Everyone has Stem Cells

Wrapup!!

2004-12-06T11:55:00.000-08:00

In the past six weeks or so, our group has come to believe that many other countries have come to the forefront of stem cell technology, while America falls behind in this beneficial and profitable field. For example, England has a much more ideal system of researching stem cells. The British government supports and provides funding for stem cell research for medicinal purposes. South Korea also promotes the research and has developed a competitive program. We believe that America should similarly fund certain appropriate circumstances of embryonic stem cell research. In England, for instance, women have the opportunity to donate their stem cells that fail to develop as desired. The problem with this is that these stem cells are not ideal for growth and research. While we do not advocate cloning of any sort, we do believe that cures to diseases such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease, and paralysis, to name a few, could be developed from more extensive embryonic stem cell exploration. Cures to these diseases are more important to the world (in our opinion) than small clumps of cells that may or may not turn into a person someday. Unfortunately, many religions condemn this process, labeling it murder. Scientists frown upon this religious viewpoint and are eager to delve into these vast medical possibilities as soon as possible because any results would be extremely advantageous but would also require a very long period of time to become available.
We feel that America should at least try to use our technology to further life. The religious right should weigh their priorities differently.

Article : The University of Wisconsin at Madison

2004-12-06T08:19:00.000-08:00

Five years later, stem cells still tantalize In early November of 1998, when human embryonic stem cells were introduced to the world, the possibilities seemed astonishing.
"It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life," then-National Institutes of Health Director Harold Varmus told a Senate hearing less than a month after Wisconsin biologist James Thomson reported his stem cell feat in the journal Science.
Varmus went on: "There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation."
Today, five years after the shy University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist published his succinct but earthshaking paper showing that stem cells—ephemeral, blank slate cells that occur at the earliest stages of human development—could be isolated, cultured and grown in apparently limitless quantities, enthusiasm is tempered.
The public cheerleading of Varmus and others, without a doubt, helped make stem cells a household word and set a high (and unrealistic) expectation that therapies for a host of debilitating cell-based diseases were just around the corner.
There is no doubt among biologists that embryonic stem cells have vast potential. There are no other cells that can perform the same biological feats as embryonic stem cells. They can morph into any one of the 220 types of cells and tissues in the human body. Nurtured in their undifferentiated state, they can proliferate endlessly in culture, and provide a vast supply of cells for research and, someday, therapy. And perhaps most importantly of all, they provide our only window to the earliest stages of human development and, after differentiation, access to more specialized cells that could vastly improve our understanding of the onset of cell-based diseases, and perhaps ways to prevent them.
But as Thomson himself emphasized in 1998, their glitziest application in the clinic—the tantalizing potential of transforming transplant medicine by creating large quantities of cells to treat debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes and ALS—would be a decade in the future under the best of circumstances.
"We went through this period of extreme hype and high expectations," recalls Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the private, not-for-profit foundation that holds Wisconsin's patents to stem cell technology. "Things seem to have settled down, but people still expect a lot, and we're still in a tight political environment."
Indeed, the politics of stem cells from the outset have been as far reaching as the technology itself promises to be. Extending from the Oval Office, where stem cells became the dominant domestic issue of the first eight months of the Bush Administration, to the other end of State Street, where a few state legislators remain determined to criminalize the research, the political dimensions of stem cell science have framed a national debate and influenced many aspects of how the research is done and funded.
According to Gulbrandsen, the administration's decision to permit federal funds to be used for research on at least some stem cells lines—a decision heavily influenced by former Wisconsin governor and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson—was a turning point in the debate.
"Bush's decision was a landmark decision," Gulbrandsen says. "A lot of people don't like it, but it was an ingenious political solution. That decision wouldn't have occurred without Tommy Thompson there."
Although wading through a political quagmire was difficult and sometimes painful for the retiring biologist Thomson, it was a necessary exercise.
"The first year or two (after first isolating the cells) were pretty much wasted due to politics," says Thomson. "But since then we've done pretty well" in the lab.
The early flood of publicity, breathless in its descriptions of the medical and research potential of stem cells, Thomson feared, would set unrealistic expectations in the public mind. Lost in the glowing words, he says, are the hard and painstaking realities of basic science.

If we can't use stem cells, what can we use?

2004-12-04T17:17:00.000-08:00

Scientists in Texas say a common protein called Thymosin works to protect heart attack victims from severe heart damage afterward. Some scientist, who were not involved with the experimnt, believe Thymosin could heal the heart muscles better than stem cells, and that it would be easier than trying to get stem cells prepared and injected properly. Best of all, Thymosin would not be the source of moral controversy like stem cell research is. Conservatives should appreciate this alternate to stem cell research for heart restoration. Perhaps conservatives and liberals could compromise by allowing stem cells to be used when there is not an adequate alternative, but when there is an alternative available, scientists could use that instead. Then, conservatives might feel a little like stem cells are not being used frequently enough for it to be a huge problem. I doubt it, though.

Experiments performed with mice have shown that mice that were administered one dose of Thymosin after experiencing heart failure had their heart function improve at least twice as much as mice who were not treated with the protein. This protein could lead to a remedy, other than stem cells, for the cause of heart failure. Ambulances may be equipped with Thymosin as early as next year so victims can receive protection as soon as possible after a heart attack. Stem cells, however, would not be ready to be used in America as early as next year. Any treatments using stem cells will probably take a few years before they are available, because the issue is so widely disputed (in America).

Article: Protein Might Thwart Heart Attack Damage

2004-11-24T18:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Heart-Protection.html

Article!

2004-11-24T16:19:00.000-08:00

Link to Article

Stem cells could repair your spinal cord
Washington | November 24, 2004 1:53:05 PM IST

A team of researchers at the University of California Irvine Reeve-Irvine Research Centre, has indicated that human embryonic stem cells can be used to create new nerve insulation tissue that can aid spinal cord repair.

The finding has potentially important implications for treatment of spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis.

Researchers used human embryonic stem cells to create cells called oligodendrocytes, which are the building blocks of the myelin tissue that wraps around and insulates nerve fibers.

This tissue is critical for maintenance of proper nerve signaling in the central nervous system, and, when it is stripped away through injury or disease, sensory and motor deficiencies and, in ome cases, paralysis result. The study, which has been published in the online journal Glia, found that the oligodendrocyte cells form patches of myelin's basic protein, and compact myelin tissue wrapping around neurons in the spinal cord. This demonstrated that the oligodendrocytes derived from human embryonic stem cells can function in a living system.

"What we plan to do next is see how these cells improve sensory and motor function, and hopefully it will lead to further tests with people who suffer from these debilitating illnesses and injuries," the researchers wrote in their study. (ANI)

Article: The Attack on Adult Stem Cells

2004-11-14T21:43:00.000-08:00

Found this on Lexis...

November 11, 2004, Thursday
SECTION: COMMENTARY
LENGTH: 817 words
HEADLINE: The attack on adult stem cells
SOURCE: Scripps Howard News Service
BYLINE: MICHAEL FUMENTOBODY

Among the magazines even die-hard right-wingers should sometimes read are the neo-liberal ones The New Republic and the Washington Monthly. They often contain thoughtful articles with stimulating fresh thinking. Alas that makes it all the worse when they publish something moldier than a slab of Roquefort cheese. So it is with their current combined attack on adult stem cell research, designed to support the alternative of embryonic stem cells.Adult stem cells come from all over the body, plus umbilical cords and placentas. Embryonic stem cells come from pulling apart human embryos, and thus have aroused ethical concerns. The result says Chris Mooney in the Washington Monthly is that "conservatives have latched onto fringe science in order to advance moral arguments" by embracing adult stem cell research. We are presented with the illogical argument that since some people prefer adult stem cells for non-scientific reasons, they must therefore have little scientific value. Yet adult stem cells have actually been used therapeutically in the United States since 1968. At the Web site of www.corcell.com you'll find a list, far from comprehensive, of almost 80 therapies using them. This is treatment, not practice or theory. Amazingly, there are also more than 250 adult stem cell clinical trials.In contrast, the number of treatments using embryonic stem cells is zero. The number of clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells? Zero.Embryonic stem cell propagandists will tell you adult stem cell research had a huge head start and embryonic stem cells only need time (and more importantly, massive government funding) to catch up.Yet as a new book called "The Proteus Effect" points out, both types of stem cell research date back half a century. You might think the author of The New Republic piece, Harvard Professor of Medicine Jerome Groopman, would know this since ostensibly his contribution is a review of the book. Research with embryonic stem cells has progressed at snail's pace simply because they are so terribly difficult to work with.Ironically, some of the very diseases he says embryonic stem cells MAY conquer have long been treated with adult stem cells. Groopman specifically mentions Fanconi's Anemia, but it was first treated with umbilical cord stem cells 16 years ago.The only possible advantage of embryonic stem cells is potential. "It's well established that embryonic stem cells can generate any kind of tissue found in the body," Mooney writes flatly. "There is no disagreement among experts about the capacity of (ESCs) to form any and all cells and tissues of the body," Groopman declares. Translation: Disagree with Groopman and you're not an expert.But we already know embryonic cells cannot generate placental tissue. The President's Council on Bioethics, in its January 2004 report, observes, "Embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming many different types of differentiated cells if stimulated to do so in vitro (outside the body)." However, "it is not known for certain that human embryonic stem cells in vitro can give rise to all the different cell types of the adult body." Meanwhile, three different labs have found three different adult stem cells that may be transformable to all cell types. "In aggregate, our study and various others do support the idea that one (ASC) can give rise to all types of tissue," said Ira Black, the head of one of those labs.Or perhaps we don't need a "one-size-fits-all" cell. Scientists have already discovered at least 14 different types of adult stem cells. Even if each has limited plasticity, combined they could perhaps be reprogrammed into each type of mature cell we need.So when Groopman says adult marrow cells may not be "fully optimal as treatment for many fatal diseases," he's ignoring at least 13 other adult stem cells that could be.Almost "every other week there's another interesting finding of adult (stem) cells turning into neurons or blood cells or heart muscle cells," notes molecular biologist Eric Olson at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Unfortunately, it seems every other week there's also another article in the popular press claiming adult stem cells range from nearly worthless to utterly worthless.Ironically, the original motivation for the massive disinformation campaign is precisely the relative scientific superiority of adult stem cells. Savvy venture capitalists have plowed their money into adult stem cell research and treatment, leaving embryonic stem cell researchers desperate to feed at the government trough. It is they and their supporters who have latched onto fringe science.(Michael Fumento (www.fumento.com) is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, a nationally syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service, and author of "BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing our World.")

Who should post Articles When?

2004-11-11T17:56:00.000-08:00

Group,
Who knows what's going on as far as when we should each post an article? Do I just need to post an article every other week, or what? Perhaps I should post one next week? I need some kind of schedule for myself, well we all do. Let's get a 100 on this project!
Thanks,
Danielle

Everything you need to know about what SCs are

2004-11-11T11:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/

I thought that it would be good to know, to the point that we could name in alphabetical order all the research institutes that specialize in stem cells, what EXACTLY these lovely things are and possible why some people would against the study of them. Right now we weight in based on what we hear from the political opinions, but we don't know what the true source of the courtroversy is.
You can rumage through here for a good while, but I would like to direct you toward the Stem Cell Basics section over the News. I would be interested to hear how many people knew exactly what stems cells were (in the true scientific sense).

$3 billion deal in Cali

2004-11-07T13:16:00.000-08:00

Also available here.

California gives go-ahead
to stem-cell research

Proposition 71 provides $3 billion
in state funding over next decade

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 2:09 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2004

Californians came down on the side of stem-cell research Tuesday by passing a controversial bond measure that devotes $3 billion to human embryonic stem-cell experiments and comprises the biggest-ever state-supported scientific research program in the country. Proposition 71 won 59 percent of the vote with about 78 percent of precincts reporting.

The passage of the measure — designed to get around the Bush administration’s restrictions on the funding of such research — will likely put California at the forefront of the field and dwarfs all current stem-cell projects in the United States, whether privately or publicly financed.

The measure gained favor in recent days — according to a poll released Sunday, 54 percent of likely voters approved of it.

Two months ago, California voters were split on the measure, according to the Field Research Corp. But Field’s poll conducted last week found approval has grown to 54 percent while 37 percent of those polled were against the measure.

The poll was carried out by telephone, in English and Spanish, with 1,086 randomly selected likely voters statewide. The margin of error was 4.3 percent.

While President Bush opposes most forms of stem-cell research, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed the measure, which funds embryonic stem-cell research at a state level. Federal funding is currently limited to adult stem cells and a few lines of embryonic stem cells, which many scientists say are of poor quality and unfit for research.

$300 million a year
Proposition 71 authorizes the state to sell $3 billion in bonds and then dispense nearly $300 million a year for 10 years to researchers for human embryonic stem-cell experiments, including cloning projects intended solely for research purposes. It bans the funding of cloning to create babies.

The amount of money involved far exceeds the $25 million the federal government doled out last year for such research and surpassed even Sen. John Kerry’s promise to expand funding to $100 million annually.

Many scientists believe stem cells hold vast promise for treating an array of diseases from diabetes to Parkinson’s. Stem cells can potentially grow into any type of human tissue and scientists hope to be able to direct the blank cells to grow into specific cell types needed for transplant.

Stem cells are harvested from embryos, which are destroyed in the process. They were first discovered in 1997 and even the research’s most enthusiastic supporters acknowledge that medicines created with stem cells are still many years away.

Circumventing Bush
A contentious election issue in California, the measure pitted scientists, sympathetic patients who could benefit from stem cells, and biotechnology interests against the Roman Catholic Church and conservatives opposed to the research because it involves destroying days-old embryos and cloning. State budget hawks also opposed the measure because they fear it would sink the state deeper into debt.

Some 22 Nobel laureates and many other scientists supported Proposition 71 as a way to get around the Bush administration restrictions on research. They complain that the political climate has brought the field to a virtual standstill in the United States.

Prominent supporters
Among those who bankrolled the measure was Bill Gates, who contributed $400,000. Silicon Valley tycoons such as Google investor John Doerr and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar donated millions.

Real estate developer Robert Klein II donated $2 million. Klein’s son suffers from juvenile diabetes.

Several prominent Republicans also endorsed the research, most notably former first lady Nancy Reagan. Millionaire developer Thomas Coleman, a regular contributor to GOP candidates, donated $378,000. Coleman’s daughter has diabetes.

The measure was also endorsed by actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s, and the late Christopher Reeve, who was paralyzed in a riding accident.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this story.

Article

2004-11-05T13:11:00.000-08:00

Blood 'grown' from stem cells in lab

Shortages may soon be a thing of the past
November 5, 2004

By Robin Yapp

Blood shortages could end within the next five years after scientists revealed that they have "grown" blood from stem cells.
Medical experts say the breakthrough raises the prospect of creating an endless supply of blood - of all types - for use by hospitals and paramedics.
This could end the need for blood donation and the risk of infection from transmittable diseases.
Scientists at Minnesota University in the US say their findings could pave the way for laboratories to make blood to order.
Lead researcher Prof Dan Kaufman said: "This is completely normal, clean blood and we don't think there will be any problems with the immune system rejecting it. We can create different blood types.
"We are effectively growing blood to order. It takes three to four weeks and we think we will be able to create large enough quantities to set up a central store.
"We can then distribute this to whoever needs it. We think within five years we will see an end to blood shortages."
Individual bone marrow supplies could also become a reality. The team's breakthrough came while working with stem cells - master cells with the potential to transform into any type of tissue - taken from discarded in-vitro fertilisation embryos.
By adding different combinations of chemicals called growth factors, which occur naturally in the human body, scientists discovered they could turn them into various types of blood cells.
Kaufman said: "Stem cells might also be a source for bone marrow transplants, especially for those patients who do not otherwise have an appropriately matched donor."
International research is focusing on the potential of stem cells, including their development into neurons to treat brain diseases, or spinal cord cells to reverse paralysis.
In South Africa 560 000 regular donors give about 900 000 litres of blood every year.
But there are often shortages, especially during holiday periods, when blood is most likely to be in demand.

Artical- Ron Reagan

2004-10-29T13:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.cord-blood.org/id34.htm

Ron Reagan at The Democratic Convention

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic convention. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech, and the topic at hand should not—must not—have anything to do with partisanship.
I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells—cells created using the material of our own bodies—to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more. Millions are afflicted. Every year, every day, tragedy is visited upon families across the country, around the world.
Now, we may be able to put an end to this suffering. We only need to try. Some of you already know what I’m talking about when I say “embryonic stem cell research.” Others of you are probably thinking, hmm, that’s quite a mouthful, what is this all about?
Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the incredible science involved. Let’s say that ten or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.
Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell’s nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson’s patients. And finally, those cells—with your DNA—are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson’s disease in the first place.
In other words, you’re cured. And another thing, these embryonic stem cells, they could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body. How’d you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine.
By the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.
Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.
But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings—that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person—a parent, a spouse, a child.
I know a child—well, she must be 13 now—I’d better call her a young woman. She has fingers and toes. She has a mind. She has memories. She has hopes. And she has juvenile diabetes.
Like so many kids with this disease, she has adjusted amazingly well. The insulin pump she wears—she’s decorated hers with rhinestones. She can insert her own catheter needle. She has learned to sleep through the blood drawings in the wee hours of the morning. She’s very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.
What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?
And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.
No, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer—we owe ourselves—better than that. We are better than that. A wiser people, a finer nation. And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail.
The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.
In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.
Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.

Article

2004-10-24T11:13:00.000-07:00

Please post responses as comments. The following is an article from Reuters, also available here:

"Annan Backs Stem Cell Studies, Differs with Bush
Thu 21 October, 2004 17:36

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday endorsed scientific studies that involve the cloning of human embryos, differing with the Bush administration's push for a treaty to ban such research.

Annan expressed his view as a U.N. committee opened two days of hearings on plans for the drafting of a global treaty on cloning amid signs of ebbing support for the U.S. stance.

All U.N. members basically agree on a pact that would ban the cloning of human beings, an idea first proposed in 2001.

But treaty writers have since been tied up in knots over a push by the United States and Costa Rica to expand the treaty to ban both the cloning of humans and the cloning of human embryos for stem cell or similar research, known as "therapeutic cloning."

"Obviously it is an issue for the member-states to decide, but as an individual and in my personal view, I think I would go for therapeutic cloning," Annan told reporters on his return to U.N. headquarters after several weeks of official travel.

The stem cell controversy has become an issue in the U.S. presidential election campaign, with President Bush opposing government funding for any research involving the future destruction of human embryos, and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, backing the aggressive pursuit of embryonic stem cell studies.

U.S. opinion polls show strong public backing for stem cell research. The cause has been spotlighted by the recent death of paralyzed "Superman" actor Christopher Reeve, an ardent supporter.

IS HUMAN EMBRYO A LIFE?

Champions of a broad U.N. treaty banning all forms of cloning view therapeutic cloning as the taking of human life. Their draft resolution laying out instructions to treaty writers has 61 co-sponsors.

Advocates of the use of cloned human embryos for research, a group led by Belgium and 21 other nations, argue the technique holds out the hope of a cure for hundreds of millions of people with such diseases as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes and spinal cord damage.

Moroccan U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Bennouna, the committee chairman, told Reuters this week the issue was so emotional he hoped to avoid a vote this year by delaying action until 2005.

South Korea, a leader in stem cell research, has proposed that treaty drafting be delayed to allow time for a U.N. conference on the merits of embryonic stem cell studies, an idea proponents said was picking up support at the world body.

At Tuesday's hearing in the treaty-writing legal committee of the U.N. General Assembly, Costa Rica's minister of foreign affairs and worship, Roberto Tovar, said therapeutic cloning reduced humans "to a mere object of industrial production and manipulation."

"Human embryos cannot be treated as objects. There is no substantial difference between an embryo, a fetus, a child, an adolescent and an adult," Tovar said.

Belgian envoy Marc Pecsteen argued that adopting the text drafted by his government would enable the United Nations to move quickly to ban the cloning of a human being.

"Is our goal to arrive at a treaty that could make a difference? Or is it our goal only to stage a vote yielding a symbolic victory that would not lead to any concrete results?" he asked the committee, whose membership is identical to the 191-nation General Assembly's."

Test

2004-10-21T06:54:00.000-07:00

Stem cells are l33t!

First Article Post

2004-10-17T14:28:00.000-07:00

English Lab Ready to Clone Embryos for Stem Cells
by: STEPHEN S. HALL
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/science/12stem.html

This was an interesting article about the difference in restrictions between the US and England when it comes to embryotic research. England is getting ready to start cloning donated embryos for stem cell research. It tells you quite a bit about the legal and economic situation regarding stem cell research. Basically America has placed no restriction on cloning/stem cell cloning but the federal government will not fund it. This means it is up to private interests to do the research, but few are interested because there is not a whole lot of profit in it. While over in England the goverment seems to be more strict with its controls, but is actually willing to fund some of the research. They even go so far as to say "if the United Nations votes to condemn all forms of cloning in the fall, England will ignore the nonbinding measure and continue the experiments because of the potential importance of the medical research."
I also found the last statement of the article to be very interesting. It was a rather clever analogy about a child and some embryos trapped in a burning building (okaaay) and you could only save one. Which? Naturally everyone would say the child. I think this effectively counters a lot of what anti-embryotic research 'people' would say. They would make it seem that with embryotic research that some people would actually save the embryos.

yo

2004-10-17T08:41:00.000-07:00

im in

Testing

2004-10-14T07:50:00.000-07:00

123!

What are we doing?

2004-10-14T07:39:00.000-07:00

This blog is dedicated to Dr. Tryon's Group Project. We will be covering Stem Cell research.