An aunt of mine died recently after a three year bout with Alzheimer's disease. Her deterioration was not pretty to watch. The ability to walk went first, then bowel control. All this while her memory faded until even close relatives became strangers. But Leona may have been more than my aunt. She might have been a mirror. Some of us will get Alzheimer's. No matter how big a star we may be now, things could turn ugly. So, consider this question: Would you sacrifice small humans (embryos) in the name of medical research that promises a cure?

Some have answered with a resounding "yes" not only with regard to Alzheimer's, but also for Parkinson's and other ailments. These people clamor for the federal government to open the money spigots so funds will flow into a few research labs in pursuit of the tantalizing promises. Proponents of such research say there is strong support for more funding. The clamor, however, is almost always for embryonic-stem cell or ESC research.

As usual, there are a few problems. For instance, plucking in vitro eggs is not a simple task. Some reports say it takes at least a two-day hospital stay. So human eggs are not readily available. And then there is the moral objection of slaughtering human embryos, a practice too close to abortion for wide acceptance. Even in grade school, we learned the philosophical concept that the ends do not always justify the means. ESC work is a perfect example.

But such objections don't bother ESC proponents, although something else should: Despite all the promises, there is nothing to show for some 25 years of ESC research. There are no therapies, no medicines, no procedures that start with ESCs and end with cures. Even now, there are no ESC procedures in clinical trials. So the persistent clamor for more federal funding must be traceable to one reason— great sales people. You have to applaud them. With lofty promises and a track record of exactly nothing, they get celebs to bang on the doors of the Capitol begging to be heard and asking for money.

If ESC research is as close to fulfillment as they say they are, why aren't venture capitalists pouring in millions? One reason: a basic rule of investing says don't throw good money after bad. Beside, research on adult stem cells, which does not require the killing of embryos, is paying off with treatments and cures. For example, using adult neural stem cells, Michel Levesque at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in L.A., reports a total reversal of symptoms in the first Parkinson's patient treated. Levesque says the patient is without symptoms three years after adult neural stem cells were removed from his brain, coaxed into becoming dopamine-producing cells, and then reimplanted. And because the stem cells came from the patient, there is no hazard of rejection. Furthermore, over 1,000 clinical trials based on adult stem cells are underway. (See clinicaltrials.gov)

If I had Parkinson's disease and an ounce of sense, I'd be knocking on the doors of Cedars-Sinai shouting, "You need volunteers? I'll volunteer. You need money? Let me write you a check."

Now, about that question in the headline. It's a trick. Alzheimer's is a full brain disease and there is no cure even with ESCs, although other methods might prevent it. But the ESC proponents won't advertise that. It tends to put a damper on fund raising.
Paul Dvorak

What is going on with embryonic stem cell research sounds a lot like Nazi era medical research. Medical or leagal distinctions between humans and persons are as immoral as Nazism. I wonder if cell extracts from Jews or blacks were thought to have some medical potential would these same people be clamoring for more research and money? Or worse yet, if there were actual medical benifits discovered from extracts of (name any human people group or stage of development here) would that allow for the "harvesting" for the sake of others? I think that ESC has much bigger implications then medicine. We are really talking about basic civil rights and what it means to be a person and the perpose of medicine.

Excellent editorial.

It's nice to see some facts presented about were we really are with ESC. If we diverted all the funds spent on ESC over the past 25 years into stem cell research imagine were we would be with medical cures.

What a shame.

Thank you and please keep advertising the truth!

Brian Nolan

New Stem Cell Method Promises To Repair Severe Blood Vessel Damage

In what has been described as a breakthrough, US scientists have found a new way to use human embryonic stem cells to produce precursor cells that can repair severely damaged blood vessels...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=70239

"To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). This is not unusual for a new medical research field; in this case, the first human embryonic stem cell line was only reported in 1998..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell

"Although embryonic stem cell technology started in the United States, the scientific epicenter is shifting overseas, particularly to Britain, where politicians and regulators have given their unabashed support to the research, although under strictly monitored conditions.

"In August, Britain granted its first license for therapeutic cloning to a group at the University of Newcastle, allowing scientists to create human embryos in order to harvest stem cells that may be beneficial for treating diseases. To support stem cell technologies the British government spent $4.7 million to create the stem cell bank and will soon require that all embryonic stem cell lines in Britain be stored and distributed free through this clearinghouse. Their use will be monitored by a British ethics panel.

"''We've dealt with a lot of issues and complications of embryonic stem cell research in a straightforward way, and that has put the U.K. in a very good position,'' said Dr. Glyn Stacey, the bank's director. ''People are comfortable with the idea of the bank and the research here.''

"Dr. Susan Fisher, co-director of the program in human stem cell biology at the University of California at San Francisco, said the position of stem cell research in the United States is ''180 degrees from that of our colleagues in Europe.''

"While British researchers have plugged ahead steadily with their work, Dr. Fisher estimates that her group has lost at least two years -- ''a lifetime,'' she said -- of research time dealing with fallout from Bush administration regulations that ban federal money for work on stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001."


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&r...37A1575BC0A9629C8B63

I read the article and some comments regarding ESC issues. I believe I've been fed a line of questionable information if this is true - but who's surprised by that based on all the "spin" that gets put on everything.
I feel it is extreme arogence that allows us to presume our lives are somehow sared in relation to living things. We have overpopulated this planet to the point that we may have already assured our own extinction along with the othere species we've already or will destroy. We need to get the number of homo sapians under control first and then provide a better existence for all life.

"...it is broadly consistent with the views of the United Church of Christ that human stem cell research go forward with federal funds. In fact, we go further and encourage reconsideration of the ban on federal funding for embryo research. We are open to the possibility that somatic cell nuclear transfer be used to create embryos for research, but not implantation, under highly defined research protocols, and that this research, too, be done with public funding."

Ronald Cole-Turner, M.Div., Ph.D.
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/stemcell3.pdf

President Bush has vetoed two bills in his six years in office: the first regarded embryonic stem cell research, the second funding for the Iraq war with a timeline for withdrawal. He was delusional on both counts. Regarding the first veto, "Most Americans disagree with the president, according to public opinion polls. A number of lawmakers expressed confidence the legislation would some day become law and some suggested Bush's stance could hurt Republicans in congressional elections this fall." [July 19, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/]

Last I checked there were no embryonic stem cells going to die in Iraq, so I guess they don't deserve more rights than our troops who are being killed to fight a war of vanity and greed. And when you die, you rot in the ground, or where ever you may lay. So go peddle your BS editorial to the 700 club or the Christian coalition and let the scientists do their jobs.

There are several flaws with this entire argument:

The federal government has no business funding any medical research. It is NOT something for which the founding documents of our republican democracy ever was framed to do. Our government was set up to promote the "... RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." It flagrantly apparent that ESC clearly violates this clearly stated goal of our founding documents. Also among the imperitive directives of our government's founding documents are the following: "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." Taking this document as foundational for our government and our way of life, it is intuitively obvious that there is not now should there ever be any room for ESC.

And of course contrary to several responses, the government IS supposed to be involved in DEFENSE. And in case some have forgotten, over 3500 innocent Americans were slaughtered in one day for no justifiable reason. So another basic imperitive directive of the government's existance comes into play....the establishment of justice. Carrying this a bit further, it is clearly obvious that there is no justice for any preborn humans in ESC. And then again there is that nigling little phrase about our posterity. Our posterity is our progeny, our offspring, our children, our embryos. What is it we are supposed to be doing for them? Oh yes, there it is in plain print, we are supposed to be securing the blessings of liberty for them. Somehow, in today's historically ignorant society we've made the human embryo one of the least "secure" people to be.

If there are so many who like Great Britain, or western Europe, or the Asian nations, please go there. Go ahead and do your research there, or get your treatment there. And please do it with someone else's money. Those of us who contribute vast sums of money to our government would really prefer to see it used to govern by the precepts and mandates of our founding documents rather than being frittered away on social programs and other fruitless "science" experiments that have no track record of success and glaring evidence of failure.

We need to return to the free market society that our founders knew would result in the establishment of a sound and responsible government as they had initially framed it. And get the government OUT of all funding of things that are not included in the foundational documents of our government. The founders wrote those documents with the expressed intention of LIMITING what the government could do, otherwise the government will become bankrupt as more and more of the populace are convinced that they can get something for nothing - including research "scientists".

Ethics and Ideology are obviously at work in this "debate" (used loosely because of the invective on the part of some respondents).

Ideology is not to be criticized if it is ethical and benign. As Mr. Dvorak points out, ther is no effective therapy based on Embryonic Stem Cells. If that is not true, then please correct us.

However, ethics are quickly swept aside if one's ideology refuses to respect boundaries of life.

The eventuality of physical death is real and cannot be denied. The idea that superman (the actor) would not have died if Embryonic Stem Cell Research had been allowed is absurd.

Some of those who do not believe in God seem to try awfully hard to pretend they are the rulers of the universe

quote:

Originally posted by Edgyone:
Last I checked there were no embryonic stem cells going to die in Iraq, so I guess they don't deserve more rights than our troops who are being killed to fight a war of vanity and greed.

Vanity and greed? If you mean vanity on the part of that segment of the islamic clergy that started this conflict, then sure. If you mean greed on the part of those who want Western culture eliminated and all us "infidels" slaughtered, you're right on track. But if you are under the impression that peace can be had without our participation in the abovementioned conflict ... let me be kind and just say that you need to do a little research. And I DON'T mean going through the archives of MoveOn.org editorials. Please look for reference to those who have fought or are fighting to preserve your right to be snippy and uninformed.

quote:

And when you die, you rot in the ground, or where ever you may lay. So go peddle your BS editorial to the 700 club or the Christian coalition and let the scientists do their jobs.

Oh, but the scientists ARE doing their jobs. Those scientists, that is, who are involved in the many, many useful, effective, and ground-breaking avenues of research that use adult stem cells. We can look for huge advances from that field.

So ... why, again, would you NOT want to fund a research effort that is working as advertised? And why would you WANT to fund one that isn't?