Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
As I have previously mentioned, the issue of stem cell research is likely to become a major issue in 2006 and 2008. Frther evidence of this trend is Missouri Senate Candidate Claire McCaskill declairing her intent to protect stem cell research from restriction. From the KC Star:
Taking the wraps on what so far has been a quiet campaign, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill today pledged support for a November ballot initiative that would protect cutting-edge research on early human stem cells in Missouri.
Her opponent, Republican incumbent Jim Talent, is closely allied with the social conservatives on the issue. He is a co-sponsor of a bill by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback that would ban human cloning, including embryonic therapeutic cloning that most researchers see as a key to effective early stem cell study.
This is one area that I think would destroy Brownback on the national stage. Only the most extreme conservatives oppose stem cell research and even in Kansas the majority of voters support continued scientific inquiry.
All extreme republicans should be wary of this issue. Standing in the way of curing horrible diseases is not a helpful political stand.
[powered by WordPress.]
Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
I am a student of political science at the University of Kansas. Contact me with any questions, comments or tips.
21 queries. 0.327 seconds
January 25th, 2006 at 7:05 am
You are misleading your readers Nate. The senator does support stem cell research using adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. The fact is adult stem cells are helping people today. Embryonic stem cells are not. And let me ask you why is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation saying that embryo stem-cell research has the most potential but they are spending four times as much money on adult stem-cell research? Hmmm. More money is spent on adult stem research than ESCR. It is fact. Why? Because using adult stem cells to cure disease and help people works. Using embryonic stem cells does not.
You continue to cite the Steeper poll, yet other polls suggest the opposite. And just look at how Sen Kerry pounded Pres Bush on ESCR during the presidential campaign. The pounding did not result in the senator winning a trip to the White House. And you previously posted on the issue’s impact on the NJ gubenatorial race. Corzine was going to win regardless. You overestimate what the issue could do to Sen Brownback in Kansas and nationally.
April 9th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Vid,
What you omit is just as important, if not MORE important, as what you say.
Adult stem cells were first isolated in the 1950’s. The first extensive research with adult stem cells dates back to the 1964 and was followed by treatments for blood disorders thereafter. To date, the vast majority of adult stem cell treatment is still relegated to blood disorders, which is demonstrative of their inherent limitations.
Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were not isolated until 1998 and are still in the animal testing stages for clinical trials. The methodology for extended animal trials is both routine and necessary for ultimate human safety. Nonetheless, the key difference so far is that embryonic stem cell research, given its pluripotency, has demonstrated far greater results in animal trials than ever dreamed with adult stem cells. The monkey equivalent of Parkinson’s disease has been cured. Spinal cord injuries have been repaired in mice. The rodent surrogate of Multiple Sclerosis has been healed. Positive results with embryonic stem cells abound in broad array. It is likely that we’ll see the first applications for human clinical trials this year or next.
One reason for the lopsided research expenditures is Bush’s limitations on federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. This ill founded policy was made when it was believed that about 60 embryonic stem cell lines existed under the control of the National Institutes for Health. The medical community decried that limitation then, but the situation has deteriorated since. The NIH now concedes that the vast majority of those ES cell lines proved contaminated. There is very little raw material from which to derive supply suitable for testing other than in mice.
Of course, new ES lines can be created and researched, but none qualify for federal research funds under the current policy. This is precisely why the bi-partisan effort in Congress arose to change the policy. There is little question that Brownback is an obstacle to moving things forward. His outspoken stance has made him a national figure, I agree, but not in a positive light. These days, when bi-partisan unity exists in an issue, those on the fringe are not usually seen as bridge builders, but rather as extremists. In the stem cell debate, Brownback is a perfect example.
As for Steeper, before his polls in Kansas he was first hired in Missouri, likely at the suggestion of pro-life Republican John Danforth (who serves as Honorary Co-Chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures). The numbers are virtually identical, favoring embryonic stem cell research by better than 2 to 1. Senator Talent of Missouri, up for re-election in November, read those polls and concurrently figured out why the fat checks were no longer rolling into his campaign war chest. That’s the real reason he’s removed his name from co-sponsorship of Brownback’s legislation. Don’t think for a minute that he really believes ANT solves the so-called “moral dilemma.”
As more states follow in the footsteps of California and Missouri and others with state ballot initiatives, the public will learn more each day. Those few remaining of Brownback’s ilk may hold popularity in Bible belt pockets, but voters nationally will not accept any ballot or platform extremism where possible cures are concerned. Brownback for President in 2008? I’d bet against that notion right now - and my odds will only improve the closer we get to that election. There’s too much time to expose him for the politically pandering villian he truly is.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
1) There are few clinic embryos available for research. A glance at the conclusion of the article from which the 400,000 number comes makes it clear. Browsing through to the end explains that statistically, only abt. 2% of the extra embryos are available for research - mostly because they stopped growing and may be dead. Of them, only 65% are expected to survive the thaw process; 25% of the thawed to develop to blastocyst stage; 15% of the remaining to produce stem cells. That’s abt. 5 per 10000 new embryos stored.
2) Researchers really want to make ‘em - especially for cloning, which is inefficient, and possibly unachievable in humans … even to the stem cell stage. (Our eggs are more delicate and there are also meiotic spindle configuration issues.)
3) Human embryonic stem cell research relies on women donating eggs.
4) According to Science Mag - the procedure results in up to 10% of the women suffering OHSS - which can result in stroke, renal failure, future infertility, and death. Also, there is growing evidence that future offspring are more likely to be stillborn or suffer deformities and cancers.
5) Poor women around the world are being lured for as little as US$300 (a month/years wages) to donate eggs. (Note, legislators often say we need to diversify the population since clinic embryos are mostly from rich white women - and what is the converse of that?)
6) Embryonic stem cells form tumors (indeed that’s a test for it - and the differentiated tissues still form tumors in up to 100% of the host organism). They are less stable and accrue genetic mutations over time than other stem cell sources, and require a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs. (This is why they want to clone … and in studies of tissues derived from hES from clones … they form tumors and are rejected unless they are taken from the clone after it has been born, e.g. the adult tissue/stem cells.)
7) They have not been shown to form functioning versions of all tissue types (why it’s big news when they kinda’ do another one) - nor is there any really clinical advantage, especially when you need a clone of the individual in the first place. As one researcher said, “Pursuing this extreme measure when the human body is full of stem/progenitor cells that would be rejected is one of the most absurd directions ever observed in the history of science that is supposedly being promoted to help people.” She, btw, has been working with the Dr. Lima in Peru and has gotten paralyzed people at least walking with braces.
8) Even if being able to form tissues from all germ layers were advantageous, pluripotentency has been all berashis stem cells as well as hair follicles, fat, and testicular tissue (have you donated, btw?)
9) Stem cells exist in most mature tissues. The reason for existence is to fix and repair problems - and their migration is initiated by chemical cues from cell injury/death. In stroke, they have been shown to repair multiple systems - creating both neural and connective circulatory tissues. Furthermore, using them is less invasive to the already compromised patient than the cut and replace options offered by hES. Heart/ALS/Diabetes and more have been ‘cured’ with an injection/infusion of these cells. Huntington’s is a great example … so much of the nervous would have to be replaced bit-by-bit it’s completely impractical … but mice w/the induced condition have recovered using their own stem cells.
10) Other stem cells have outperformed embryonic in clinical settings, have rats walking, cured diabetes, parkinson’s, ALS, and more in mice studies, created organs like bladders and livers, heart valves, etc. Search: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov for legit. researchers currently recruiting.
11) ASC treatments will be more quickly available and readily affordable, some - including the lupus treatment that ‘cures’ 50% of severe patients and seems to restore damaged organs - are being covered by insurance.
12) The real advantage of hES for researchers isn’t cures, they want us to pay for a toy (the US has less restrictions than almost all countries combined, and in 2005 paid $40mill just for hES research and another $100 million for non-human ES research.
13) Pharmaceuticals & Big Business wins w/hES because, unlike your own stem cells, they can be patented.
Women shouldn’t die to provide profits for big business.
To find out more about this issue, I urge you to visit:
http://www.HandsOffOurOvaries.com
http://www.EndEggsploitation.org
All sources cited can be found at http://www.StemCellsCure.info Read my testimony or the Yahoo Group.
Regards,
Mary A. Hamilton
February 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am
The first HUMAN embryonic stem cell LINES were officially started in 1998.
Embryonic stem cells from mammals were first isolated in 1981. (And 25 years later mice remain diseased.)
But, we’ve been fiddling w/embryos for so long Aristotle is ‘the father of embryology’. Work with amphibian’s has been done since the mid-1800s, and rabbits by parthinogenesis the early 1900s.
Studies from isolated embryonic-like cells begain in 1964, with the development of embryonic carcinoma (EC)stem cells lines.
Most adult stem cells were not isolated until the this century … including earlier this year. Stem cell research from other sources hampered by researchers clinging to ‘only ES cells can become all body types’.
Technology development equalizes the when of it all … 1998 is a red herring to distract on the facts that other stem cells are achieving the empty promises of hES in therapies … without putting women’s health and lives at risk to procure materials for research!