BEST USE: Many supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that continued funding of the research is necessary, as scientists are still sorting out many of the strengths and weaknesses of different types of stem cells.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/PAUL FLEET
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Not all stem cells are created equal. But just how close adult and reprogrammed stem cells can come to matching the capabilities of embryonic stem cells has become a contentious question in the debate over whether the federal government should continue funding research on embryonic lines. And many researchers maintain that a diverse stem cell portfolio will increase medical discovery dividends.
Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research had been backed by federal funds for more than a decade, but a surprise August injunction by a federal judge threw the field's future into question. The judge made his ruling based on a strict interpretation of a 1996 budget amendment (the Dickey–Wicker Amendment) that prohibited federal funds from being used for research that destroyed or endangered an embryo.
"We thought the fight was over," Tom Harkin (D–Iowa) and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies said at a hearing on embryonic stem cell research on Thursday. Under the Obama administration, the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research had more than tripled, but no money was going toward the creation of any cell lines (a process that destroys the embryo).
Despite an appeals court's temporary lift this month of the funding ban, the injunction "has placed a cloud of uncertainty over this entire field," Harkin noted.
Other lawmakers are keen to see embryonic stem cell research funding curtailed more permanently. Sen. Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), of the Dickey–Wicker Amendment, explained that the advent of hESC research in the years since the amendment was first written has only underscored what he described to be the intentions of the legislation: to avoid tax dollars from being spent on any research that has endangered an embryo.
As rationale for moving federal funds away from hESC research toward that involving adult stem cells, some researchers, lawmakers and advocates argue that adult stem cells have already been used to develop proved cures, such as those for some blood diseases. Others in that camp suggest that reprogrammed adult cells, (induced pluripotent, or iPSCs) can effectively replace the need for pluripotent embryonic stem cells.
"If we can use adult stem cells [and] reprogram them to act like embryonic stem cells, why would we not take that approach?" Wicker asked.
Adult stem cells, reprogrammed or not, however, have not been shown to have the same level of flexibility in becoming any cell in the body.
"Human embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard for pluripotency," Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said at the hearing.
Other scientists argue that the discussion should not be an either–or debate. "I think it's a mistake to cast the different types of stem cells as competing priorities," George Daley, associate director of the Stem Cell Program at Children's Hospital Boston, said at the hearing. "ES cells are not contestants of Survivor that should be voted off the island," he said.
Sean Morrison, director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, pointed out that pitting different kinds of stem cell research against each other makes little sense from a research perspective. "It's scientifically meaningless to frame this as a debate between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells," he said at the hearing. Embryonic stem cells helped researchers develop other research tools, such as iPSCs, he pointed out.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentAdult cells transformed into iPSCs would be strongly preferred over embryonic stem cells for use in the treatment of adult medical conditions, especially in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf embryonic stem cells offer some significant benefit in the necessary research and development of those treatments and the US disallows ESC use, those treatments will more likely be developed by other countries.
Perhaps this is the optimal situation for US taxpayers, as foreign developers will be more motivated (using ESCs) to develop treatments intended for the US market that use adult cell iSPCs.
If all research and development uses ESCs (even in the US), there may be a persistent argument that only ESCs can provide for effective treatments.
If treatments for some conditions inescapably require the use of ESCs, the US could decide whether or not to allow such treatments on a case-by-case basis.
Sorry, US medical researchers...
This argument about stem cells can be traced to religious intolerance of science. It is not a moral or ethical question IMHO. Because a cell has 46 chromosomes as opposed to 23 does not confer a special moral sense to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious bigots in US who oppose ES cell reserach are unfortunately becoming mainstream thanks to their supporters at FOX news and other outlets. If american public does not confront such zealot christians, they will push back american science and society by millenia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see how it is 'zealotry' or 'bigotry' to oppose embryonic stem cell research, and all the more Federal funding of that research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we say that human life has immeasurable value, that we honor that value by declaring the destruction of human life to be morally reprehensible... then if one judges a human embryo to be human life, this viewpoint is merely consistent.
I am curious why federal funding is considered so essential. If the value is there, why doesn't private funding back these efforts?
And finally, I do not see how Christian moral views push us back "by millenia". Christians (at least the well reasoned ones) do not view science or technology as the enemy. However they will never see science and technology as the vehicle for an ideal society.
If you (those who think this way) were to stop making enemies of Christians, and sought to reach common ground instead of belittling others' views, perhaps we'd all be more productive together.
daveg, I appreciate the request for a reduction in 'belittling others' views'. But let's take your argument point by point. To say that an embryo is a human life, and that the destruction of human life is morally reprehensible, is difficult to support in a wide variety of ways. Fertility clinics are destroying more embryos in one week then the entire field of embryonic stem cell research has in its existence. GW Bush approved 21 embryonic stemcell lines 2001. That's what the field has used until Obama approved 50+ esc lines recently. That's what researchers are using now. Each line is derived from one embryo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeyond the simple math, if you find the destruction of human life morally reprehensible, how do you feel about war? Certainly more humans killed each year in wars than embryos have ever been killed for research.
Those of us who see the value of esc research value the possibility of treatments for humans who are suffering now. How do you feel about human suffering?
There is a great deal of private funding going into esc research. Geron is about to start human trials with spinal cord injured patients. But without federal funding, a few companies like Geron will control the development of esc treatments, which will dramatically limit its availability to the public.
Contrary to your view of 'Christians', in fact Christians have consistently seen science as 'anti-God'. Remember the reasoning for Christians trying to stop blood transfusions?
Daveg - all religionists by definition are anti-science. Some more outward than others. The catholic church even opposes male masturbation as sperm have a "life" potential. I think it might be more related to wasting potential catholics then a life dilemma!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf embryonic stem cells can be employed to regenerate damaged or defective cells, extending life, they will be developed into products that do so and utilized by some citizens of virtually all nations regardless of any national religion or philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdaveg: Those embryos go into the bio trash if they aren't used by researchers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccuse fertility clinics of creating excess embryos that have no use and await certain death, not the scientists that use these leftovers.
This issue isn't rhetorical for me or 90 million others with currently incurable illness!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are we to think?
When hundreds of thousands of IVF cells are destroyed with no more than a conservative Christian shrug of the shoulders?
When a full scale political/legal war is waged to prevent a few cells diverted from the trash to prevent suffering or to save our lives?
People believe unchallenged lies!
In Court or in public opinion, an admission of guilt includes "not emphatically denying an accusation, which any reasonable person would deny if false."
Because NO ONE denies it:
* People in the public believe accusations aborted fetuses are used in ESCR.
* People believe accusations Adult Stem cells are more promising.
* People believe "scientific experts" discount the potential of ESCR.
The recent advances (spinal cord repair, blindness) may be the reason the war against ESCR is gearing up; an entire political fund & vote raising movement is dependant upon this issue.
Soon, 100 US Senators will decide the future for hundreds of thousands of us.
Many Senate and Congressional candidates running right now will rely on misstated facts and ideology, without knowing the scientific, financial or public policy considerations.
Can those of you who do, also teach? Please, TELL the public the truth, and confront misinformation!
THANK YOU for all your work!
Ralf123, AnnieC - Presuming you're correct, as I suspect you are, and fetuses are regularly disposed of rather than buried as our society demands for individual people, the assertion that fetuses are people who should not be "murdered" seems fatally flawed...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who protest against abortions on these grounds should first be working to have all fetuses buried, if that is truly their belief.
Thanks for helping me to clear this up, at least in my own mind.
NIH funding is the reason the US dominates the world in medical advancement!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe lost a decade of progress to the policy that required researchers to maintain two entire sets of files, phones, computers, equipment, fridges, etc as no federally funded items could touch any privately funded items.
Restricting research to cells fertilized before an improvement in the preservation technique further delayed progress.
Perhaps most importantly, delays came from discouraging researchers with genius from a career in medical research! (Just try to get a PhD committee to approve any research FORBIDDEN Federal Funding)
As for making enemies of Christians, most Christians agree with me! I pray for those who agree but remain silent, just as Church members have for centuries had to atone for their actions or inactions that led to suffering and death for disabled people.
I'm even confident the Catholic Church will take responsibility and apologize for their role. (Lets see it took only 127 years in Gregor Mendels case, but they apologized and took responsibility for the deaths of disabled Europeans in only 60 years and took even less time apologizing for opposing the POLIO vaccine, so maybe during my children's lifetimes?)
I have multiple system atrophy, so I'm not looking for a cure, but ESCR is even more promising in the treatment area, as the cells multiply ridiculously faster, more reliably and less expensively than Adult Stem cells! (so researchers can replicate a cell with disease attributes and test various treatments.
Testing in a cell costs a fraction of testing in people or animals.
Testing in a cell is light-speed faster!
Dave, when you take actions that will hurt others, shouldn't you take the time to research the facts instead of accepting the word of your Lay Leader?
Jtdwyer - Why should "those who protest against abortions on these grounds first be working to have all fetuses buried, if that is truly their belief"? The first priority is to save the lives of unborn babies. It would be great to be able to bury them after they are killed, but we should first try to save their lives. Would the same be true if the discussion was about any human being? You work to save someone's life before you work to bury them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this