Sen. Tom Harkin recently predicted that the new Democratic House and Senate will pass (again) an embryonic stem cell research bill. Bush vetoed the one (his only veto) that even the Republican Congress passed. Harkin also said he believes that the Congress has the votes to override Bush's veto this time.

I recently realized that I know little about the subject at all. I've been reading up on it. There were a lot of things I didn't know. For one, I didn't realize that almost all research scientists support a ban on human reproductive cloning (making a copy of another person like Dolly the Sheep). At the same time, scientists distinguish between "therapeutic cloning" and "reproductive cloning." It's the issue of therapeutic cloning that's the key thing here, because almost no one is clamoring for reproductive cloning.

Therapeutic cloning is the key to all these touted cures for a dozen different chronic diseases and conditions. It would allow the growing of new cells for almost any part of the body if not whole new oragans, perfectly matched to your DNA. Medicine already does bone marrow (adult stem cell) transplants successfully to cure some types of leukemia; using stem cells for therapeutic cloning would allow the same sort of thing only on a much more elaborate scale and application.

The Bush administration a few years ago pushed for a UN resolution that would ban all types of cloning, including therapeutic cloning which has nothing to do with reproductive cloning (which almost everyone opposes). This ban would effectively shut down the possibilities of these miracle cures.

I also didn't realize that the embryos that these embryonic stem cells can come from blastocyst cells that have a most a few hundred cells, which are completely undifferentiated, about the size of the dot of an "i" on paper. It's not like a little fetus with tiny limbs and killing it - the blastocyst doesn't have specialized cells at the point where it is used to grow cell lines. The movement against embryonic stem cell research would have you think on the other hand that destroying a blastocyst is like aborting a fetus - far from the same thing.

So sorry for the long post...but what do you all think about this?

Andrew

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070109/hl_nm/vatican_stemcells_dc_3

The Vatican is approving of some stem cell research.

It seems to be a no-brainer to me Andrew ... if it helps the lives of millions, like it well could, WHY NOT? We're not aborting fetuses here to do the research, contrary to what Bush seems to think. Speaking of Bush on this matter, how ironic that he approaches the UN about a systematic worldwide ban on ALL cloning when he circumvents the UN for his little war game, and looks down his nose at the UN every chance he gets.

Can't have it both ways, Georgie boy.

They just reported on the news either last night or the night before that they have found a way to get equally promising results from the amniotic fluid. It can be "harvested" with no more risk to mom or the baby than an amniocentesis test.

I'm reading "Stem Cell Wars" by Eve Herold. It's very educational, although I admit Herold is very much pro-embryonic stem cell research so hardly unbiased.

But, there are several different types of stem cell research. Almost no one (including the Vatican) is opposed to adult stem cell research; that's what they are in effect doing with bone marrow transplants. But adult stem cells are extremely limited. They can't be turned into any type of cell you need like the embryonic variety can.

One subject Herold mentions (her book is about a year old now) is that the media generally does a poor job of explaining the nuances of stem cell research, and every so often a new story (like the recent one this week) comes out claiming to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells at all. But as she points out, these news items are usually not based on peer-reviewed research that has been duplicated by other scientists but rather based on preliminary results with "potential," promoted by ambitious scientists eager to promote their own research.

The New York Times has an editorial in tomorrow's edition that clarifies some of this pretty well:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E0KzgxVohwELPlsAkqAG2g/0-0&fp=4 5a444fdf27780e6&ei=24ikRfn6HYz8oQKOsZj0Dg&url=http%3A//www.nytimes.com/2007/01/1 0/opinion/10wed1.html&cid=1112511452

An alternative approach that attracted wide attention this week was described by scientists at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. They extracted stem cells from the amniotic fluid of pregnant women and used them to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells. These stem cells, spun off by the developing fetus, seem to have some — though quite probably not all — of the versatility that allows embryonic stem cells to grow into a wide range of body tissues....it would be a mistake to use this promising research, which has yet to be replicated or fully accepted by other scientists, as another excuse for hobbling embryonic stem cell research. The days-old embryonic cells are likely more versatile than fetal cells extracted months later from amniotic fluid, and they allow a range of research on the very earliest stages of human development.

[Emphasis mine.]

So, Skybill, we can see that we have a very long way to go before we can state that, "they have found a way to get equally promising results from the amniotic fluid." Embryonic stem cells are likely to be the most versitile starting point for these coming miracle cures.

Andrew

This is another issue that will make the EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumpers happy....

It has been surprising (and encouraging) to see honest support for this issue from people on the right like Orin Hatch. Hatch is the one person I don't suspect of ulterior motives in supporting this. This is why I believe the bill will finally be passed this year and may likely have Bush's veto overridden. When's the last time a Congress did that? Since Bush's approval rating is so low, there seems little political danger in defying the President on an issue that has such large popular support.

Andrew

It also helps, Andrew, that someone like Ronald Reagan could have greatly benefited from stem cell research, and Nancy Reagan is so loudly beating that drum. That's going to get a lot of support from a lot of ultra-conservatives who otherwise would not give it the time of day. (Much like Dick Cheney and his 180-degree turn on gay rights, they keep their head in the sand until it affects THEM).