Perhaps the worst things President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush’s ESCR funding policy, was that he also revoked a non controversial Bush order that required the NIH to give funding priority to finding sources of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy embryos. At the time, I found the revocation puzzling since it was the very kind “reach across our bitter cultural divides” policy that Obama promised as a candidate. But in the intervening year and a half, he has consistently refused to pursue such bridge building as a president, so I guess it is hardly surprising that he would dismantle his predecessor’s good construction.
Meanwhile, IPSCs continue to advance in most categories. Indeed, they now fulfill one of the hopes proposed for human cloning research–the ability to create tailor made, patient/disease specific cells for study. From the story in today’s San Francisco Chronicle:
Six months ago, Roche Holding AG scientists disrupted the rhythmic beating of heart muscle made from stem cells by adding a cancer drug to it, duplicating in the laboratory a side effect previously only seen in patients. The experiment showed that human tissue grown from stem cells can mimic side effects of medicines seen in people. Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, and GlaxoSmithKline Plc also are testing the method to see if it can weed out dangerous products years before human trials start and save billions of development dollars.
More evidence that IPS cells can create heart cells for short-cut drug testing came when the Roche team used them to confirm cardiac toxicity from an antiviral medication it had been developing, said Kyle Kolaja, global head of predictive toxicology screens and emerging technologies for Switzerland-based Roche.
The company had already abandoned the drug two years ago after tests in rodents and rabbits showed it caused side effects in the heart. Had stem cell-derived heart tissue been available then, Roche could have pulled the plug early, Kolaja said. Making stem cells from the skin of adults rather than embryos also makes it much easier to create cell lines that are ethnically diverse, letting researchers better judge the safety of drugs. Human heart cells that beat in a dish have never before been available in large quantity and consistent quality, said Jason Gardner, head of the stem cell drug performance unit at London-based Glaxo.
Some will say that without ESCR, there would have been no IPSCs. Perhaps. But Thomson used Bush approved cell lines for his research into IPSCs and I don’t believe Yamanaka used any human ES cells at all.
Be that as it may, the fighting will go on over the extend of, and rules governing, federal funding of ESCR. Moreover, stories like this add much ammunition to those of us determined to prevent federal funding of human cloning (SCNT), and indeed, are working to outlaw that technology in the USA and elsewhere at every opportune moment.
Meanwhile, Bush’s approach to finding a common way forward that combines good ethics with good science has been validated. Perhaps Obama could learn something and reinstate Bush’s policy giving funding priority to ethical sources of pluripotent stem cells such as the IPSC.
September 26th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Eric, Mural G- Biotec, Kathleen Turner, Cíntia Soares and others. Cíntia Soares said: RT @cellresearch: Ethical Stem Cells Advancing! – First Things (blog) http://bit.ly/afzDrM [...]
September 26th, 2010 | 1:36 pm
Canceling the funding guarantee for adult stem cell research was an attempt to ensure that there was only one player in the stem cell field, and to increase the likelihood that any progress in treating disease was the result of embryonic stem cell research only. This is bad science policy and makes it clearthat the administration views science as a political tool.
September 26th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
THE ONLY PERSON i WOULD BELIEVE IN ALL OF THIS IS Professor Sir Ian Wilmut ( Dolly the sheep) who is at Edinburgh University He is honest humane and ethical
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Carloline Carr-Locke: Then you should not believe in human cloning. Ian Wilmut had a license in the UK to clone patients with motor neuorone disease. Just a few weeks before he was to begin, he abandoned the project, stating that the IPSCs were the future of regenerative medicine. I believe that is the field in which he is now engaged.
September 26th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
Adult stem cells have been reprogrammed not to age:
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/11785
Reversing the aging process in normal adult cells:
http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/rme.10.21
It looks like embryonic stem cells are not necessary anymore.
September 26th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
Obama’s executive order opened up funding for both embryonic and adult stem cells.
The rescinded Bush order contained provisions incompatible with this expansion. For instance, Section 2(c) reads:
.
Obama didn’t remove funding for adult stem cell research. He simply extended support to include ESCR and then, naturally, revoked an order which condemned such research as unethical.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Raven Chukwu: You are confused.
Obama did two things the same day. One, he announced with cymbals in the East Room, that is, revoke Bush’s 2001 ESCR funding policy and broadened it to allow increased numbers of cell lines to be eligible for NIG funding. This is the one eventually overturned (at least for now), by the court.
He also silently revoked the 2007 Bush EO that does not deal with ESCR. There was no press release and we only found out about it because it was published in the National Register as required by law. The 07 Bush EO gave priority to funding non embryonic sources of finding and using pluripotent stem cells–which is different from adult stem cells, which are multipotent. Obama could have revoked the 01 EO to broaden the eligible ES cell lines for NIH funding, and kept 07, since 07 had nothing to do with embryos other than it didn’t apply the priority to that source of pluripotent stem cells, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with adult stem cells. IPSCs are one example of this third source of stem cells, altered nuclear transfer, currently in animal studies, is another.
And if for some arcane legal reason he had to revoke both 01 and 07–even though there was no agitation for revoking 07 and even though he has never explained why–he could have fashioned the new order to maintain a priority for non embryonic pluripotent stem cell research–thereby bridging the science and ethical divides like Bush did. He clearly didn’t care to do that. He hasn’t governed as he campaigned, which is one of the big reasons he is at the lowest ebb of his presidency today, in fact, he’s cratering. But there was nothing stopping him.
September 26th, 2010 | 5:20 pm
Yes, apparently I was a bit confused there.
September 26th, 2010 | 5:36 pm
Oops. Forgot to close the ital. Sorry. I’ll fix.
September 26th, 2010 | 6:27 pm
Wesley: The Bush doctrine gave PRIORITY to finding sources of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy embryos. That is hardly what one might call “reach[ing] across our bitter cultural divides” — except, perhaps, in Wesley World where the truth can be stretched as far as necessary to make a point, and usually is.
September 26th, 2010 | 7:13 pm
[...] See the article here: Ethical Stem Cells Advancing! » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog [...]
September 26th, 2010 | 8:55 pm
The reaching across entailed finding common ground — as in stem-cell work everyone can agree on.
September 26th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/scientist-at-center-of-stem-cell-storm-once-made-science-her-god
notes the answer. Obama wants an embryonic stem cell treatment because big pharma wants it. big pharma wants it because they can patent the cells and charge more for the treatment.
September 27th, 2010 | 5:41 pm
Ian Wilmut was going to “clone patients with motor neuorone disease”? You mean like he did with Dolly the sheep? For what purpose; to produce an army of invalids? Or are you using the term “clone” in some manner understandable only to the denizens of Wesley World?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Cloning is SCNT, and he was going to create cloned embryos of motor neorone disease patients to use their stem cells in study. He changed his mind, thinking IPSCs are the better way.
You know that. But you just want to pull chains, not engage in real discussions. For that reason, I am no longer going to take the time responding to you, HW. You are just here to rattle cages, hurt feelings, not learn and not really contribute to our mutual edification. If that pleases you, feel free–under the ground rules I am now enforcing. But I am not going to waste my time with you any more.
September 29th, 2010 | 9:03 am
Wesley, what do you make of this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=undifferentiatied-ethics, and this: http://www.ns.umich.edu/index.html?Releases/2010/Sep10/morrison_testimony. They seem to be saying — from the pro-ESCR side, that embryos are formed in the IPSC process.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I’ll check it out. But that isn’t so.
November 12th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
[...] for hip replacements. Not only that, but cell reprogramming is forging along at a tremendous pace, and are already being used in drug testing. And that doesn’t include non stem cell pioneering methods for regenerative [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact