News about stem-cell research

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    msspeaks Forum Index -> MS - RESEARCH, ARTICLES, ABSTRACTS, DISCUSSION
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:37 pm    Post subject: News about stem-cell research Reply with quote

It doesn't look as if this veto can be overridden.

From the Guardian Unlimited today:

Quote:










Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill As Promised

Wednesday July 19, 2006 8:16 PM




By MARY DALRYMPLE

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush cast the first veto of his 5-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research ``crosses a moral boundary'' and is wrong.

``This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,'' Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who ``adopted'' frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.

``Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts,'' he said.

The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto.

Bush's support was the strongest in the House, which was expected to take up the veto as early as later Wednesday.

``We will go back and sustain his veto this afternoon,'' veto supporter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., told reporters at the White House after the event. ``We had 52 votes to spare when it passed and I predict the House will sustain that veto.''

Bush has supported federally funded research on only those stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, the date of his speech to the nation on the subject.

The president vetoed the measure shortly after it came to his desk. His position was politically popular among conservative Republicans, and it was sure to be an issue in the midterm congressional elections.

Announcing the veto, Bush was surrounded in the East Room by so-called ``snowflake'' families, those with children born through embryo donation.

``They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. The remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals,'' Bush said.

He said the bill would have crossed a line and ``once crossed, we would find it impossible to turn back.''

At the same time, Bush announced he had signed another bill, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, that would pre-emptively ban ``fetal farming,'' the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research.

Moments after Bush spoke, the vetoed legislation was returned to Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was quick to criticize the president's veto.

``I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,'' said Frist. ``Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available.''

Said Bush: ``As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience in history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation.

``America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life,'' he added. ``We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity, instead of the other way around.''

Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans had failed to move Bush. He acted after two days of often wrenching emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that had cast lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

Strong majorities in the House and Senate joined sentiments with most Americans in passing the bill, which would have lifted restriction currently limiting federally funded research to stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

``I expect that the House will sustain the president's veto,'' said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in advance of Bush's action.

Disappointed lawmakers said they intended to keep pushing to lift the restrictions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said in advance that the veto ``sets back embryonic stem cell research another year or so.''

The Senate voted 63-37 on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.

Bush had made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking.

Bush's stand against stem cells is popular among conservative Republicans that the party will rely on in the congressional elections this fall. Those opponents are the same voters who have felt alienated by Bush's actions to increase legal immigration, and the veto could bring them back into the fold.

Although many in the religious right are passionately opposed to embryonic stem cell research, most Americans support it, and Bush risks alienating that majority in the critical midterm year.



Information on the bills, H.R. 810, S. 3504 and S. 2754, may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov





Last edited by agate on Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:33 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:46 pm    Post subject: (Article) Sen. Patty Murray's speech on stem cell research Reply with quote

Senator Patty Murray gave a speech on the US Senate floor on Monday about the importance of stem cell research. She tells about growing up with a father who had MS:

Quote:


For Immediate Release: Monday, July 17, 2006

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) took to the Senate floor tonight to support the expansion of stem cell research and the hope it brings for millions of Americans and their families. In light of recent veto threats from the Administration, Murray also called on President Bush to stand with Congress in support of science, hope and the opportunity the expansion of this critical research brings.


"Families around the country are holding out hope that we will allow science to move forward and deliver on the promise of stem cell research. That's exactly what we should be doing. But today, the hands of American scientists are tied by political restrictions," Senator Murray said. "I believe we can expand stem cell research while still maintaining strict ethical safeguards. That's why I support passing H.R. 810."


In 2001, the Bush Administration promised that upwards of 60 stem cell lines could be available for research. To date, only 15 lines may be available. And it appears that all of these lines have contamination problems.


"The president's restrictions have held back American science and stalled promising research. It's time to correct that mistake and allow our country to make progress," Murray said. "In nearly 6 full years in office, President Bush has never once vetoed a bill. It's amazing to me that he would choose this bill - one offering basic hope and opportunity to so many Americans - for his first veto. The President is wrong on this issue, and his threatened veto is wrong."


The full transcript of Senator Murray's remarks on the floor follow:


"Mr. President, I rise in support of expanding stem cell research. This innovative research offers the chance to save lives.


Families around the country are holding out hope that we will allow science to move forward and deliver on the promise of stem cell research. That's exactly what we should be doing. But today, the hands of American scientists are tied by political restrictions. I believe we can expand stem cell research while still maintaining strict ethical safeguards. That's why I support passing H.R. 810.


In 2001, President Bush imposed restrictions on promising stem cell research. Since that time, we've learned that there aren't as many useful stem cell lines as the President suggested. The Bush Administration promised that 60 lines would be available for research. To date, only 15 lines may be available. It appears that all of these lines have contamination problems.


The president's restrictions have held back American science and stalled promising research. It's time to correct that mistake and allow our country to make progress.


Stem cell research is about improving medicine and saving lives. For patients with diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Multiple Sclerosis, stem cell research holds promising potential to provide the tools to understand, treat, and someday cure these devastating illnesses.


I understand the challenges and frustration these diseases cause. When I was 15 years old, my dad was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. In a few short years, his illness got so bad that he couldn't work any more. For almost all of my life, my father was confined to a wheelchair. My dad’s illness had a profound impact on our entire family. My mom, who had stayed home to raise the family, had to take care of him. But she also needed to get a job so she could support our family. She got a job, but it wasn't enough to support seven kids and a husband with growing medical bills.


I can only imagine how our lives might have been different if there had been a cure for M.S. Back then, we didn't have the tools to find a cure. Today we do, but those tools are blocked by an ideological policy that puts politics over science. We can do better.


My dad’s challenges are similar to the struggles that millions of Americans and their families face every day. They deserve a chance. They deserve hope. That's why we cannot let the current restrictions stand.


A short time ago, I received a letter from a constituent in Mercer Island, Washington. He wrote: "My 17 year old son was recently involved in an automobile accident and is now paralyzed from the upper chest down. Stem Cell Research looks to be our brightest hope by far. Please help give him a chance to ride a bike, go for a hike and run with his friends again. Please, support Stem Cell Research."


Mr. President, as that father points out - this is about people. It is also about keeping our country on the cutting edge of science and research. I'm proud to represent a state that has a strong reputation for scientific research.


For our country to remain a leader in this promising field, our scientists and researchers need the support of our government. America should never take a backseat to other countries in the search for promising new cures. Unfortunately, the President’s stem cell research policy is tying the hands of science by limiting the number of lines eligible for federal funding. We can do better.


In fact, the majority of this Congress has been trying to correct the President's mistake for over a year now. HR 810 passed the House of Representatives thirteen months ago. Since that day, we've been fighting to bring the issue of stem cell research to the Senate floor. We wrote letters. We pleaded on this floor. And we asked the Republican leader numerous times for even a few hours to debate and pass this bipartisan bill. Our efforts to promote research and offer hope were denied at every turn.


But now our day has finally come. After more than a year of obstruction, we finally have a chance to offer hope to millions of patients and their families. On a bipartisan basis, I believe this bill will pass.


But of course that's not the whole story. Shortly after we received word that this bill would finally come to the floor, I was dismayed to see headlines announcing that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor, guaranteed a veto of this important bill. In nearly 6 full years in office, President Bush has never once vetoed a bill. It's amazing to me that he would choose this bill - one offering basic hope and opportunity to so many Americans - for his first veto. The President is wrong on this issue, and his threatened veto is wrong.


I'm here today first to pledge my support to this bill and call on my colleagues to support it. But next, I must call on them to ask the president - in no uncertain terms - to stand with us in support of hope and opportunity. Stand with us in support of medical research. Stand with us -- and more importantly -- with the millions of American waiting on a cure, in support of stem cell research.


Far too often in this administration, ideology has trumped research. Politics has been more important than science. With this bill, President Bush has a chance to change course and put people ahead of personal political ideology. I urge him to do the right thing. For our patients, their families, and the future of our nation’s research leadership, it is time for the U.S. Senate to pass HR 810 and for the President to sign it. Let's take the handcuffs off our scientists and let them find the cures that will save lives."


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's another article. This one is from Medscape and has a little more information than the first one in this thread:

Quote:


Bush Casts His First Veto on Stem-Cell Bill




By Tabassum Zakaria and Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) Jul 19 - U.S. President George W. Bush used his first veto on Wednesday to block legislation to expand embryonic stem-cell research, putting him at odds with top scientists and most Americans, including some in his own Republican Party.

"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect so I vetoed it," Bush said.

The U.S. Senate approved the legislation on Tuesday. The legislation, which had also been passed by the House of Representatives, now returns to the House chamber but it does not appear to have the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the veto. It was Bush's first veto since taking office more than five years ago.

The stem cell debate has become an issue in several Senate races in the run-up to the congressional election in November and may be a factor in the 2008 presidential contest.

The veto fulfills a Bush promise made to socially conservative supporters whose votes his Republican Party will need in November to help keep control of the Senate and House.

But it also splits the party before the mid-term election as it is already struggling with Bush's low approval ratings and bitter divisions over other issues, such as immigration.

Democrats sharply criticized the veto and vowed to keep pressing the issue. "As long as restrictions based on a narrow ideology block progress to new cures, this issue will never be closed. Mr. President, you can veto a bill, but you can't veto hope," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Even conservative Republicans who generally oppose abortion are divided. Bush sees the research as destroying a human life, but others, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the embryos are slated for destruction anyway.

In 2001, Bush issued an order limiting federally funded research to 78 stem-cell lines that existed at the time, most of which proved unsuitable.

SAVING LIVES OR ENDING THEM?

Several polls have shown a clear majority of Americans support the research, which would use embryos that already exist in fertility clinics and would otherwise be thrown out. Instead the cells could be used in the search for cures of conditions like diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.

Anti-abortion groups have praised Bush's stance but some leading researchers and patient-advocacy groups, such as the Christopher Reeve Foundation and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, urged Bush to reconsider.

"This bill allows important research to advance and creates an ethical framework that will ensure it is done appropriately," said Jim Greenwood, head of the Biotechnnology Industry Organization.

Britain has passed laws encouraging embryonic stem-cell research, including using cloning techniques to create tailored medical treatments. Canada and New Zealand have also passed legislation to fund embryonic stem-cell research.

Bush is the first president to complete four years in office without a veto since John Quincy Adams in the 1820s. He had threatened vetoes before but refrained after reaching compromises with the Republican-controlled Congress.

Bush announced his veto before a White House audience including some families of children born from adopted embryos, called "snowflake babies" by opponents of embryonic stem-cell research.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Wilson)



Last edited by agate on Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:37 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LoLo



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's such an ass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the text of HR 810. There are 4 other versions of the bill, incidentally.

Quote:
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results



There are 4 other versions of this bill.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 810 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 810
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2005
Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. BASS, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mrs. BONO, Mr. STARK, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. KIRK, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. EVANS, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. GIBBONS, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. GILCHREST, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. PORTER, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BEAN, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CASE, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GORDON, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HONDA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HOYER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KIND, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. LEACH, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. REYES, Mr. ROSS, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SABO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SNYDER, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, Mr. WYNN, and Mr. DENT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:

`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.


`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo) .

`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.

`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.




Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post

Adopting a frozen embryo? Insanity created by zealots. There are plenty of breathing children who need homes.

Anyway, it's my understanding that pluripotent stem cells can be isolated and used to produce 'lines' - stem cells that be used to produce stem cells indefinitely. They want to give the impression that it's about killing babies but it's not.

It's the President's job to set health policies but I think he can be over ridden. Don't know for sure.
Back to top
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Congress can override a Presidential veto, but they already seem to know that there aren't enough votes to do it, unfortunately!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr Soul



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 741

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That stupidass is biding his time until our NEXT president helps stem cell research, stops these ludicrous tax breaks for the wealthy and ends this sham of a war. THAT can't get here soon enough for me.
_________________
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Matt



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joy wrote:
Adopting a frozen embryo? Insanity created by zealots.


That's exactly my improssion of the whole thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:26 pm    Post subject: (Article)Dangers of untested stem-cell wonder cures Reply with quote

From Times Online, August 29, 2006:

Quote:
Health news



The Times August 29, 2006


Patients warned over dangers of untested stem-cell wonder cures

By Mark Henderson, Science Editor




PATIENTS with crippling diseases such as multiple sclerosis should beware of expensive stem-cell “wonder cures” that have never been properly tested, leading medical research groups say today.
While stem cells offer great promise for treating many disorders, extravagant claims made for therapies costing more than £10,000 a time do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, they say.

In a letter to The Times, 14 medical charities and research funders warn patients that there is no evidence to support the benefits attributed to unorthodox stem-cell treatments, which could carry a risk of infection, immune system rejection and even cancer.



Premature use of stem cells to treat disease, before safety and effectiveness have been evaluated in clinical trials, also threatens to set back mainstream research that promises genuinely better therapies, they say. The signatories include Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, Lord Patel, of the UK Stem Cell Bank, and the heads of the MS Society, the Parkinson’s Disease Society, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Society.

Stem cells have the capacity to form a wide variety of tissue types, and could be used to replace cells and organs that are damaged or destroyed in conditions such as MS, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. The most powerful are found in embryos, but other less malleable types can also be extracted from the adult body and from umbilical cord blood.

Only a handful of treatments based on adult and cord blood stem cells have been licensed in the UK, principally for treating leukaemia and eye and skin disorders. But some foreign clinics offer stem-cell injections for other conditions, chiefly MS, and for cosmetic surgery.

Several dozen British MS patients have travelled to a centre in the Netherlands to receive cord blood stem cells from a Swiss company called Advanced Cell Therapeutics (ACT) at a cost of up to £13,500. The Dutch clinic is one of two under investigation by the authorities. The ACT procedure was banned in the Irish Republic this year, prompting the company to consider offering it in international waters on the Swansea to Cork ferry.

While some patients have claimed dramatic improvements and provided glowing testimonials, no scientific evidence has been published showing that the treatment works.

Most mainstream researchers are sceptical that the grafts perform as they are purported to, and ascribe apparent benefits to a short-lived placebo effect.

Scientists are concerned that desperate patients are being exploited. “We advise those who are desperate for cures or attracted to cosmetic surgery to be wary of claims being made by clinics offering these treatments,” the letter says.

An accidental death from a treatment that has not been adequately assessed for safety could also turn public opinion against more carefully regulated stem-cell research. “We worry that those cutting corners risk discrediting the field as well as betraying patients,” the letter says.

Professor Blakemore said that the potential of stem cells would best be realised by cautious progress and rigorous clinical trials. “This is a delicately poised field of research, with a difficult ethical background. Just one application of maverick stem-cell science that leads to cancer could set back the legitimate field by years, if not decades.”

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, a stem-cell expert of the National Institute for Medical Research, said that there was preliminary evidence that cord blood stem cells could form other kinds of cell, but these did not appear to have a long-term therapeutic effect. It was also hard to see how injecting them could ensure they reached the parts of the body where they were needed.



RISKS ATTACHED TO TREATMENT


Stem cells are precursor cells that grow into other specialised kinds of tissue.

Those from human embryos are the most malleable and can form any body tissue. Less powerful versions are found in adults’ and umbilical cord blood.

Stem cells of all three types have potential for growing “spare part” tissue to treat conditions such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, MS and spinal injury.

Cord blood and bone marrow stem cells are licensed in Britain to treat leukaemia. Bone marrow is destroyed and replaced with donated stem cells.

Stem-cell therapies have been licensed for use in skin and cornea grafts/

Several foreign clinics offer cord blood stem-cell injections for treating MS and for cosmetic surgery.

There are anecdotal reports of success, but no published clinical trials showing either safety or effectiveness/

Treatment typically costs £10,000 to £13,500 for one injection of about a million stem cells. They are injected into the blood or under skin, not into organs.

Stem-cell therapy has three main risks. The cells have the potential to cause cancers, they can introduce infection, and they can be rejected by the body’s immune system





Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jumpstart



Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good to post that warning agate.

Since other countries don't have the same restrictions on government funded stem-cell research, I wonder how their progress is at whether this will lead to promising treatments for people with a variety of conditions.

edited to ask: and surely some of the top US researchers on stem-cell technology must have gone elsewhere to be able to work in their field? Or else are being funded privately?

I want to think that stem cells are the promise that they seem to have the potential to be, but we don't hear much around the world or from privately funded research in the US on breakthroughs with this treatment.

Why is it taking so long to make progress on assessing whether this will be a fantastic scientific step forward or not as good as thought? If it's as good as people think, I would have thought we'd be having all sorts of news on a regular basis all over the world on little steps and discoveries that are being made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may be because scientific research is such a slow, plodding process, with so much repetition involved.

One research group has to keep repeating studies to make sure that their results are accurate. Then other groups have to come along and try to duplicate their results. And so on--and when it comes to getting results published, that's very slow, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agate
Site Admin


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:23 pm    Post subject: Article on stem cell research, 9/20/06 Reply with quote

This is fairly hard-hitting.

Quote:
New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 355:1189-1191 September 21, 2006 Number 12




The Politics and Promise of Stem-Cell Research


Robert S. Schwartz, M.D.

On July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush exercised his constitutional prerogative to veto a congressional act for the first time in the 6 years he has been in office. The bill, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, would have allowed a modest extension of embryonic stem-cell research. It called for federal funding to enable the derivation of embryonic stem-cell lines from fertilized eggs that are stored in freezers and already tagged for destruction. In his veto message, the President explained that, "stem cells . . . can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical treatments."

According to the New York Times, Karl Rove, head of the White House's Office of Political Affairs, has declared that embryonic stem cells aren't required because there is "far more promise from adult stem cells." Yet the notion that adult stem cells have the same developmental potential as embryonic stem cells, let alone "more promise," is dubious. It seems that the White House received this idea from David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council and an advisor to Republican members of Congress. In a report of the President's Council on Bioethics, Prentice claimed that adult stem cells can effectively treat more than 65 diseases. Not only is this assertion patently false, but the information purveyed on the Family Research Council's Web site is pure hokum.

Prentice is not alone, however. A search of the Internet easily turns up dozens of companies offering cures involving adult or cord-blood stem cells. Prominently featured on the Web is the case of a woman, bound to a wheelchair by multiple sclerosis, who received cord-blood stem cells in a private clinic in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Within minutes, she allegedly recovered her ability to walk. Such anecdotes are lures used to trap hapless patients into a treatment that has no merit whatsoever.

There is evidence in laboratory animals that an adult stem cell can differentiate into a cell that normally belongs to a different lineage — bone marrow stem cells into hepatocytes, for example. But such reports of a pluripotent stem cell that can transdifferentiate1 have been challenged.2,3 The fact that a single, rigorously defined hematopoietic stem cell from an adult mouse can reconstitute the entire hematopoietic system of a lethally irradiated mouse but has no capacity to differentiate into other tissues of the animal does not, however, rule out the existence of a pluripotent stem cell.4 Such a cell may not look like a hematopoietic stem cell, and it could lurk in the marrow, waiting to make an appearance only under special circumstances.

Experiments to establish the existence of a pluripotent stem cell in adults are crucial. Currently, there is no clinical evidence of such a cell in adults. The phenomenon of extramedullary hematopoiesis, which occurs in severe hemolytic anemia and other conditions, has never been associated with anything but a histologic picture of bone marrow nestled in a foreign tissue. There is no visible differentiation into host tissue. Even so, no prospective trial has formally tested the proposition that adult hematopoietic stem cells can improve the function of a tissue other than bone marrow. In this issue of the Journal, three important articles correct this deficiency (Lunde et al., pages 1199–1209; Schächinger et al., pages 1210–1221; and Assmus et al., pages 1222–1232). These three randomized, controlled trials investigated the influence of an intracoronary-artery injection of autologous bone marrow cells on ventricular function after a myocardial infarction. Two of the trials involved patients with acute myocardial infarction, and the other involved patients with chronic left ventricular dysfunction and a history of myocardial infarction.

The authors of these studies merit high praise for carrying out very difficult studies in humans with myocardial infarction. The studies are, however, open to two important criticisms: the injected cells were not always rigorously purified hematopoietic stem cells, and they provide no evidence that the injected hematopoietic cells actually settled in the heart and became cardiac myocytes. Nevertheless, the clinical results are valuable, especially because the type of bone marrow preparation these groups of investigators used is likely to be similar to, or even better than, the bone marrow preparations now being given sub rosa to thousands of patients for the treatment of a variety of cardiac, neurologic, and muscular diseases. VesCell, for example, offers to use stem cells from a patient's own blood to treat various types of heart disease. Zeiher and Dimmeler, senior authors of the articles by Schächinger et al. and Assmus et al., have themselves formed since the acceptance of their article a commercial venture (t2cure) with the mission of developing and offering regenerative therapy for cardiovascular disease.

Overall, the results of the three studies of a combined total of 376 patients do not promote the use of intracoronary infusions of autologous bone marrow to improve ventricular function. Lunde et al. found no significant differences between the control and bone marrow–treated groups in left ventricular function or infarct size; Schächinger et al. and Assmus et al. found small, significant, but clinically uncertain improvements in ventricular function in the bone marrow–treated groups.

These results are not unexpected. In a mouse model of myocardial infarction, infused bone marrow stem cells differentiated only into blood cells, not cardiac myocytes, and they failed to contribute to myocardial regeneration.5 If there was no transdifferentiation in the studies of myocardial infarction, though, there is another possibility: the injected bone marrow cells may not settle in the heart for long, but while there, they could produce cytokines or other diffusible molecules that enhance myocardial regeneration. The heart does produce cytokines, and cytokines are involved in the pathogenesis of coronary artery disease, but whether cytokines can explain the small effects of bone marrow cells on ventricular function is a matter of conjecture.

These three clinical trials will probably not stop the exploitation of patients with promises that bone marrow (or cord blood) can cure almost any chronic disease. To put an end to false promises, President Bush should promote adequate support for studies of the clinical potential of bone marrow cells and research to determine whether a pluripotent stem cell with therapeutic benefit exists in adults.

On July 19, Bush missed an opportunity to show support for research on cells that do have the potential to differentiate into many different kinds of tissues. His veto thwarted new prospects for advancing embryonic stem-cell research and will result in a terrible waste: tens of thousands of fertilized eggs will be destroyed without a single one being permitted to contribute to our knowledge of cell differentiation. Fortunately, research on embryonic stem cells will proceed in a number of excellent scientific centers in this country, without federal funding and, one might argue, at a pace unfettered by the federal bureaucracy. But the lack of federal support and the political climate do hinder stem-cell research in the United States. A new center in Singapore, for example, has recently attracted gifted American investigators who are fed up with political restrictions on their research. Other countries — such as China, Sweden, and the United Kingdom — are also entering the field.

We really don't know what will ultimately come out of research on embryonic stem cells. It is important to play down promises to the public that the work will produce anything of clinical value in the foreseeable future. We simply don't know how an embryonic stem cell will behave in a human, and we don't know whether human marrow contains a pluripotent stem cell that can transdifferentiate. Equally important, we don't yet know whether research on embryonic stem cells will teach us how to revise the differentiation program of a tissue-specific stem cell, thereby circumventing the need for embryonic cells. Research on stem cells will encounter many twists and turns, but it is an endeavor that is eminently worth pursuing. The delay of medical advances by theological disputes is not in the best interests of the sick and disabled.


Source Information

Dr. Schwartz is a deputy editor of the Journal.

References

1. Jiang S, Walker L, Afentoulis M, et al. Transplanted human bone marrow contributes to vascular endothelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:16891-16896.

2. Wang X, Willenbring H, Akkari Y, et al. Cell fusion is the principal source of bone-marrow-derived hepatocytes. Nature 2003;422:897-901.

3. Vassilopoulos G, Wang PR, Russell DW. Transplanted bone marrow regenerates liver by cell fusion. Nature 2003;422:901-904.

4. Wagers AJ, Sherwood RI, Christensen JL, Weissman IL. Little evidence for developmental plasticity of adult hematopoietic stem cells. Science 2002;297:2256-2259.

5. Balsam LB, Wagers AJ, Christensen JL, Kofidis T, Weissman IL, Robbins RC. Haematopoietic stem cells adopt mature haematopoietic fates in ischaemic myocardium. Nature 2004;428:668-673.












[Emphasis added]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    msspeaks Forum Index -> MS - RESEARCH, ARTICLES, ABSTRACTS, DISCUSSION All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Create your own free forum now!
Terms of Service Purchase Ad Removal Forum Archive Report Abuse