A Layman's Guide to Recent Stem Cell Developments
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in Adult Stem Cells | Embryonic Stem Cell Research | ethical alternatives | Life Issues | stem cells — Comments (113) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries by Mark I.
Embryonic stem cells are valuable because they are pluripotent. Pluripotency comes from Latin, roughly meaning "can do many things" (literally, "can do more things"), and in this matter it means that these cells can become almost any other kind of cell. They are basically blank disks: If you give the right information to a disk, it will become, in a way, a word processor or a game or a movie or whatever. In much the same way, if you feed an embryonic stem cell the right information (encoded in chemicals), it can become just about any other kind of cell. And cells like this might be used for all sorts of medical purposes for patients that are in need of a certain, very specific kind of cell.
There are two catches, though. The first is that, once you feed information to the embryonic stem cell "blank disks," you can't overwrite the information. (At least you haven't been able to, as we'll see below.) If you turn an embryonic stem cell into a red blood cell, it stays a red blood cell; and if you turn it into a skin cell, it stays a skin cell. Happily, before you do that, while embryonic stem cells are still embryonic stem cells, you can copy them as many times as you want. So you'll have enough to make whatever you need to make and still have enough left over for future projects.
Read on...
The second catch is that, in order to get an original embryonic stem cell from which you can make all these copies, you need to destroy the embryo. In order to get the blank disk, you have to break the computer. This is where the obvious ethical concerns come in.
Fortunately, however, these ethical concerns have not been a great obstacle to a lot of important research. Firstly, there are adult stem cells. Conveniently, these can be extracted without killing the adult. Adult stem cells are called multipotent, which is again from Latin, now literally meaning "can do many things." In practice, this means that they can do a lot of things, but not quite as many as pluripotent stem cells can. Different types of adult stem cells can be turned into different categories of "regular" cells: some only into skin cells, but any kind of skin cell, others only into nerve cells, but any kind of nerve cell, etc. We might think of these as partially-written blank disks, like a mostly-blank DVD that can be encoded with any movie—but only a movie, no games or word-processing programs. (But once you write Happy Gilmore onto this disk, you're still stuck with it and can't overwrite it with The Godfather.) This sort of cell is good enough for most purposes, but not quite everything—or at least not as efficiently as one might hope.
Secondly, these ethical concerns can (largely) be avoided by the Bush policy on stem cell research, announced back when the controversy was just beginning. This allowed for federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells, but only those from lines that already existed—that is, copies (and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, and so on) of embryonic stem cells from embryos that had already been killed. Research on stem cells from other embryos, that hadn't been destroyed by the date of the announcement of the policy, would not be funded with federal money, though it was still legal and could be funded by the states or private sources. Again, these lines were good enough for most purposes, but since these permitted stem cell lines had ever so slightly different chemical properties and might conceivably behave slightly differently, some scientists wanted to be able to destroy new embryos in order to do research on new lines, without having to fill out all the paperwork to get non-federal funding.
Finally getting to the present research, what these scientists have now developed is basically a way to format disks—to wipe all the information off of them so that they can be filled up with any other information. They have taken normal everyday skin cells and injected them with viruses that act sort of like erasers, erasing all the information in their DNA that says, "don't be anything but a skin cell," and leaving intact all the DNA that can be turned into anything else. (The "don't be anything but a skin cell" information isn't erased permanently: The new cell or its descendants can still be turned back into skin cells. It's really just that a "switch" has been turned off.) These new cells are almost the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells, except that no embryo was destroyed in the process—or even involved, except in the sense that the adult from whom the original skin cell was taken is nothing but an overgrown embryo. Federal funding for this type of research is entirely unproblematic and requires no new legislation, though things like the HOPE Act might grease some wheels.
There are still slight differences between these stem cells and embryonic stem cells, but it seems unlikely that these will be significant—not only from the fact that this is the way scientists are reported to be talking about it, but also from the fact that the same process can be used on an unlimited number of different base cells (from different people and possibly of different types), and from the fact that there are other, similar processes in the pipeline, which will use things besides the viruses that these scientists used in order to do about the same thing, possibly better.
This discovery has the potential to change the stem cell debate entirely, since it is now highly unlikely that there is any benefit to engaging in embryo-destructive research as opposed to the three currently fundable avenues (adult stem cells, pre-Bush stem cell lines, and the new method of creating stem cells, with other methods likely on the way). The burden of proof is now placed squarely on those who would want to destroy embryos in their research to establish that there is any identifiable scientific benefit to doing so. A great deal of credit for this must go to President Bush, since if he had not restricted funding in the first place, it's quite possible that the line of research that yielded the recent discovery would not have been pursued with such urgency, only yielding results at a far later date.
This was originally written as a response to a good, simple question asked by Mike Volpe in the comments to Mark I's Stem Cell Silence from Dem Presidentials. I appreciate the responses of Redstaters NT and lapert, which led to some minor corrections in this version. (Lapert also made some other objections that I believe I can answer, and I'd be happy to do so in the comments here.)
As I said originally, I am only a layman myself, and so cannot be as confident as I would like with every detail of this explanation. But I hope this is of some use to readers who are trying to wrap their minds around this difficult topic.
It's always gratifying be well-received in a forum with as much great content as Redstate has. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Bush was right to deny federal funding for ESCR back in 2001. This is great news.
they have taken normal everyday skin cells and injected them with viruses that act sort of like erasers, erasing all the information in their DNA that says "don't be anything but a skin cell," and leaving intact all the DNA that can be turned into anything else. (The "don't be anything but a skin cell" information isn't erased permanently: the new cell or its descendants can still be turned back into skin cells. It's really just that a "switch" has been turned off.)
Way off topic, but if you step back and think about it, this technology known as the "cell" is really amazing design on the small scale. A stroke of brilliant engineering. That's why Bruce Alberts, past president of NAS, wanted to incorporate design engineering into biology curriculum at the university level. I can't imagine how all this could have just happened by undirected stochastic Darwinian processes.
... had Bush caved on the issue way back when all the "smart people" were telling him he had to. Good for him - and good for all of us.
Aside from that, what you said.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
By recalling Ron Reagan Jr's speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004:
Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the Federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe, and they should be ashamed of themselves. *!* But many... *!* But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it. But it does not follow that the "theology of a few" should be allowed to forestall "the health and well-being of the many." *!* And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings -- that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person - a parent, a spouse, a child. *!*
One apple that fell far, far from a mighty oak of a tree.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells. The research was started before it became a political issue and the Japanese team that also reported (using a different method by te way) this week was under no influence of the U.S. Government policy.
I wish we could move beyond science as a political issue and allow us to have the legitimate ethical conversations without the baggage of politics.
Science moves forward becuase some people are by nature curious and constantly trying to outdo eachother. For society to influence it and slow it down when it encroaches on ethical boundaries it has to have honest dsicussions and our current politics just don't seem to allow for honesty.
Some things done in the name of "science" are patently unethical. Embryonic stem cell research done on embryos "bred" specifically for experimentation is unethical. This is the crux of the problem.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Embryonic stem cell research done on embryos "bred" specifically for experimentation is unethical. This is the crux of the problem.
I'm confused by what you mean when you say "bred." The only time embryos are "bred" in my understanding of the term is in an IVF clinic (and they aren't being bred for experimentation in that sense). Did you have that in mind, are you imagining an Orwellian future not yet come to pass, or is it something else?
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
that, if embryonic stem cell research was to proceed full bore, researchers would be satisfied with simply taking "leftovers" from IVF. No way.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
You answered my question (I was genuinely confused). Thanks much.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Science is amoral in and of itself and it is up to the society in which it operates to influence its morals. But you can't do that through disingenious rhetoric. Personally, because I don't think embryo's are the equivalent of people I disagree with your ethical take - but if you want to convince society of your ethical view you need to ahve the argument around the value of an embryo (and yes that will imapct IVF as well) rather than vilify scientists who say that embryonic stem cells are more promising than adult stem cells from a research perspective. In other words, debate the ethical standing involved irrespective of the science.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells."
Its impressive enough to be well versed about what has happened and is happening, but to be able state what would have happened given different circumstances, well thats truly remarkable.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Simply follow the research - it was underway in Japan before Bush had any policy. I suppose it is possible that had Bush not come around the Japanese researchers would have stopped trying but that seems to requrie a bigger stretch than the alternative. But as I am well aware - you aren't afraid to stretch any semblence of logic and reality to fit your worldview.
Why so defensive if you are so sure ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not defensive - osrry if you divined that from my post. But it is typical that you wouldn't address the substance - tell me, do you think the Japanese research was motivated by Bush's policy and why?
"But as I am well aware - you aren't afraid to stretch any semblence of logic and reality to fit your worldview."
And even now
"But it is typical that you wouldn't address the substance - tell me, do you think the Japanese research was motivated by Bush's policy and why?"
Well if reading is divination these days. Then so be it.
Now I am challenged to explain statements that I never made.
I will go back to my original position, that to have such clarity of vision and depth of knowledge that you can say what would and would not happen in a field given changed circumstances is truly impressive. I have advanced degrees in my field of endeavor and have worked many years and I doubt I could do it.
My hats off to your ability. You must be profoundly knowledgeable of Biochemistry.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You go back to to your orginal position - not shocking at all since you never learn (maybe you feel like your advanced degree in your field immunizes you from advancing in any other endeavor.
So since we are at another impasse I'll leve you with your post hoc fallacy. Of course Bush is responsible for Japanese research, hell he was president before september 11th so maybe his policies are responsible for that too...
If you want think through a logical connection between the Japanese research and Bush's policy I'll listen - otherwise till next time...
And wither this torrent of vitriol ?
I ask again, where did I say the President was responsible for the research ? Please point this out to me so I can properly correct myself. I would hate to promulgate unfounded facts on a topic I did not properly understand and could not informed statements on.
"If you want think through a logical connection between the Japanese research and Bush's policy I'll listen - otherwise till next time..."
I believe the criteria in this case is to demonstrate that changing research funding levels in a field would not change the work being done. There would have to be some effort to show the Japanese researchers did not derive benefit from the altered research landscape. All very much beyond my abilities I am afraid.
"You go back to to your original position - not shocking at all since you never learn (maybe you feel like your advanced degree in your field immunizes you from advancing in any other endeavor."
My apologies you misunderstand me. I was stating a knowledge of my limits and the fact I was impressed at your authoritative knowledge.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"All very much beyond my abilities I am afraid."
I hope you last.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
to you around here. He never could have a civilized discussion about anything. And no matter how many links he threw in or how many quotes supporting his position he could dredge up, you just couldn't get past his abrasive and abusive attitude. I don't care what your position is or how much you think you know, lapert, your nastiness and vitriol drown out any intelligence that may be evidenced.
I try never to lead with vitriol but respond in kind - if I did lead with joliphant on this thread I apologize to him and to you; probably a residue of our previous discussion which was interrupted by the holiday weekend.
Sorry to come back late to this, but I've been away all weekened and, well, seeing as how this fantastic story is still on the recommended list...
I hate to be so uncharitible on a Sunday, but you're a fool and foolishly naive, lapert. Here's where you're a fool...
This breakthrough would have happened with or without Bush and federal debates on stem cells.
Follow the crowd - follow the money. It works in academic research just like anywhere else. Bush signs-on the ESCR, a couple thousand little humans get tossed in a blender for their cells, and everyone get's funded up the wazoo to find all those "cures" we've been told were "just around the corner - "cures" that, by the way, mean a whooooooooole lot of money and fame for the discoverer. Think university professors don't care about that sort of stuff?
So why keep up with this going-nowhere, unsexy research when there's big money to be had going the easy route?
It's foolish to think they would do otherwise. So here's where the naive comes in...
I wish we could move beyond science as a political issue and allow us to have the legitimate ethical conversations without the baggage of politics.
Well, given that student council races among middle-schoolers carries "the baggage of politics", I would suggest that you grow up - but that would probably be lost on you. Oh, and you're not thinking this "science as a political issue" isn't a 2-way street, I've got some carbon offsets I'm willing to sell you - cheap!
And what, pray tell, makes you think that the current ethical debates aren't "honest"?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The breakthrough was published a year ago by a researcher in Japan. This news story is about two recently published papers that built on this breakthrough. One of those papers was published by a US research team, the other team was Japanese. The Bush administration's decisions about what research will receive funding by the US government and what research will not had absolutely no effect on the research of Yamanaka's group at Kyoto University. I would suggest you read up before you start calling other people fools.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When did the funding of ESRC become an issue in the US? I'm pretty sure it came to a head well before last year and had been an issue long before then.
And if we'd already put a bunch of embroy's through the puree cycle and had a whole ton of stem cell lines harvested, whom precisely would care about this breakthrough in Japan?
Fool, indeed.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Thomson's first major research breakthrough in this area came in 1998, before this issue was on many people's radar. 5 of the 22 cell lines available for government funding came from his lab.
BTW Thomson thinks the ban on funding of other lines should be lifted.
The rest of the developed world does not have the same deadline on usable stem cell lines, yet this is huge news all over the world. It contributes to our understanding about how cells work and will be a benefit to stem cell research regardless of how many lines are available. Again you really should read a bit before making the snide comments.
"Follow the crowd - follow the money"
Follow the research you truly foolish fool. The Japanese made the initial breakthrough - and they aren't seeking any U.S. Federal money. Maybe someday you will understnad the world doesn't revolve around the U.S. and our federal government; until then you will have little to add to this discussion.
"I would suggest that you grow up - but that would probably be lost on you."
You remoind me of the tin man - if you only had a brain. Anyway, enough pointless ad hominem. I would suggest it is those that think politics is the end all and be all who need to grow up - the world is not a middle school student council (fitting you picked children as the sign of adulthood). The way politics in this country infects all pursuits is symbolic of our problems rather than our greatness.
"And what, pray tell, makes you think that the current ethical debates aren't "honest"?"
Easy, I listen to what both sides are saying and they are both divroced from the actual research and science - all to score political points with the public rather than provide them with a reasoned argument taht allows them to decide what the consensus ethics of our society are in this issue. As your first paragraph, and its total divorce from the research that was underway demonstrates - people are arguing with a set of facts that are derived from their politial presumptions rahter than reality.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My embarrasing mistake - I guess I need to rewatch Wizard of Oz -
A mistake anyone could make.
Same questions to you as I put to your ethical soul-mate above. I'm too heartless to type them again.
Get over the fact that if you're talking about the blending of human embryos you're going to get political people involved. It's how many decision are made - has been since the dawn of time.
Aside - what part about "actual research and science" am I missing in the destruction of human embryos to make stem cell lines?
As for most of the rest, that "whoosh" you heard were my points sailing well over your head. Whatever.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
In stating that the breakthrough would not have happened. I said it - no doubt. Frankly, I didn't mean it that way, but I cannot expect anyone to read my mind in person, much less here.
So sure, it likely would have happened even if there were stem cell lines aplenty. What I was going for was more along the lines of "no one would care at this point", and that I will stick to.
I will aim for better precision going forward.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Glad to see someone admit the possiblity of misunderstanding - it happens far less on blogs then one would expect given the ample oppurtunity for miscommunication in the medium.
This opens a very different question to answer. There are several reasons why I would posit people, particularly scientists would care regardless of Bush's policy.
1. The ethical questions have not been narrowly discussed only in the U.S. government or only in governments anywhere. Scientists have raised and struggled with the ethical issue of embryo disucssion, including Yamanaka, such that I think many of them care greatly about an advance that may overcome those issues independent of government policy and funding.
2. The process for deriving the stem cells from embryos is not perfect, cheap or easy and their is hope out there that a more synthetic method will be cheaper and easier in the long run. So from a scientific stand point, many hope this is a better way to develop embryo-like stem cells - again independent of governemtn funding or policy.
3. Sciece for the sake of science is the norm among researchers. This breakthrough provides us better understanding of what makes embryo stem cells develop the way they do and ultimately helps us better understand our development in the womb - for many researchers that is its own reward.
I'm sure it would qualify to an error - and I think you'll find more than a few people here who will Cowboy-up if they've goofed. There's nothing wrong with the occasional mea cupla.
Perhaps its my cynicism based on what I saw in my engineering graduate program - a world-class program that was highly specialized on certain areas of mechanics - that leads me to a perhaps unhealthy level of skepticism when it comes to issues that have heavy academic and/or research involvement.
But I am still convinced that many of the same people who have been working feverishly to find alternatives to ESRC would have abandoned their efforts given the opportunity to play God (or Gates) on freshly harvested former-humans - given the (politically driven, I believe) promissed pay-off for any "breakthrough" that happened there.
This all has the eerie deja-vu of "fusion" to me - only at least with fusion, we weren't dealing with discarded humans.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I have always found people who choose to go into engineering differ from those who go down the hard science route - something about being more practical and looking for real applications of there work. The times I have seen my friends who are scientists the proudest has been not when they recieved grants, raises etc. but when they made some discovery, however small, that their colleagues had been unable to show. But of course, we can never know the true motivations of our fellow men.
I'm inclined to believe the Darwinian explanation, but you're quite right: Whatever its source, the mechanisms of life are amazing and beautiful technology. The more I learn about them, the more I'm impressed.
As for the politics of the situation, I think it's too soon to tell. We can never be quite sure that the facts of a situation will be transmitted to the electorate with complete accuracy, when those facts are convenient to the conservative cause. It's always better, though, to have the facts on your side than not to have them, no matter who knows about them. (Not to mention all the actual good that may come from this development, and all the actual evil avoided.)
I also believe evolution is correct. From what people can tell about the very earliest life forms, creating the modern cell took 2.5 billion years of evolution, while animals formed in only about 600 million years. This is one indication of how sophisticated the cell itself is.
It is believed that the modern cell is actually the fusion of several earlier simpler cells. The mitocondria and the nuclear and other organs within the cell were themselves once very cell-like organisms.
This is a nice take, well written, and relatively balanced. I don't agree with all of it, but I have no problem recommending it. But -- and this is to the commentators, not the author -- I wouldn't gloat. These results are interesting, but there have been a lot of interesting things in science that turn out to be dead ends.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
And let me second von's advice against gloating. We're conservatives around here, and a great part of conservatism is not getting ahead of ourselves. Optimism, however, is well within bounds.
and making it acceptable, that drives the left in insisting that embryos be available for research. The latest news will have ZERO effect on the left. The Left wants to make Americans see abortion as a positive good, as being a live SAVING act and not the killing that it is.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
My first reaction to this development was that the argument "for" ESCR was now effectively dead. One can hope. Positive feedback is the story here. Lifesaving tool negates a rush to an unsuccessful method. When the conservative cause is vindicated, as in this case, and helps drive more research funding for saving lives in a moral way -- Robust Hallelujahs!
On the intersection of science and theology, I remain silent. Either way, we win.
Well written, good analogy. Enjoyed reading it immensely!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
have had so many successes, but embryonic have not?
I would guess that one argument would be that the funding ban has done that, but it really isn't a total ban and I am sure there is a significant enough funding source that SOMETHING should have been found.
making money or in getting the can of soup off the top cabinet shelf. Adults are smarter and stronger than children!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
great post!
and not only because I was referenced.
I think I finally understand the differences.
I will also point out that a liberal family friend tried to twist Bush's position saying he was against stem cell research. I was met with a flurry of opposition however I was one conservative against everyone. I will leave you with what I left them with. If embryonic stem cell research is so great, then why isn't George Soros pouring one of his several billions into it? That, they had no answer for.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
There are still slight differences between these stem cells and embryonic stem cells, but it seems unlikely that these will be significant
Pluripotent cells created via this method form tumors of seemingly random collections of different types of cells when injected. Cells created by means of this process will not likely ever be usable in therapies. The breakthrough here is identifying genes capable of causing a differentiated cell to revert to pluripotency and confirming that they do so. This was originally done in Japan by Shinya Yamanaka and published about a year ago. His pioneering work required use of embryonic stem cells. This work was built upon and recently published by Thomson's group at the Univ of Wisconsin in Science online and Yamanaka's group at Kyoto Univ in Cell. There is still quite a way to go before we can create truly pluripotent cells from differentiated cells. We may be a year away, we may be more than 10 years away. We don't know. This is indeed a big step, but not so large a step as some have been portraying it to be.
Secondly, these ethical concerns can (largely) be avoided by the Bush policy on stem cell research, announced back when the controversy was just beginning. This allowed for federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells, but only those from lines that already existed
Wouldn't those concerns have been equally well addressed if funding were limited to lines created by embryos that were already slated for destruction by IVF clinics in addition to the few lines extant at that time? The number of embryos destroyed would not have changed, but we would have many more lines to work from and research could progress at a more rapid pace in the US. With these additional cell lines, some of which would still be in the pipeline for development, ESCR would not be near the political issue it is today. That would be a benefit to both science and politics.
You cannot convince me that, if embryonic stem cell research was to proceed full bore, researchers would be satisfied with simply taking "leftovers" from IVF. No way.
There currently about half a million embryos being stored in IVF clinics in the US alone. Most of those will end up being destroyed. More are being created in IVF clinics every day. There is absolutely no need to create embryos specifically for research. Simply divert some the thousands of embryos currently being disposed of as medical waste to be used in medical research.
BTW again, If you are really concerned about the embryo destruction inherent in this procedure you should be far more concerned about IVF as this destroys orders of magnitude more embryos.
Wouldn't those concerns have been equally well addressed if funding were limited to lines created by embryos that were already slated for destruction by IVF clinics in addition to the few lines extant at that time? The number of embryos destroyed would not have changed, but we would have many more lines to work from and research could progress at a more rapid pace in the US.
The rapid creation of embryos is very troubling. Adoption is one way to save these embryos. I agree that there should be much more attention paid to this issue.
But just because many embryos are slated for destruction does not morally justify the usage of these embryos for stem cell research. This "nothing is lost" argument is not satisfactory. Everybody will eventually die someday, but that does not mean that society can randomly kill adults in order to harvest their organs or perform research on them. The same holds for embryos.
Adoption is one way to save these embryos.
You do realize that multiple embryos are used in each implantation attempt and the success rate for each attempt with a healthy young female is about 1 in 3 so every embryo successfully adopted generally results in a dozen or more destroyed embryos. If the implantation mother is 40 or over the success rate can drop below 1 in 20 leading to several dozens of embryos destroyed on average for every successful implantation and birth. Even if this were not the case there are over half a million embryos stored in IVF clinics and more being made every day. Even in the best case scenario for adoption only a very small fraction will ever be adopted. This is not a realistic solution for solving this problem, assuming of course you see this as a problem.
Everybody will eventually die someday, but that does not mean that society can randomly kill adults in order to harvest their organs or perform research on them. The same holds for embryos.
This is a false comparison. No one is suggesting that we randomly harvest embryos. What has been suggested is that embryos that are scheduled to be destroyed be used for research rather than being thrown away.
The more accurate analogy vis dead adults and organ harvesting would be:
A certain number of adults are slated to be executed. They will be executed regardless of what happens to their organs post mortem. Assuming they or their families do not object should their corpses or organs be used for scientific research or should their corpses be thrown into a dumpster.
Even if this were not the case there are over half a million embryos stored in IVF clinics and more being made every day. Even in the best case scenario for adoption only a very small fraction will ever be adopted. This is not a realistic solution for solving this problem, assuming of course you see this as a problem.
In order to eventually address this problem, the arrival rate of embryos must be no greater than the departure rate. If this issue comes to the forefront of pro-life efforts and people start to become aware of the problem, perhaps the rate of adoption would increase. But the arrival rate probably has to be curbed as well.
This is a false comparison. No one is suggesting that we randomly harvest embryos. What has been suggested is that embryos that are scheduled to be destroyed be used for research rather than being thrown away.
The more accurate analogy vis dead adults and organ harvesting would be:
A certain number of adults are slated to be executed. They will be executed regardless of what happens to their organs post mortem. Assuming they or their families do not object should their corpses or organs be used for scientific research or should their corpses be thrown into a dumpster.
First, whether or not embryos are destroyed randomly or via a schedule is orthogonal to the main issue. The problem with your analogy above is the assumption that the adults must be executed.
Furthermore, allowing embryonic stem cell research in this case will stimulate the creation of even more embryos for the sake of reseach. There is no good reason to go into this ethical black hole especially when there are alternatives that have not even been fully explored.
In order to eventually address this problem, the arrival rate of embryos must be no greater than the departure rate.
Actually given the enormous backlog the departure rate needs to be considerably higher than the arrival rate. At current departure rates it would take thousands of years to clear up the backlog with an arrival rate of zero.
There are less than a 100,000 unrelated adoptions in the US each year and IVF stored embryos will be competing for adoption with the already born. There is some ceiling on the rate that these embryos will be adopted and with its costs and failure rate is phenomenally unlikely to rise to a rate that would even meet a significant portion of embryos destroyed each year, much less address the enormous backlog. If you see this as a real problem the only way to address it is to impose draconian restrictions of embryo creation by IVF clinics. Meanwhile the issue of what to do with the embryos that are already being destroyed remains.
First, whether or not embryos are destroyed randomly or via a schedule is orthogonal to the main issue.
No, it is not. Random destruction of embryos opens up all embryos in the US to destruction regardless of the method of creation or the desires of the "parents." This is a non-trivial difference.
The problem with your analogy above is the assumption that the adults must be executed.
The thing is that thousands of embryos are being destroyed and then thrown in the garbage every year by IVF clinics. So to return to my analogy; the adults will be executed whether we think they should be or not. The question of what should be done with the corpses remains.
Furthermore, allowing embryonic stem cell research in this case will stimulate the creation of even more embryos for the sake of reseach.
There is no evidence for this. Current levels of embryo destruction are far more than sufficient for any likely levels of research demand. Look at other countries that do not place these limits (EU nations, Japan, etc) and you will not see embryo creation increasing to meet research demand. I see no reason that it would be different in the US. Why do you think it would happen here when it does not happen there? Is it because you think we are less ethical?
If you see this as a real problem the only way to address it is to impose draconian restrictions of embryo creation by IVF clinics.
Adoption + restrictions on IVF clinics is an ethical solution.
No, it is not. Random destruction of embryos opens up all embryos in the US to destruction regardless of the method of creation or the desires of the "parents." This is a non-trivial difference.
This is a small point that is trivial to the argument I was making.
The thing is that thousands of embryos are being destroyed and then thrown in the garbage every year by IVF clinics.
Prevent the IVF clinics from destroying these embryos.
Current levels of embryo destruction are far more than sufficient for any likely levels of research demand. Look at other countries that do not place these limits (EU nations, Japan, etc) and you will not see embryo creation increasing to meet research demand. I see no reason that it would be different in the US.
Embryonic stem cell research is a very new issue. Imagine what will happen when this becomes a very hot research area. Demand will skyrocket.
Let's approximate:
100 research universities * 50 bio grad students/faculty at each university * an allocation of 100 embryos per experiment = 1/2 a million embryos per iteration of experiments.
And once US leads the way in ESCR, other countries may likely ramp up research in this area too. We should not open this Pandora's box, especially when we have not even fully explored the utility of adult stem cells.
Adoption + restrictions on IVF clinics is an ethical solution.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
A typical successful IVF conception involves the destruction of a dozen or more embryos. If you feel that each embryo is imbued with personhood the only ethical solution is banning IVF altogether. It cannot be seen as ethical to create a dozen or more people only to destroy most of them so that a woman can give birth to a baby (or twins, triplets, etc). If on the other hand you do not think that embryos = people (obviously my view) the more problematic ethical concerns are taken care of.
Prevent the IVF clinics from destroying these embryos.
Who will be responsible (read who will pay) for storing these embryos at -80oC in perpetuity?
The parents and clinics responsible for creating the embryos without this requirement so it is all but impossible to legally require them to shoulder this expense. That leaves the government. Would you support tax dollars going to support cryo units for these embryos in perpetuity?
100 research universities * 50 bio grad students/faculty at each university * an allocation of 100 embryos per experiment = 1/2 a million embryos per iteration of experiments.
That is not how it works. Almost all research is conducted on stem cell lines not individual embryos. I cannot find the cite, but if memory serves the success rate for creating an embryonic stem cell line is in the neighborhood of 1%, but once the cell line is created it can continue to produce stem cells for research indefinitely. Currently there are 22 lines that may be used while receiving federal money. Not all lines are the same. The current legally fundable lines do not meet all of the research needs. If the path I mentioned above had been followed we could have several dozen more cell lines for use and there would be little controversy surrounding this issue.
BTW I do agree with some of the constraints Bush placed on stem cell lines usable in government funded research:
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
* The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
* No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo.
My dispute is with the artificial deadline on the date of creation.
It's old news that under the Bush Administration only 22 or so lines were allowed for research with federal funds.
Harvard long ago decided to circumvent federal funding and do the research with their own money, which they have a lot of.
The Bush Administration was seen as being intractably reactionary to the promise of using stem cells, and everyone knew when David Baltimore gave his interview to Charlie Rose that Harvard and other institutions were simply going to take their endowments and fund research institutions of their own, which frankly obviates the need for federal funding. Baltimore called Bush's decision "Solomonic" at the time, although the Democrats have latched on to it as proving what a fuddyduddy and a troglodyte Bush is/was.
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
It's old news that under the Bush Administration only 22 or so lines were allowed for research with federal funds.
Harvard long ago decided to circumvent federal funding and do the research with their own money, which they have a lot of.
The Bush Administration was seen as being intractably reactionary to the promise of using stem cells, and everyone knew when David Baltimore gave his interview to Charlie Rose that Harvard and other institutions were simply going to take their endowments and fund research institutions of their own, which frankly obviates the need for federal funding. Baltimore called Bush's decision "Solomonic" at the time, although the Democrats have latched on to it as proving what a fuddyduddy and a troglodyte Bush is/was.
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
You do have a point in that IVF has always and will always involve the destruction of otherwise viable embryos. They freeze them and some of them (in fact most of them) just don't make it, and get thrown in the medical-waste bin. No doubt a lot of people have sat in traffic behind a truck carrying dead IVF embryos whilst on the Cross-Bronx Expressway in New York.
It's a short hop, skip and jump from that fact to believing like Michael Kinsley does that they're just "clumps of cells".
Science and medical technology isn't going to make the religious happy. Never has, never will. That's why eventually one or the other has to win, and it's going to continue to be a very ugly battle.
Morally I don't know whether or not I would have allowed IVF to continue. Actually, speaking for myself right now, I probably would have stopped it in its tracks. IVF is a technology that allows infertile couples to have children, but only while killing other human beings while they are in the blastocyst stage.
Lots more human beings are killed than are created. And they *are* killed, as surely as if I put you in a room and poured liquid nitrogen all over you.
One of the least-appreciated and least-deserved epithets that Liberals use when they talk about their rights to the latest reproductive technologies is to artifically castigate Christians for not adopting children.
It is in fact the Christian community that is much more likely to adopt children than any atheists and agnostics I knew in Chicago. Somehow they've managed to project that onto the people who oppose them on moral grouds, but it's not true.
Even NPR knows that religious people are not just more likely to donate money, they're more likely to adopt children, and more likely to support organizations like Christian's Children Fund to help those already born.
Instead there is some cultural misperception. I can tell you firsthand that the most liberal people I've known not only do not want to adopt, they don't want to bear children themselves, and because of that they want access to full-term abortion.
Liberals support organizations that support their recently-bourgeois "choices" in terms of lifestyle, and generally speaking they're much more inclined to paint religious people as backward and reactionary, even though they create most of the problems that truly religious people try to respond to.
They're hip!
In fact it just gave Harvard and other institutions a reason to spend their own money. They should be *happy* about that.
MacArthur Fellowships, other private grants and federal grants are not mutually exclusive. That Harvard or any other institution provides research grants for a technique is not a real argument against federal funds being used for complimentary research. The reverse also holds.
Science and medical technology isn't going to make the religious happy. Never has, never will. That's why eventually one or the other has to win, and it's going to continue to be a very ugly battle.
Certainly some see it that way and because of that the vitriol is not likely to stop in the foreseeable future.
I don't think that conflict between mainstream religion and science is necessary.
Even NPR knows that religious people are not just more likely to donate money, they're more likely to adopt children, and more likely to support [charitable organizations]
Do you have any proof of this assertion?
I am curious how those numbers would shake out if giving used specifically for evangelism were not counted. That is how does giving solely for humanitarian aid compare between the religious and non-religious? Is anyone reading this aware of a study that addresses this entirely off topic question?
Back to the topic at hand.
Even if it were true that the religious are more likely to adopt, there are not enough of them adopting to address a substantial fraction of embryos created by IVF clinics. Nothing is preventing them from adopting many of these embryos now, yet there they sit and there they go into the medical waste bin. If you really believe this put your money where your mouth is.
This is even more true in the case of abortion. There over 3/4 of a million abortions in the US every year. Do you really think that the religious community in the US is prepared to adopt in these numbers? I very much doubt it.
Re: the rest
Bourgeois choices are not the province of the right or the left. They are more or less evenly split. Most of us enjoy our middle class lifestyles and the choices they provide us.
Religious people are painted as backwards and reactionary because a very loud minority of religious people are backwards and reactionary. This is quite similar to people painting a political group with a broad brush based on a loud minority in their midst. You would never do something like that would you?
...even though they create most of the problems that truly religious people try to respond to.
Can you support this or is it simply an attempt to blame all of societies ills on your political adversaries? I'm guessing the latter.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
The mad scientists who attempt to create humans (for IVF or research) probably need to be placed in mental institutions.
The whole donation process should be done away with; everyone involved including the donors should be punished or institutionalized.
What restrictions do you have in mind?
A typical successful IVF conception involves the destruction of a dozen or more embryos.
Does that have to be the case, or can we find ways to reduce the loss of embryos?
The parents and clinics responsible for creating the embryos without this requirement so it is all but impossible to legally require them to shoulder this expense.
They created it and so they should foot the bill.
That is not how it works. Almost all research is conducted on stem cell lines not individual embryos. I cannot find the cite, but if memory serves the success rate for creating an embryonic stem cell line is in the neighborhood of 1%, but once the cell line is created it can continue to produce stem cells for research indefinitely.
Wouldn't universities want to create their own stem cell lines? What if they found that working from the actual embryo yielded more benefits?
Even if ESCR provided all the benefits in the world, it is still unethical to open this Pandora's box.
Does that have to be the case, or can we find ways to reduce the loss of embryos?
It's the best we can do now. Federal research money is not available for IVF and there is little incentive for private funding as the research might reduce the numbers of embryos destroyed, but it wouldn't do much to effect the financial costs.
They created it and so they should foot the bill.
My understanding is that it would be legally problematic to impose these costs on entities that were not required to do so on creation. Perhaps a lawyer reading this knows. This could certainly be imposed going forward.
Wouldn't universities want to create their own stem cell lines?
That depends on the type of research they wanted to do. It is quite difficult to create a stem cell line. The first lines were created in 1998 and now there are somewhere between 100 and 500 lines. If it were easy we would have far more. For most research, institutions would much prefer to buy a proven cell line rather than open up another avenue for their research to fail. If they needed a particular type of cell line that was not available they might want to create their own or contract out to a more specialized lab to have one created. The latter would likely be more cost effective. (For the research I am doing now it is actually marginally cheaper to send our cleaned and amplified genetic samples to S. Korea for sequencing than it is to buy the reagents to do it ourselves.)
What if they found that working from the actual embryo yielded more benefits?
That is not at all likely for virtually all ESCR.
Even if ESCR provided all the benefits in the world, it is still unethical to open this Pandora's box.
There lies the heart of the disagreement. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that destroying an embryo is not killing a person and I have seen no evidence that convinces me that an embryo is a person. We can argue particulars outside this central issue and opinions on those may change, but the heart of our disagreement will almost certainly remain.
There lies the heart of the disagreement. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that destroying an embryo is not killing a person and I have seen no evidence that convinces me that an embryo is a person. We can argue particulars outside this central issue and opinions on those may change, but the heart of our disagreement will almost certainly remain.
We must agree to disagree. Thank you for the civil exchange. The only way for me to potentially sway you is to argue that actual (and not just "apparent") design is evident in biology. I briefly touched on this in this comment:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/tomlinsondouthat/2007/nov/21/a_laymans_gui...
I saw your response in the earlier thread, but I wasn't sure who you were addressing and so let my reaction get lost in the holiday shuffle. I'm glad you chimed back in, so that we have another opportunity to discuss these issues.
As I've said, this is not my field, so I can't make any independent assessment of the prospects of this research. I can only base my opinion upon the judgment of those more knowledgeable than I am about these matters, as transmitted through the media. In everything I have read on this subject, the optimism with regard to the prospects for this sort of research has been portrayed as unanimous, as well as its potential for defusing the current debate. I gather from your screen name that you have some expertise in this field, and that you dissent to a degree from this optimism. Duly noted. However, I must accept the judgment of the apparent majority on this, absent a convincing argument to the contrary. I am not swayed by the fact that the ethically uncontroversial approaches are probably years away from producing usable results, since the ethically controversial approaches have, as I understand things, about the same time frame.
In any case, the ethical concerns regarding embryo-destructive research are entirely independent of the effectiveness of this or any other line of research. The only thing that might now be changed is the necessity of ignoring those concerns in order to acquire certain desiderata.
On the subject of these ethical concerns, they are slightly more complicated than a simple opposition to the destruction of embryos. There is, for instance, concern in many quarters about the instrumentalization and commodification of human life. Concerns along these lines have brought some otherwise pro-choice thinkers and commentators into alignment with the pro-life side of the debate on stem cell research—I believe that Charles Krauthammer is in this category—but they also form part of the standard arsenal of pro-life arguments. These concerns might apply to IVF as well as ESCR, but they seem to apply more strongly to the latter than to the former.
More than this, however, there is the matter of complicity. IVF, to the best of my knowledge, is an entirely private affair, at least insofar as it is not funded by the government. One might oppose IVF and wish it were illegal as it is currently performed (or at all), but at least one does not have to fund it with one's taxes. However, this is precisely what pro-lifers and others with similar opinions are being asked to do with regard to ESCR—or rather they have been asked this: The present excitement is over the possibility that they will not be asked this any more.
I can only base my opinion upon the judgment of those more knowledgeable than I am about these matters, as transmitted through the media. In everything I have read on this subject, the optimism with regard to the prospects for this sort of research has been portrayed as unanimous, as well as its potential for defusing the current debate.
Certainly optimism is high and this is a significant advance, but no scientist I am aware of thinks that these cells will be able to be used in therapies.
A few articles that are accessible to the layperson follow:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1120/1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071120095400.htm
I've lost the article reference (also published in Cell) but Yamanaka's group did this same procedure with mouse cells last year. The resultant cells were injected into mice and produced tumors consisting of a seemingly random collection of different cell types.
Again this is a big step forward, but the media is overhyping its immediate utility.
In any case, the ethical concerns regarding embryo-destructive research are entirely independent of the effectiveness of this or any other line of research.
True, but I am left confused by the argument against federal funding, but allowing private research. If you feel that each embryo is imbued with personhood I don't see how you could support any research of this type regardless of the funding stream and opposition to this and IVF should be as strong as opposition to abortion. (Then again I don't understand rape and incest exceptions for abortion. Either it is a person or it is not.) If on the other hand you do not think that these embryos are people (I do not) then the arguments against federal funding seem to me few and unconvincing.
There is, for instance, concern in many quarters about the instrumentalization and commodification of human life.
There are certainly ethical concerns here but they are not unique and do not preclude federal funding in other cases where they are present. Assuming you do not believe in the personhood of these embryos, how are these concerns different for adult stem cells or even skin cells engineered to return to pluripotency? The law as I understand it now does not allow for the sale of these embryos or indeed any human body part down to individual cells. Storage and processing fees are allowed, but actual sale is not. Would you enlighten me as to the specific ethical concerns that apply to ESCR that do not apply to adult stem cells and do not involve the debatable personhood of the embryos?
These concerns might apply to IVF as well as ESCR, but they seem to apply more strongly to the latter than to the former.
I do not see this. Could you explain why these concerns apply more to ESCR than to IVF? Is this simply because the donors are generally but not always the recipients or does it go beyond this?
More than this, however, there is the matter of complicity. IVF, to the best of my knowledge, is an entirely private affair, at least insofar as it is not funded by the government.
Currently the only potential federal funding stream that could go to IVF would be government paid insurance. I do not know whether federal employees insurance can be used for this. IVF is a fully mature procedure and no longer requires much in the way research funding. In its early phases of development (pre 1973) the federal government gave grants for research developing IVF. When the funding stream was cut off in 1973 the major breakthroughs all happened outside the US. This is what we are currently looking at for ESCR. The breakthroughs will come, but they will come more slowly and major breakthroughs will more likely be made outside the US unless and until this ruling is overturned.
Calls for funding ESCR will not cease until methods of returning differentiated cells to a true pluripotent state are perfected and perhaps not then as they will only ever approximate ESCs.
I can tell by a quick read of what you say that my next response will be pretty long. But it's getting to the point in the evening that I should start devoting myself to less serious pursuits, so I'll leave that response till tomorrow, if that's all right. In the meantime, I'd certainly be interested in what anyone else has to say on these matters, should the Muse strike.
if stem cell research is so great, then why isn't someone like George Soros providing private funds for it? While John Kerry was extoling its virtues and making it seem as though it was the key to the likes of Christopher Reeve walking I wonder if any of his wife's vast fortune was spent on its research.
No one is saying that scientists can't research on embryonic stem cells, however some of us have a serious problem with the morality of creating life for the sole purpose of killing it. We shouldn't be forced to fund this sort of thing. Since the arguement is for public funding of embryonic stem cell research, isn't that the ultimate question behind this debate.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Invoking Soros or Clinton seems to be the refuge of people on the right who have no real argument and want to score easy emotional points. (Substitute Murdock and Bush/Cheney for the left)
There are foundations providing money for ESCR, but to make a real push government funds are what is needed. The way things stand now, if you are doing ESCR on a line that is not on the short list and others in your lab are doing federally funded research their grants are in danger if you use commonly held equipment (freezers, microscopes, pipettes, etc). The issue involves more than you appear to think it does.
however some of us have a serious problem with the morality of creating life for the sole purpose of killing it.
That is not happening in publicly or privately funded research nor is it likely to. The embryos have already been created for reproductive therapies and are already slated for destruction. We are not talking about creating more embryos to be destroyed. We are talking about diverting embryos from the garbage can to the laboratory.
Why don't we limit the conversation to what is actually under debate by rational people?
Since the arguement is for public funding of embryonic stem cell research, isn't that the ultimate question behind this debate.
The argument is indeed about funding. The artificial deadline on when the line was created does not make the use of those embryos any more or less moral/ethical. Making the deadline earlier would not serve to make his decision more ethical it would only serve to further limit cell lines available for use. Moving that deadline to the present would open up several dozen more cell lines for use and would not make the
Knowing precisely little about ESCR personally I cannot stand in judgement on the technical content - but this is about as concise, readable, and balanced a presentation as I've seen anywhere.
Well done, sir.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.