It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Victory May Be Good for Stem Cells - Experts

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Some have raged that the President has been opposed to stem cell research, when in fact, he has actually encouraged this research, while refusing to grant federal funds for something that is so repulsive to many Americans on moral grounds.

Now, many are hoping that the new administration and the Republican dominated Congress may loosen the purse strings and broaden the types of stem cells that may be used for research.



Bush Victory May Be Good for Stem Cells - Experts

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Stem-cell research, a once obscure area of medical science that crossed over into politics during the 2004 election, may benefit from the re-election of President Bush, supporters said Wednesday.

Scientists in other fields were less optimistic after four years of an often antagonistic relationship with the Bush administration, but hope the end of the campaign season will bring the opportunity for cooperation.

Research involving stem cells taken from human embryos has won support across political and ideological lines, and a measure to spend $3 billion on the new science passed in a California ballot measure Tuesday.

Supporters also say they have enough votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass legislation to encourage the research on a federal level, despite clear opposition from Bush, who has severely restricted the use of federal funds for such work.

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20041103/sc_nm/election_science_dc




posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
That article is nice and all but i dont see bush going back on four years of policy just to reach out to the "liberals".I mean his party has made it a point to make "liberals" feel like they have a friend in bush.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
California supports stem cell research, Californians support stem cell research, importantly Schwarzenegger supports stem cell research. So ballot passes favorably in California. Bush doesn't and he never will, he will do everything in his power to stop or slow it federally and globally(!). Now he has even less need to support stem cell research when he doesn't have to court for votes.


Supporters also say they have enough votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass legislation to encourage the research on a federal level, despite clear opposition from Bush, who has severely restricted the use of federal funds for such work.

"We heard from a number of Republican members of Congress over the past several months who indicated support for stem cell research but didn't want to break with their president during a tough election battle. So they may feel free to express their support now," said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Campaign for the Advancement of Medical Research.


The article only says that the congress and senate may pass measures to help stem cell research. It even says right there 'despite clear opposition from Bush'. Bush still isn't supporting it and he never will. Last thing he will do is encourage it, he hasn't and he won't. He has made his position very clear and it's not going to change or he would risk to be a flip-flopper.

Funny thing is, that one gets harvestable embryo by mixing sperm and ova. They do that all the time in fertility clinics and throw away or freeze the excess embryos and no pro-life faction gives a crap about this 'mass murder'. Embryos are NOT aborted from wombs scraping with clothhangers in satanic rituals. Perhaps the opposition has something do with masturbation being a crime so the semen used shouldn't have been produced in the first place...

Sure I'm an optimist, but I doubt it will pass if Bush is given the chance to veto it.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by vibetic]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Just to let you know that the stem cell prop that passed in California allows for cloning of embryos for purposes of stem cell harvesting... which to me is akin to cannibalism and I hate to cause contention but really the embryos that are harvested for fertility treatments are done with the hope of making a living being to care and love... not to make a wonder drug for a pharmaceutical company to buy, produce and sell back to the taxpayers at a sky high price after the lovely Californian taxpayers footed the bill for the research. For your further edification the left over embryos are frozen for possible future use at great cost to the parents I might add... and if the parents do not have use for them... they can be adopted by other infertile couples or in the case of my friend who had triplets and then let an acquaintance adopt the rest of her frozen embryos 7 years later... by single women who cannot adopt a child due to not being married. She now has twins and plans to use the remaining eggs to try and get pregnant again; she can afford it so why not? If there are additional embryos left over they will be given/adopted to another acquaintance who recently lost a 14-year-old daughter to a genetic disease.

My point being that no one is complaining about what happens to these embryos because it is in the hands of their mothers and fathers who have went through many tough decisions, heartaches and financial cost to create life and therefore have great respect for the potential in that tiny egg and sperm... just think about it a bit okay

Granted those parents also have the choice to donate them to stem cell research as well...

However, the question I pose is why are we not talking about stem cell research with cord blood that has proven results and can be readily obtained after birth... I have no idea about the cost of a statewide implementation for this, but really feel it will be less then the prop that just passed. Not to mention that private companies offer collection and storage of cord blood across the county and will send the kit to your doctor who will collect and send it off to be stored in case you need it in the future... very helpful for families with predisposition to certain diseases.

Edited for horrible spelling and just plain bad typing


[edit on 4-11-2004 by melissaissim]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   

For your further edification the left over embryos are frozen for possible future use at great cost to the parents I might add... and if the parents do not have use for them... they can be adopted by other infertile couples or in the case of my friend who had triplets and then let an aquaintence adopt the rest of her frozen embroys 7 years later... by single women who cannot adopt a child due to not being married. She now has twins and planns to use the remaining eggs to try and get pregnant again, she can afford it so why not? If there are additional embroys left over they will be given/adopted to another aquainence who recently lost a 14 year old daughter to a genetic disease.


For your further edification, 10-60% of frozen embryos don't survive the thaw depending on their quality. They never live, they never grow anywhere, they're dead, they will be thrown into garbage, without any ceremonies whatsoever. In your terms, freezing could be considered as a death penalty for many of them.



However, the question I pose is why are we not talking about stem cell research with cord blood that has proven results and can be readily obtained after birth..


It's not like scientists are just standing and waiting doing nothing before they get embryonic stem cells. They're doing what they can with what they have. Give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells can be done without embryonic stem cells and I wouldn't oppose the ban since such behaviour would serve no purpose.

Do I see anything unethical in using embryos that can't survive ? No. But if there's no need for them and using them hurts feelings of someone then I wouldn't keep pushing those ideas if it was absolutely certain that there's no difference.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vibetic
For your further edification, 10-60% of frozen embryos don't survive the thaw depending on their quality. They never live, they never grow anywhere, they're dead, and they will be thrown into garbage, without any ceremonies whatsoever. In your terms, freezing could be considered as a death penalty for many of them..


I appreciate your response - I myself have not run across published figures about the survival rate of frozen embryos. If you can point me to this data I will definitely take a look and educate myself. I must stress I did not make this post out of any attempt to criticize you, merely to share what I feel is an amazing story pertaining to the topic. Furthermore, 10 - 60 % is a HUGE gap that is a lot of variable. Which causes me to identify more with the real life stories to which I have been a first hand witness. The triplets I know are now in 4th grade 2 girls and a boy...Nicolas, Natalie and Nicole. They greeted me this morning as I dropped off my youngest son at my sisters house. They excitedly informed me that my son likes to call Nicolas "BoBo" They were the three embryos who where harvested and implanted from their parents first cycle or "try" and all three took. The remaining 15 embryos were stored for seven years and when the facility that was storing them notified the parents that they were going out of business and would need to pay a staggering amount to move them to another facility, they started considering adoption. Something, which my sister mentioned to a friend of hers at the yacht club. As a result, the friend adopted the embryos, had three implanted during the first cycle and ended up having twins. To which my sisters mother and father-in law became live-in Nannies for over the last two years while they were fixing up their Sail Boat for retirement. There are still 12 embryos left... after over nine years of being frozen the adopted mothers' doctors have told her that they are all viable and have an equal chance of surviving.


Originally posted by vibetic
They never live, they never grow anywhere, they're dead, they will be thrown into garbage, without any ceremonies whatsoever. In your terms, freezing could be considered as a death penalty for many of them..


I must again stress that I appreciate your post, but would like to point out that many many embryos created both the "normal" way and for in vitro are created and do not "take" or in other words, result in a viable pregnancy. As any one who had had fertility problems knows, there are a million things that can happen to cause this and it is actually quite amazing how many factors influence our reproductive process at these critical stages. When I research the nitty gritty details, I am amazed and awed by the delicate balance required to make life. So contrary to your assumption that I would consider freezing a death penalty, I feel it is akin to those losses in the "natural" reproductive process and yet another factor in hands of the parents... they can choose to donate to stem cell research or they can choose to freeze them. Again, I would like to stress that these parents know the pains of trying to conceive and they also have experienced with awe, gratefulness and sometimes disappointment what medical technology and research has done for them and in my opinion, may have a propensity to make the choice to help other types of research.

My motivation against the Californian proposition is not against stem cell research per se, sorry if it appeared that way. It is against:

1. Cloning embryos while prohibiting the cloning for reproductive purposes. I think that the wording on the synopsis of this prop duped many (who unfortunately do not read the full text of the prop) into thinking that this prop prohibited cloning period. I am not endorsing cloning on any level, but my gut feeling is that if the motivation behind it is to create a human being to love and care for well... that doesn't offend me quite so much as cloning one to be a guinea pig. To create cures for sick people is a noble cause, yet doing it this way reminds me of cannibalism or Soylent Green in some way... its disconcerting to me.

2. I am also irritated at the fact that I will be footing the bill for this research as a Californian Taxpayer. Does anyone have any information if other states have taken it upon themselves to fund any type of scientific research program on a scale such as this, and ultimately at the taxpayers expense? Again finding cures to disease is a noble cause and really in a way I must respect the fact that the California populace supports a noble cause at their own expense, yet simultaneously I think the majority did not inform themselves of the details and let endorsements by Michael J. Fox and Arnold decide their vote. Furthermore, if the Californian taxpayers are paying for the research, shouldn't the ultimate cures and therapies derived from that research be free to them? Well we all know nothing is free, but I am sure you get my meaning.


From melissaissim
However, the question I pose is why are we not talking about stem cell research with cord blood that has proven results and can be readily obtained after birth..



Originally posted by vibetic
It's not like scientists are just standing and waiting doing nothing before they get embryonic stem cells. They're doing what they can with what they have. Give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells can be done without embryonic stem cells and I wouldn't oppose the ban since such behaviour would serve no purpose.


Again never did I propose a ban on this research, merely stated my differences with the proposition as I elaborated on above and questioned why we are not instead pursuing large amounts of funding for cord blood research as it has a track record that has proven results, while embryonic research is still relatively new. I send your question back to you; give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells, cannot be done with cord blood stem cells and moreover that cord blood stem cells have had less promising results then embryonic ones and I will agree with the justification of massive funding behind embryonic ones. It is just my sneaking suspicion that the prop is duplicity with a feel good cause behind it that focuses the attention away from one crucial fact... CALIFORNIANS ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR CLONING RESEARCH!


Originally posted by vibetic
Do I see anything unethical in using embryos that can't survive ? No. But if there's no need for them and using them hurts feelings of someone then I wouldn't keep pushing those ideas if it was absolutely certain that there's no difference.


Vibetic, I agree! I see nothing unethical in using embryos that can't survive, but who says they cannot? I have already said that I agree parents have the choice to donate embryos. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, but it doesn't mean that all embryos have no chance of survival, that is over simplifying the matter. Your not addressing my the most poignant element of the prop, the fact that these are not embryos which alternate fate is to be frozen, a process with could possibly render them unviable. We are talking about taxpayers paying for the cloning of human embryos. I think this fact has been pushed under the rug and I think it is also the reason that various groups want funding for this prop rather than drafting a prop, which would fund cord blood stem cell research. I just wanted to throw this out there and pose a general question, why not cord blood stem cell research? I for one would have been happy to donate, if it hadn't have posed an additional three thousand dollar cost at a time when I could least afford it, but if we were to provide a free service or other incentives well then that creates a whole new environment. I am simply wondering why this prop? Why not other alternatives??? Its just fishy to me



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Does any one else have any thoughts in regard to this proposition?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   


I appreciate your response - I myself have not run across published figures about the survival rate of frozen embryos. If you can point me to this data I will definitely take a look and educate myself.


The 10-60% figure I used was (roughly) visually derived from the blastomere survival chart given by Genetics & IVF institute, In vitro fertilization program in their website:
www.givf.com...
The full article accompanying the graph with specific explanation of it:
www.givf.com...

Georgia reproductive specialists approximate losses as follows:
www.ivf.com...
The exact number of embryos lost to cryoinjury varies, but it is very likely that freezing will cause loss of some embryos, perhaps as many as 25-50% of those cryostored. One interpretation of this is that cryopreservation may even act as a "selection gate" for the more viable embryos, though this has never been proven.

SHIR institutes for reproductive medicine approximate their losses to 20-25%
www.haveababy.com...
But they specifically choose only the healthiest looking embryos to freeze.

I haven't come across any independent research papers on the subject either, but I consider real numbers from practitioners on the field evenly just.



I must stress I did not make this post out of any attempt to criticize you, merely to share what I feel is an amazing story pertaining to the topic.

Despite the lack of attempt you succeed, and quite well if I may add. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with critique especially if it's as constructive and well presented as yours.



Furthermore, 10 - 60 % is a HUGE gap that is a lot of variable. Which causes me to identify more with the real life stories to which I have been a first hand witness. The triplets I know are now in 4th grade 2 girls and a boy...Nicolas, Natalie and Nicole. They greeted me this morning as I dropped off my youngest son at my sister’s house. They excitedly informed me that my son likes to call Nicolas "BoBo" They were the three embryos who where harvested and implanted from their parents first cycle or "try" and all three took. The remaining 15 embryos were stored for seven years and when the facility that was storing them notified the parents that they were going out of business and would need to pay a staggering amount to move them to another facility, they started considering adoption. Something, which my sister mentioned to a friend of hers at the yacht club. As a result, the friend adopted the embryos, had three implanted during the first cycle and ended up having twins. To which my sister’s mother and father-in law became live-in Nannies for over the last two years while they were fixing up their Sail Boat for retirement. There are still 12 embryos left... after over nine years of being frozen the adopted mothers' doctors have told her that they are all viable and have an equal chance of surviving.

I'm glad things are going well. My sincerely best wishes to everyone.



Originally posted by vibetic
They never live, they never grow anywhere, they're dead, they will be thrown into garbage, without any ceremonies whatsoever. In your terms, freezing could be considered as a death penalty for many of them..



I must again stress that I appreciate your post, but would like to point out that many many embryos created both the "normal" way and for in vitro are created and do not "take" or in other words, result in a viable pregnancy. As any one who had had fertility problems knows, there are a million things that can happen to cause this and it is actually quite amazing how many factors influence our reproductive process at these critical stages. When I research the nitty gritty details, I am amazed and awed by the delicate balance required to make life. So contrary to your assumption that I would consider freezing a death penalty, I feel it is akin to those losses in the "natural" reproductive process and yet another factor in hands of the parents... they can choose to donate to stem cell research or they can choose to freeze them. Again, I would like to stress that these parents know the pains of trying to conceive and they also have experienced with awe, gratefulness and sometimes disappointment what medical technology and research has done for them and in my opinion, may have a propensity to make the choice to help other types of research.

First of all I must apologize my assumption. It was an unjust generalization and I hope I didn't offend you in any way.

But according to Georgia reproductive specialists In 2000, live birth rates per thaw cycle were 18.3% versus 26.6% from fresh embryo transfer.
(www.ivf.com...).

And according to SIRM:

Those that survive are about one-third less likely to produce a baby than fresh embryos. There is little merit in freezing poor quality embryos as they will rarely produce a baby. Accordingly, we only freeze those embryos that microscopically appear to be healthy and of good quality.

www.haveababy.com...
(I wonder what happens to 'bad quality' embryos ?)

I feel confident to say, that the possibility of cryostored embryos developing into a human being is smaller than that of fresh embryos, therefore death-penalty comparison, in practical concern, is not as inaccurate as it is tasteless.



My motivation against the Californian proposition is not against stem cell research per se, sorry if it appeared that way. It is against:

1. Cloning embryos while prohibiting the cloning for reproductive purposes. I think that the wording on the synopsis of this prop duped many (who unfortunately do not read the full text of the prop) into thinking that this prop prohibited cloning period. I am not endorsing cloning on any level, but my gut feeling is that if the motivation behind it is to create a human being to love and care for well... that doesn't offend me quite so much as cloning one to be a guinea pig. To create cures for sick people is a noble cause, yet doing it this way reminds me of cannibalism or Soylent Green in some way... its disconcerting to me.

2. I am also irritated at the fact that I will be footing the bill for this research as a Californian Taxpayer. Does anyone have any information if other states have taken it upon themselves to fund any type of scientific research program on a scale such as this, and ultimately at the taxpayers’ expense? Again finding cures to disease is a noble cause and really in a way I must respect the fact that the California populace supports a noble cause at their own expense, yet simultaneously I think the majority did not inform themselves of the details and let endorsements by Michael J. Fox and Arnold decide their vote. Furthermore, if the Californian taxpayers are paying for the research, shouldn't the ultimate cures and therapies derived from that research be free to them? Well we all know nothing is free, but I am sure you get my meaning.

As I don't reside in California or follow closely how the information was presented to the public, I'm in no position to speculate on this matter.

If I've understood correctly recent decision of California stem-cell funding is unique in United States at least in magnitude. And by magnitude it's possibly largest in the whole world. But partly the reason for California to take this burden was the reluctance of federal government to do so.

I get your meaning, but I think the administration is expecting returns from the taxes of medical companies who will likely benefit from the influx of talented professionals who wish to work in the cutting edge of the industry.At least part of the information and data that yields from the research will probably be free and benefit Californians as well as everyone else in the world, but I doubt there's nothing coming specifically for Californians.

I do consider choosing to dedicate resources and hard earned money to something that has potential to do good change the whole world to a better place somewhat heroic... and somewhat Californian. (just my impressions and generalizations again perhaps)


From melissaissim
However, the question I pose is why are we not talking about stem cell research with cord blood that has proven results and can be readily obtained after birth..



Originally posted by vibetic
It's not like scientists are just standing and waiting doing nothing before they get embryonic stem cells. They're doing what they can with what they have. Give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells can be done without embryonic stem cells and I wouldn't oppose the ban since such behaviour would serve no purpose.



Again never did I propose a ban on this research, merely stated my differences with the proposition as I elaborated on above and questioned why we are not instead pursuing large amounts of funding for cord blood research as it has a track record that has proven results, while embryonic research is still relatively new.

Quite likely because nobody opposes cord blood research. It wouldn't even be necessary to pursue massive funding for it since pursue of cord cell based treatments is not federally opposed and can be done distributedly with federal funding.



I send your question back to you; give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells, cannot be done with cord blood stem cells and moreover that cord blood stem cells have had less promising results then embryonic ones and I will agree with the justification of massive funding behind embryonic ones.

If I had such proof I wouldn't be as petty and hide it while questioning you to present proof counterwise. But I do understand you didn't mean your reversal of question as an insult against my scientific integrity, I just don't have such proof and it's impossible to absolutely prove negative claim (prove that something is absolutely impossible). But I admit my request was a bit excessive.



It is just my sneaking suspicion that the prop is duplicity with a feel good cause behind it that focuses the attention away from one crucial fact... CALIFORNIANS ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR CLONING RESEARCH!

It's hard to tell, but I'm not inclined by any evidence to believe so.



Originally posted by vibetic
Do I see anything unethical in using embryos that can't survive ? No. But if there's no need for them and using them hurts feelings of someone then I wouldn't keep pushing those ideas if it was absolutely certain that there's no difference.




Vibetic, I agree! I see nothing unethical in using embryos that can't survive, but who says they cannot? I have already said that I agree parents have the choice to donate embryos. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, but it doesn't mean that all embryos have no chance of survival, that is over simplifying the matter. Your not addressing my the most poignant element of the prop, the fact that these are not embryos which alternate fate is to be frozen, a process with could possibly render them unviable. We are talking about taxpayers paying for the cloning of human embryos. I think this fact has been pushed under the rug and I think it is also the reason that various groups want funding for this prop rather than drafting a prop, which would fund cord blood stem cell research. I just wanted to throw this out there and pose a general question, why not cord blood stem cell research? I for one would have been happy to donate, if it hadn't have posed an additional three thousand dollar cost at a time when I could least afford it, but if we were to provide a free service or other incentives well then that creates a whole new environment. I am simply wondering why this prop? Why not other alternatives??? It’s just fishy to me



I have to admit I haven't fully researched what the proposition of California exactly contained so I have to withdraw from commenting the specifics and morality (if any) of cloning any further before I have the time to examine it better.

Nice post. My personal thanks for your constructive arguments and fresh viewpoints on this subject.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by vibetic]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Stem cell research will be made redundant by Nanotechnology eventually. Anything that can be done with Biotech can be done with Nanotechnology but with much greater accuracy. Right now that is not the case but with lots and lots of funding Self-Replicating Nanobots could fulfill the promises of Biotech made oh so many years ago. Who needs replacement parts that just fix u up. Build a better one I say. Going blind? Buy some synthetic eyes that can recieve mutiple spectrums of light kinda like Geordy on ST. It's not as far away as some people assume. Quad? No problem just rerout the nerve endings with advanced Fiber Optics and 'bypass' the faulty wiring. Lost a leg? Both of them? Then get new ones that enable you to run faster than a stallion.

All of this may seem like a pipe dream to alot of people, to some they'll say its 50-100 years off and some of the technologies I discussed are a long ways off but the seeds have to be planted today.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Vibetic - thanks for the great satisitcal information, I do see where your figures come from and also see the differing opinions throughout the scientific community. I also totally agree with the "natural Selection" thought on this matter.


Originally posted by vibetic

From melissaissim
However, the question I pose is why are we not talking about stem cell research with cord blood that has proven results and can be readily obtained after birth..



Originally posted by vibetic
It's not like scientists are just standing and waiting doing nothing before they get embryonic stem cells. They're doing what they can with what they have. Give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells can be done without embryonic stem cells and I wouldn't oppose the ban since such behaviour would serve no purpose.



Again never did I propose a ban on this research, merely stated my differences with the proposition as I elaborated on above and questioned why we are not instead pursuing large amounts of funding for cord blood research as it has a track record that has proven results, while embryonic research is still relatively new.

Quite likely because nobody opposes cord blood research. It wouldn't even be necessary to pursue massive funding for it since pursue of cord cell based treatments is not federally opposed and can be done distributedly with federal funding.


This is a thought that had not occured to me and a perfectly obvious one now that I think about it.


melissaissim
I send your question back to you; give me _solid_ proof that everything that can be done with embryonic stem cells, cannot be done with cord blood stem cells and moreover that cord blood stem cells have had less promising results then embryonic ones and I will agree with the justification of massive funding behind embryonic ones.



If I had such proof I wouldn't be as petty and hide it while questioning you to present proof counterwise. But I do understand you didn't mean your reversal of question as an insult against my scientific integrity, I just don't have such proof and it's impossible to absolutely prove negative claim (prove that something is absolutely impossible). But I admit my request was a bit excessive.


Right then, I think we both proved our points sufficiently.

I have to give
to you as well for the best thread I have ever participated in online... I am a newbie here, but beleive that I have found my new home.... bye bye Army Knowledge Online Forum (DOD site) Hello ATS, not directly due to the format, but rather the content and caliber of members.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by melissaissim]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join