POLITICS: Bush Seeks U.N. Support for Stem Cell War

President Bush banned the creation and cloning of embryonic stem cell lines in the USA, effectively prohibiting research and development of stem cell therapies. He is pressuring other countries in the UN to ban stem cell cloning world wide. Britain and other nations oppose the US proposal. Britain’s Lord May of Oxford responded to Bush’s pressure tactics by telling the US to feel free to pass whatever laws we like in our own country, but to keep our noses out of their business. In Lord May’s words…




Today’s epidemic diseases tend to be systemic and to involve the immune system, hormones and metabolism. Each case is slightly different, requiring expensive individualized medical care to prevent disease progression. Personalized therapy is not covered by private or public insurance. Consequently, diagnosis and treatment commonly are delayed until disease has progressed to a life threatening stage. Only secondary symptoms and complications are treated, most often with blockbuster drugs.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure many devastating diseases and certainly, to prevent disease progression. Unlike other preventive treatments, stem cells do not need to be tailored to the individual or the disease. Thus, stem cell therapy promises a “cost-effective alternative” to personalized medicine. Most significant, stem cell therapy is virtually guaranteed to replace blockbuster drugs, by preventing the symptoms they treat.

Drug manufacturing currently is the world’s most profitable and powerful industry, worth trillions of dollars each year.


Related News Links:
www.biomedcentral.com
news.bbc.co.uk
www.medscape.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
SOCIAL: Stem-Cell Research
Pentagon Bankrolls Swedish Stem Cell Study
SCI/TECH: California to Vote on $3B Stem Cell Project

[edit on 20-10-2004 by soficrow]

[edit on 10-20-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

Funny how Bush will claim that the US is not beholden to the UN in one sentence, then turn around and attempt to make the UN beholden to the US in the next.

We can invade Iraq, but if we say so, no one should be cloning.

Anyone smell megalomania?

Bush banned stem cell research to pander to the anti-abortion, anti-cloning, Darwin was wrong brigade.

He doesn't understand the science, the ethics has left him behind, the guy is chasing votes.

It's a shame Christopher Reeves was lost in this last month. There's never been a more visible advocate of the positive benefits this research could bring.

I think there have been numerous threads on ATS speaking about the ethical proplems with embryonic stem cell research, when there are many alternatives but harvesting the unorn appears to be an easier route.

Personally I support Bush on his stand against abortion and embryonic stem cell research - someone has to be in support of those who have the potential to be born. Why is it "liberal" to support the already born, and "conservative" to protect the unborn.

in a related humorous article:

"ROCHESTER, MN—In a major policy address at the Mayo Clinic Tuesday, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry drew a sharp distinction between himself and President Bush by championing unfettered scientific exploration of embryonic stem cells, which experts say could hold the cure to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Kerry's ailing campaign.

Above: Kerry displays a test tube, which he said "holds the potential to change millions of votes."

"The possibilities are limitless, both for science and my campaign," said Kerry, who enjoyed a bump in the polls after the debates but is still struggling to secure a lead over Bush. "If adequately funded, stem-cell researchers might find cures for hundreds of diseases, from diabetes to cancer. And, if the nation would focus on my opponent's ideological extremism, I might get elected."

www.theonion.com...

I think there have been numerous threads on ATS speaking about the ethical proplems with embryonic stem cell research, when there are many alternatives but harvesting the unorn appears to be an easier route.

Personally I support Bush on his stand against abortion and embryonic stem cell research - someone has to be in support of those who have the potential to be born. Why is it "liberal" to support the already born, and "conservative" to protect the unborn.

If you're really worried so much about innocent babies being exploited, your country would be in Africa working head over heels trying to rid that country of poverty.

These Neo Con Christians can put thier foots in thier mouths. Fetus's are not self-aware beings, perioud.

This research will have unprecedented ramnifications on how we treat diseases.

Deep

[edit on 20-10-2004 by ZeroDeep]

Oh come on 'harvesting the unborn' is somewhat emotive, and not really representative of what's involved.

However, I take your point that this has been debated, discussed to death, so lets not open that can of worms.

Point is though, this issue aside, it's rather cynical of the go it alone president to call in the UN on this issue.

Bush doesn't give a flying F--- about the U.N. or world opinion. This is playing to the sticks and nothing more. If we weren't mid-election he wouldn't even mention it.

Lister is right. This is only about votes. Bush isn't as dumb as many of you think that he is, and the science involved is not really all that complicated. He must know that there are many ways to harvest these cells other than abortion. He's just appeasing his Christian voting base, by making an issue of this.

LIster: Would you care to share with me how stem cells are extracted from embryos? And where will all these embryos come from once the "testing" phase is over?

Originally posted by Mynaeris
LIster: Would you care to share with me how stem cells are extracted from embryos? And where will all these embryos come from once the "testing" phase is over?

I'm obviously not lister, however I have two methods that do not directly invovle a fetus at all. Stem cells have been found in both placenta and amniotic fluid. These stem cells can be harvested without ever touching the embryo. At least that's the impression that I got. How many child-births do we have worldwide in a year? With the right procedures... I'd say that would provide plenty of stem cells... at least for research. Eventually we should even be able to clone individual stem cells without them even forming into an embryo. I could be wrong, so I'll look for a link or two.

~soficrow
Drug manufacturing currently is the world�s most profitable and powerful industry, worth trillions of dollars each year.

...hence the reason that Bush & Co. are trying to get a ban on stem cells.




...Its all starting to be clear to me...

Is Bush that ignorant to think that the U.N. would listen to anything he has to say after the way he has treated the U.N.????? He either has a lot of nerve or this country is being ran by dumb & dumber.

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty

~soficrow
Drug manufacturing currently is the world’s most profitable and powerful industry, worth trillions of dollars each year.

...hence the reason that Bush & Co. are trying to get a ban on stem cells.

...Its all starting to be clear to me...

Starting with this issue - Kerry has more pharmaceutical stock than the Bushs do. So try door number two, and please close it behind you.

In embryonic stem cell use the embryo is destroyed. It will never be revived it is dead. Will the people of the future all make sure that child baring women are given fertility drugs so that they can select a winner to develop into the required baby while the balance are used as spare parts (stem cell use). Yes there is a lot of talk of alternates to embryonic stem cell research, including harvesting from fat cells, and unbilical cord but neither give vast amounts of stem cells. So the final answer is to harvest embryos.

I understand people are falling for the whole well the embryos are just laying there doing nothing, but soon enough they would be bred and culled. Truly this is not sci-fi, if this had happened a few decades ago this could be you being used to possibly heal a living being because his life was more important.

I said nothing about Kerry, for all you know, Kerry could have been the 'Co.'.... Ill admit it wasnt but, what I was pointing to more was gouvernment itself and not so much who is leading the gouvernement, Im not so sure that it matters who is leading the USA...

I have always found it interesting that some of the folks who are so ardently 'pro-life' are the same folks who visit fertility clinics so they can conceive despite reproductive difficulties. Somehow God doesn't need help taking babies lives, only in producing them. It is even these unused fetuses which are being touted as the key to stem cell research; amazingly, however, they are off limits.

Originally posted by soficrow
President Bush banned the creation and cloning of embryonic stem cell lines in the USA, effectively prohibiting research and development of stem cell therapies.

*Sigh*

Please get your facts straight. President Bush loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cells research, much to the dismay of conservatives.

There are no restrictions on research involving stem cells harvested from adults.

This does not prohibit research and development of stem cell therapies. In fact, more than four dozen stem cell therapies have already been developed--all with adult stem cells.

You see, embryonic stem cells have a disturbing tendency to keep growing and growing. This is fine in a human embryo, which has to grow into a viable being within about nine months, give or take. This is definitely not fine in adults, in whom uncontrolled cellular growth is called cancer.

This is why there hasn't been a single human test of an embryonic stem cell therapy. Every time one has been tested in a laboratory animal, it's developed cancer.

This is the real situation: A promising therapy derived from adult stem cells, which can be developed without destroying a single growing life, versus an unproven, untested, and so far unpromising therapy that requires the creation and destruction of human embryos.

(Which, by the way, seems like a temptation for the big biotech companies to create a new profit center. Somebody has to harvest the human eggs--unless the embryos are transgenic creations of human DNA inserted into cow or pig eggs, which has already been done--and then kill them, harvest the stem cells, and sell them at a tidy markup to research labs. If Bush is pushing a pro-biotech agenda, wouldn't he be for embryonic stem cell research?)

Given that choice, which is better--logically if not morally?

To review the score:


Embryonic - 0
Adult - 56

Why is this even an issue?

...But first, let�s be clear that the real issue here is about what kind of science and treatments ordinary people can access. �Bone marrrow transplants and then stem cell therapies have been available in private clinics from the 1940�s. Anyone who thinks the rich are NOT getting embryonic stem cell therapies has some serious problems with denial. No legislation, whether federal or international, is going to impact the rich. They already have what they think they need; they do what they want; and nobody�s laws can touch them.

Second, the primary issue with stem cells transplants is insurance coverage. The fight for coverage of bone marrow transplants for leukemia took nearly 30 years � the efficacy of the treatment became public knowledge in the early 1960�s, which means it was already developed behind the scenes in private clinics. As far as expanding the treatment to other diseases � NO ONE in the insurance industry will embrace the idea. They will need to be dragged, kicking and screaming for decades, as with leukemia. �Most of the stem cell �debate� covers behind-the-scenes horse-trading between industries. Bottom line: the insurance industry does NOT want to cover transplants; drug companies DO want the ongoing profits from treating secondary symptoms and progression; we lose.

Third, most modern epidemic diseases result from protein conformation problems and fibroblast (stem cell) mutations. Spread in the body and progression result from cell-cell contact � an infusion of healthy stem cells will reverse the mutation processes, also by cell-cell contact, but numbers count. �The mutated stem cells (myofibroblasts) must be totally outnumbered for the treatment to work. And only cloning can provide the numbers needed.

As far as the utility of embryonic and other stem cell sources, each has its own strengths and limitations. There is no doubt that embryonic stem cells are required for the necessary forward leaps.

FYI � Catherine Verfaillie is a leading stem cell researcher and stem cell therapy pioneer � often credited with discovering bone marrow transplants as a cure for leukemia (bone marrow transplants being the original form of stem cell therapy). What I think Verfaillie did was front line the fight to get the treatment covered by insurance, and jump through hoops to prove and re-prove that the treatments worked. LOL... She is Director of the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute and is doing incredible work with stem cells derived from bone marrow and other sources. ... a review of her research illuminates the promise and limitations of various stem cell sources. ...A PubMed search will bring up hundreds of her articles. In the meantime, for a taste...
www1.umn.edu...
www1.umn.edu...

Update:

All the member states of the UN support a ban on reproductive cloning, but debate has members sharply divided over therapeutic cloning - and frustrated over 'deadlock.'
See: UN cloning vote unlikely today
www.biomedcentral.com...