UK survey: doctors should probably kill patients

The British Social Attitudes Survey is being reported in UK papers today as "4 out of 5" and 80% of respondents feel that a doctor should be able to kill patients requesting to be killed and who are going to die anyway. The support for killing goes down if the patient is not likely to die soon of his disease or if a family member should kill the patient and for suicide with assistance from the physician.

The Guardian OnLine reports the story this way:

In a finding confirming that British public opinion is at odds with the law, today's British Social Attitudes Survey reveals strong support for euthanasia, though only in carefully defined circumstances.

Research conducted for the survey indicates that backing for voluntary euthanasia depends strongly on whether someone is terminally ill, on levels of suffering and on how death occurs. There is much greater support for a doctor being permitted to end someone's life rather than a relative, or than suicide assisted by a doctor.

Strongest support - from 80% - came for the suggestion that a doctor should "probably" or "definitely" be allowed by law to end the life, at the patient's request, of an individual with an incurable or painful illness from which they will die, such as cancer.

Seventy-five per cent backed doctor-administered euthanasia for those with an incurable and terminal illness who say their suffering is unbearable.

However, public support for euthanasia drops dramatically for cases where an individual is not already facing death as a result of their condition. Where the patient has an "incurable and painful illness, from which they will not die", 45% support assisted dying, while only 43% back euthanasia for those not in danger of death but permanently and completely dependent on relatives.

When questioned on a specific condition, public backing falls still further. Exactly a third of people said they would condone euthanasia for individuals with an incurable and painful but not terminal illness, such as severe arthritis.

From the (Scotland) Herald:

VOLUNTARY euthanasia for terminally ill patients is supported by eight out of 10 people in Britain, according to the latest survey of social attitudes.

Professor Sheila McLean, of Glasgow University, and a team of researchers from the National Centre for Social Research investigated attitudes towards assisted dying and found a large majority were in favour if doctors were in charge of the procedure.

The British Social Attitudes Survey found 80% supported voluntary euthanasia for "a person with an incurable and painful illness, from which they will die, for example someone dying of cancer".
continued...

There is less public support in cases where a person will not die from their incurable illness, with only 45% found to be in favour.

A similar proportion supported the right to die for someone who is completely dependent on relatives for washing and feeding but not in pain or danger of death.

Euthanasia by a doctor attracted the most support - 80% - while physician-assisted suicide was supported by 60% and slightly less than half said relatives should be allowed to administer voluntary euthanasia. A link between religion and attitudes towards assisted death was found with support waning among regular worshippers.

Times Online coverage is not nearly as informative as either of the above sources, but it's available here.

Each of the articles review recent attempts to legislate in favor of euthanasia and notorious cases that have been in the news.

Thanks to Matthew Eppinette, again.)

Insulin from Umbilical Cord Cells

Another lead from Wesley Smith and Matthew Epinette at Bioethics.com on a report that Korean researchers have reported in the Korean Times that they will soon publish that they have produced beta islet insulin producing cells from umbilical cord blood. The abstract of the unproofed "in press" article is free here, at the website of the Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. You can also purchase access to the unproofed article.

Reference:
"Induction of human umbilical cord blood-derived stem cells with embryonic stem cell phenotypes into insulin producing islet-like structure." Bo Sun, (a,b), Kyung-Hwan Roh (a,b), Sea-Rom Lee (a,b), Yong-Soon Lee (a) and Kyung-Sun Kang (a,b). (a)Laboratory of Stem Cell and Tumor Biology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; (b) Adult Stem Cell Research Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.01.069
Article in Press, Uncorrected Proof

Received 29 December 2006. Available online 24 January 2007.

Mothers keep on giving

Stem cells, that is.

We have further proof of yet another naturally occuring adult stem cell line that contributes to treatment of diabetes in the recipient long after introduction of the cells and without immune rejection.

Scientists have reported in the "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (Free abstract) about the discovery that mother's stem cells may cross the placenta and that- in those babies who grow up and later develop Type I diabetes ("Juvenile Diabetes," or "Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitis") - some of those cells help repair the pancreas and make insulin.

The researchers thought they would find evidence that the maternal cells might actually cause the diabetes, but instead found that the maternal cells had become beta islet cells of the pancreas, the cells which produce insulin, and were functioning in a beneficial way, years later.

From the online journal, ScienceDaily,

For the first time, scientists have discovered that cells passed from mother to child during pregnancy can differentiate into functioning islet beta cells that produce insulin in the child. The same study also found that maternal DNA was found in greater amounts in the blood of children and young adults with Type 1 diabetes than their healthy siblings and a control group, implying that they may be attempting to repair damaged tissue.
The findings suggest a beneficial role for this type of maternal microchimerism. Microchimerism is the term used when an individual harbors cells or DNA that originate from another genetically distinct individual.

In this study, published in the Jan. 22 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, J. Lee Nelson, M.D., a member of the Clinical Research Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and colleagues found no evidence that the mother's cells were attacking the child's insulin cells and no evidence that the maternal cells were targets of an immune response from the child's immune system.

"We think the maternal cells may be helping to regenerate damaged tissue in the pancreas," Nelson said.

She said investigators are excited about new possible approaches to treat Type 1 diabetes raised by their findings. For example, if maternal microchimerism results in cells that make insulin, a mother's stem cells might be harvested and used to treat her diabetic child. Such cells would have a genetic edge over donated islet cells from a cadaver that are usually completely genetically mismatched.

"The child is probably tolerant to the mother's half-matched cells because the child acquired the cells during its life as a fetus while its immune system was still developing," Nelson said.

Originally, the study of 172 individuals and pancreatic tissue from four males was designed to ask the question whether these small numbers of maternal cells might be involved in any way in Type 1 diabetes. "My initial theory was that perhaps, in some situations, too many mother cells cross over to the fetus at the wrong time, becoming beta cells that make insulin in the child. Could diabetes result because the child lost tolerance to those cells because they are genetically half foreign? Our research disproved this," she said.

Instead, the researchers found a small number of female islet beta cells in male pancreatic tissue (procured from autopsies) that produced insulin. "To our knowledge a maternal contribution to endocrine function has not previously been described," the authors said. "Our findings also raise the possibility that naturally acquired microchimerism might be exploited to therapeutic benefit."

The study found significantly higher levels of maternal DNA in the peripheral blood of 94 children and adults with Type 1 diabetes as compared to 54 unaffected siblings and 24 unrelated healthy subjects they studied. Maternal microchimerism first was recognized in children with severe combined immunodeficiency in the 1970s. In 1999, a study by Nelson et al was first to show that maternal microchimerism persists into adulthood for persons with uncompromised immune systems (Journal of Clinical Investigation 104:41-47).

Researchers in the UK also contributed to the report. From the BBC:

Jo Brodie, of the charity Diabetes UK, said scientists trying to perfect islet cell transplantation as a treatment for diabetes faced problems sourcing enough material, and preventing the recipients' immune systems from attacking the newly transplanted cells.

"If cells with the potential to produce insulin can pass from mother to child during pregnancy, without the child's immune system destroying them as seems to be the case here, then this could open up promising new avenues of research, and perhaps provide a new source of insulin-producing cells for therapeutic use."

(That 1999 article is available free online at PubMed Central: "Microchimerism of maternal origin persists into adult life." Maloney S, Smith A, Furst DE, Myerson D, Rupert K, Evans PC, Nelson JL.J Clin Invest. 1999 Jul 1; 104(1): 41-47.PMCID: 408407.)

Where did the stem cells come from in the mother? How are they preserved in the child through the years, even when mom and child would not be considered a good "tissue match" for organ donation? And how are they stimulated and recruited to the necessary tissues and organs in order to contribute to the repair and function of the child's tissues? How can we mimic and maximize the process when and where we want?

All of these questions are fertile ground for research. And not a one of the answers will depend on the destruction of a human being.

There's coverage in the January 22 Washington Post. However, the article states that Type I diabetes is inherited. The tendency may be inherited, but I don't believe that anyone has determined the actual gene or any specific trigger that can be said to cause Type 1 diabetes, other than the patiint's own immune system begins to make antibodies against the beta islet cells and insulin. Somehow, the mother's cells aren't affected in this case - which makes the discovery even more important and hopeful for patients: there has always been the concern that any new stem cells introduced into the patient would also be subjected to attack.

More information on Type 1 diabetes at E-Medicine.com (a very reliable site for medical information) and from The American Academy of Family Physcians. That last link is courtesy of the Post.

Hat Tip to Wesley Smith and Matthew Eppinette at Bioethics.com (as well as my Google News Search alerts).

Follow the DNA trail - "superbugs"

Google News search alerts sent me to Weazlesrevenge blog, and an article originally published in (of all places) WIRED magazine about resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii that - it turns out - moved from European hospitals back to the war zone in Iraq.

Since biochemistry in college, I've never been able to figure out why E. coli hasn't wiped us all out. E. coli, the bacteria that normally makes up the bulk of the intestinal contents and which causes disease when people are exposed to a new strain, is able to exchange genetic information with other bacteria in just about every way possible. E. coli is the reason you're told "don't drink the water" in some countries and remember the spinach?

It appears that one of the strains of Acinetobacter that has been a deadly problem for our soldiers injured in Iraq (reported by Forbes magazine in 2005) is another adaptable bacteria:

When a team of geneticists unlocked the secret of the bug's rapid evolution in 2005, they found that one strain of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii carries the largest collection of genetic upgrades ever discovered in a single organism. Out of its 52 genes dedicated to defeating antibiotics, radiation, and other weapons of mass bacterial destruction, nearly all have been bootlegged from other bad bugs like Salmonella, Pseudomonas, and Escherichia coli.

At first, it was assumed that the bacteria came from the dirt and dust in the field in Iraq, resulting in contamination of war-zone hospitals and moving on to the secondary evacuation hospitals and eventually back to the US. Instead, DNA infectious disease detectives discovered that the germ originated in Europe and moved to the Iraqi hospitals by hitchhiking on medical personnel and equipment.


Little packets of circular DNA called "plasmids," protected packets called "phages," and even loose DNA in the environment, allow the exchange of information between one individual bacterium and another. Here and here are sites that explain the processes in more detail. And it may have you looking at that raw fruit or vegetable or the funny spot on the bread a little differently.

Never fear, the WIRED author tied the bacterial infection in with high tech informational nature of the magazine. I appreciate the twist on words:

In the open source world of bacteria, everyone is working for the resistance. Ramping up the immunity of any single organism, while dramatically increasing the size of the population most susceptible to infection, only helps the enemy. To an aspiring superbug, war is anything but hell.

Website update and event announcements

I've updated the "News and Events" page at LifeEthics.org to include pictures from testimony to Texas Legislators in September of last year. (There are grand daughter pictures!)

I haven't figured out how to get a decent calendar for the site, yet. The current version of the site is built using Microsoft Publisher, but I'm learning - or trying to learn - how to use the new Expressions Web.

However, I have been invited to speak on Bioethics in Texas Legislation and Policy at two meetings in the next few weeks. I'll be at my "hometown" Comal County Republicans on January 30th and then at the Texas Republican Assemblies annual meeting in Austin, Texas on February 17th.

(In order to maintain my non-partisan standards, please note that the first event documented at LifeEthics was for the annual convention of the Texas "Democrats for Life.")

Nanofiber Scaffolds for Neural Stem Cells (and some truth)

Johns Hopkins researchers report that they have developed "nanofibers" impregnated with special proteins which allow them to grow neural stem cells from embryonic stem cells without "requiring high concentrations of growth factors."

One of the researchers, Neuroscientist Hongjun Song, comments on the immediate results of the research, which will not include actual patient therapy:

“Eventually, stem cells will be very important for treating disease using cell replacement therapy, but more immediately stem cells offer the opportunity to model human disease and find ways to screen for therapeutic drugs to treat the disease.”

Song is a member of the body which oversees stem cell research at Johns Hopkins, the "Stem Cell Policy and Ethics Program." This means that even though he has a vested interest in maintaining his own lab and promoting his research, he is among those at Johns Hopkins who determine how to follow the institution's mission:

• Facilitate the ability of the public to benefit from advances in cell engineering in morally responsible ways;
  
  
• Anticipate moral and policy challenges in stem cell science and cell engineering; and


• Provide opportunity for careful and interdisciplinary analysis of these challenges that will be of assistance to both policymakers and the public.

The inclusion of Song in justifying and lobbying for his own work under the guise of "ethics" is a serious conflict of interest and can not be called "morally responsible."

The good news is that some people see an end to the use of embryo destruction. From the article posted earlier today on trading eggs for in vitro fertilization fees:

In any case, the need for eggs may only be temporary.

They are, in fact, only a tool to reprogram the inserted DNA so that it will drive the development of an early embryo. Scientists hope to learn enough about that reprogramming process to let them take an ordinary cell from a person and use it to produce other kinds of cells, perhaps without going through an embryo stage. That might happen in 10 years, Murdoch estimated.

And then they wouldn't need eggs any more.

Trading eggs for fertility treatment

Women who are desperatly trying to get pregnant, but who cannot afford to pay $5,000 - $6,000 for in vitro fertilization may be offered lower IVF fees in exchange for donation of some of their oocytes for research in the UK. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority approved the trades for one lab last July, but are now seeking public comment, according to an Associated Press article.

The limiting factor for embryonic stem cell research has never been the restrictions placed on US Federal funding. The problem is obtaining eggs from women.

So far, the track record for altruistic donations is mixed. On one hand, hundreds of women volunteered to donate eggs in South Korea for research by the now-disgraced scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who fraudulently claimed success in therapeutic cloning.

But Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. of Alameda, Calif., said he has given up trying to get donations without compensation. After more than a year of pursuing that strategy and about 100 advertisements, ACT was able to get only one woman to donate eggs, he said in an e-mail.

And Kevin Eggan of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who's been seeking eggs since May in return for reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, said recently that the effort had generated some calls but no donors yet. The approach must be given more time to work, he said.

Murdoch, who also directs a fertility treatment center in Newcastle upon Tyne, said that when her lab asked fertility-clinic patients to donate eggs, it received only 66 over seven months. That's just not enough, she said.

In contrast, if her new plan attracts two women a week — chosen because they appear likely to produce lots of eggs — it would provide 20 eggs each week. That's still not a lot, but the supply should be steady, she said.

Her "egg-sharing" plan resembles an arrangement that's used occasionally at fertility clinics. In that plan, a woman shares her eggs and treatment costs with another woman who wants a baby.

Murdoch's group has permission from Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to set up the arrangement for stem cell research. Now it's a question of raising money to finance it. Murdoch said she hopes to start offering the deal to British women in a few months, and that she has already heard from dozens of women eager to participate.

Though the HFEA approved Murdoch's plans in July, it has since started gathering public and expert opinions on whether egg sharing should be permitted. "If the consensus is that this is not a good idea, we can change the policy, and rescind the license," said John Paul Maytum, an HFEA spokesman.

Proof there's no stem cell "ban"

Wesley Smith, at his blog Secondhand Smoke, notes that American Cell Technology has received a grant from the National Institute of Health for research on embryonic stem cells. He also points out what should be obvious: ACT must have received this funding for research on the stem cell lines that are authorized under President Bush's August, 2001 policy.

(In case you can't remember who ACT is, they're the organization that claimed to have cloned human embryos back in 2001, and who claimed to have found a way to produce embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo when in fact they killed every one of those human embryos they used. The company is one of the best examples of the sort of ethics that make people like me think of "ethics for sale." ACT has employed ethicists Art Caplan and Glenn McGee and is very closely associated with Geron, WARF (the research foundation at the University of Wisconsin).

So much for the myth that these cells can't be used or that there is any sort of "ban."

The focus of the research is basic research on how Embryonic Stem Cells divide and differentiate.

From the Washington Business Journal:

The money will support an ongoing collaboration between Alameda-based Advanced Cell (OTCBB: ACTC) and The Burnham Institute of Medical Research in La Jolla.
Researchers are investigating the genetic mechanisms and proteins believed to control how basic embryonic stem cells develop and differentiate. That understanding is essential in harnessing the regenerative powers of stem cells in medical applications, the company says.

This is very basic research, not an actual attempt to produce cells for use in treatments. Hopefully, the added knowledge will point to ethical, non-destructive ways to obtain stem cells for treatment in actual patients.

Support science and human rights for all

That's the point that Yuval Levin makes in his New York Times op-ed piece (free registration required), "A Middle Ground for Stem Cells," today. The essay is also available online at the International Herald Tribune.

It is, to begin with, not about stem-cell research, any more than an argument about the lethal extraction of livers from Chinese political prisoners would be a debate about organ transplantation. There are ethical and unethical ways to transplant organs, and there are ethical and unethical ways to conduct stem cell research. The question is to which category a particular technique — the destruction of living embryos for their cells — belongs.

The debate is also not about whether there ought to be ethical limits on science. Everyone agrees there should be strict limits when research involves human subjects. The question is whether embryos destroyed for their cells are such human subjects.

But that does not mean the stem-cell debate is about when human life begins. It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact that a human life begins when an embryo is created; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later.

But that does not by itself settle the ethical debate. The human embryo is a human organism, but is this microscopic being — with no self-awareness and little resemblance to us — a person, with a right to life?

Many advocates of embryo-destructive research argue that the human embryo is just too small, too unlike us in appearance, or too lacking in consciousness or sensitivity to pain or other critical mental capacity to be granted a place in the human family.

But surely we have learned the hard way not to assign human worth by appearances. Surely we would not deny those who have lost some mental faculties the right to be regarded with respect and protected from harm. Why should we deny it to those whose faculties are still developing?

At its heart, then, when the biology and politics have been stipulated away, the stem-cell debate is not about when human life begins but about whether every human life is equal. The circumstances of the embryo outside the body of a mother put that question in perhaps the most exaggerated form imaginable, but they do not change the question.

The evidence of nature sometimes makes it very hard to believe that all human beings are equal. It takes a profound moral case to defend the proposition that the youngest and the oldest, the weakest and the strongest, all of us, simply by virtue of our common humanity, are in some basic and inalienable way equals.

Our faith in that essential liberal proposition is under attack by our own humanitarian impulses in the stem-cell debate, and it will be under further attack as biotechnology progresses. But the stem-cell debate, our first real test, should also be the easiest. We do not, at least in this instance, face a choice between science and the liberal society. We face the challenge of championing both.

President George W. Bush's stem cell policy seeks to meet that challenge. It encourages scientists to pursue the cells they seek without destroying life.

Please consider reading the rest at one of the links above.

Calling all scientists

The Aspen Ideas Festival is a meeting that I had never heard of until recently (I actually found it Googling for "Bioethics and Politics" and "Bioethics and Policy" which are names I've come up with for alternative blogs in case I decide to change my focus) There are audio recordings and transcripts online which contain segments that should be fascinating to many of us, whether our primary interest is religion, politics or bioethics.

If you want to see who are considered the elite thinkers in this country - at least by others who consider themselves elite thinkers - take a look at the website and listen or watch some of the sessions from the July, 2006 event.

One segment is audio-only, "Politics and technology." Nigel Cameron links to it on his blog, and he was the sole prolife member of the panel. Other panel members include Neal Lane, a professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University at Houston, Texas and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1998-2000, Doroth Shore Zinberg, a sociologist and lecturer in Science, Technology and Public Policy at Harvard, and Lawrence Krauss, a professor in Physics and Astronomy who has written The Physics of Star Trek.

The one thing that all of the panelists agreed to in the very enlightening hour and a half, is that all of us should become involved in policy making, whether it's in politics, our professional associations, or in teaching about science and ethics in our local communities and churches. I love it when people so much more brilliant than I agree to even part of the mission and vision that I wrote for LifeEthics:

We encourage all of our members, especially medical and scientific professionals, to become involved in setting the policies of their communities, associations, schools and businesses in order to ensure that those organizations maintain high ethical standards.

We educate the public and professional communities on current events concerning the right to life and liberty of humans. Our members mentor one another in opportunities to serve in professional and academic capacities to fulfill our mission. We monitor and alert our members and the public about unethical scientific research and medical therapy. We are active in our own institutions and associations in order to influence the policy decisions of the organizations that represent us.

We use standard scientific and medical definitions and verifiable scientific data whenever possible in our position statements and deliberations and expert opinions only when the evidence is not available.

(The full panel would not be in agreement with the section that is struck.)

David Prentice's Science rebuttal

This week, Science Magazine, has published a Letter to the Editor (sorry, subscription only) by David Prentice, Ph.D., in response to the letter by Smith, Neaves and Teitelbaum from last July.
(That was the letter which prompted Michael Fumento to dub the Journal "PseudoScience.")

In his letter, Dr. Prentice points out that the "Supporting Online Material" from the first letter actually contradicted the accusations of the three.

Will we have a series of rebuttals to the rebuttals, now?

Bioethicists aren't needed

Well, they didn't come right out and say it.

Moreno and Berger are still stomping their feet at Ramesh Ponnuru for doing his job. After all, he's an editor for a magazine covering "Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Moreno has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and Berger is an Assistant to Moreno and two other Fellows at the socialist "Center for American Progress Institute for Bioethics. I suppose that it could be said that they are doing their jobs, too, except for the way they argue their point.

They argue that scientists and the "scientific community" do not recognize that there are "viable alternatives" to embryonic stem cells. Because they are certain of this opinion, they have attacked a report that proposes research "Without Destroying Human Life."

If these two bioethicists are so certain that that scientists are the final authorities as to what should be done, what is their justification for "bioethicists" (other than to make arguments for the scientists who lead them, that is)?

Progressives vs. Conservatives (rubber, glue)

What did I tell you? I forgot to tell you what the "Progressives" fuss was about and to link to the actual articles. Which meant that I didn't review the actual critiques of the report by the President's Domestic Policy Council (covered here, last week).

Jonathan Moreno and Sam Berger of the Center for American Progress' Bioethics Project wrote "Alternative Sources of Stem Cell Truth: White House Misrepresents Potential of Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells" on January 11th. Ramesh Ponnuru critiqued their critique in "Selling Alternatives Short: Good news for humanity is bad news to some" at the National Review OnLine. Moreno and Berger wrote a rebuttal, "Shouting Semantics Over Science."

It's easy to dismiss the fussin' as political differences or competition between rival publications (although I doubt that NRO has much to worry about). However, what is at stake is the very basis of ethics, itself: the primary philosophical questions "who am I, why am I here, what should I do?"

There's also the secondary question, "how can I keep that other guy from killing me?"

Some of us believe that it is never ethical or permissible to destroy human embryos, even if it means that we never obtain the treatments that Moreno and Berger mention in their first article. Moreno and Berger believe that research should not be hampered by concerns for human embryos, even though every single possible therapy that they mention is just as likely to come from non-destructive therapy. (anyone who doubts that there is already research supporting non-destructive sources for each and every line M & B mention can try PubMed, review this blog, or email me for the address where they can send their self-addressed stamped envelope and payment for the hard copies of the pertinent research.)

It's true that I agree with Ponnuru,

Again and again, this duo treats readers to double standards. Alternative approaches can be dismissed whenever promising findings haven’t been reproduced; but findings favorable to embryonic stem-cell research are taken to the bank, whether or not they’re reproduced. The long-term potential for embryo-destructive research is emphasized; the failure of alternative approaches to produce immediate results is held against them. Data is cherry-picked to show that the absence of taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research has hurt American competitiveness; contrary evidence is ignored.

One of the great fake bits of data in this debate — the “400,000 excess embryos stored in fertility clinics” — makes a return appearance. To repeat: We know that number from a study that also showed that fewer than three percent of those embryos would be available for research.

Let's face it, the goal of all stem cell research is to manage functioning tissue, organs, and cells. These are made by adult stem cells. The embryonic stem cells and even the fetal/amniotic/placental stem cells are more primitive or intermediate forms of stem cells similar to the the Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells (MPACs), not the specific stem cells or stem cell lines that are desirable for in vivo use. Animal models, umbilical cord, amniotic/placental, and MPACs, along with our experience with actual adult stem cells should be sufficient, without killing human embryos, without creating new embryos for destruction, and without cloning or creating animal-human hybrids.


Besides, the true goal should not be the ability to implant actual cells and organs, except in dire emergencies - what we really want is to be able to regenerate our heart, brain, kidney, pancreas and skin cells in place, as we lose or injure them.



HT to Jivin' Jehosaphat

Biased bioethicist's slip is showing

Every time I note someone else's editorial or grammatical mistakes, I (later, of course) find that I've made some glaring mistake of my own in that comment. I'll try to avoid that here, but read closely, just in case.

Nevertheless, . . .

Bioethics.net, the blog of the editors (and pseudoeditors) of the American Journal of Bioethics, a couple of especially snide, petty and biased comments, today.

If you could identify with anyone called a "mouth breathing Pentecostal," don't read the first (which I believe is a rant from authored by Art Caplan) concerning the ensoulment of cloned humans (my previous discussion is here) unless you can brush off the insult. (However, perhaps someone who does read it could tell me how the editors and pseudoeditors (e&p) could believe that Ben Franklin "wouldn't have allowed a column as dumb as Answer Fella to exist in the first place.")

In my own snide, petty manner, I'm copying the slip up of the e&p before they repair it further:

Well, listening was New Republic National Review Senior Analyst Ramesh Ponnuru, and you can watch what Berger and Moreno do to his analysis of their piece on the CAP site linked above. No point quoting it, I'm just not capable of typing even one more time either the work by or the critique of the New Republic/Weekly Standard on stem cells.

Note the strike-out on the first "New Republic," but, as yet, none at the second.

I've asked the e&p to explain the difference between their own "progressive" (read: "prochoice, pro-embryo destruction, and - with rare exceptions - non-believers) editorial relationships and the conservatives' (read: "prolife and believers - again, with rare exceptions - in a Creator") relationship with like-minded publications.

In contrast to the frequent and incestuous association of the "progressives" with the very organizations they're supposed to be reviewing, of course.

Selecting stem cells, filtering cancer cells

I've wondered how the stem cells were being harvested from blood, instead of from bone marrow, and here's an explanation printed in Science Daily about the work of Professor Michael King. The author did a good job of explaining a complex process. Although I haven't copied it here, the article also explains one way that cancer spreads.

During inflammation, the vascular wall presents surface selectins that adhere specifically to white blood cells. These selectins cause the white blood cells to roll slowly along the vascular wall, seeking signals that tell them to crawl out of the bloodstream. This is how white blood cells migrate to bacterial infections and tissue injuries. King set out to find a way to duplicate this natural process.

First, he noted that the selectins form bonds with the white blood cells within fractions of a second, then immediately release the cells back into the bloodstream. He also realized that selectin is the adhesive mechanism by which bone marrow stem cells leave the bloodstream and find their way back into bone marrow. This is how bone marrow transplantation works. Finally, he learned that when a cancer cell breaks free of a primary tumor and enters circulation, it flow through the bloodstream to a remote organ, then leaves the bloodstream and forms a secondary tumor. This is how cancer spreads. He put these facts together with one more, very important fact: the selectins grab onto a specific carbohydrate on the surfaces of white blood cells, stem cells, and cancer cells. Associate Professor King decided to capture stem and cancer cells before the selectins release them.

Harvesting Stem Cells

Because bone marrow stem cells stick to selectin surfaces more strongly than other cells, King’s group coated a slender plastic tube with selectin. They then did a series of lab experiments, both in vitro and in vivo using rats, with this selectin-coated tube to filter the bloodstream for stem cells. It worked, and the King Lab discovered that they could attract a large number of cells to the wall of their selectin-coated device, and that 38% of these captured cells were stem cells. King envisioned a system by which doctors could remove stem cells from the bloodstream by flowing the cells through a device, and make a more concentrated mixture containing, say, 20-40 percent stem cells. These stem cells could then be used for tissue engineering or bone marrow transplantation.

This is a non-controversial way of obtaining stem cells that can be differentiated into other, useful cells.

Brain wave biometric key

New Scientist Tech reports on news of a possible personal identification device in the works:

This novel biometric system should be difficult to forge, making it suitable for high-security applications, claim the researchers behind it. The system was developed by Dimitrios Tzovaras and colleagues at the Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, in Greece. It uses an established method for measuring activity in the brain, called electroencephalography (EEG).

EEG measurements identify the location and intensity of millisecond-long fluctuations in electrical activity in the brain via electrodes positioned around a person's scalp.

First tests are planned in Germany this year. Polish scientists working on the technology in another lab have found the identification to be 88% accurate.

However, John Daugman, a biometrics researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, questions the practicality of the approach. He says an EEG cap could prove too cumbersome and invasive. "Wearing a wired helmet with sensors on one's scalp might change the ambiance of the workplace somewhat," he says.

Similarly, neuroimaging expert Olaf Hauk, also at the University of Cambridge, believes using the system in a wide variety of situations, particularly stressful ones, could complicate the results significantly. "EEG varies greatly depending on a person's alertness, or mental operations," Hauk told New Scientist. "You might not want to be taken for someone else at the airport just because you had a bad night before."

The authors of spy thrillers and milliners should be especially interested. Here's one hat designer who must be prescient with the motto, "The hat on your head is remarkably representative of what's going on inside your head.™"

HT to Kristina Kirby at Emerging Technology

Universal screening of pregnancies - guidelines

In medicine, a guideline published by a specialty association is more than a "suggestion." If a doctor varies from that guideline, he or she is presumed guilty of varying from the standard of care. And had better find a defense lawyer, because there's a good chance she'll be sued for malpractice or, in the case of the new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines, for "wrongful life."

The consequences of routine general screening of women for Down's syndrome will mean that more women will be faced with more false positives. More doctors will be placed in the position of having to inform a woman of her "choice" to abort her baby. Many will stop doing OB. The cost of medical care and obstetric care in particular will go up in the US.

And an entire group of children will disappear.

What will be the target of the next "screening" guidelines? The "gay" gene? Asberger's?> Cystic Fibrosis?
How about Sickle Cell disease, or just the trait?

How about the many genetic abnormalities that show up, but which are not yet associated with any specific disease?

And where will all of the genetic counselors come from? And who will pay for their services?

What else are we wiping out that we don't know about, by removing these children from the gene pool?


For more on the subject, read Patricia A Bauer's editorial in the New York Times, and Nigel Cameron's comments. Or read Dr. Shari DeSilva's note from last year and my comments on this blog.

"Forcing" women to talk to their doctors

This pro-abortion rant from the San Antonio Current is really reaching:

Frank Corte is a pro-life legislator who wants to control Texas’s women and health professionals. With HB 21, he wants to deny women the ability to review abortion warnings privately on video, and instead force them to hear it directly from the doctor; with HB 23, he’d force pharmacists who handle emergency contraception to post “If you believe that life begins at fertilization ...” warnings.

The SA Current is spinning their commentary on the 80th Legislature as though it's a review of TV shows during sweeps week. The Current is a free/throwaway rag, found in lobbies and vestibules of businesses all over town. They advertise themselves as

The Current strives to capture the times in which San Antonians live. We attempt to challenge our readers, by being provocative, irreverent, skeptical, funny, vibrant, and imaginative. We earn our readers' trust by being devoted to fact and dedicated to artful storytelling.

Make that an emphasis on "provocative, irreverent and skeptical."

Texas has a great "Woman's Right to Know Law," designed to fully inform the older - usually surviving - victims of abortion of the nature and consequences of abortion. There's a companion document that lists resources that provide help to pregnant women and young families, which is intended to enable women to chose not to kill their children.

The abortionists hate this booklet and the information that they are required by State law to give the woman, as well as the informed consent process that the State mandates. They've worked out all sorts of ways to avoid the booklet and having the doctor provide the consent, from showing the girls and women the book and telling them they have the option of reading it (or not), to placing stickers on front that state that the information is inacurate. The main tactic is to set up "informed consent" procedures so that the doctor (herself or himself) does not actually have to tell a girl or a woman what he or she is going to do and what will happen.

However, since this "choice" is "between the woman and her doctor," shouldn't the consent process be between the "woman and her doctor?" (Forget for a moment that in real life, the great majority of abortionists never meet their patients before the day of the procedure, unless they do follow the letter of the Texas Womans Right To Know law.)

The irreverence continues in the Current's discription of the legislators who would introduce bills to make the punishment for sexual abuse of children more severe. I hate the death penalty and extremely strict, mandatory prison terms, but recognize that they are sometimes appropriate. (A few years ago, we had a prison break, and the 7 escapees ended up killing a policeman before they were caught.) Child sexual predators are known to be prone to recidivism. This article tells us that these men usually molest 80 to 120 children before they are caught, and tells the stories of Jacob,Jessica, Megan, and Ashley.)

Here's how that Current article views these stories:

Having campaigned successfully for reelection on a kill-all-repeat-child-rapists platform, Dewhurst is now Senate President and determined to pass Jessica’s Law, a Bill O’Reilly-endorsed, sex-offender-punishment proposal that includes a mandatory 25-year sentence for repeat child molesters. Dewhurst can’t introduce legislation on his own, but he’s got a team of senators under his command. They include: “2005 Crimefighter of the Year” Bob Deuell, who’s sponsoring SB 68 to make a second child-rape charge a capital offense; hard-nosed Democrat Rodney Ellis, whose SB 97 would remove the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses; and Florence Shapiro, who ushered through a series of “Ashley’s Law” sex-offender bills in previous sessions.

Projection, distraction about embryonic stem cells

Ignoring the ignoble vote in the House of Representatives today, and without a prior posting about the recent report concerning amniotic and placental stem cells, Art Caplan has posted a little political rant about the politics of stem cells. Caplan is a pseudoeditor over at blog.bioethics.net has once again claimed that someone else is telling lies.

Blog.bioethics.net is the blog of the editors of the Journal of American Bioethics. We shouldn't forget that both Caplan (a frequent poster, but not an editor) and the AJOB Editor-in-Chief Glenn McGee, once worked for Advanced Cell Technology and that Caplan is also one of the advocates of the Progressive Bioethics Initiative. (McGee has spoken about the contrast between the AJOB blog and conservative blogs, such as Wesley Smith's "SecondHand Smoke," which he (McGee) calls a "reactionary blog" at the Initiative's "Future of Progressive Bioethics," in April, 2006.)

Caplan doesn't work very hard at explaining his viewpoint, although his title indicates strong feelings:" White House Plays Politics, Again, with Science; Just One Lie After Another..." He then calls the recent report on stem cell research by the Domestic Policy Council the "Ridiculous Report."

No one knows if adult stem cells or fetal cells will perform in the same way as embryonic stem cells. No one knows much of anything about any of the science because it is all new.

The actual name of the report is "Advancing Stem Cell Research without Destroying Human Life." In the report, I don't see any claim that Dr. Atala has said that funding for embryonic stem cell research should be limited in any way. What I do see is a blurb about the new report and,

While the research is still developing, Dr. Atala and his team believe that these amniotic stem cells may be fully as flexible as embryonic stem cells, while having additional medical advantages: they are easier to grow than human embryonic stem cells, and they do not form tumors (a problem that has plagued embryonic stem cell use). And since amniotic stem cells can be collected without destroying human life, they avoid the ethical dilemmas.

But, of course, Art doesn't know the long-term results of destructive embryonic research. Which is pretty shabby reasoning to encourage research that goes against the traditional ethic that science and medicine shouldn't set out to sacrifice one human life for another. In that old ethic, "self-" usually came before "sacrifice."

The business of adult stem cells

Since Mr. Reed has urged us to follow the money trail, and after my talk with the banker last week, I was pleased to see that others are looking at ethical stem cells as an investment.

The business journal, Bloomberg, reported on several companies that are involved in ethical stem cell research. Evidently, these companies received a boost in their ratings after the news of amniotic stem cells broke over the weekend.

(HT to Rush Limbaugh)

Housecleaning - note on error

I edited yesterday's first article on the Amniotic/Placental stem cells reported in Nature Biotechnology. I had mispelled "De Coppi" and had mistakenly reported that Krabbe's disease was the focus of the experiments with fetal tissue implants in young Daniel Kerner. In fact, Daniel is being treated for Batten's Disease.

"Con-Job" "Deception" (Amniotic Stem Cells)

Don C. Reed, a rabid supporter of embryonic stem cell research - and, it seems, only stem cell research - has written an editorial, "Coincidence or Con-Job?" He flatly states that he believes that we are witnessing an act of "weapons of mass deception" in the timing of the release of the newest issue of Nature Biotechnology, containing Anthony Atala's report on amniotic/placental stem cells.

Fortunately, the editorial (a classic case of projection if I ever saw one) is so far only to be found on blogs such as "Stem Cell Battles" (there's no permanent link that I can find, but it's labeled "#278," and dated January 8, 2007) and email-lists, like Steven Meyer's "Stem Cell Information" on Yahoo Groups.

But what I feel in my gut is:

Weapon of mass deception.

Just as non-existent weapons of mass destruction were used to sell America on the idea of invading Iraq, I think this sudden (and hugely publicized) "breakthrough" will turn out to be less than it appears—and it will be used to try and block embryonic stem cell research

and

And now, just before the debate to loosen those restrictions, suddenly a miraculous discovery makes it seem we don’t need embryonic stem cell research?

I don’t buy it.

It may be strictly a coincidence that the allegedly miraculous breakthrough is announced just hours before the vote: providing cover for legislators looking desperately for some excuse to avoid supporting research that may cost them votes from the Religious Right.

It may also be a coincidence that “the technology described in the study is owned by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center…”(emphasis added)(in original, BBN) -- a religion officially opposed to embryonic stem cell research. –quoted material from Los Angeles Times, “Stem Cells in Amniotic Fluid…” by Karen Kaplan, January 8, 2007.

Dr. Atala, it should also be noted, sits on the board of Plureon Corporation, a biotech startup company connected to the experiment. I do not know the nature of their relationship, and there would be nothing wrong with a scientist profiting from his invention; still the money trail is part of the equation.

But the biggest question is simple: is the experiment important?

If an adult stem cell “breakthrough” turns out to be real—that would be not only good, but expected.

Babies on "spec"

Jennalee Ryan, in San Antonio, Texas, is offering pre-frozen embryos to momas and daddies who like the selection in the Abraham Center for Life catalog.

In the terms used for new homes, she's not building custom babies or even semi-custom babies, she's offering "spec" babies. If the babies were dresses, these might be called "designer babies," but we're getting close to "off the rack," as noted by Washington Post reporter, Rob Stein, at the link above. If we were at a restaurant, we'd be restricted to the menu, with no a la carte or "on the side" requests! The "product" is sitting there in the freezer, not being made to order.

BTW, Mr. Stein quotes an ethicist from the University of Texas at Austin,

"I know some people say: 'This is shocking. Embryos made to order,' " said John Robertson of the University of Texas at Austin, who advises fertility specialists on ethical issues. "But if you step back a little bit, you realize that people are already choosing sperm and egg donors in separate transactions. Combining them doesn't pose any new major ethical problems."

Mr. Robertson makes sense, and he is technically correct. There is no difference between selecting a sperm donor or oocyte donor for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, as has been done for years. Except in this case, we are actually creating embryonic humans in a high risk environment, since the "good" ones are sold and/or frozen, the "failed" ones are discarded.

It should be noted, however, that Lawyer Robertson is the current chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and hhas argued in favor of sex selection by abortion. (report available here and the transcript is here.)

"Able to become all tissue types"

That's the claim by Dr. Anthony Atala in an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS.

So these cells actually have been in the amniotic fluid for many years, and we've known about their presence for many years. The major finding in this study is the fact that we found a stem cell population that is a true stem cell, in terms of their nimble ability to become all tissue types.

GWEN IFILL: So does this end the argument that we've been having all these years about stem cell research?

DR. ANTHONY ATALA: It does not, mainly because it's another stem cell choice. And I think you really can't tell which cell is going to be best for which indication, and all cells have advantages and disadvantages.

Of course, the disadvantage of Embryonic Stem Cell Research is that a human embryo must be destroyed.

"Pluripotent" Amniotic/Placental Stem Cells

I've just skimmed the Nature Biotechnology article (free abstract and references with free registration to Nature.com, the article is for subscription or by individual purchase, only)by Atala, De Coppi, et. al, "Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for therapy" (Nature Biotechnology - 25, 100 - 106 (2007). Published online: 7 January 2007; | doi:10.1038/nbt1274)

The authors claim that the cells are pluripotent. This is not being publicized as much as I would like it to be. Please, when you call your Representative and Senators about the vote that is planned for Thursday, on HR 3, please let them know that these cells may, indeed, be more useful and are much more ethically acceptible than embryonic stem cells from "spare" embryos.

The cells can be obtained from placenta as well as amniotic fluid, so can be harvested without risk to the baby.

The cell lines were evaluated through 120 doublings and appear to be stable. All cell lines were confirmed in mice, using human stem cells implanted into mice that are immune-deficient. There were no teratomas. The human cells repaired damage in the mouse brains, in mice with a disease similar to Krabbe's disease. While the production of dopamine is not documented, the cells also developed along the lines of dopaminergic cells - the cells that are diseased in Parkinson's.

While the use of human nerve cells in the mouse brain could be considered ethically problematic, this is a very significant finding.

The researchers report that they were able to produce several lines of cells, and to prove that some of these cell lines are functional.

"We conclude that the AFS cells are indeed broad-spectrum multipotent (that is, pluripotent) stem cells."

Potential sources of AFS cells in the developing fetus are diverse31.
CD117 (c-Kit), the surface marker used for immunoselection of AFS
cells, plays an important role in gametogenesis, melanogenesis and
hematopoiesis32,33. This receptor protein is present on human ES
cells34, primordial germ cells and many somatic stem cells, including,
but not limited to, those of the neural crest35,36. Despite sharing
expression of c-Kit, AFS cells appear clearly distinct from ES cells, germline stem cells and certain adult stem cell populations, such as hematopoietic stem cells, on the basis of differences both in a variety of cell surface markers and in gene expression patterns assessed by transcriptional profiling37. Thus, the role of AFS cells in ontogeny is not yet clear.
AFS cells can serve as precursors to a broad spectrum of differentiated cell types. We used retroviral marking of AFS cell clones to rigorously assess their multipotent character. Cells from a marked clone were induced to differentiate along six distinct lineages (adipogenic, osteogenic, myogenic, endothelial, neurogenic and hepatic). DNA of the resulting specialized cells contained a unique marker junction fragment between proviral and cellular sequences in the genome. In addition to the markers and cell types documented here, we have demonstrated that human AFS cells of the same clone can be induced to express markers characteristic of cardiac muscle, including cardiac myosin, troponin I and troponin T, and of pancreatic beta-cells, including Pax6, neurogenin D and insulin (data not shown). Human AFS cells can therefore yield differentiated cells corresponding to each of the three embryonic germ layers. The full range of adult somatic cells to which AFS cells can give rise remains to be determined.

. . .

AFS cells are able to differentiate along adipogenic, osteogenic,
myogenic, endothelial, neurogenic and hepatic pathways.We show the
acquisition of lineage-specific functionality by AFS cells differentiated
in vitro toward neurons, osteoblasts and hepatocytes. For some cell
types, acquisition of a full terminally differentiated phenotype is
difficult to achieve in culture. The expression of characteristic functions
may demand multistage protocols, as exemplified here by the
expression of GIRK channels after neurogenic differentiation. Similarly,
we observed urea secretion after hepatogenic differentiation. This
represents a liver-specific function that requires the coordinated
expression of several enzymes and specific mitochondrial amino
acid transporters.

Note - edited for the spelling of De Coppi, and for a correction concerning "Krabbe's Disease." (The disease treated with fetal stem cells was "Batten's Disease."

No Debate, No Amendments on Embryonic Stem Cell Bill

From the Sun Chronicle

Democrats have an agenda for the first 100 hours of the new session that includes ethics reform, a higher minimum wage, more stem cell research and lower student loan costs.

Those bills are being debated under what is called a closed rule, under which no amendments are allowed.

They are being proposed directly from the Democratic leadership, without the benefit of committee hearings.

We must call our Representatives and our Senators about the Castle-DeGette Bill, HR 3 and S 5.

We keep saying, "There is no 'ban.' There's already taxpayer funding for both ethical stem cells and for the few stem cell lines that the President authorized (after the Clinton administration made the commitment to buy them).

We can talk and write and blog all week on the stem cells from amniotic fluid, umbilical cords, the placenta and in the target organs themselves. We can discuss "niches" and local environments, factors and markers.

Very little of this positive talk about ethical stem cell research is being heard.

"It's a matter of taste."

Bioethics.com has posted a YouTube video from the Ali G show with Dr. Edmund Pelligrino (identified as from "Georgetown University, Papal Advisor Medical Ethics"), Richard Fischer ("American Institute of Homeopathy), Dr. John Freeman ("Johns Hopkins Medical School") and Louis Brescht ("Catholic Medical Association"). The segment can also be viewed here, identified as "Ali G - Medical Ethics."

For more information, you may want to read this article at the American Enterprise Institute that explains how one man escaped the same fate.

I'm incredibly impressed with the way the men who find themselves in an obviously ridiculous position behaved. No one was angry, no one was condescending, and they seem to be trying to teach, almost kind.

Now, I have to figure out whether my posting all this information about the circumstances as well as the links makes me as gullible as the men that were fooled by Sacha Baron Cohen. Especially since I have to admit that, although I thought I recognized the interviewer as the same man who plays "Barat," but know I didn't have a clue who "Ali G" was until I googled the name.

Stem Cell Quiz

Well, here's the slideshow we've all been trying to produce. Test your knowledge while finding out current information on stem cell research and how to get involved in human trials ASAP. If you'd like to look at the video at the Google site, it's here, along with a "Playlist" of what appears to be mostly prolife videos on stem cell research and ethics. For those, who like me, can't catch the references at the end of the video, the links are to the websites, StemCellCures.info and ClinicalTrials.gov. Thanks to Mary Meets Dolly, who thanked Wesley Smith.

Cow-human hybrid ban "would cost patient lives."

The pushing of limits never stops.

First, as far as we know, no one's been able to make an embryo by injecting the nucleus of a human into the emptied cell of a cow oocyte. If they have, they aren't publishing the results and there's definitely no reports about stem cells from the results.

However, the BBC News and USAToday are now telling us that if the UK authorities refuse to license researchers who wish to do this research, then cures for "even Alzheimer's disease" are at jeopardy and threatened. The Telegraph claims that a ban "would cost patient lives."

The Times tells us that these embryos are

. . . are purely for laboratory use and will be used in the valuable search for genetic causes of such deadly afflictions as motor neuron disease. Animal eggs are far easier to harvest than human ones, but once emptied of their DNA can be used to produce an embryo that is more than 99.5 per cent human. They are therefore not technically hybrids or chimeras and there is no question of such embryos being implanted in a womb — which is already illegal.

I'm reassured, aren't you? Especially since the Times goes on to imply that our real problem is that we don't understand what the smart scientists are doing, and an Editorial in Nature (sorry, subscription only) warns of a "quagmire" if scientists allow the public to regulate them.

At least the controversy brings up the fact that harvesting eggs from women is not "practical."

Several stem cell experts submitted applications for a license to create human stem cells using animal eggs. The process involves injecting an empty cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. That would produce an egg with human genetic material inside, with minute traces of animal genetic material.

After a burst of electricity, the egg would be tricked into dividing regularly, becoming a very early embryo from which stem cells could be extracted.

Removing the animal's nucleus ensures that it would not be a chimera, or human-animal hybrid. "When you remove the nucleus with its DNA, you remove the species identity of the egg," said Dr. Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at King's College. The proportion of animal to human genes would be tiny, with 13 animal genes versus 30 000 human genes.

Minger and colleagues applied for licenses to do this kind of work to better understand degenerative diseases at the cellular level, with the aim of finding targets for new drug treatments. The embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

Using human eggs is not practical because transferring genetic material into a host egg is extremely inefficient. In addition, there are too few human eggs available. Scientists say they would be lucky to get two or three human eggs in one month. In contrast, they could easily get 200 cow eggs in a single day.

All of this makes the research sound like a given. It's anything but.

There was a report out of China that embryos were created using rabbit oocyte cell bodies and human nuclear material. (Articles from 2003: a report from the Washington Post here and the abstract of the original article in Cell Research, here.)The embryonic cells that resulted supposedly manufactured human proteins and appeared to follow human development. Last January, researchers were asking for permission to repeat this experiment in the UK. I haven't been able to find reports that this sort of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation or cloning of hybrid or human-animal embryos has ever been replicated in other labs, or whether the stem cells from this report have been examined by other researchers.

As I wrote yesterday, there is no way to discover how normal or abnormal these cells - if they are ever produced in other labs - is by implanting them in humans.

And, of course, the real ethical question is whether or not the embryos would be "human." If they produce human embryonic stem cells, I would say, "yes." And it is not ethical to destroy even
"potential" human lives in research.

Visitor Number 10,000 could help

It took over a year, and some of those visits are my own viewing of my posts, but sometime this weekend I should have my 10,000th visit to LifeEthics and 15,000th page view. I'm hoping that one of my visitors can help me.

Imagine all of the bloggers who have more audience than I do. And how many of them are prolife and deal with Bioethics. Then, will someone please tell me why the mainstream press still doesn't get it that embryonic stem cell research is a dead end?

Today, my husband and I visited his banker who spoke about his plans for investment this year. The man didn't really understand what I do, but he named "stem cells" as his first option!

I encouraged him to look into those companies that are investing in ethical research, using adult and umbilical cord cells. However, when I tried to name some companies, I realized that I know some of the "bad guys," but not the "good guys" or how to evaluate them.

Evil (UK) restrictions (no hybrids), again

The sky is falling, once again, because of those evil pro-life people who want to kill patients because oppose placing human DNA in cow eggs:

Scientists say disease research at risk after 'knee-jerk' reaction to embryo proposals
LYNDSAY MOSS HEALTH CORRESPONDENT (lmoss@scotsman.com)

VITAL research into devastating diseases could be put in jeopardy because of government opposition to plans to create part animal-part human embryos, it was claimed yesterday.

But scientists hoping to use the technology to create treatments for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease say they must be allowed to continue their work.

Professor Ian Wilmut, from Edinburgh University, leader of the team that created Dolly the sheep, was preparing his application for chimera research when the government said such work should be outlawed - at least initially. Yesterday, he joined scientists from London and Newcastle, who have submitted proposals for similar work, to call for a rethink by the government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which issues licences for such studies.

They believe the views expressed by scientists during the consultation on fertility laws were submerged under a mass of responses opposing such research generated by organised campaigns by pro-life groups.

New Poll on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Before I comment on the poll, please take another look at the statement that I published earlier by Maureen Condic, Ph.D.:

“. . . there is no compelling scientific argument for the public support of research on human embryos.” . . . Immune rejection, tumor formation, and embryonic development have proved themselves to be profoundly serious scientific challenges, and they are likely to remain so for decades into the future.

Unfortunately, this is not what the public is hearing. The media is focusing on the hype of future possibilities for embryonic stem cells, rather than reports of current, real advances in adult and umbilical cord stem cells that have resulted in treatments for diabetes (both adult and juvenile),functioning liver cells Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS) and lung cells, improvement in patients with spinal cord injury, arthritis, and even lupus and multiple sclerosis.

The news today about a new poll is discouraging. You can read the press reports - and about the increased stock prices for biotech companies due to the bill in question - at Forbes, Bloomberg, and BioResearch Online. The actual poll by "The Civil Society Institute" is available online at the in pdf at their website.

There are flaws in the actual poll. However, I'm afraid that the problem is that people believe that their hope is in embryonic stem cell research.

Here are some of the questions from the poll:

From the statement before question C5 (this question was used in the 2004 and 2005 polls):

Embryonic stem cells are special cells that can develop into every type of cell in the human body. The stem cells are extracted from frozen embryos in fertility clinics, donated by couples who no longer want or need the embryo. This process destroys the embryo. These stem cells can then reproduce on their own, creating what is called a "line" of stem cells that many researchers can work with. Scientists believe that there is a chance that stem cells can be developed into cures or treatments for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

Why is Alzheimer's still in this list?

Question C6

Leaders of the new Congress have indicated that their “first 100 hours” will include introduction of a bill that would reverse President Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research and expand federal funding for research on stem cells that are developed from embryos frozen in fertility clinics and which otherwise would be discarded. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the new Congress moving ahead in this way with stem cell research in its first 100 hours?

Question C7

Some people say that gridlock on such major issues as stem cell research is one of the reasons why Americans are so frustrated with elected officials in Washington, D.C. Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this?

Nature is free this month

Not the wide open outdoors, but the Journal.

Full free content for the January, 2007, issue of the Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology, an official publication of the American College of Gastroenterology.

If you want to read about treatment guidelines for your tummy upsets or about Napolean's Gastric Carcinoma, here's your free sample issue.

Maureen Condic in First Things on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

“. . . there is no compelling scientific argument for the public support of research on human embryos.”

Memorize this sentence before you call your Congressman and Senators about next week's vote on the DeGette-Castle Bill (they're also calling it the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Bill,"). You can tell them that your source is this month's First Things article, by Professor Maureen Condic. Please do go read it - it has no flaws that I could find. (and I argue with everyone)

Maureen Condic, Ph.D., is a professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, an expert in the outgrowth of neurites and guidance of axons of embryonic neurons as well as a critic of destructive human embryonic stem cell research. Her scientific reports are published in prominant peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Neuroscience and cited by numerous other scholars.

Back in 2003, she commented on the dismissal of the human embryo as "not a human,"

Embryos are genetically unique human organisms, fully possessing the integrated biologic function that defines human life at all stages of development, continuing throughout adulthood until death. The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of “human life.”

This month, Dr. Condic notes that embryonic stem cells most often simply die when implanted in post-natal animal models. If they don't die, they do not yield any therapeutic benefit. Instead, they cause benign and embryonal tumors, there's no evidence that this concern will be resolved in the near future and there really is no way to determine whether any stem cell line is harmless or useful or non-tumerigenic until it's implanted.

The failure of embryonic stem cell–derived tissues to survive when transplanted to adult tissues strongly suggests that science has not yet determined how to generate normal adult tissue from embryonic stem cells.

and

“. . . there is no compelling scientific argument for the public support of research on human embryos.” Serious scientific challenges are, by definition, problems that have stubbornly resisted the best attempts of science to resolve them. Over the past thirty years, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless hours of research by dedicated professionals worldwide have been devoted to solving the problems of immune rejection and tumor formation, yet these issues remain serious scientific and medical challenges. The mysteries of embryonic development have been plumbed for more than a hundred years by some of the most brilliant biologists of history, and yet, despite the clear progress we have made, we are nowhere near the point of having a “recipe book” for cooking up cellular repair kits to treat human disease and injury. Immune rejection, tumor formation, and embryonic development have proved themselves to be profoundly serious scientific challenges, and they are likely to remain so for decades into the future.

The hubris of scientists in the field of embryonic stem cell research who confidently asserted “Give us a few years of unrestricted funding and we will solve these serious scientific problems and deliver miraculous stem cell cures” was evident in 2002, and it is even more evident today. For the past five years, researchers have had completely unrestricted funding to conduct research on animal embryonic stem cells, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. They have had every conceivable tool of modern molecular research available to them for use in animal models, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. Millions of dollars have been consumed, and hundreds of scientific papers published, and yet the problems still remain. The promised miraculous cures have not materialized even for mice, much less for men.

Choosing Tomorrow Today

Go read Nigel Cameron's Choosing Tomorrow, today!

(I can't resist red buttons marked "push" or puns.)

I've been writing a piece on "Public Health Ethics," part of which I dredged up for my comment on this remark of Dr. Cameron's,

"Bioethics" is an optical illusion. Which is not to say that we don't need IRBs and clinical ethicists to titrate the rights of human subjects and patients in our universities and hospitals. But on the larger stage it's broke, not least since you can say "autonomy" as often as you like and still not begin to address the vast issues of policy that beckon on the cusp of this still-new millennium. And at the end of the day autonomy and policy lie on opposite ends of a continuum.

(I love the analogy, "titrate the rights" - that's classic bioethics-speak!)(for those who don't remember Biology class - that was when we had two dispensers of liquids, acid and base, and we put a few drops of one and then a few drops of another, until the stuff in our beaker was neither pink nor blue, but purple or - better for the analogy - clear.)

Noted: "A Noteworthy Purchase of Votes"

From BetterHumans, the Kurzweil blog:

News
A Noteworthy Purchase of Votes
(From NY1). It should be no new news that public funds are used to buy votes, but it is noteworthy, to me at least, that the battle over directing taxes poured into the trough to embryonic stem cell research has settled this far: "He's calling for a $2 billion state fund for stem cell and other medical research. ... Spitzer's taking the issue directly to the voters, following in the footsteps of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who sought and got a $3 billion program through a voter referendum. ... If we want to lead healthy lives, live longer, and make sure we can help people, we have to advance science. And stem cell research is one of those branches of medicine that really holds great promise." In other words, ambitious political operators believe that huge public works for stem cell research will buy votes now, regardless of results or follow-through down the line. This would seem to suggest high levels of enthusiasm in the public at large for major advances in the fight against age-related disease (if not for a sane socioeconomic system to live in or the freedom and drive that effective research requires).
(emphasis mine)

I'm pleasantly surprised at the nerve of this post and that someone has pointed out the truth. The author does recognize that similar ideas can occur to people with different views of"sane"
socieconomic systems and motivations - which is another notion that I'm gratified to see in print.

Biologist's review of Dawkin's The God Delusion

There's an excellent review of Richard Dawkin's book (here's my comments from last October, "Measuring a Universe Without God," when Dawkins was selling his book on NPR's The Talk of the Nation and other media), with answers to many of his near-points free online at the New York Review of Books website. I hadn't heard of the author, H. Allen Orr, before finding a link to this review at "The Black Kettle" via Pro-life Blogs aggregator. However, according to the reference at the NYRB, "is Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester. He is the author, with Jerry A. Coyne, of Speciation. (January 2007)" Here's his University webpage.

At the risk of saying too little about so much, I do have a couple of points that I'd like to point out about this excellent review and critique of Dawkin's poor attempt at framing religion as delusional and teaching our children as abusive.

First, please note Dr. Orr's references to Dawkin's own religious (Judeo-Christian) and Victorian worldview, as well as the biologist's bias, assumptions and frank acknowledgment of a "Mission to Convert."

Second, the major weakness in all of the Creator vs. Science debates was pointed out by that same C. S. Lewis book that Dr. Orr cites: in Miracles, Lewis reminds us that the Creator of this Universe is Super - natural. He works outside of the Laws of Physics/Nature as we know them.

Happy New Year, Here's a New Resource

I hope that everyone is ready to hit the ground running as business resumes this week.

(I know - some people have been running all along, while I took a couple of weeks to give my husband shots of blood thinner and to learn a brand new hate for support hose, all due to Mr. LifeEthics' [don't tell him I called him that] new left hip. I'm determined to keep him healthy, since we married "'till death do us part," and he's not getting out that easily.)

To begin 2007, there's a new resource available for those of us concerned about our children of tomorrow and the world we create while we are inventing new ways to create (and kill) them. Nigel Cameron, Ph.D., has begun a blog at ChoosingTomorrow.blogspot.com.

Dr. Cameron is among the leaders of bioethics who realized years ago that, while killing is not acceptable, bioethics involves much more than the debate over abortion and euthanasia. He was instrumental in the founding of the Bioethics program at Trinity International University and of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. He has helped build coalitions like The Institute for Biotechnology and the Human Future whose members, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice," oppose cloning and the use of women in order to harvest oocytes for research, and who seek to moderate the intentional manipulation of the human body and genome.