Cellular Residue
I’ve heard a lot of differing opinions on the Embryonic Stem Cell debate, from both sides of the argument. And now that Dubya has used his first veto on a bill to provide Federal Funding to Embryonic Stem Cells, the debate has gotten louder.
I’m going to come right out and say that I’m against Embryonic Stem Cell research, for a plethora of reasons ranging from religious conviction to political disagreement and also scientific skepticism.
However, James Taranto of Best of the Web [Yesterday] has a great perspective on this whole argument, and I quote his article in full:
BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:14 p.m. EDTHard Cell
“President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, rejecting legislation to ease limits on federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from embryos,” reports the Associated Press. Congress is almost certain to sustain the veto, since the bill passed by 63-37 in the Senate and 238-194 in the House, respectively 4 and 52 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for an override.We must confess, we are ambivalent about this matter. We don’t have strong qualms about federal funding for this research, and we wouldn’t have a problem if the president signed it. We’re not terribly troubled by the idea of destroying human embryos (though we respect those who are), and we’re not qualified to evaluate the competing claims about the likely efficacy of embryonic vs. adult stem-cell research (the latter is uncontroversial).
On balance, we suppose we’re inclined to support the legislation. But the tone of the debate gives us second thoughts–in particular, this October 2004 quote from John Edwards:
“We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases. . . . People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research.”
When people who claim to be speaking out for science talk like faith healers, they risk discrediting the entire enterprise. By contrast, President Bush’s approach to the question, as we noted five years ago, is nuanced and thoughtful.
Further, Bush’s foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a “ban on stem-cell research.” In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a “ban.”
We won’t pretend to be shocked, shocked that politicians are engaging in demagoguery and dishonesty. We’re cynical enough to realize that is what pols do when they think they have a winning issue, and that’s why we haven’t totally turned against the pro-funding position.
We do wonder, though, if this really is as winning an issue as Bush’s foes think it is. Of the five Republican senators generally considered vulnerable in November, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted “yes.” Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania all voted against the bill, as did Jon Kyl of Arizona and George Allen of Virginia, whom the most optimistic Democrats also think they have a chance of defeating. Only one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted “no,” and he also is up for re-election this year and is regarded as vulnerable.
It may be that these opponents are acting on principle, heedless of political considerations, or it may be that their vulnerability makes them more inclined to be responsive to their pro-life base, though even the latter explanation suggests the politics are somewhat complicated. And if the politics are complicated, it is because, as even the left-wing magazine Mother Jones acknowledges, the morality of destroying embryos is fraught:
Aanis Elspas is a mother of four. Unlike most parents, she had three of her children simultaneously. The nine-year-old triplets were born in 1997 after Elspas underwent a series of in vitro fertilization treatments for infertility. . . . The problem is that Elspas also has 14 embryos left over from the treatment that produced her 10-year-old. The embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen at a California frozen storage facility–she is not entirely sure where–while Elspas and her husband ponder what to do with them.
Give them away to another couple, to gestate and bear? Her own children’s full biological siblings–raised in a different family? Donate them to scientific research? Let them . . . finally . . . lapse? It is, she and her husband find, an intractable problem, one for which there is no satisfactory answer. So what they have done–thus far–is nothing. Nothing, that is, but agonize. . . .
Elspas is by no means alone, either in having frozen human embryos she and her husband must eventually figure out what to do with, or in the moral paralysis she feels, surveying the landscape of available choices.
Mother Jones, not surprisingly, quotes one expert who “believes that with better patient counseling and logistical coordination between fertility clinics and research labs, many more unused embryos could be directed toward stem cell research, and that many patients would be happy to know that their embryos are being used to find a cure for afflictions such as Parkinson’s disease and juvenile diabetes.”
That may be true, and many people (including this columnist) find it hard to credit the absolutist pro-life position that destroying an embryo is tantamount to killing a person. But Aanis Elspas’s anguish suggests also that one doesn’t have to be a pro-life absolutist to be troubled by the idea that human embryos are disposable.
While Taranto takes a few cheap shots at politicians, he does frame the debate quite nicely.
So is Stem Cell research right or wrong? My answer is that is is right and should continue.
Is Embyrotic Stem Cell research right or wrong? My answer is that it is wrong.
I could frame this debate in religious doctrine, but that is a waste of time for me and for you the non-religious reader and religious reader alike.
I could frame this in a political debate, but politics never works at a rational level, does it? (and there is some sick and twisted political arguments on both sides, which I do not even want to entertain)
In terms of a scientific debate, I look at the research done on Adult Stem Cells, and I see countless breakthroughs in medicine.
I look at the same research in Embryonic Stem Cells, and it is being done, at the private level, and there is exactly zero things that Embrotic Stem Cells cure/fix/alieve, that Adult Stem Cells cannot. (For further debate on this issue, I defer to The-Evil-Doctor-Merlin-Channing-Lowe-Jr. who has told me the same thing that my research has uncovered, as he is the official Medical Expert of Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com.)
In terms of another Scientifc Argument (which is also economical in nature) I’m finding that there is a dark cabal of investors who are looking to make some good money in Embryotic Stem Cell research. (And I’m not just pointing to Stem Cells, this is pervasive in much of the Scientific Community, and it is what I like to call the Dark Underbelly of the Scientific Community… Money talks, research walks.)
And while this is an aside to this debate, I have to salute the President for standing by his convictions. Right or Wrong. There are Presidents who are considered greater than he who could not do the same thing. (And it was the fatal flaw of his father’s Presidency.) And for those who think he did this for his base, I disagree, his Republican Base is not following him on this issue. Here he ventured on his own.
I agree Bush followed his convictions and whether or not you think he did this for his base depends on who you think his base is I suppose. The “religious right” certainly agrees with him.
I don’t know enough about the science to know if embryonic stem cells are any better or worse than adult stem cells. I have only to go on what I’ve heard which is that it’s unique. I’m not sure you can compare the resulting discoveries uncovered by the two since embryonic stem cell research seems to be much more stifled than the adult equivalent.
I really don’t have a strong feeling about whether the govenment should fund research or not (which is much of what this bill was), but the creating of new stem cell lines seems different.
Here’s my issue. Bush stood up on the podium and pointed to a bunch of kids behind him and said “these are not replaceable parts” or some such nonsense. But the only embryos people are talking about using are those that would otherwise be destroyed. Is each embryo a potential life? Yes. But if the options are use it for science or destroy it, the answer seems obvious to me. But then I’m not religious.
The only couterpoint I can really understand about that is that it encourages a black market for embryos. Ok. certainly the potential exists. As it does today for organs I suppose. And I would think the same potential exists today for Ebryos as well, no? As I understand it the federal government is the only one saying that they won’t create new stem lines. That leaves state and private organizations free to do so. Do we really think the Feds would start to buy black market emryos?
Maybe I’m missing the point here.
From a religious perspective I’m curious: are you in favor of organ donations? If so, what is the difference between a mother donating her dead son’s liver to someone and a mother donating her soon to be dead embryo?
Comment by Cisco — July 20, 2006 @ 3:01:25 PM
Here’s a list of diseases that are being treated (successfully) by adult vs. embryonic stem cells.
http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
The list comes from an obviously biased source; however, with a little research, you will find that it is accurate.
It’s an interesting question that Cisco brings up regarding organ donation. It’s an argument often used, but the parallel breaks down if you look further at it. In organ donation, the donor is dead. There are incredibly strict rules about how to declare someone dead, and thus a candidate for organ donation. It may be a little different in other states, but in Arizona a donor must be brain dead before organ donation is allowed. This means that the person cannot simply have no chance of living and have all the machines turned off to “cause” or allow the person to die and be an organ donor if the person is not brain dead before the machines are turned off. This prevents people from “pulling the plug” on someone solely for organ donation.
In embryo destruction for research, the embryo is still alive and is killed to obtain the stem cells. To wait for the embryo to be deamed nonviable (or dead) would be too late as the stem cells would be dead also. Thus, the two situations are vastly different. From a religious and ethical point of view I support organ donation, but not embryonic stem cell research.
Also, the “barriers” to embryonic stem cell research are not nearly as “oppressive” as on would think. And it is not suppressed markedly differently than Adult stem cell research. The federal government doesn’t fund ESC research with the exception of stem cell lines created before the ban. However, there is alot of private money being poured into it because a success means big money in the business field.
Despite this the score remains Adult Stem Cells >65 diseases being treated, Embryonic stem cells ZERO.
One last slight tangent and rant. While I suspect Cisco didn’t use the term in the way I am about to illustrate, it is a common reference to refer to embryo’s as “potential life”. This is absolutely a flawed term. The embryos ARE life, not potential life. They have the potential to become a full grown baby, child and adult, yet they are still life. I submit that embryo’s are exactly what we all were and looked like at that point in our life. These stored embryos are no different than we once were in terms of life. [\rant]
Fascinating topic though. The research they are doing with Adult stem cells is incredible.
Comment by Chan — July 20, 2006 @ 10:05:34 PM
I had the same thoughts, Chan, re: Cisco’s question.
Another point I neglected to bring up above, I heard one scientist on Talk Radio the other day say something profound, which you don’t hear from the media, or the pundits:
And it reminds me of a recurring Best of the Web joke, which goes something like this:
A Pregnant woman took a terrible spill the other day, and was taken to the hospital to be treated for her injuries. Both Mother and the Baby are doing fine and were released the next day.
That is nice, but what about the fetus?
The point the scientist brought up was the fact that even an embryo has a gender, and it can be easily determined if the embryo is a boy or a girl. That factoid got me thinking that this kind of research is really creepy, to be harvesting people, boys and girls, and using their discarded cells and tissues for our own advancement. Its like the plot/script of a sci-fi show.
But the question no one is asking, and I don’t know the answer myself is: Where do these “discarded” embryos come from?
Comment by Jeremy — July 21, 2006 @ 5:36:16 AM
So is the objection to the incentive that may be created to kill an embryo where the option to let it live might have been taken otherwise? Or is it the experimentation on a living thing (as opposed to a dead thing.. organ donor) and equating experimentation on a fetus to experimentation on you or I?
Or both?
Jer: To your question about where do “discarded embryos” come from… I think you’re getting close to the politics of this here. I believe they come mostly from abortions.
I think two major camps in this debate are not being entirely honest with their motivations: Pro life…. anti-ESC research because this may make it harder to abolish abortion. Pro-choice…. pro-ESC research because of the same. They aren’t the only two camps in the debate, but I think this is the elephant in the room that everyone is avoiding.
Aside: Interesting how all political issues seem to boil down to security, money, freedom, and religion.
Comment by Cisco — July 21, 2006 @ 8:18:06 AM
Don’t forget Power & Influence… they are major drivers too, though not as overt.
Comment by Jeremy — July 21, 2006 @ 8:30:31 AM
And Chan… thanks for the article link. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I will.
Comment by Cisco — July 21, 2006 @ 9:47:29 AM
I’m frustrated that Bush framed it in terms of a right-to-life issue; that’s out-and-out pandering to the part of his base that wants that argument made. Isn’t the less-assailable position to say, “My science advisors tell me that adult stem cells have shown far more promise. Federal funds are a finite resource, and as a result, I’m choosing to keep all stem cell research funding in the adult lines in an effort to be fiscally responsible”? After all, the issue here is Federal funding, not legality. Some in the pandered-to base might want embryonic stem cell research to be completely illegal, but it’s quite obvious that this is not the Bush administration’s position.
I’m aware that advocates on both sides of the aisle for Federal funds going to research based on embryonic stem cells seem to act that Funds==legality, but Funds==legitimacy.
It’s permissive versus declarative, but 1) I’m an Open Theist and 2) the position is nuanced, and just ask John Kerry where nuance gets you. ;)
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 21, 2006 @ 9:49:08 AM
Power & influence seem like the same thing, and while they do drive people, I think they drive individuals, not groups. I was speaking more about what moves masses of people. People won’t rally around the call for power & influence, but they will sally around things that grant us more security, money, freedom or promote our religious values.
Fear is probably also a major factor… but it really is the fear of loss of any one of these factors.
Comment by Cisco — July 21, 2006 @ 9:53:27 AM
I agree with you Geof. I’m actually pretty unexcited about this particular bill. And I don’t see the fuss on either side. Isn’t the vast majority of money and research going to come from the private sector anyway? And there are no major limits there, correct? So Bush says fine, but I won’t pay for it. So what? And if we did pay for it? Either way it’s happening. Either way the potential for a balck market exists. And if adult stem cells truely are more useful (read: profitable), then embryonic research will end in a heartbeat.
An interesting debate on the whole, but an odd bill to get excited about in my opinion.
Comment by Cisco — July 21, 2006 @ 10:05:07 AM
Cisco: Any excitement comes from it being an election year. Less attention was paid to the fact that the Senate unanimously passed a bill that forbids creating embryos specifically to be destroyed. [Or so I've read; I haven't read the actual bill.] I imagine that Bush will happily sign that one.
I wouldn’t expect that it’ll end completely. There’s enough people excited about the prospects that someone will throw money at it. Adult stem cells would have to be wildly, wildly successful for everyone to give up the embryonic dream.
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 21, 2006 @ 11:57:49 AM
Regarding Jer’s question “Where do the discarded embryo’s come from?”, most of the embryo’s in question come from in-vitro fertilization attempts from people who can’t get pregnant. The doc’s fertilize many eggs to create many embryo’s and implant several of these into the uterus in the hopes that at least one will survive and grow into a healthy baby. Since the yield is so low, they create lots of embryo’s in case the first go around doesn’t work. When a pregnancy occurs, there’s often embryo’s “left over” that the researchers are wanting to take and kill to obtain their stem cells. They wouldn’t be able to do this from an abortion, since by the time one can have an abortion comes the cells have differentiated into a much larger baby and are now not “pleuripotent” The cells they seek come from embryo’s in the first 1-2 weeks of life.
The argument naturally comes back to pro-life vs. pro-choice because the main argument against ESC research is that life must be killed to obtain the cells. Sub-arguments unfold out of the fact that ECS has failed to show any promise, while ACS have shown tremendous promise.
By the way, for those interested, the above link I posted isn’t really an article as it is a table with lists of diseases helped by ACS’s. In all fairness, many of the illnesses on the list still have yet to be “cured” by ACS’s; however, the progress they have made has actually shown that it should be possible to ultimately do so with a little more research. This has never been shown with ECS.
Comment by Chan — July 21, 2006 @ 10:10:40 PM
So then now I REALLY don’t understand the argument against ECS reseasrch.
Are pro-life folks against in-vitro fertilization? If not how do you justify the discarding of the un-needed embryos? And if they are going to be discarded anyway, then why not destroy them while doing research on them?
Comment by Cisco — July 22, 2006 @ 3:04:37 PM
The argument is essentially that the embryo’s don’t need to be killed. There are countless numbers of families that are unable to have children and would love the chance to “adopt” these embryo’s.
The issue can be framed this way. Perhaps, we were able to find a cure to a deadly disease, but the only way to find that cure would be to kill two year old children for the research. Sounds absurd, but that is what happens when embryos are sent off to be killed for research. Beyond that, once a cure or treatment is found, the only way to get embryonic stem cells is by killing embryos, so the demand will only escalate if cures are found.
Comment by Chan — July 22, 2006 @ 5:00:16 PM
I completely understand the concern of the demand escalating, but why are these embryos not being adopted now?
Comment by Cisco — July 22, 2006 @ 6:35:13 PM
Presumably, it’s a financial arrangement: in vitro fertilization almost always produces excess embryos, and those embryos can be sold for adoption. [Hey, before you freak, private adoption often has financial considerations involved. Besides, IVF is expensive, and some folks may seek to defray their costs in this way. You may find it disturbing, but it's all legal.]
And Chan is right: the pro-choice ethicists often argue that embryos, not being viable, aren’t living and, as such, removing them from an environment conducive to develop does not necessarily mean that you’re killing something. [After all, if your basis point is that it's just genetic material and is not yet living, how can you kill what never lived?]
Of course, this goes right back to the essentials of the abortion debate, and being all tangled up in those cords, it doesn’t stand to be overly rational.
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 22, 2006 @ 7:07:12 PM
Cisco asks a good question, “Why aren’t they being adopted now?” I really don’t know the answer to this. I suspect that this type of adoption doesn’t qualify for all the governmental help that post birth adoption does (tax breaks, etc.), but I don’t know this for sure. Plus, it may incur added costs as Geof points out.
I’ll have to look into that more.
Comment by Chan — July 22, 2006 @ 7:19:59 PM
I forgot the other, far larger reason that embryos go unadopted: many folks are just flat unwilling to throw their genetic material out there. Folks that have taken the step to going to IVF to have a kid usually really want the kid. As such, they tend to be unlikely to be free with passing along the spare embryos, either out of fear of miscarriage or other reasons. I’m sure that plenty of us who’ve never been in such a situation that we had to go to the step of IVF can come up with plenty of reasons why folks would be unwilling to pass those embryos on.
[Me, I don't think I'd be willing to go to the step of IVF. If I ended up in a marriage where my wife and I couldn't have kids, I think I'd probably just come to accept that. But as I say that, I can think of friends who have struggled to have kids and may well go that route, and I would be okay with that and uncomfortable with them reading my statements against such interests.]
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 22, 2006 @ 8:10:53 PM
So it sounds as if embryos will be destroyed regardless. So:
a) why are pro-life folks not just as up in arms about IVF (since the result is almost always destroyed embryos)?
b) Seems like the only real basis I see for being against ESC research (other than it possibly turning out to be usless) is the potential abuse that may arise from the demand of embryos should important cures come out of the research. Interesting how it’s a bit like the net-neutrality arguments in that respect (legislation to prevent abuses that have yet to occur).
So likely if no good is found from ESC there would be little or no push for black market embryos. Yet if a cure for cancer were to come of it? An interesting pickle we would be in then.
Comment by Cisco — July 22, 2006 @ 9:16:50 PM
Some are, and some aren’t. Some see IVF as playing God; others either have kids as a result of IVF and know someone who does and either ignore or forget about the moral issues involved with that. In the wacky world of bioethics, IVF is long-established as something with positive effects—and besides, it’s so widely accepted in our culture that fighting it is a losing battle. The RTL crowd would probably fight it if things were different [abortion banned, etc.], but they aren’t, for whatever reason. [Few people, even ideologues, are 100% consistent. :)]
But like I said above: I’m fine with ESC research happening—if people want to throw good money after [what seems to be] bad science, I’m fine with letting them. I’m not terribly thrilled with government doing the same unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. [If, for example, we had a rampant epidemic of some disease where stem cell research, regardless of source, were our only untried recourse, I think the tide would change.]
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 22, 2006 @ 9:54:06 PM
Well, I’m learning a lot in this comment thread, I’m thinking I should have put it over at THM instead. This is a good discussion.
Comment by Jeremy — July 23, 2006 @ 2:22:51 PM
Yeah, but I’ve got no idea what THM is and why I’d want to read that. ;)
Comment by Geof F. Morris — July 23, 2006 @ 6:38:56 PM
I’m back on this topic, almost a year later, as this is back in the news. Congress passed a bill, and Bush, again, Vetoed it.
Now, there are plenty of debate points on this. Is this a morale issue, a money issue, a semantics issue; but I want to bring up the question I asked last year:
I found an interesting article on the subject, through Google, on BeliefNet.
Where Do the Embryos Come From? Before we debate stem cell research, we should make sure we’re asking the right questions.
So, the Moral argument of the Stem Cell Debate is wrong, because it is addressing the symptom of the problem they are trying to solve, not the actual root cause of the problem. Morally, Stem Cell research is at the same level as No-Stem-Cell Research, as the Embryo suffers the same fate, either way.
I fear that the Global Warming argument has a similar problem, They are attacking the symptom and not the root cause.)
The Scientific Argument is flawed as well, or at least it appears that way. They want Embryonic Stem Cells, but are demanding it from only a few sources. While I’m not sure of the validity, several websites on a google search for Cord Blood Embryonic Stem Cells yields a few sites that claim the stem cells found in Umbilical Cord Blood contains viable, if not fragile, Stem Cells. Yet, no one really knows about this option when birthing their babies.
(The Cord Blood Registry is an organization with offices in Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com Vicinity which has service in this industry.)
If Stem Cells are so widely wanted, why is this option not exploited to its fullest?
And the economic argument fails as well. If you listen to the talking heads, they make it appear that Embryonic Stem Cell research, and even Stem Cell Research in general is illegal or has no funding. That isn’t the case at all. States and Private Organization can fund Stem Cell Research to their wallet’s content.
But that begs the question from the Libertarian/Capitalist in me:
If Embryonic Stem Cell Research is such the Holy Grail as it is, why are those greedy Private Medical/Pharmaceutical organizations cornering the market on the cures these things are supposed to unlock?
Why is Federal Funding so required? Or are these greedy Medical/Pharmaceutical organizations also cheap?
Could it be, it’s a red herring?
So now I have more questions:
How much research has been poured into this research already? It is significant?
How many diseases have been cured from this research?
Would a surge in research help? Perhaps and Aircraft Supercarrier or two?
Or do we need cut our losses, and strategically redeploy from Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
Comment by Jeremy — June 24, 2007 @ 3:47:51 PM
Of course, I also realize that I’m asking Medical Questions with the The-Official-Medical-Expert-of-Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com on Vacation, but that never stoped me from a bad idea before.
So why should it now?
Comment by Jeremy — June 24, 2007 @ 3:57:45 PM
Cord Blood stem cells are showing some excellent promise also. They are already being used in bone marrow transplants for several types of leukemias with good success (keeping in mind that the entire bone marrow transplant process is quite risky and is far from 100% but the cord blood cells work just as well as bone marrow from adult donors).
Cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells both continue to show great promise while embryonic stem cells still show a whopping zero successes.
The main issue with Cord blood stem cells at this point is that it is still a private business and is fairly costly. There are a few stem cell banks out there. (As an aside, my wife used to be an administrator for a prominent stem cell bank which I don’t know if I’m allowed to mention on the interent-similar to said company that is the employer of the editors.) The cost currently is in the 3-5,000 range. Some continue to charge a yearly storage fee. And at this point, only the donor’s family can use the stem cells (usually). So, in essence, it is paying a whole lot of money on a bet that something bad is going to happen to your child. Most people simply can’t afford it. And, it’s basically a one shot deal. If you don’t collect cord blood at birth it’s gone.
I suspect that soon there will be “public stem cell registries” that will be free to donate the cord blood to so that anyone in need can use them. Given the current medical/political climate it will probably be funded by the government. These types of banks already exist for bone marrow.
That was long but it’s a fun topic.
Comment by Chan — June 24, 2007 @ 8:57:17 PM
Also note that the JG-dot-com website is so addicting I can’t pull away from it, even on vacation.
Comment by Chan — June 24, 2007 @ 8:58:07 PM
[...] Cellular Residue [...]
Pingback by Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com » Stem Cells, Skin Cells, what’s the difference? — November 20, 2007 @ 10:04:37 PM