Goodman wrong about embryo use for research HAL D. ZENDLE Niskayuna
I have to take issue with Ellen Goodman’s June 15 comments. Scientists are predicting that stem cells for treating patients will someday be obtained by taking a typical “adult” body cell (like a skin cell) and transforming it. Ms. Goodman maintains that in order to learn how to do this, we must first start with cells obtained by killing embryos. The “logic of science” suggests that Ms. Goodman is wrong. We should be able to learn how to modify adult cells for treating patients without involving embryos. Genetic “tricks” done to an embryonic cell should also be “do-able” to an adult cell, with a few minor twists and turns. This makes sense when you realize that any one individual’s adult cells have exactly the same DNA as the embryonic cells they came from (barring mutations). At the very least, modifying “grownup” cells to behave like “baby” cells is an avenue of research that should be explored, and one that would be eligible for federal funding since embryos are spared!
Cloning pets is becoming feasible, but at what cost? BY SARA TRACEY Senior, Shenendehowa High School East
Remember the childhood pet who shared your bed and was your everyday playmate? The one who was there, rain or shine, whenever you needed a wagging tail or a comforting purr. The friend you think about every once in a while, wishing you could see its furry face again? That may happen one day. Advances in cloning pets are being made and with that, the realization that one day you may be able to copy your pet. With just a little bit of your pet’s DNA, it is becoming feasible to duplicate the pet. Although, in the case of cats, it may not look 100 percent like your feline friend as a cat’s coat is only partly genetically determined — other factors during development influence fur color and pattern — according to researchers at Texas A&M University, where the first cat clone was created in 2001. The kitten was named “CC” for carbon copy, although it is not identical to its donor. In January of 2002, another domestic cat was cloned. Its two offspring, Baba Ganoush and Tabouleh, were paraded around New York City during the New York Cat Show at Madison Square Garden in 2004 and treated like celebrities. Dogs are harder to clone, scientists say. In 2005, however, in South Korea, a cloned Afghan hound was born. The first attempt in the United States to create an exact replica of a dog, a mutt named Missy, failed. Scientists hope dog clones will help them understand, research and come up with new treatments for serious human diseases, since dogs suffer very similar diseases as people. HOW CLONING WORKS The process of cloning, according to Shenendehowa biology teacher Stephen Klein, involves using an egg from one creature and genetic material from the pet. For example, scientists could start with an egg from a dog, remove the nucleus and insert tissue carrying genetic information from your pet into the egg’s cytoplasm. If successful, the egg starts dividing and develops into an embryo. The embryo is then placed into the mother, or surrogate mother, and carried to term. Interest in copying the genetics of an animal grew when Dolly, a sheep, was cloned in 1996 in Scotland. Though the sheep had to be put to death last year because of a fatal lung virus, she sparked interest in the world’s cloning efforts. Even before Dolly was cloned, Hollywood’s imagination was sparked as movies such as “Jurassic Park” and “Multiplicity” were released in 1994 and 1996, respectively. Though these movies were entertaining, cloning experiments happened in fantasy films for good reason — cloning costs. The process of cloning a pet cat was being offered by Genetic Savings and Clone, a privately held company based in Sausalito, Calif., at a cost of $50,000. Evidently, copying cats was too expensive, as the company has since closed. “You have to be a little nuts, and superrich, to throw that kind of money into cloning a pet when $50,000 can go so far to educating, clothing, and feeding our own poor as well as the world’s poor,” says Klein. “I think people who do that could better spend their money on helping humans first — dogs, cats and chickens second,” said student Renae Townsend. MORAL ISSUES Though some people object to the cost, others are livid about the ethical and moral issues raised. Humanitarians and animal-rights activists, such as the Humane Society of the United States, argue that shelters kill roughly 4 million animals every year. They feel cloning pets is wrong because there are more than enough animals available for adoption. There are others who oppose cloning on religious grounds. Even if you’re willing to spend the money to clone your favorite pet, chances are it won’t be the same as the original since the environment and other factors effect the pet’s personality. Let’s face it: Rex number two will never be as good as the original.
Through the years I have appreciated the concern of our public servant Lt. Gov. David Paterson for his constituents. That is why his recent commentary on stem cells ("Stem cells' promise merits more," June 22) disappoints and disturbs me.
While it is true that embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into all the body's cell types when left undisturbed in the womb, it may not be as true that they hold this capability in the laboratory. Ignoring the pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells (bone marrow) and other reports of pluripotency in non-embryonic stem cells (nasal, umbilical cord, etc.) is deceptive and can be misleading to the public.
The lieutenant governor's article raises many concerns for me. As one who has been dedicated to the education of women for decades, I know that embryonic stem cell research suggests a need for a steady and plentiful supply of women's eggs. Ads in daily newspapers and college newspapers, as well as on TV and in the theater, encourage women to donate their eggs.
There is no public policy, consensus or regulation for this practice. Questions of risk and informed consent must be considered; there is potential for the exploitation of women.
The need for enhancements in stem cell research is irrefutable, as the lieutenant governor suggests. It is critical for the public to educate themselves regarding all the complexities of the biological, economic and social implications of embryonic cells and adult stem cells. Perhaps then the taxpayers can decide how to invest their dollars.
COLETTE MAHONEY, RSHM, Ph.D., President emeritus Marymount Manhattan College Tarrytown.
State may soon start funding stem cell research BY BOB CONNER Gazette Reporter Reach Gazette reporter Bob Conner at 462-2499 or bconner@dailygazette.net.
The state hopes to start committing money for stem cell research this fiscal year, according to Dr. Lawrence Sturman, executive director of the new Empire State Stem Cell Board. The state’s fiscal year ends March 31, but Sturman said he does not expect all of the currently available $100 million to be committed by then, and the money would actually be spent later as research is done. In this year’s budget, the state pledged a total of $600 million over the next 10 years. Sturman, who is director of the state Health Department’s Wadsworth Center research laboratory, said Capital Region institutions such as Albany Medical College, the University at Albany and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute could wind up doing some of the work. Gov. Eliot Spitzer last week named his appointees to the board, which is composed of two committees, one on funding and the other on ethics, both chaired by Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines. The majority of each committee will be gubernatorial appointees. Daines will make the ultimate funding decisions subject, as other state contracts are, to review by the comptroller and attorney general, Sturman said. On Monday, Scott Reif, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, confirmed that Bruno’s two appointees to the ethics panel are the Rev. Thomas Berg and Dr. Colin Goddard. Goddard is CEO of OSI Pharmaceuticals, which on its Web site describes itself as “specializing in the discovery and development of innovative molecular targeted therapies.” In 2005, he was named the first recipient of the Biotechnology Leadership Award by the New York Biotechnology Association. Berg, a Roman Catholic priest, is director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, and an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. The Spitzer administration and many scientists support embryonic research, which they say holds the most promise of finding cures for diseases. However, opponents say it commonly involves the destruction of human life. David Smingler, a spokesman for Sen. Hugh Farley, R-Niskayuna, said the senator was among those who recommended Berg to Bruno. Sen. Martin Golden, R-Brooklyn, who like Farley opposes embryonic research, said recent studies show promise of productive stem cell research without destroying embryos. This is both an ethical and a funding issue, Golden said, because conforming to federal guidelines could maximize federal aid. The Bush administration has placed restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Sturman said embryonic research will be one of a number of issues to be considered by the ethics committee. He noted that the federal restrictions do not amount to a prohibition, and said New York is one of the states where federal money is funding embryonic research. The state program, however, is not bound by the federal restrictions. Sturman said he did not know the position of the Spitzer appointees, including Daines, on embryonic stem cell research. Christine Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Spitzer, said there was no “litmus test” on the issue. The governor’s office released statements in support of his appointments from backers of embryonic stem cell research, including Susan Solomon, president of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, and Rabbi Dennis Ross, director of Concerned Clergy for Choice. Spitzer said in a statement that his appointees will “bring thoughtful leadership, scientific expertise, and ethical considerations to the advancement of stem cell research.” Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, said the conference is interested in the composition of the ethics committee, but declined further comment, saying it would be “imprudent” to discuss the conference’s strategy in opposing embryonic research. Phil Oliva, chief spokesman for Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, R-Schenectady, said Tedisco’s appointee to the ethics panel will not support research involving the destruction of human embryos. The press office of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, did not respond to a question about whom he would appoint, but Silver has in the past criticized opponents of embryonic stem cell research. Sturman said the stem cell board and its committees would hold open meetings in different parts of the state.
In this year’s budget, the state pledged a total of $600 million over the next 10 years.
So Spitzer is spending our hard earned money BEFORE we even make it! And with everyone moving the hell out of this state, the few left will be paying out even more! And now Spitzer (the dems) have created this new Empire State Stem Cell Board. Spending more and more of our money on this foolish nonsense when we are already taxed to death. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER REASON TO KEEP ED KOSIUR OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
My husband had a stem cell transplant for his aggressive Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 1999. He was given injections so his body could produce more stem cells. They purged his stemcells before the transplant and froze them. About 1 month later he went into Albany Med where he had enough chemo to kill off all of his blood cells. They then thawed his frozen stemcells and they were re-introduced through IV.
Stem cell discovery lauded Scientists’ breakthrough uses ordinary skin to create cells BY RICK WEISS The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — Researchers in Wisconsin and Japan have turned ordinary human skin cells into what are effectively embryonic stem cells without using embryos or women’s eggs — the two hitherto essential ingredients that have embroiled the medically promising field in a long political and ethical debate. The unencumbered ability to turn adult cells into embryonic ones capable of morphing into virtually every kind of cell or tissue, described in two scientifi c journal articles released Tuesday, has been the ultimate goal of researchers for years. In theory, it would allow people to grow personalized replacement parts for their bodies from a few of their own skin cells, while giving researchers a uniquely powerful means of understanding and treating diseases. Until now, only human egg cells and embryos, both difficult to obtain and laden with legal and ethical issues, could be used to create stem cells. And until this summer, the challenge of mimicking that process in the lab seemed almost insurmountable, leading many to wonder if stem cell research would ever wrest free of its political baggage. As news of the success by two different research teams spread by e-mail, scientists seemed almost giddy at the likelihood that their field, which for its entire life has been at the center of so much debate, may suddenly become like other areas of biomedical science: appreciated, eligible for federal funding and wide open for new waves of discovery. “These are enormously important papers,” said George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital Boston, who was not involved in the work. Like others, he spoke with stunned elation reminiscent of scientists’ reactions in 1997 to the cloning of Dolly the sheep from a skin cell, the first proof that adult mammal cells could have their genetic clocks turned back. Their enthusiasm notwithstanding, scientists warned that medical treatments are not immediately at hand. The new method uses genetically engineered viruses to transform adult cells into embryo-like ones, and those viruses can trigger tumors. But the cells will be instantly useful for research purposes — “to move a patient’s disease into a petri dish,” as Daley put it. And some scientists predicted that with the basic secret now in hand, it could be a mere matter of months before virus-free methods for making the versatile cells are found. “This is a tremendous scientifi c milestone, the biological equivalent to the Wright brothers’ first airplane,” said Robert Lanza, chief scientifi c officer of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., a developer of stem cell therapies. Especially gratifying to stem cell researchers was that some of their biggest critics seemed mollifi ed. Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said he was at a Vatican-sponsored meeting recently where the technique was described. “All the Catholic scientists and ethicists at the conference … had no moral problem with it at all,” he said. “This seems to be a way to get all the same uses that embryonic stem cells and cloning might be put to without the moral problem.” The White House released a statement praising the studies. “President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today. By avoiding techniques that destroy life while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries.” the statement said. Another crucial vote of confi - dence came from James Battey, vice chairman of the National Institutes of Health’s stem cell task force, which oversees decisions about funding stem cell research. “I see no reason on Earth why this would not be eligible for federal funding,” Battey said. “I think it’s a wonderful new development.” Many teams had been racing to be first to create embryonic stem cells or their equivalents without embryos, building on a June report in which researchers found a way to do so in mice. Yet scientists around the world agreed that nobody deserved to win that race more than the two who did: James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, who first isolated stem cells from five-day-old human embryos in 1998, and Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, who led the recent effort to obtain mouse stem cells without embryos. Thomson, a shy and laconic laboratory researcher whose discovery of embryonic stem cells made him the focus of religious opprobrium and repeated congressional hearings, expressed relief that he might now be able to work without being at the center of what had become America’s other abortion debate. “What a great bookend,” Thomson said in an interview. “Ten years of turmoil and now this nice ending. I can relax now.”
Perhaps right for us...but not for all! Watch the dem's closely. Hillary already said that she would not veto stem cell research if she were elected. And for all of the people who have ill loved ones, that have been promised a remedy or cure through stem cell research...Hillary will get their votes.
BigK Mr. Bumble-
One problem we have today with access to the internet/information and the ability to cut and paste- is becoming armchair intellectuals-
I recently had a converstion with a very young Phd working at the GE World Research lab. We talked about how many people seem to know alot about metabolism ( a student in pre med may take 1 class in just liver metabolism )- But almost anyone now can tell you exactly why your a** is too big.
This Dr. , who mayjored in material science ( how temperature effects phosphorus ) told me she has friends - a husband and wife doing stem cell research in London where it is legal.
It is so complicted she does not understand the process-
Im not sure where all the information is taking us but most of us really dont have a clue- we are scientific dillitants- if there is such a thing
Stem cell debate redux First published: Sunday, November 25, 2007
It was in his very early months as President, before so much attention turned to terrorism and then war, that George W. Bush prevailed in blocking federal research on stem cells culled from human embryos. With his typical self-assurance, the President has been insisting for six years now that scientists soon enough would find a better way, indeed a more moral way, to develop embryonic stem cells than a method that involves first the creation and then the destruction of embryos.
A promising breakthrough simultaneously announced last week by rival teams of scientists in Wisconsin and Japan makes Mr. Bush's position a much greater possibility. If skin cells can indeed be reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells, a contentious debate is likely to have been resolved on the President's terms.
What's required now, though, is to see use of this method of stem cell generation as a possibility, not a certainty. Some of the genes used to reprogram skin cells are associated with cancer, for instance.
This development shouldn't undermine the so far unsuccessful efforts to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos. It would be premature to abandon what had been most scientists' preferred approach toward the generation of stem cells.
More than anything, last week's announcements should mark a truce in the politicization of science. Context is essential before opponents of embryonic stem cell research can effectively stop it on what they regard as moral grounds.
It's one thing to proclaim, as does the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, that it's "never necessary for laboratory researchers to cross fundamental moral lines in order for science and medicine to advance."
It's quite another, though, to suggest such research has been rendered obsolete. It's likely, actually, that the ability to reprogram skin cells wouldn't have been developed without embryo experiments.
Even now, Robert Lanza of the Massachusetts-based research firm Advanced Cell Technology likens the technique of getting skin cells to behave alike embryonic cells to "learning how to turn lead into gold."
"This is early stage research, and we should not abandon other areas of stem cell research," Mr. Lanza says.
As for where the politics of such science stands now, it's Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who stands among the genuine voices of reason.
"My own view is that science ought to be unfettered and that every possible alternative ought to be explored," he says. "You've got a life-and-death situation here, and if we can find something which is certifiably equivalent to embryonic stem cells, fine. But we are not there yet."
As it happens, Mr. Specter was the lead Republican sponsor of a stem cell research bill that Mr. Bush vetoed last year. He intends to keep pushing for such legislation, as he should.
THE ISSUE: A new technique is developed that doesn't require destroying embryos.
THE STAKES: Medical science is best served by pursuing both approaches.
Quoted from JoAnn My husband had a stem cell transplant for his aggressive Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 1999. He was given injections so his body could produce more stem cells. They purged his stemcells before the transplant and froze them. About 1 month later he went into Albany Med where he had enough chemo to kill off all of his blood cells. They then thawed his frozen stemcells and they were re-introduced through IV.
Logged
