Politics and cell reprogramming
The political world is starting to weigh in on induced pluripotent stem cells.
+ The AP reports that some in the Republican party are calling the news the end of the discussion on the ethics and funding of embryonic stem cell research.
+ Among the GOP presidential candidates, it seems that Mitt Romney is making the most of the news (background on Romney and stem cell research). Romney's people are saying this latest research has their guy feeling vindicated, according to the Boston Globe, and they've been circulating a piece by Thomas Berg in NRO praising the candidate.
+ According to a piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in NYT, the White House had been following the reprogramming research for a number of months, with the President getting updates from Elias Zerhouni. The administration is even claiming some credit for the advance. "I don’t think there’s any doubt that the president’s drawing of lines on cloning and embryo use was a positive factor in making this come to fruition," Bush adviser Karl Zinsmeister told the NYT.
+ In that same NYT article, Arlen Specter -- a Republican -- says he will continue pushing in Congress for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
+ Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who has sponsored embryonic stem cell research funding legislation, said in a statement: "Politicians should not be cherry-picking the preferred method of stem cell research; the soundness of the science should be dictating the form of research under strict ethical guidelines."
+ There's yet to be word from the Democratic candidates for president. (If you see something, please pass it along)
How much do the politics of all this really matter? Yesterday in a teleconference with reporters, James Thomson said that the political controversy surrounding this research set the field back five years.
-Greg Dahlmann
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Art Caplan at MSNBC: 'Panacea' cells revive ancient hopes
+ Looking ahead: induced pluripotent stem cells
+ Cells that look and act like human embryonic stem cells created from skin cells
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
No matter how you look at it, the fact remains that many very intelligent, hard-working, and morally educated people have spent many years and many millions of dollars addressing the concerns of a religious group, when they could have been applying their hard work to actually curing a disease.
It's a loss for everyone except the religious right, any way you look at it.
- by Mr. Gunn on Nov 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM | link
"Politicians should not be cherry-picking the preferred method of stem cell research; the soundness of the science should be dictating the form of research under strict ethical guidelines."
I suppose by "politicians" Rep. DeGette means "elected officials". Who exactly is supposed to come up with these "strict" ethical guidelines, and how are they to be enforced?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Nov 21, 2007 at 8:12 PM | link
I am a member of a grassroots prolife group and I know that the average person doesn't know that there are two different kinds of stem cells, adult and embryonic, and that they are very confused about stem cell research.
I believe that there has to be kept a clear definition of embryonic and adult stem cells, defined according to where they come from - not according to the way they behave. It's clear cut and easy for the person who doesn't have time to study all this to understand.
I understand that pluripotent refers to the ability to differentiate into most other cell types and it is because of this ability that iPS's are said to be "embryonic-like". But that really adds to the confusion. Then Dr. Thomson says, "By any means we test them they are the same as embryonic stem cells." - more confusion.
So, I have questions.
Does this new procedure use any cells from the unborn to induce pluripotency in the adult skin cell thus creating a stem cell?
If it does, then it cannot be considered an ADULT stem cell. So, it seems there would need be a third category of stem cells.
If it does not use cells from the unborn, then could the iPS be considered an ADULT stem cell? It would be simpler to explain. Or because it is not a stem cell to begin with but is induced to become an ADULT stem cell, do we still need a third category for stem cells?
I realize this is very basic and elementary to the posts that you get from doctors and other scientists but I believe that we must have clear definitions BASED ACCORDING TO WHERE THE STEM CELLS COME FROM to educate the voter and to keep the issues clear so that legislation isn't passed to support this new procedure with wording that would allow funding to inadvertently go to human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.
Irregardless of the media and the bloggers who support human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, most Americans do not believe in the Communist philosophy that the end justifies the means. No matter what our vocation or business, we draw the line when the means are immoral. We expect other Americans to do the same, including scientists and researchers. Destroying one human being to help another is clearly immoral and we should not have to fund it. We will vote accordingly.
- by Janet Creighton on Nov 22, 2007 at 1:42 PM | link
I agree with Janet in that there is confusion. I mean, what if you took the nucleus out of an sheep mammary epithelial cell and put it in an iPS cell, then implanted that? Could you get a viable embryo from two cells neither of which were of germ line origin, and if you could, would the resulting cells from that embryo be as sacred as the embryo from an egg-derived animal?
I'm such a confused Communist.
- by Mr. Gunn on Dec 3, 2007 at 1:25 PM | link