks in Asia, because it is their belief that this is the area in which they’re going to pass the United States.

Expanding Access To Treatment. How will cord blood banking work in the United States? There will be cord blood banks in a national net­work. To get a match for a patient, you wouldn’t need to track down the person with the match and find out, for example, that he moved or that some­one showed him the informed consent and then someone else showed him the needle to get his bone marrow. Instead, you would simply call up on a computer screen a search request form and fill it in for your patient; then, with a mouse click, the entire inventory is sourced and shipped. On the following day, it can be at the transplant center.

There are two bills in Congress that I would like to direct your attention to, H.R. 596 in the House and S. 681 in the Senate. In the House, Represen­tative Chris Smith (R–NJ) is the lead sponsor, and leads a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors including many of the Black Caucus. In the Senate, Senators Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Arlen Specter (R–PA), Sam Brownback (R–KS), and also Senators Tom Harkin (D‑IA), Charles Schumer (D–NY), and Christopher Dodd (D–CT) lead the bipartisan legislation.

This legislation would provide funding for 150,000 units of HLA typed, cryopreserved units of cord blood stem cells, which, if collected with the planned ethnic diversity, should provide at least 80 percent of all U.S. citizens of any ethnic group. You may be aware that if you’re African–American, you have half the probability of a Caucasian to get a bone marrow match. The 150,000-unit national inventory of cord blood stem cells should provide 80 percent of Americans with an acceptable match—a very substantial improvement over the 9 percent reported by the GAO for the Marrow Donor Program.

There are also Homeland Security ramifications in the building of this National inventory of cryo­preserved, instantly available, stem cell units. When the Chernobyl disaster happened, of the 200 people in the building, only 13 were alive by the time the first bone marrow transplant showed up— two and one-half months later. Please note, I am not representing that these stem cells are a defense against death in a radiation incident. Clearly if you’re in the blast radius, you’re without help. But there is a subset of patients who will have lost their blood forming stem cells but may be able to survive if these replacement stem cell units are available quickly.

Finally, the legislation requires that up to 10 per­cent of the collected units go free of charge to peer-review stem cell research.



Representative David Weldon: This is a tough issue, and part of the reason is that it’s com­plex biology, so you’re trying to explain to people things that they have a challenge understanding. To make matters worse, one of the groups of people that have a real challenge in following and under­standing all this is journalists. They majored in journalism and not in molecular biology, but they are nonetheless given the responsibility of explain­ing to the American people what is going on here.

Adult stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the sources for the regen­erative, miraculous medicine in the future. Embry­onic stem cells are just a pipe dream. I have been challenging my opponents in this debate for years: Show me your data. But embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results. In a few years, the researchers working with embryon­ic stem cells are probably going to give up because they’re just not getting good results, whereas the adult stem cell work and, in particular, the cord blood work is just phenomenal. I think we’re up to 10 kids that have been cured, maybe more, of sickle cell anemia, and as a clinician who used to take care of kids with sickle cell anemia, to be able to cure people with sickle cell anemia is just huge. That’s the reason why the whole Black Caucus is on this Cord Blood Bill; they realize what’s going on here.

The Federal Policy Debate. From a policy per­spective, the Congress spoke to this issue several years ago when Congressman Roger Wicker (R– MS) and then-Congressman Jay Dickey (R–AR) authored language that said that no NIH funds can be used for any research involving the destruction of a human embryo. President Bill Clinton signed that bill and then shortly after that came up with a clever way to get around the so-called Dickey-Wicker language simply by allowing outside researchers to destroy embryos and move the stem cells over to NIH.

That was essentially what George Bush inherited. His solution, I thought, was rather eloquent: he allowed ongoing funding for research on the stem cell lines that had been accumulated because the embryos were destroyed, but no more additional federal funding would be provided for the destruc­tion of embryos.

And that is basically the debate we are moving into this year. Congressman Mike Castle (R–DE) and Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D–CO) have introduced a bill in the House, and there’s a com­panion bill in the Senate, to partially override the President’s position and allow NIH dollars to be used on the “excess embryos” from fertility clinics. The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, among others, says that there are 400,000 excess embryos in the fertility clinics. According to a RAND study, the vast majority of those 400,000 embryos are wanted embryos. The parents are holding on to them because they want to do another cycle and possibly have another baby. Many of the parents are not comfortable at all with donating their embryos for destructive research, and many of them want to adopt them out. The other thing that is very inter­esting is that when you thaw these embryos, there’s a very high mortality rate. They have been in the freezer for a long time, and a lot of them die. It’s esti­mated that you would really only get about 250– 300 cell lines if the Castle bill were to become law.

You might ask: Why are all these researchers pounding on the doors of all these Senators and Congressmen, saying that embryonic cells are the best way to go and we really need to fund this research, when all the scientific data show that the cord blood and the adult stem cells are much, much better? Why are these researchers doing this?

Number one, some of them just do not want to be told they can’t get funding for this. They look through a microscope, and it looks just like a cow embryo, so what is the big deal? In other words, they have no belief in the sanctity of human life. They have absolutely no qualms in exploiting it, throwing it in the trash. They have some sort of secular humanist worldview that takes them to that place.

The other important thing you need to remem­ber is that if you develop a highly successful inter­vention for treating, say, sickle cell anemia with cord blood, that is not really a money-making intervention under our current patent system. But if you can develop the embryonic stem cell line that could cure Parkinson’s disease, you’ll be hanging out with the wealthiest people in the world, because the embryonic stem cell line itself will be patentable and worth a lot of money. And that is why a lot of these folks want to go down this path and want to do this.

I feel very, very strongly that this debate will go away. I think the President’s position is right. There are millions of Americans who do not want to fund destructive embryonic research for the same reason they don’t want to fund abortions. They believe in the sanctity of human life, and they feel that their tax dollars should not be used to destroy it.

I think our prohibition on federal funding in this area is the proper way for us to go, since we have a divergence of opinion in the population. There is no prohibition on private funding. There is also state funding. The state of California has moved forward. They’re going to be able to fund millions of dollars of embryonic stem cell research. I think their tax­payers, in time, will regret that decision when they see absolutely no good cures coming out of it.

But the President’s policy is the right policy. The Dickey–Wicker language is the right thing for us to have in law.



Question from the Audience: I believe that the intellectual property rights issue is really the crux of why we are having this debate at all, because the science so strongly supports adult and cord blood stem cell research. Do we just have to wait for the science to prevail, or is there some leg­islation that might be wise to deal with the intellec­tual property rights issue?



Representative Weldon: The history behind the intellectual property rights problem, and why so many biomolecular researchers want to pursue the embryonic stem cells because of the pat­entability issue, got started about eight years ago when the Congress was confronted with physicians who were trying to patent various procedures. There was a very serious concern that if that were allowed to move forward, it could stifle the free flow of ideas and information and dramatically increase the cost of health care.

After some considerable debate, we modified our patent laws in the 1990s, saying that if you develop a new way to take somebody’s gall bladder out, you can patent the instrument, but you cannot enforce the patent when that specific method is used by other physicians. That basically meant that you cannot effectively patent adult stem cell and cord blood stem cell interventions, but if you could have some sort of uniquely, genetically engineered embryonic stem cell, that is a patentable product.

I’m not convinced that that is the total reason why many members of the biomolecular communi­ty want to pursue the embryonic stem cell prefera­bly to the adult stem cell research. One of the other reasons, and the reason why a lot of these white-lab-coat researchers really like these cells, is that they proliferate greatly. The adult stem cells are hard to work with. The cord blood stem cells, how­ever, are much better. They’re much more like embryonic stem cells.

The other thing is that embryonic stem cells dif­ferentiate very easily, but that tendency to grow and differentiate easily tends to cause them to form tumors and be genetically unstable when you do a clinical application of it. So these bench researchers want to play with them.

But we’re not in the business of funding this just because they want to do it. What Congress needs to be looking at is the likelihood of this leading to treatments of disease. In my opinion, it’s unlikely. It’s highly speculative. More important, other inter­ventions seem to be moving along much more quickly that show a tremendous amount of prom­ise, and those are, specifically, adult and cord blood stem cells.



Question from the Audience: If, as you say, embryonic stem cell research isn’t effective and there are no data, wouldn’t the normal screening process through NIH get rid of this?

Also, why are we dealing specifically with one type of research through policy and not other types of research that may not be showing promise that are being funded through NIH?



Representative Weldon: The Congress does not intervene in basically peer review deci­sions that NIH officials are engaged in with a whole host of diseases because we don’t have the expertise to be doing that. We intervened in this case, in the original Dickey–Wicker language, because there is a very serious ethical and moral dimension to this, and I think it’s very appropriate for us to do this.

Regarding the specifics of your question, I had an interesting conversation with NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni that relates to your question. They are funding adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, and one of the complaints from the left is, “Why aren’t you funding more embryon­ic stem cell research?” What he told me is they have not had an adequate number of really good appli­cations that would withstand their peer review pro­cess. The quality was not there to justify a vast increase or the demand for new cell lines.

He did say to me that, over time, these cell lines may be depleted and there could be a scenario where there is potentially interesting research that people may want to pursue and there may not be enough embryonic stem cell lines; but the principal problem is an adequate number of applications of quality research projects. So the process, I think, is working, and the Bush policy is a very good approach to the problem.



Dr. Hollowell: As Dr. Weldon points out, there are not a lot of strong applicants using up all of the money that is available, so new researchers, in particular, are going to write grants for money that is currently untapped. There is money there to be obtained for research projects.

Second, the fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to peer review of these very grants. When it comes to pushing the envelope and finding new possibilities, new cures using embryonic stem cells, you often have people who are like-minded with regard to the sanctity of human life reviewing these grant applications, and they don’t necessarily, in most cases, see the ethical issues that you and I might see if we were reviewing them.

These applications are often reviewed by other sci­entists who want to “push the envelope” in the scien­tific community, and if they can get rich and famous in the process, and if society benefits, that’s a wonder­ful thing too. When it comes to review of these grant applications, and if there’s even the remote possibility that money can be had and that a cure might be found, they’re going to use up the funds that are available and that are not currently being exhausted.



Mr. Coelho: Large money tends to flow when you’re doing human clinical trials, and to get there, you need to undergo animal trials. So far, embry­onic stem cells have performed intermittently in animal trials of any sort. In one trial, I read that 80 percent of the animals got malignant carcinomas that were triggered by these stem cells.

Remind yourselves that one case of leukemia in a gene therapy trial shut down that industry for 10 years. Another one just happened when they start­ed up again. So, if you have that kind of data in the animal trials, you have a lot of work to do that’s actually lower cost in trying to figure out what is going on with these cells. The large funds cannot flow until you at least overcome that in animals and get on to humans.



Question from the Audience: Could I ask Dr. Weldon to comment on the global dimen­sion of this discussion? In the upcoming debates on the Hill, shouldn’t this be given appropriate atten­tion? Ron Reagan, Jr. and others, have labeled this a “religious right” issue. In fact, however, it is impos­sible to get funding for this research in the whole of Old Europe.

Germany wrote the President’s ban into German Federal Law, and France has almost no funding for anything of this kind. The European Commission came very close to deciding two years ago formally to adopt exactly the same policy President Bush adopted. My understanding is that it didn’t work because some of the conservatives wouldn’t com­promise there.

But globally, this debate is a very cautious debate, and I would like to know whether that per­spective is going to help free the discussion from the kind of ideological labeling which has been used here in the U.S.



Representative Weldon: That’s a really interesting aspect to this whole debate, and it drags in the issue of cloning because that is another example where the United States appears to be out of step with the rest of the civilized world. Indeed, the U.N. just recently issued a decision to oppose cloning, not just reproductive cloning, but embry­onic cloning as well.

I just want to amplify what Dr. Hollowell was saying. The reason cloning always comes up in these conversations about embryonic stem cells is that, theoretically, if embryonic stem cells proved to be useful, you could not, if you had Parkinson’s dis­ease or Alzheimer’s disease, get an embryonic trans­plant because you would be getting foreign tissue and would enter into these tissue rejection issues.

That’s where you come up with the cloning nex­us. What they want to do is to make a clone of you and then get the embryonic stem cells from your clone. They call that therapeutic cloning. It’s real science fiction. It’s never been done. There’s no ani­mal model for it. There’s not even an animal model of successfully treating an animal disease with embryonic stem cells. They’ve got a couple of papers; there’s a suggestion that it may work; but there’s really not a good study.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell research is percolat­ing along fabulously: over 50 diseases treated—in humans, not animals. So the question is: Will the pressure from the outside world ultimately cause the United States to get off dead center? I should hope so. We’re going to be having some interesting debates this year, and one of the issues that will come up is that the United States is to the left of the rest of the world. This is a human life issue, and we claim to be the great champions of human rights and the sanctity of human life, but in reality, we’re way to the left.

I want to read to you a fascinating quote from William Haseltine, the CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cells: “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for med­icine is 20 to 30 years hence. The time line to com­mercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments.”

What’s going on in California, with the taxpayers funding embryonic stem cell research, is that the taxpayers are funding what the venture capitalists will not fund. They know what is going on, and they won’t fund it. That is exactly what is going to happen in Washington: People are going to be try­ing to get the federal taxpayers to fund what the venture capitalists will not fund
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
Here is some more results of adult stem cell research. It actually has yielded results too. More proof that Obamas policy is all about the money and political payoffs. Its long and I apologe for it, but it shows the sheer volume of information our administration and the main street media are ignoring.
What the Media Won't Tell You About
Stem Cell Research
by Dawn Vargo

New studies threaten to undermine everything you've been told about embryonic stem cell research.

The following is a must read for anyone interested in the whole story on stem cell research.

The debate over stem cell research is raging across the nation and echoing through chambers of Congress and state legislatures. Most people have heard just enough to offer an opinion to friends and neighbors; yet, the information they receive is incomplete and often inaccurate.

Every new study on embryonic stem cells produces an onslaught of optimistic articles confidently proclaiming that with just a little more time and a lot more public money embryonic stem cells will provide cures for dozens of diseases and hope for millions of sick patients. Meanwhile, stories highlighting adult stem cell successes seem less optimistic and much less prominent. Casual observers might reasonably conclude that embryonic stem cells hold the most promise while adult stem cells are of secondary interest. They would be wrong.

Embryonic stem cells are often touted as the most promising research option because they are a "blank slate" capable of differentiating (changing and specializing) into all the cells of the body. Less well known is that adult stem cells have the same ability to change into every kind of cell, tissue, and organ in the body. Yes, you read that correctly: one of the main reasons embryonic stem cells are flaunted as the gold standard in research is their ability to change into every cell type. Yet, adult stem cells have the same capacity.

In other words, adult stem cells can do everything embryonic stem cells can do:

1. Adult stem cells are flexible: Like embryonic ones, they can change into every cell type of the body. Researchers often refer to this ability to specialize into every cell type as pluripotency.

2. Adult stem cells' flexibility show new potential to treat disease: Studies demonstrate that in addition to diseases already being treated with adult stem cells, the recently discovered and often ignored flexibility of adult stem cells offer additional possibilities to cure disease.

Contrary to the exclusive claims of embryonic stem cell proponents, the following compilation of research demonstrates the flexibility of adult stem cells to transform into a wide range of specialized cells – just like embryonic ones.


Terms to Know

Differentiate – a scientific word to describe how something changes and specializes. Normally used to describe how "young" cells change into mature cells with special functions.

Germ layer – within a developing embryo, there are three germ layers that provide the ability for the embryo to change into all the cells of the body. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to change into cells from all three germ layers – this means they can differentiate into every part of the body. There are three distinct germ layers in humans: endoderm (internal layer), mesoderm (middle layer), and ectoderm (external layer).

Conventional knowledge says that adult stem cells are not as promising as embryonic stem cells because they lack these embryonic germ layers that can form all of the body's 200+ cells (skin cells, muscle tissue, internal organs, etc). However, a growing body of research shows that adult stem cells have an "embryonic" ability to differentiate.

Adult stem cells – there is a wide variety of adult stem cells including bone marrow stem cells, nasal stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, etc. These types of adult stem cells are normally identified by where they are located (bone marrow stem cells are found in bone marrow, blood stem cells in the blood, etc).

Flexible Stem Cells

The following summaries document the ability of adult stem cells to develop into cells outside of their original cell family.1

Baby Teeth

• Baby teeth are a rich source of stem cells. Stem cells from dental pulp can differentiate into neural, fat, and tooth-forming cells.2

Blood

• Adult stem cells taken from the blood can differentiate into liver and nerve cells.3

• White blood cells taken from patients can produce other types of stem cells; newly formed cells included red and white blood cells, nerve cells and heart muscle.4

Bone Marrow

• Bone marrow stem cells can make significant amounts of new lung tissue.5

• Bone marrow stem cells can change into epithelial cells when transplanted into the lung.6

• Bone marrow stem cells can be put into various tissues and organs. This research could provide a model for future lung stem cell work.7

• Bone marrow stem cells from men were implanted into women. They found that the women had brain cells with the Y chromosome. This shows that bone marrow stem cells can turn into brain cells.8

• A specific type of cells (multipotent adult progenitor cells – MAPCs) has been found in bone marrow. These can specialize into cells from all three germ layers. This study found that these cells can be isolated not only from bone marrow but also from brain and muscle tissue.9

• Stem cells from bone marrow have the capacity to develop into all cell types in the human body including those that make up the glands, digestive tract, hair, skin, nails, brain, nervous system, and muscle. 10

• Bone marrow stem cells can turn into nerve cells; contrary to previous belief, these bone marrow stem cells did not merely fuse with nerve cells, they changed into nerve cells without any cell fusion.11

• Pluripotent (able to change into all cell types) bone marrow stem cells can change into insulin-secreting cells.12

• Researchers in Miami once again found that bone marrow stem cells can change into all cells of the body.13

• A single bone marrow stem cell can turn into marrow, blood, liver, lung, gastrointestinal tract, skin, heart, and skeletal muscle.14

• Cells taken from the bone marrow are able to generate new egg production in the ovaries. This finding has significant implications for the long-held belief that females are born with a limited number of eggs that declines throughout life15


Cord Blood

• Cord blood cells, a type of adult (also known as non-embryonic) stem cells that come from the umbilical cords of newborns, contain mesenchymal stem cells. These mesenchymal stem cells can change into skeletal muscle cells.16

• A special type of umbilical cord blood stem cells (called unrestricted somatic stem cells – USSCs) can change into all cells from all three germ layers. This means they can specialize into all of the cells in the body including brain, bone, cartilage, liver, heart, and blood cells.17

• A recently discovered type of cord blood stem cells, cord-blood-derived embryonic-like stem cells or CBEs, have the capability of turning into any kind of body tissue 18

• Stem cells found in the outer lining of the umbilical cord have been successfully differentiated into specific cells such as skin, bone and fat.19

Ear
• Stem cells from the inner ear were able to change into the three major cell types of the body (all three germ layers).20

Liver
• Liver stem cells can specialize into pancreatic cells. This demonstrates that stem cells from one part of the body (liver) can change into cells from a completely different part of the body (pancreas).21

Mesenchymal
• A specific type of adult stem cells, human mesenchymal stem cells, have the ability to self-renew on a long-term basis. They also have the flexibility to specialize into cells from all three germ layers.22

Muscle
• Muscle stem cells have the capacity to change into blood stem cells.23

Nasal
• Nasal stem cells can develop into heart, liver, kidney, muscle, brain, and nerve cells.24

Neural Crest
• A specific type of early embryonic stem cells (epidermal neural crest cells – eNCSC) are found in adult hair follicles and show a high degree of flexibility.25

Neural
• Neural stem cells can change into a broad array of cells within and without the central nervous system. Two types of cells that can be formed from neural stem cells are skeletal muscle and blood cells.26

• Neural stem cells were isolated from the cerebellum region of the brain and showed the ability to renew and differentiate into several types of neural cells in the brain 27

Pancreas
• Pancreatic stem cells can specialize into muscle cells, neurons, and insulin-producing cells.28

Placenta
• A type of stem cells found in the placenta (amniotic epithelial cells) has the potential to change into all three germ layers.29

Uterus
• Stem cells in the uterus can be grown into bone, muscle, fat, and cartilage.30

Scalp
• Cells from human scalp tissue are able to change into a wide variety of cells – including cells in different cell families like neural, bone, and cartilage cells.31


Flexible Stem Cells for Treating Diseases
The recognition that adult stem cells possess the flexibility to change into all types of body cells has led to a variety of models to treat disease – treatments that are currently unattainable with embryonic stem cells.
Adult Stem Cell Treatments

Not only can adult stem cells change and specialize into all cell types, they also out-perform embryonic stem cells when it comes to treating disease. Research with adult stem cells is steadily producing positive results that demonstrate the ability to treat disease. The proven track record of adult stem cells provides a striking contrast to their embryonic counterparts which have never treated a single patient. For examples of adult stem cell treatments currently being used in human patients, see Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-In-the-Sky

Bone Marrow Stem Cells to treat:

Diabetes
• Bone marrow stem cells transplanted into the pancreas can morph into insulin-producing beta islet cells. Insulin levels increased. This discovery may help treat people with Type 1 Diabetes by eliminating the need for daily injections of insulin.32

• The discovery that bone marrow stem cells can change into insulin secreting cells is an important step toward curing diabetes.33

Heart Damage
• Bone marrow stem cells can help repair damaged heart muscle by helping the heart develop new, functional tissue.34

• Bone marrow stem cells placed in damaged hearts (after a heart attack) improved the hearts' pumping ability by 80%.35

• Bone marrow stem cells can help regenerate damaged heart tissue.36

• Stem cells from bone marrow restored heart function and repaired damaged heart muscle by 50-75%.37

• Bone marrow stem cells were used to treat heart disease with no abnormal cell growth.38

• The process of human clinical trials is underway for patients with heart disease to be injected with bone marrow-derived stem cells during heart bypass surgery.39

Liver Damage
• Stress on the body can trigger adult stem cells to change into specialized cells that migrate to the damaged area and help repair the injury. For example, a damaged liver can send signals to bone marrow stem cells which respond by creating liver cells for the damaged liver.40

Strokes and other neurodegenerative diseases
• MAPCs can change into neuron-like cells in mice that have experienced strokes.41

Brain Stem Cells to treat:

Degenerative Conditions
• Functioning neurons produced from adult brain stem cells provide potential to treat patients with Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, and Huntington's disease.42

Cord Blood Stem Cells to treat:

Cerebral Palsy
• Injections of cord blood stem cells into 9-year-old twins with cerebral palsy increased their ability to speak, decreased their leg cramps and allowed them to sit up unassisted.43

Hepatitis and Heart Damage
• Patients suffering from hepatitis and heart injury can be treated with umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants.44

Hurler's Syndrome
• A young boy with Hurler's Syndrome was successfully treated with cord blood cells (as well as enzyme-replacement therapy).45

Liver Regeneration
• Cord blood stem cells have the capability to treat liver diseases.46

• Umbilical cord blood stem cells from humans can change into liver cells in rats with damaged livers. 47

• Human cord blood stem cells can improve liver renewal by transforming into liver cells that can aid in regeneration.48

Fat Stem Cells to treat:

Heart Damage
• Stem cells from fat, called adipose-derived stem cells, were able to repair and minimize heart damage.49

Intestinal Stem Cells to treat:

Diabetes
• Adult stem cells from the intestine were converted into insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreases of diabetic mice.50

Mesenchymal Stem Cells to treat:

Acute Renal Failure
• Mesenchymal stem cells (a specific type of adult stem cells) injected into kidneys demonstrated an almost immediate improvement in kidney function and cell renewal.51

Cornea damage
• Human mesenchymal stem cells were used to reconstruct damaged corneas.52

Lung Injuries
• Stem cells derived from bone marrow were found to be important for lung repair and protection against lung injury.53

Neurodegenerative Diseases
• Stem cells derived from bone marrow developed into neural cells that hold promise to treat patients with Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and spinal cord injuries 54

Mouth Stem Cells to treat:

Blindness
• 8 out of 9 patients that had mouth stem cells placed in their eyes (cornea) recovered their sight.55

Muscle Stem Cells to treat:

Heart Disease
• Muscle stem cells from thigh muscles were used to successfully treat four men with end-stage heart failure.56

Incontinence
• Human muscle stem cells have been used to cure urinary incontinence in animal models; human trials are now in progress.57

Neural Stem Cells to treat:

Multiple Sclerosis
• Adult neural stem cells were unexpectedly found to treat an MS-like disease by suppressing the immune attacks that damage the brain and spinal cord tissues.58

Spleen Stem Cells to treat:

Diabetes
• The spleen is a substantial source of stem cells and stem cell extracted from the spleen can change into insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells. This could yield a cure for Type 1 Diabetes.59

These findings cast substantial doubt on claims that embryonic stem cells are the best investment for our time, money and resources. In fact, these studies shift the burden to embryonic stem cell researchers to prove that their research is important to finding treatments and cures for disease. Scientific research and current medical therapies unquestionably reveal that adult stem cells are most promising research option.


These summaries significantly simplify the findings in the original studies. Like any overview of a complex topic, oversimplifications are inevitable. This document attempts to provide the most accurate information in easily understandable terms.



Dawn Vargo is an associate analyst for bioethics in the Public Policy Division of Focus on the Family.

1Lead researchers: A. Gritti and R. Galli, Institute for Cell Research, PubMed 2002;171(1):64-76, PMID: 12021492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE], "Adult Neural Stem Cells: Plasticity and Developmental Potential" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieveanddb=PubMedandlist_uids=12021492anddopt=Abstract
2Lead researcher: Songtao Shi, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) May 13, 2003 | vol. 100 | no. 10 | 5807-5812, "SHED: Stem Cells from Human Exfoliated Deciduous Teeth," http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/10/5807?view=abstract
3Lead researcher: Eliezer Huberman, Argonne National Laboratory, PNAS | March 4, 2003 | vol. 100 | no. 5 | 2426-2431, "A Human Peripheral Blood Monocyte-derived Subset Acts as Pluripotent Stem Cells," http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/5/2426?view=abstract
4Lead researcher: Dr. Saleh Abuljadayel, TriStem Corporation, London, Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2003; 19(5): 355-375, "Induction of Stem Cell-like Plasticity in Mononuclear Cells Derived from Unmobilised Adult Human Peripheral Blood." Research conducted with human stem cells.
5Lead researcher: Benjamin Suratt, University of Vermont College of Medicine, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 168. pp. 318-322, (2003). http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/3/318, "Human Pulmonary Chimerism after Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation." Research conducted with mice.
6Lead researcher: Diane S. Krause, Yale University School of Medicine, American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. vol. 27 (2002): 645-651, "Marrow-Derived Cells as Vehicles for Delivery of Gene Therapy to Pulmonary Epithelium," doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2002-0056RC, http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/645. Research conducted with mice.
7Lead researcher: D.N. Kotton, Boston University School of Medicine, Experimental Hematology April 2004 vol 32, issue 4: 340-342, "Lung stem cells: new paradigms"
8Mezey E et al, Prceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Transplanted Bone Marrow Generates New Neurons in Human Brains, February 2003
9Jiang Y, Vaessen B, Lenvik T, Blackstad M, Reyes M, Verfaillie CM. Multipotent progenitor cells can be isolated from postnatal murine bone marrow, muscle, and brain. Exp Hematol. 2002 Aug;30(8):896-904. Stem Cell Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis 55455, USA. Research conducted with mice.
10Young-sup Yoon, Doug Losordo, Biotech Week, Caritas St. Elizabeth's: Unique Stem Cell Identified, Feb 23, 2005; Yoon Y-s et al, Clonally Expanded Novel Multipotent Stem Cells from Human Bone Marrow Regenerate Myocardium after Myocardial Infarcation, Journal of Clinical Investigation, February 2005
11Crain BJ, Tran SD, Mezey E, Transplanted Human Bone Marrow Cells Generate New Brain Cells, Journal of Neural Science, June 15 2005.
12Moriscot C et al, Stem Cells, Human Bone Marrow Mesnchymal Stem Cells can Express Insulin and key Transcription Factors of the endocrine Pancreas Developmental Pathway upon Genetic and.or Microenvrionmental Manipualation In Vitro, 2005
13D'Ippolito G et al, Journal of Cell Science, Marrow-isolated Adult Multilineage Inducible (MIAMI) Cells, A Unique Population of Postnatal Young and Old Human Cells with Extensive Expansion and Differentation Potential, July 15, 2004
14Krause DS et al, Cell, Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a Single Bone Marrow-derived Stem Cell, May 2001
15 Johnson, Joshua et al., Oocyte generation in Adult Mammalian Ovaries by Putative Germ Cells in Bone Marrow and Peripheral Blood, Cell Vol 122, 1-13, July 29, 2005; Stem Cells in Bone Marrow Replenish Mouse Ovaries, EurakAlert!, July 27, 2005.
16Eun Ji Gang, Ju Ah Jeong, Seung Hyun Hong, Soo Han Hwang, Seong Whan Kim, Il Ho Yang, Chiyoung Ahn, Hoon Han, Hoeon Kim, "Skeletal Myogenic Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Isolated from Human Umbilical Cord Blood"
Research Institute of Biotechnology, Histostem Co. Kangdong-gu, Seoul, Korea
17Kogler G et al., Journal of Experimental Medicine, A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrincis Pluripotent Differentiation Potential, July 2004.
18Price, Joyce Howard, Advance made in Stem-Cell Debate, The Washington Times, August 20, 2005; Coghlan, Andy, Cord Blood Yields 'Ethical' Embryonic Stem Cells, New Scientist, August 18, 2005; Olsen, Stefanie, Microgravity Tech Could Sway Stem Cell Debate, The New York Times, August 18, 2005.
19Biotech Firm Discovers New Source of Stem Cells, Medical News Service, July 12, 2005.
20Li H et al, Nature Medicine, Pluripotent Stem Cells from the Adult Mouse Inner Ear, October 2003
21Lijun Yang, Shiwu Li, Heather Hatch, Kim Ahrens, Janet G. Cornelius, Bryon E. Petersen, and Ammon B. Peck In vitro trans-differentiation of adult hepatic [liver] stem cells into pancreatic endocrine hormone-producing cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 12, 8078-8083, June 11, 2002. Research conducted with rats.
22Hong SH, et.al., In vitro differentiation of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005 May 20;330(4):1153-61. Research Institute of Biotechnology, Histostem Co., Seoul, Republic of Korea. (The specialized into mesenchyme-related multipotency, neuroectodermal, endodermal cells.)
23Goodell MA, Jackson KA, Majka SM, Mi T, Wang H, Pocius J, Hartley CJ, Majesky MW, Entman ML, Michael LH, Hirschi KK. Stem cell plasticity in muscle and bone marrow. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Jun;938:208-18; discussion 218-20. Center for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, N1030, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. Research conducted with adult mice.
24Murrell W et al., Multipotent Stem Cells from Adult Olfactory Mucosa, Developmental Dynamics, June 2005.
25Sieber-Blum M, Grim M, Hu YF, Szeder V. Pluripotent neural crest stem cells in the adult hair follicle. Dev Dyn. 2004 Oct;231(2):258-69. Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA.
26Lead researchers: A. Gritti and R. Galli, Institute for Cell Research, PubMed 2002;171(1):64-76, PMID: 12021492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE], "Adult Neural Stem Cells: Plasticity and Developmental Potential" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieveanddb=PubMedandlist_uids=12021492anddopt=Abstract. Research conducted with mice.
27 Lee, Audra, Jessica D Kessler, Tracy-Ann Read, Constanze Kaiser (Department of Pharmacology & Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center), Denis Corbeil, Wieland B Huttner (Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics), Jane E Johnson, Robert J Wchsler-Reyal (Center for Basic Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center), Isolation Neural Stem Cells from the Postnatal Cerebellum, Nature Neuroscience, 723-729, 2005.
28Kruse C et al, Applied Physics, Pluripotency of Adult Stem Cells Derived from Human and Rat Pancreas, November 2004
29Miki, Toshio, Lehmann, Thomas, Cai, Hongbo, Stolz, Donna B, Strom, Stephen, Stem Cell Characteristics of Amniotic Epithelial Cells, Stem Cells, published online August 4, 2005; Spice, Byron, Option to Stem Cells Found, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 5, 2005.
30Australian Discovery of Adult Stem Cells in the Uterus, Medical Research News, July 19, 2005.
31Tzu-bi Shih, Daniel, et al., Isolation and Characterization of Neurogenic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Human Scalp Tissue, Stem Cells, Vol. 23 No 7, pp. 1012-1020. August 2005.
32Lead researcher: Dr. Mehbood A. Hussain, New York University, Journal of Clinical Investigation March 2003 vol. 111 No. 6, "In Vivo Derivation of Glucose-competent Pancreatic Endocrine Cells from Bone Marrow without Evidence of Cell Fusion." Research conducted with mice.
33Moriscot C et al, Stem Cells, Human Bone Marrow Mesnchymal Stem Cells can Express Insulin and key Transcription Factors of the endocrine Pancreas Developmental Pathway upon Genetic and.or Microenvrionmental Manipualation In Vitro, 2005
34Goodell MA, Jackson KA, Majka SM, Mi T, Wang H, Pocius J, Hartley CJ, Majesky MW, Entman ML, Michael LH, Hirschi KK. Stem cell plasticity in muscle and bone marrow. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Jun;938:208-18; discussion 218-20. Center for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, N1030, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. Research conducted with adult mice.
35Lead researcher: Dr. Victor Dzau, Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Nature Medicine Journal September 2003 vol. 9 no. 9: 1195-1201 doi:10.1038/nm912, "Mesenchymal Stem Cells Modified with Akt Prevent Remodeling and Restore Performance of Infarcted Hearts." Research conducted with rats.
36Young-sup Yoon, Doug Losordo, Biotech Week, Caritas St. Elizabeth's: Unique Stem Cell Identified, Feb 23, 2005; Yoon Y-s et al, Clonally Expanded Novel Multipotent Stem Cells from Human Bone Marrow Regenerate Myocardium after Myocardial Infarcation, Journal of Clinical Investigation, February 2005
37 Stem Cell Therapy Successful Treats Heart Attacks in Animals; Two Patients Enrolled in Phase 1 Clinical Trials at John Hopkins, Ascribe Newswire, July 21, 2005; Trial to Test Stem Cells for Heart Attacks, Associated Press, July 26, 2005.
Research done with pigs; Phase 1 clinical trials are beginning at John Hopkins. 38Dohmann, Hans F.R., et al, Transendocardial Autologous Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cell Injection in Ischemic Heart Failure, Circulation, 112:521-526, 2005.
39University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Stem Cells with Heart Bypass Surgery Trial to Begin at University of Pittsburg, Science Daily, August 25, 2005.
40Dr. Orit Kollet (lead researcher), the Weizmann Institute, Journal of Clinical Investigation 2003 July 15;112 (2):160-169 doi: 10.1172/JCI200317902 "HGF, SDF-1, and MMP-9 are involved in stress-induced human CD34+ stem cell recruitment to the liver" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=164291andrendertype=abstract. Research conducted with mice.
41Lead researcher: Walter C. Low, University of Minnesota, Journal of Cell Transplantation Vol. 12, pp. 201-213, 2003, "Neural Differentiation and Incorporation of Bone Marrow-Derived Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells After Single Cell Transplantation into Blastocyst Stage Mouse Embryos." Research conducted with mice.
42Functioning Neural Network Grown from Stem Cells, Newswise, July 14, 2005; Functioning Neural Network Grown from Stem Cells, Bioetech Week, August 3, 2005.
43Bastien, Judy, Double Dose Cure, The Daily Advertiser, August 9, 2005.
44Tang XP, et.al., [Clinical and experimental study of the therapeutic effect of umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation on liver failure and heart damage in severe viral hepatitis patients.] Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2005 Apr;13(4):259-63. Liver Disease Research Center, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China. Clinical trial.
45 Jacob Goldstein, Experimental Transplant Saves boy with Rare Disease, The Miami Herald, July 21, 2005.
46Hong SH, et.al., In vitro differentiation of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells into hepatocyte-like cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005 May 20;330(4):1153-61. Research Institute of Biotechnology, Histostem Co., Seoul, Republic of Korea. Umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells were used to treat the liver diseases.
47Tang XP, et.al., [Clinical and experimental study of the therapeutic effect of umbilical cord blood stem cell transplantation on liver failure and heart damage in severe viral hepatitis patients.] Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2005 Apr;13(4):259-63. Liver Disease Research Center, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China.
48Di Campli et.al., A human umbilical cord stem cell rescue therapy in a murine model of toxic liver injury. Dig Liver Dis. 2004 Sep;36(9):603-13. Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Research conducted with mice.
49Cytori Therapeutics Reports Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Home to, Engraft and Repair Injured Heart Muscle in Preclinical Model of Heart Attack-Like Injury, Today's Stem Cell Research, July 19, 2005.
50Lead researcher: Dr. Atsushi Suzuki University of Tsukuba Institute of Clinical Medicine, PNAS 10.1073/pnas.0936260100, "Glucagon-like Peptide 1 (1-37) Converts Intestinal Epithelial Cells into Insulin-Producing Cells"
51Resnick, Mayer, Stem Cells Brings Fast Direct Improvement, Without Differentiation, in Acute Renal Failure, EurekAlert!, August 15, 2005. Research done in rats.
52Ma Y et al, Reconstruction of chemically burned rat corneal surface by bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells, Stem Cells, August 18, 2005. Research conducted using human stem cells on rats.
53Rojas, Mauricio, et al., Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Repair of the Injured Lung, American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, Vol. 33, pp. 145-152, May 12, 2005.
54BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics Announces Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Business Wire, July 18, 2005.
55Lead researcher: Shigeru Kinoshita, M.D., Ingenta Artificial Organs, January 2004 vol. 28 no. 1: 22-27, doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2004.07319.x, "Development of Cultivated Mucosal Epithelial Sheet Transplantation for Ocular Surface Reconstruction," http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2856541.stm. Clinical trial conducted in Japan.
56Breytenbach, Karen, Stem-Cell Boost for Heart Transplants, The Star, August, 24, 2005.
57 Rossi, Lisa, Human Muscle-Derived Stem Cells Effective in Animal Models of Incontinence, EurekaAlert!, August 31, 2005.
58Researchers Report that Cell Transplants Protect Brain Tissues by Fighting Immune Attack in Mice with MS-Like Disease, Research/Clinical Update, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, July 13, 2005.
59Lead researcher: Dr. Denise Faustman, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Immunobiology Laboratory, Science, Nov. 14, 2003; vol 302: pp 1123-1127, "Islet regeneration during the reversal of autoimmune diabetes in NOD mice." Research conducted with mice.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Here is another:
Family & Life 9 March 2009
Scientists have found a way to make an almost limitless supply of versatile stem cells that doctors could use in patients, while avoiding the killing of embryonic humans. In a breakthrough that could have huge implications, British and Canadian researchers discovered a way to reprograme skin cells taken from adults, winding the clock back on the cells till they were in an embryonic-like form again.

Scientists have praised the work as a major step forward and pro-life organizations have welcomed it. Pro-lifers called on researchers to halt other experiments that use stem cells taken from embryonic humans conceived at IVF centres.

Sir Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep and heads the UK's Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine at Edinburgh University, where the work took place, said, "This is a significant step in the right direction. The team has made great progress and combining this work with that of the scientists working on stem cell differentiation, the is hope that the promise of regenerative medicine could soon be met".

Stem cells have the potential to be turned into any tissue in the body, which has led researchers to believe they could use them to make "spare parts" to replace diseased and damaged organs and treat conditions as diverse as Parkinson's disease, diabetes and spinal cord injury. Because researchers can make the cells from a patient's own skin, they carry the same DNA and thus pose no danger of rejection by the immune system.

Scientists showed they could make stem cells from adult cells more than a year ago, but they couldn't use them in patients because the procedure involved injecting viruses that could cause cancer. In 2007, researchers in Japan and America said they's turned adult skin cells into stem cells by injecting them with a virus carrying four extra genes.

Now, scientists at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Toronto have found another method, making so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell therapies a realistic prospect for the first time. In two papers published in the journal Nature, Keisuke Kaji in Edinburgh and Andras Nagy in Toronto describe how they reporgrammed cells by using a safer technique called electroporation. "It is a step towards the practical use of reprogrammed cells in medicine, perhaps even eliminating the need for human embryos as a source of stem cells," Dr. Nagy commented.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
So Brian have you adopted any of these embryoes yet? Get your wife down to a fertility clinic and have a few put in her. Is flushing embryoes down the drain (something that happens every day) any less tragic then using them for research?
 

burnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Thanks for informing me about Dawn Vargo and indirectly about Focus on the Family.

Here's what I found about them. Take it with a grain of salt of course but Dawn Vargo in 2003 was a research assistant at Focus on the Family and now is a bioethics analyst. I could not find anything about her education or credentials but ethicists are basically uncredentialed. Just as this quote below has an axe to grind, Focus on the Family and Dawn Vargo as an employee has an axe to grind. She is not a "scientist," she's a paid evangelist for a religious viewpoint. So I would be wary of believing her claims on science.

I am sure many of you like this organization. Regardless, it is an organization with a preformed view, not a source of objective scientific information.

So if bioethics analysts are basically uncredentialed I guess that would put them about on par with community organizers . . . .


Objective scientific information? You have got to be kidding!! Science is as subjective as the motivation that drives it!!! You can compile empirical evidence for the purpose of proving or disproving a theory, but outside of that, objectivity quickly becomes a charade.

Especially when you introduce a matter like embyonic stem cell research.

So give your head a shake and go blow your smoke up someone else's . . . . We are not all stupid peasants as you would like to think.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
Topday on Fox News: Mike West CEO of Bio Time, Inc was interviewed and he thinks that IPS Stem cells is the way to go, but still doesn't want to give up the money that Obama has promised for Embryonic stem cells.
That is not his words, but seems to be what he was saying.
I don't know his credentials, execpt he is CEO of Bio Time, Inc www.biotimeinc.com
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
So Brian have you adopted any of these embryoes yet? Get your wife down to a fertility clinic and have a few put in her. Is flushing embryoes down the drain (something that happens every day) any less tragic then using them for research?

By the same reason, are you going to put an extra $1,000 or so in your taxes this year since you believe tax dollars should go for this research? If you want your tax dollars spent that way, it is possible to pay more in taxes with out being required too!
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
So Brian have you adopted any of these embryoes yet? Get your wife down to a fertility clinic and have a few put in her. Is flushing embryoes down the drain (something that happens every day) any less tragic then using them for research?

Bullhauler,

First of all, you don't know enough about my wife in order to make a classless comment like that. Second of all if I was in the position of wanting children and my wife wasn't able to produce eggs, It would certainly be an option. How would feel though if I made the taxpayers pay for it? That is exactly what the reasearchers are asking of us despite the failures of the past 20 years and numerous other more promising options have emerged.

On top of that, the media, the leftists, the obortionists and the current administration has done numerous "news stories", if you can call them news, that claim that they can cure all these common diseases by doing this research without one single story about the alternatives and the failures of the past research done in the private labs. They claim science over politics but in truth they are the ones ingnoring the science. The pier reviewed research listed in my previous posts proves it.
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I'm still reading Herf, just so you know :)


NIH Funds Are for Research
Brandon Keim Email 12.11.06

A favorite argument as to why the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research is that the science is unproven. It has not led to any cures or FDA-approved treatments.
That happens to be true. But that doesn't make it a good argument. In fact, most of the science funded by the federal government is not successful yet, since proven science doesn't usually need funding.

Scientists say people who argue against funding unproven stem-cell research miss the point. Science takes time. Almost every major advance in health care took decades of research -- often using millions in federal funding -- before being declared safe and effective in humans. Years are spent on research that is, by definition, unproven, if not far-fetched and hypothetical.

Addressing an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2005, biotech consultant and cellular pharmacologist Kelly Hollowell said embryonic stem cells were a medical bust and deserved no federal research funding.

"There are no human trials -- despite all the hype of media," she said. "After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe."

But what if the government had adopted that attitude when it came to the cancer drug paclitaxel? In 1970, researchers at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (the country's clearinghouse for medical research funding) discovered the compound. The NCI spent $700 million developing Taxol (paclitaxel's brand name), and clinical trials dragged on through the 1980s before the drug was approved in 1992. It has since saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Also in the 1980s, NIH scientists spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing unproven vaccines for rotavirus, which kills half a million children every year, and human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and annually kills more than 250,000 women. Commercial versions of both vaccines only appeared in 2006.

"It's a mistake not to fund the long-term research," said Elisa Eiseman, a senior scientist at the nonprofit RAND Corporation. "It's that blue-sky, high-risk research that yields very amazing discoveries."

Private-sector scientists tend to focus on quick payoffs, so it's up to the NIH to support research that may take decades to yield results. And while many scientists say too much NIH money goes to safe, short-term research, there's still enough left over for the cutting edge. Much experimental work involves making new tools for inspecting living bodies at the cellular level, where processes remain mysterious.

Below is a summary of promising science that, like stem cell research, is utterly unproven. The difference is the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to find out if one day it might ease pain or bring cures to suffering patients.
Proteomics

The 10-year, $600 million Protein Structure Initiative is another so-called high risk project. Scientists have identified the structures of more than a thousand proteins whose functions are not yet understood. With luck, a few might end up signaling the presence of a disease before it emerges, as with a telltale Alzheimer's compound found this year by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute researchers. Of course, they might not -- but scientists say the only way to find out is to try.

National Cancer Institute researchers also used an artificial intelligence program to analyze the protein patterns of finger-prick blood samples for early signs of ovarian cancer -- an endeavor that private companies wouldn't likely have the luxury of pursuing. Commercial scientists typically concentrate on leads provided by government-funded scientists, said Ken Dill, a University of California, San Francisco, biophysicist.

"It's academics who explore the biology," Dill said. Experimental research into the human genome is another heavily-funded NIH field. Scientists now study gene expression at levels of complexity hardly imagined a decade ago.

"The paradigm for the last 20 or 30 years has been to choose one particular protein or one gene and follow it," said Alan Schechter, chief of molecular medicine at the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney diseases. "Now we appreciate that these processes are the results of interactions of dozens or hundreds of proteins and genes. One's guess is that, ultimately, these kinds of approaches will give us a new level of thinking about biological and medical processes. But, right now, the methods are controversial."
Gene Therapy

Another $200 million in NIH funding goes to the unproven but promising field of gene therapy. The long-anticipated technique has progressed slowly for more than 20 years, and could take decades more to become common. But gene therapy recently started showing potential. "It was in the same place that embryonic stem cells are now," said Eiseman. "It was hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky. But many trials are coming to fruition."

NIH-funded scientists have used gene therapy to treat serious diseases and disabilities in animals, and in August reported success using gene therapy to treat two people with cancer. Research on humans slowed after the death of Jesse Gelsinger, and remains shadowed by serious safety concerns, but early clinical trials are ongoing.
Next-generation Imaging

"Standard imaging isn't good enough to see microscopic detail in the human body," said Alan McLaughlin, director of applied science at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering, which spent $2.6 million this year on next-generation imagers. "We'd like to look at the chemical information in a tumor or special kind of cell, such as beta cells in the pancreas," McClaughlin said. "(They) are important to diabetes, but only present in the islets of Langerhans, which are about 100 microns wide. We can't look at that resolution now."
Nanotechnology

The NIH also spends nearly $200 million annually on nanotechnology and nanomedicine, which involves the atom-scale design of molecules that might someday repair or deliver drugs into cells. Again, no one knows if it will work.

Whether many of these advances will turn into cures or treatments remains to be seen. But scientists say that history counsels patience.

"With these kinds of approaches, one has to have the perspective that practical applications are likely to take decades," said Schechter. "The short-term results of new technologies are generally much less than people expect, but the long-term effects are greater."

my arguement against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research isn't that it is unproven, but in fact we know enough about the problems with them and the documented pier rviewed research that shows other more successfull options exist.

Your email compares embyonic stem cell research to other research going on at NIH as if they are at the same stage of developement. People have been doing embyonic stem cell research for 20 years whereas these other examples cited in your email are still in the exploratory stages. Its not an equal comparison. In other words, lets say the NIH gets their money to spend 600 million on embyonic stem cell research for the next ten years and the current problems still exist with no new developements and the private industry has cured many many people through other stem cell research. Do you throw another 600 million at it under the guideline of funding long term research? My point is that we may very well be at that stage today and lets save the 600 million on other more usefull needs. Besides the federal gov't is broke.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is there any reason we should be "required" to pay for research like this?

Reader, you forgot to let us know some of the negatives, from mucking with God's creation!

Evidence of limb, hair and teeth can be seen in teratoma cell
021009teratoma.jpg


"There are potential dangers associated with stem cell therapy, such as malignant transformation. The injection of pluripotent … cells in rodents leads frequently to the development of teratomas or teratocarcinomas," the report said.

Tumors triggered by fetal stem cells
Doctor: Results of injection therapies aren't predictable
Posted: February 18, 2009
4:49 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Obama told House Democrats at a retreat at a Virginia resort he will sign an executive order widening federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

A new report in the medical journal PLoS Medicine details the case of a boy treated for a rare condition with fetal stem cell injections who developed cancerous tumors as a result.

"This is the first report of a human brain tumor complicating neural stem cell therapy," the report from the Israeli research team said. "The findings here suggest that neuronal stem-progenitor cells may be involved in gliomagenesis and provide the first example of a donor-derived brain tumor.

"Further work is urgently needed to assess the safety of these therapies," the study said.

Then in 2005, recurrent headaches prompted doctors at Sheba Medical Center in Israel to order magnetic resonance imaging scans on the patient.

"The scan revealed abnormal growths in his brain and spinal cord. In September 2006, when the boy was 14, the spinal cord growth was surgically removed. This growth has never reappeared but the mass in the boy's brain has continued to grow slowly," the report said.

"The [study] findings indicate that the growth in the patient's spinal cord was donor-cell derived and contained cells from two or more donors, at least one of whom was female," the study said.
 
Top