Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Science

US Stem Cells Contaminated 758

Posted by Hemos from the stupid-deadends dept.
Croaking Toad writes "According to The Register, US-based scientists using stem cells has hit a brick wall. The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses. New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush." To be precise, stem cell harvesting wasn't outlawed; the usage of federal funding was outlawed. Several states and research institutions have been using their own money to undertake research. The AP coverage is up as well. Update: 01/24 19:40 GMT by J : Carl Zimmer has a fascinating description of the sugars we humans lack that contaminated the stem cell lines. What a curious genetic heritage we have...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Stem Cells Contaminated More

US Stem Cells Contaminated

Comments Filter:

  • "New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:21PM (#11457129)
    That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.

    • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)

      by odyrithm ( 461343 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:23PM (#11457171)
      "As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
      -- George W. Bush

      Just thought I'd help back up the parent there.
      • Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.

        • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:36PM (#11457379)
          Which is itself a bit of a misleading statement, as stem cell research is a very recent thing. It would be like saying "President Britany Spears III was the first president to fund time travel research" in the year 2145.
        • Did the Clinton administration receive any requests to fund stem cell research? If it didn't, then your point is meaningless. Maybe stem cell research didn't really exist before Bush became president?

        • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:55PM (#11457634)
          Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research at all so those saying that he cut funding are not accurate either.

          That is a campaign speech lie. He was not the first president to fund stem cell research. Under previous presidents, stem cell research was undertaken with federal funds for that purpose. However, to prevent controversy, they projects were labled "paralysis research" or such.

          So, Bush was *not* the first president to fund stem cell research. He was the first to say that it was ok to call stem cell research "stem cell research" on the grant application.
        • It is accurate. If your research depended on use or construction of stem cell research prior to Bush, your federal funding was cut unless you were already using one of the mentioned preexisting cell lines. There was federally funded research involving production of stem cells, some of which led to the already existing lines of stem cells. I have no idea where you got your information, but if I were you I would consider any information you get from political sources to be highly suspect, whether from Repub

      • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Did you even read what you copied? Funding wasn't just cut off for harvesting. It was cut off for any research using newly harvested stem cells.

        So, yes, a private company can harvest more cells and give them away, but any researcher who touches them can kiss his funding good bye.
      • And now that they are contaminated, they are useless, so there will be no more federally funded research on human embryonic stem cells. As your quote points out, future lines are off limits. I wonder who knew that and when...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Where's the logic ??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dave21212 ( 256924 ) <dav@spamcop.net> on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:27PM (#11458984) Homepage Journal

        I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...

        First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.


        Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization [babycentre.co.uk]. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.

        Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded anyway). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.

        So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?

        Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
        • If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.

          Incorrect. That is not what the order says.

          Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization.

          Incorrect again. That is not the only source of embryonic stem cells, but it is the only source for which federal funding is allowed.

          Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the p

    • As I recall it's a little more restrictive than that: federally funded research is not allowed to make any use of any stem cell line other than the pre-existing ones. So they also cannot use new lines that were harvested by someone else.
    • The difference between theory and practice is in theory quite small and in practice quite large. In theory, sure, "private investment" could continue the research, but we all know that's not going to happen.

      (apologies for horribly mangled quote)

    • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Informative)

      by Seoulstriker ( 748895 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:26PM (#11457223)
      You forgot another important word: human.

      The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
      • Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!

      • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Phat_Tony ( 661117 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:21PM (#11457983)
        Yes, as everyone points out over and over, Bush opponents regularly blow this totally out of proportion- it's not a "ban," stem cell research is not "illegal." This is simply a restriction on using Federal Government funding to support research that develops new lines of human, embryonic stem cells, and all four of those items in italics greatly reduce the impact of Bush's executive order compared to what is often claimed.

        Never the less, the executive order in question is reprehensible. Bush is using tenuous, illogical, religious grounds to justify denying a large category of funding to a promising area of scientific inquiry. Hundreds of potential stem cell lines for research are being destroyed daily from aborted fetuses. If Bush is in favor of destroying existing resources (human tissues) instead of using them to advance science and save lives, why not ban organ donation? Does anything in the bible say "thou shalt not help fund researching [new, human, embryonic] stem cells if thou art the [federal] government?" If this research is immoral, why only ban government funding, as opposed to all funding, or the research itself? If this is about abortion, why not oppose abortion, rather than research? Can anyone make sense of this policy? It scares me, not in how sweeping the effects are, but because The President, the "Leader of the Free World," is using executive orders [64.233.161.104] to dictate where scientific research funding goes based on personal, nonsensical, unpopular religious motives.

        I think the rest of government should do what the Pentagon [wpda.org] does, and ignore it. There's no basis in law for "executive orders" anyway. I doubt any president would allow a case based on violating an executive order to go to court, in case the Supreme Court ruled that Executive orders don't exist. Chances are, Bush can't do anything but get grumpy if the whole Federal Government simply ignores his ban.

    • The embryonic stem cells have certain desirable biological characteristics, such as pluripotency. In practice, it's somewhat difficult to separate non-federal funding from federal financing. E.g, previous federal grants may have been used to build and equip a laboratory, necessitating the building of separate, redundant facilities.

      • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:4, Informative)

        by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:35PM (#11458167) Homepage
        The NIH stem cell funding FAQ [nih.gov] might help you out with some of your misconceptions. Past funding is of no consequence. The prohibition only applies to current funding.
        Q: I am an investigator who receives NIH funding, and I am planning to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines. Can I conduct the derivations in my laboratory, or do I need to find a non-university-funded laboratory to do this work?


        A: You may do the derivation in your university laboratory as long as: 1) you carefully and consistently charge all direct costs of doing the derivation to a non-federal funding source and 2) your university or research center has in place a method of allocating the costs of supporting your laboratory so that this activity's appropriate facilities and administrative (F&A) costs are charged to non-federal accounts.

    • The same story ran on dateline NBC last night, and in their "in-depth coverage", they failed to point this out, as well as stating that stems cells are "byproducts from fertility clinics", without mentioning abortions. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that this is nowhere near in-depth coverage.

      • Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:55PM (#11457621) Homepage
        It's amazing how many people believe that stem cells come from abortions. The religious right does an amazing job of spreading bad information and nobody ever promotes correct information with as much zeal or money.

        Stems cells are very much "byproducts from fertility clinics". When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab. After a certain ammount of time, the healthiest embryos are chosen and implanted. The rest of the embryos are destroyed as medical waste. That's it. No abortions. Those embroys were never destined to be born. Why not help people with them?

        -B

        • Wait... (Score:3, Funny)

          by paranode ( 671698 )
          When married couples pay for in-vitro fertilization, the clinics fertilize many eggs in a lab.

          What about unmarried couples? Wait, you're one of those religious right-wing zealots aren't you?! Quit pushing your propaganda! Burn him at the stake!!

        • parent is (99%) correct:

          http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp [nih.gov]

          A couple goes to IVF(in vitro fertilization) clinic; an operation is performed to extract oocytes(unfertilized embryos). These oocytes are all fertilized and then frozen. The (now)embryos are thawed one at a time and incubated. When they have passed a critical point (the stage at which a genetic disease would develop for instance); the embryo is surgically implanted in the female.

          The embryos that are unused are very much THROWN

    • That's correct (Score:5, Informative)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:38PM (#11457401)
      That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off.

      That's correct, but also misleading. The executive order banned embryonic stell-cell research by any organization, group, or researcher receiving federal funding.

      Not federal funding for stem-cell research. Federal funding for any research, related or not. Nearly every research organization in the country receives federal funding in one form or another. If the lab across campus doing physics has a federal grant, you can't do embryonic stem-cell research (except using the existing, contaminated lines).

      The effect is the same as outlawing stem-cell research for 99.9% of all research facilities, a fact the fundies and Republican apologists like to play down or dismiss entirely. However, it doesn't make distortions like those in the summary any less obnoxious or inaccurate. There is at least one entirely privately funded research facility in California that is doing embryonic stem-cell research, our superstitious, less-than-intelligent, ever-so-less-than-competent president notwithstanding.

    • That's not true. Federal funding for harvesting embryonic stem cells was cut off. Huge difference.

      That's not true, Federal funding for any research done on new stem cell lines is denied. It's not just the harvesting. Huge difference.
  • The executive order related to what could be done with Federal dollars. To leave that out is a huge distortion.
    • Most research along those lines is done in labs that are, at least in part, federally funded. Might not stop new lines from popping up entirely, but it certainly makes things very difficult.
      • That association with federal funding has a lot of inertia to it, but the increasingly thorny ethical issues surrounding cloning, genetic manipulation, stem cells, etc., is turning the the Great Ship Research towards more state-based, or privately funded models. It surely takes time, though, for that boat to turn. There's a lot of people entrenched in the grant-money lifestyle.

      • Re:Private shops can continue as they see fit (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:35PM (#11457364)
        That makes this decision all the better. The current system that allows private companies to profit from research funded with federal grant money is broken. We should stop all such funding until the government gets royalties on discoveries made on it's dime, or until a compulsory license is issued for all patents on inventions discovered using public dollars.

  • A correction. (Score:3, Informative)

    by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:23PM (#11457164)
    New stem cell harvesting paid for with federal funding was prohibited by the executive order. Private and state funding can still be used for that purpose (like the money that California will be pumping into stem cell research).
    • No, it's a "viral" ban on fedearal funding in much the same way that some software licenses are "viral" licenses. It affects the entire organization it touches. It cuts funding to any ORGANIZATION that uses embyronic stem cells in research from new lines. That would mean that if anyone at a university is doing an experiment with embryonic stem cells, even if that experiment itself is privately funded, then the entire university loses all federal funding, not just the small group doing that one experiment

  • Old News (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:24PM (#11457177) Homepage Journal
    Geez, let's discuss old news, shall we? This was discussed by Kerry during the debates. From The Lantern, Oct 25, 2004 [thelantern.com]
    The Kerry/Edwards campaign said there are many reasons to explore the possibilities that come with stem cell research: broad bipartisan support from 58 Senators, fewer cell lines available today than in 2001, cell contamination from mouse cells used to help culture some cell lines, lack of cell availability, dated technology, and the loss of U.S. leadership in the area as scientist go overseas to work.

    See ya later, Johnny (1925-2005) and thanks for the memories!

  • To eliminate some FUD (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:24PM (#11457178)
    Since the OP didn't seem to bother reading the executive order:

    "Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

    No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above."

    Harvesting of new stem cell lines is not prohibited - a PI merely cannot continue to expect to receive government funding if s/he does so.

    • And since everyone is claiming that research using these stems sells will cure every known ailment, the major drug companies should be fighting each other to give money to every last researcher.

      Oh wait... they're not? And the $4 billion in funding in California was heavily pushed and lobied for by the private research companies who will be getting the funding?
      • You're talking huge amounts of research (read: huge amounts of money) before any useful, practical results are produced. Very few private companies have the resources, let alone the desire to fund such a venture. It costs about $1 billion just to develop a new drug, without radical new technology like stem cells. Much, much more fundamental research is needed before any profits can be made.
    • That's a pretty BIG prohibition if you think about it.

      It is my understanding that almost all clinical research has potential for Federal funding. Further, even though it may not be used, it's a pretty big deal to be excluded from funding because of the area of research a group or company may have been involved in. I don't know what the current dependence on federal funding is, but even the potential from your operation from being barred from receiving funds is a pretty scary idea. It wasn't necessary to
  • "New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA ..."

    The federal government decided not to fund harvesting new stem cells. That's a far cry from "outlawed".

    Anyone with the expertise can harvest new stem cells legally in the US, the Feds just won't be giving them grant money to do it.

    It's too bad whoever wrote the story didn't even bother to read a couple of paragraphs into their own linked text.
    • Interestingly, the government of Quebec has outlawed [theinterim.com] all embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of the embryo. And that ban applies to all researchers, both publicly and privately funded, using new or even old previously extracted, stem cells. You don't hear much about that.
  • Now the stem cell research money that Ca. ponied up in thier state question will pay them huge dividends nice.

    Good for them
    • The word on the street investment wise is that the smart money is already in all the stem cell research companies that have reasonable business plans and have passed technical review. The vast majority of the companies left to fund are the ones that the private dollars passed up.

      On the bright side, at least Callifornia has a huge new government jobs program.
      • and we know how "wise" wall street can be...
        • Actually....

          In parctice, private dollars usually err on the side of more risk. A tiny percentage of companies that are privately funded succeed, and even the ones that fail represent the best of the companies that go through the investors technical review process. Such a review process typically involves hiring some of the foremost experts in the related field to decide for the investors whether the concepts the company is based on are sound.

  • This is not news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:25PM (#11457218)
    This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.

  • New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush."

    No, it wasn't. Firstly, Executive Orders cannot create law (Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952))

    But more importantly, the EO in question applies only to research conducted with federal tax money. Private research institutions and some state-funded ones (including several in California and other states) are free to persue their own stem cell lines as they see fit.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:27PM (#11457239) Journal
    This was mentioned back in the Presidential debates. Bush said we have X Stem Cell Lines available, while Kerry said that the available lines are contaiminated with mouse DNA and probably other DNA.
    • Kerry also said that there are some 200,000 embryos currently in limbo as a result of IVF. In other words, sperm and eggs were harvested, embryos created and frozen. Some of those embryos were implanted, and resulted in successful babies. The recipients are now known as "complete families" and have no use for the remaining embryos.

      To be fair, some of those families may later change their minds and want another child, but by the time the woman passes childbearing age, those frozen embryos are pure, simple e

  • Embryonic Stem Cells (Score:3, Informative)

    by Orne ( 144925 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:27PM (#11457247) Homepage
    Last I checked, it was still ok to harvest adult stem cells for research.

    Oh, and even if you could harvest any embryonic stem cell in the world, you would still have the "transplantation" immune response problems that you see with those contaminated cells; after all, you are taking the DNA of a human (we can argue if that human was ever "alive" later) and implanting it into another "live" human, you better be sure that your significant proteins match [healthgoods.com].

  • Stem cell harvesting not outlawed. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greg@RageNet ( 39860 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:34PM (#11457356) Homepage
    New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the USA by a 2001 Executive Order from President Bush.

    This is slashdot, with the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather.. I should not have expected any different.

    Stem cell harvesting is not illegal, so harvest away. What you can't do accoring to that 2001 executive order is harvest stem cells and expect the government to pay for it. It's like saying Bush outlawed cars because he won't buy you one.

    That's fine with me anyway, it's beyond me why the government pays for reasearch that does not go into the public domain. Let pfizer pay for their own research! They don't need my subsidy.

    -- Greg

    • Re:Stem cell harvesting not outlawed. (Score:4, Informative)

      by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:08PM (#11457809) Homepage
      The executive order does not withold funding from the just harvesters of stem cells. It witholds funding from the entire organization that an experiment using those cells is a part of. In other words, if your university's biochemistry department is doing such an experiment, the entire university can lose funding - including, say, the physics projects, the engineering projects, the biology projects, the chemistry projects, etc. By making that "viral" association, it makes it so that organizations doing this kind of research cannot be part of any larger group. It messes up more groups than just those that people think it does.
  • The stem cells apparently have been contaminated for quite a while with animal proteins rendering them useless in the treatment of human illnesses.

    Let the conspiracy theories fly! Surely it was the fundamentalist conservative right wing; or was it the liberal fundamentalist hippie left? Perhaps the Nazis? I'm sure in the end we'll blame it on terrorists.

  • Cordblood, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by orion41us ( 707362 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:36PM (#11457371)
    Everyone seems to forget that embryos are not the only sorce of stem cells.... bood from the ambylical cord contain stem cells, these cells are already being harvestead and used to treat spinal cord injuries.... as posted in this Slashdot Artical [slashdot.org].

  • Contaminated? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:37PM (#11457396)
    From The Corner [nationalreview.com]:

    Well, fundamentally it's an effort to make an argument for new stem cell lines, by undermining the viability of all the existing lines, including those federally funded. There's not much new to it, except now it's dressed up in a "new" study, when everyone has always known that these lines (not just the Bush-approved ones, but almost all ES cell lines developed past a certain stage) were developed with so-called mouse feeder cells. To call this "contamination" is simply dishonest. A good number of cell products used in humans are developed with feeder cells from animals, and some of these (not embryonic cells, but other cell products) have been successfully developed into medical treatments in the past.

    A couple of key points. First, it is not true that all the Bush-approved lines were developed with these mouse feeder cells. There are sixteen lines (not counted in the LA Times's "20 or so" available lines) that have been frozen in an early state, so as to wait for better cell development techniques. These have never been exposed to mouse feeder cells or any other cells, they are frozen and could be used if these folks had a better method to suggest.

    Second, the FDA has a lot of experience dealing with cell products (again, not embryonic stem cell, but others) developed with such animal cells. Then-administrator of the FDA Mark McClellan, in testimony before [the president's bioethics council] in September of 2003 [found here] was asked about the mouse feeder layer issue in embryonic stem cells, and he replied: "We've certainly had experience, successful experience, in thousands of patients in documenting the safety of cells that have been exposed to animal feeder cells, mouse feeder cells, and the like."

    This new study strikes me as a partially dishonest repackaging of old worries in an effort to put new pressure on the Bush administration's funding policy. The trouble with it, as with all similar efforts by the researchers, is that the policy is based on a moral conviction, not a scientific assessment. Even if what they are saying were correct, it doesn't change the moral problem with embryonic stem cell research, and so will not change the policy. And from what I can see, it isn't correct either.

    Par for the course, alas. What a course!

  • This puts an end to some brain-drain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Larsie ( 740598 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:40PM (#11457417)
    The Belgian scientist, Catherine Verfaillie, who was leading the Stem-cell research department of the University of Minnesota is coming back to Belgium because of the whole anti-stem cell research climate in the US and because it is becoming harder and harder to find appropriate funding. If this kind of thing goes on, the US will quickly lose its leading position in some kinds of research. And I think that another four years of Bush might quickly accelerate this trend.

  • Probably offtopic, but very newsworthy IMHO... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:49PM (#11457545)
    ...some Argentinian doctors are working [ipsnews.net] on a diabetes treatment [blogicus.com] using adult stem cells (from the same patient) injected in the pancreas. Apparently a test patient pancreas' subjected to the procedure, which is said to be fairly simple, started to produce insulin again.

    I submitted this twice and for some reason it wasn't accepted. Not that i'm holding a grudge, but i have diabetic friends and this is major news for me, and perhaps could change some people minds' about stem cell research (not embryonic stem cell research though, which is a more delicate subject).

  • Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:5, Informative)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) * on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:56PM (#11457642) Homepage
    It really comes down to this: "Imagine if abortion saved lives."

    There's an astonishing report out of China; it can be read here [guardian.co.uk]. (The story, already quite poignant, is made even more so by the realization that the author is himself tetraplegic and is considering the procedure himself.) Essentially, the Chinese have already abandoned stem cells, and have moved onto nasal cells from four month old fetuses. They're working. Read this:


    His patients - foreign and Chinese - and their families appear to adore him, and to accept what he does with foetuses. Huang has already operated on 500 people. Every month, at least a dozen more fly in. He gets hundreds of new inquiries a week and his waiting list for foreigners now stretches until next December. So many Chinese patients have asked for treatment that he says he could be busy for 10 years, even though he has trained at least five other doctors in the procedure.

    "We need 100 more Dr Huangs," says Laura Jackson's father Daryl. "And we need more cells. It's a different government over here. They have to trim the population. There are 15 to 20 million abortions in China a year. If everyone who was aborted could save a life, there would be no sick people left in the world." Golden's Christian wife, Debbie, also sees Huang as an idealist - particularly in comparison to the US doctors who charged her husband almost $1m, but were able only to make him more comfortable in his wheelchair.

    "In the US it's totally about money, but China is more ethical," she says. "They work harder. I'm American, so that is very hard to say.

    "I don't agree with abortion, but it will happen anyway. In the US, we do abortions but don't use the cells. In China, they don't just take life and destroy it - they give something back. It's like lemonade out of lemons. You take something bad and you make it good." Such reasoning requires a moral somersault, but it is one that can be done easily in China. That is enough to generate hope.


    Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, and morality will inexorably be rewritten to allow whatever is required to survive. This is ultimately what will end the abortion wars, and pro-lifers are horrified at this (likely) endgame.

    • Re:Why The War Over Stem Cells (Score:4, Informative)

      by ericzundel ( 524648 ) * on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:44PM (#11458317) Homepage Journal
      Dr Huang is pretty famous, and famously evasive about following up on patients that have gone through his procedures. MIT's Technology Review has a subscribers-only article [slashdot.org] about Dr Huang. Basically, the criticism is that he is providing a theraputic procedure that has not really been studied, and he refuses to study the long term results. Although his techniques may have benefits, this is not regarded as the best that stem cell research has to offer.

  • Jackelope (Score:3, Funny)

    by bombadillo ( 706765 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @01:58PM (#11457678)
    I see this as an interesting prospect. If we mix JackRabbit with Antelope stem cells we may finally have the fabeled "Jackelope"! No longer will we have to resort to glueing horns onto a stuffed rabbit!

  • logic ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:01PM (#11458591)

    I have absolutely no moral or ethical objections to harvesting stem cells. I don't consider undiferentiated cells to be " a human life". I also have a close family member who has Parkinsons disease. I am strongly-pro stem cell reasearch.

    But I take issue with Dr Ajit Varki foisting fake science on the public.

    from The Register:

    "The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated by Neu5Gc even when grown in special culture conditions with commercially available serum replacements, apparently because these are also derived from animal products.

    The argument for the necessity of harvesting new human stem cells goes like this:

    Having established that culturing stem cells in a serum replacment derived from animal products contaminates the cells with Neu5Gc, scientists attempt to rid existing cell lines of Neu5Gc by culturing them in serum replacement derived from animal products. This fails to rid the stem cells of Neu5Gc. Therefore, they conclue that existing cell lines can not be rid of Neu5Gc by growing them in a in serum not derived from animal products. It is therefore necessary to harvest new cell lines and grow them in culture not derived from animal products.

    Try growing existing cell lines in serum not derived from animals and see if that rids them Neu5Gc. Then get back to us.

    So, logically... If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!

    Same thing, different century.

  • Research does not have to stop. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by $criptah ( 467422 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:24PM (#11458942) Homepage

    There are two things that puzzle me about the United States of America: fear of human sexuality and fear of progress.

    Blowing things up on TV and showing violence on the news is okay. People start complaining only if a part of a naked female body appears on the tube or if those *damn* scientists try yet another method that could potentially save us from suffering and premature death. Whoever thinks that U.S. is a country of freedom has never tried to get an abortion in Mississippi or teach evolution in Georgia's public schools. I do not even want to start talking about stem cells...

    Although federal funding is cut, I suspect that it will not stop research in the long run. I hope that my state decides to follow California and raise its own money for embryonic stem cell research. And if I ever become a millionaire, I know where I am going to spend my money. Moreover, you do not have to be rich in order to achieve something. Although I do not have education in biotechnology and other related fields, I think that there are some kids at MIT and Harvard that can achive something that I can't. If we provide enough financial support through small donations, we can fund public labs that rely on money, not religious influence of our government. If this country was able to raise millions of dollars for the victims of the recent tsunami, I believe we can rase enough money for small scientific projects. Once these projects start returnig results, companies will jump on the bandwagon and the industry will be able to support itself without Mr. Bible's say.

  • Where is the logic in the argument ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dave21212 ( 256924 ) <dav@spamcop.net> on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:47PM (#11459306) Homepage Journal

    I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...

    First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.


    Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization [babycentre.co.uk]. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.

    Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on /.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.

    So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?

    Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?

    To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.


    p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close