Stem Cell Research

http://www.maplecreeknews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3087&Itemid=1

Today I ran into an old friend I had not seen for sometime.

I said hey long time no see how is your world going.

He said not too good.

And went on to say he had been diagnosed with mjd (described in link above)

He had to give up his business and try to survive on a small Soc Security pension and a smaller pension from another source.

He was bitter because people are opposed to stem cell research.

He goes to Duke University for treatment.

He said they were making good progress on this disease before and felt a lot more progress could be made if stem cell research could be expanded and funded better.

I would say he is maybe 45.

He is resigned to his own fate, but mjd is hereditary and he has two sons he worries about.

Maybe he can go to China for treatment.

But it seems that some accomodation could be reached with those opposed to stem cell research in this country.

She hasn’t heard him choke since the first injection of umbilical cord stem cells into his spine.
Stem cells are like flexible building blocks which have no pre-determined destiny and have the ability to become any cell the body needs. Stem cells are harvested from the umbilical cords of newborn babies, which are leftovers from development in the womb.

The President has done nothing to prevent research involving stem cells derived from umbilical cords.

OK sTEPH MY BAD.

I should have left out the reference to Pres. Bush since this is not intended to be a political discussion.

I don't believe this subject has been discussed on here and thought it might get some interest from forum members.

Looks like there's no point in going to Canada for treatment.

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/15349.html

Well OC I found the above link dealing with Canadian stem cell research, but must confess I dont see the relevance.

There are thousands (perhaps millions) of people who could potentially benefit from research in this country.

Here is another link listing several other international efforts in this regard.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/intlresearch.asp

Also this Israeli link gives a sort of layman's description of what is involved.

http://www.hadassah.org.il/English/Eng_SubNavBar/Departments/Clinics+and+Institutes/Gene+Therapy/Human+Embryonic+Stem+Cell+Research+Center/

And from the link here are some of the current results:

"At present, our program is mainly focusing, in collaboration with the department of Endocrinology and Neurology, on the development of hESC derived progeny for transplantation in diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s disease, for the following reasons.

The two illnesses are extremely common with 120 millions patients world-wide suffering from diabetes, and over one million patients in the USA with Parkinson’s disease.

Both disorders result from the degeneration and death of a specific type of cell, the insulin producing cells in diabetes and a discrete cluster of brain cells known as dopaminergic neurons in Parkinson’s disease.

In both conditions there is proof of clinical therapeutic benefit following cell transplantation and replenishment of the patients’ degenerated cells."

The relevance is that nationalized health care is no better than the patchwork quilt that is our health care system. I'm just saying...

Well I do not want to get into a political discussion but it looks like you guys are not interested in the issue otherwise.

But if you check the countries in the above link that are working on the research it looks like most if not all are more or less "nationalized".

I haven't read the links yet S (I will as soon as I get time) but I just wanted to say that I don't think stem cell research is banned, just the use of government money to do the research.

Unless I'm mistaken, any scientist, hospital or university that wishes to do the research can do so. They just can't use federal dollars to do so.

Well Aaron I believe you are right about the ban being just on funding.

However it looks like that will not be the case if McCain is elected, assuming he follows his party platform.

The republican platform this year calls for a complete ban, both public and private, according to this....

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/2008-gop-platform-calls-for-total-ban-on-stem-cell-research/

Aaron,

You're partly correct. The ban isn't on stem cell research. It isn't on federal funding of all stem cell research. The ban is very specific. The ban is on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells from new lines. In other words, the embryonic stem cell lines already created prior to the ban can receive federal funding....they already exist why not use them? Federal funds are also available for research on umbilical stem cells, which are the type of stem cells the Chinese have been using in their treatment of individuals with the disease Sherm's friend has. There is nothing preventing scientists here from using umbilical stem cells in research or treatment.

One of the biggest obstacles to new treatments in this country is the FDA. The myriad of regulations and the number of trials and all the hoops that must be jumped through before a new drug or treatment is available here in America makes the process much more lengthy than in a nation like China. It has long been my belief that the FDA needs to relax those rules a bit for patients who are terminally ill and going to die anyway.

We can't discuss these issues. We can only bash conservatives.

Well Steph it is very clear which side insisted on making it a political discussion instead of a scientific discussion.

You and OC are who made it political.

But nontheless the opportunity is still there if you want to discuss it.

I think all political persuasions would benefit equally from medical breakthroughs.

I didn't make it a political discussion. You created it as a political discussion.

He was bitter because people are opposed to stem cell research.

He said they were making good progress on this disease before and felt a lot more progress could be made if stem cell research could be expanded and funded better.

But it seems that some accomodation could be reached with those opposed to stem cell research in this country.

Am I incorrect in assuming when you discuss "funding" you are speaking specifically of tax dollars? I'm not opposed to all stem cell research. I am opposed to creating embryos in order to destroy them for research purposes. I'm also opposed to providing tax dollars for research and then granting patents to private companies who discover new treatments utilizing those federal funds so that the executives and stockholders of Pfizer and Merck can get richer making sick people destitute paying for a drug they financed the research and development of in the first place.

You're partly correct. The ban isn't on stem cell research. It isn't on federal funding of all stem cell research. The ban is very specific. The ban is on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells from new lines. In other words, the embryonic stem cell lines already created prior to the ban can receive federal funding....they already exist why not use them?

Except McCain has vowed to put an end to ALL "fetal farming", funded publicly or privately.

Federal funds are also available for research on umbilical stem cells, which are the type of stem cells the Chinese have been using in their treatment of individuals with the disease Sherm's friend has. There is nothing preventing scientists here from using umbilical stem cells in research or treatment.

I thought you were against cooperate welfare?

I am. I was simply pointing out to Sherm that his argument is invalid. There is nothing preventing research, even federally funded research, on umbilical stem cells.

As far as the issue of federal funding for research, I wouldn't have such a problem with it if discoveries were used to benefit the citizens of this country without making some corporation wealthy.

'I am. I was simply pointing out to Sherm that his argument is invalid."

Well Steph I hate to take issue but I am not sure I have an "argument".

I would just like to suggest maybe our priorities are wrong when we spend billion$ on wreaking havoc and destruction around the world but then shortchange research projects like was mentioned above.

I am not sure if Duke is doing the same kind of research as the Chinese were using in the example in the link.

I just did a google search to have a link on the subject to stimulate interest and discussion.

Stephanie wrote:I am. I was simply pointing out to Sherm that his argument is invalid. There is nothing preventing research, even federally funded research, on umbilical stem cells.

Stephanie, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Embryonic stem cells are derived from blastocycts. These are left over from in vitro fertilization efforts and are essentially balls of 50 to 100 cells.

This is a photo of a human blastocyst taken using a phase-contrast microscope


These cells have not yet differentiated into tissues, or even tissue layers, and so are totipotent (i.e., they are able to differentiate into any cell type; they have to be, since all cell types are eventually produced from these cells).

Umbilical cells HAVE differentiated. They have lost most, if not all, of their totipotency. There do appear to be SOME cells in the umbilical cord (as well as in everyone's skin, and a few other tissues) that have SOME totipotent properties (i.e., they appear to be able to differentiate into SOME tissues SOME of the time). However, it takes a huge amount of effort and expense to get these cells to exhibit even this limited totipotency.

Stephanie wrote:As far as the issue of federal funding for research, I wouldn't have such a problem with it if discoveries were used to benefit the citizens of this country without making some corporation wealthy.

Here, you have something of a point. However, do you also object to federal funding for ANY research from which corporation might benefit in the future? Or, do you only apply this objection to stem cell research?

The point stands, bmd, that if using these stem cells is so wonderful (and it is already legal), why should the government be funding it? Should not a corporation put up the risk AND get the reward, if embryonic stem cells are so wonderful and umbilical stem cells not so?

Would you say that the promise of umbilical or adult stem cells has been thoroughly exhausted by researchers?

SheikBen wrote:The point stands, bmd, that if using these stem cells is so wonderful (and it is already legal), why should the government be funding it? Should not a corporation put up the risk AND get the reward, if embryonic stem cells are so wonderful and umbilical stem cells not so?

This is exactly the sort of research the government should fund. It is very expensive, but there is very little profit to be made from most applications. Most of the prospective treatments involve conditions and diseases which are relatively rare. The example cited at the start of this thread involves perhaps a few hundred, or a few thousand, new cases each year. No company is going to put millions of dollars into a product with that few applications. Now, if there was the possibility of making a man's dick longer, or a woman's boobs bigger, then biomedical companies would be all over stem cell research. But, repairing a few thousand spinal injuries, or a few hundred disease-ravaged brains, just isn't worth it to them.

SheikBen wrote:Would you say that the promise of umbilical or adult stem cells has been thoroughly exhausted by researchers?

No, non-embryonic stem cells still show some promise. However, most researchers in this field hold that real progress in a reasonable amount of time is FAR more likely to be the result of research on blastocyct-derived cells.

Try this analogy. Suppose you want to go surfing at some really good spots, like Malibu, Hermosa Beach, or Mavericks (all along the California coast). Since you're in West Virginia, it's going to be a very long trip. You could take a plane to LAX or SFO, and then catch a cab, or even a bus, to the beach. But, what if someone decides that such transport is unethical and that you can only use it if there is no federal involvement. Since that rules out just about anything but walking across the country, you will be forced to make a much more pedestrian trip, with your surfboard no less (hopefully, you won't be a long boarder). Sure, you COULD do the trip using little more than your Converse Chuck Taylors. But the probability of actually completing the trip, or at least completing it in a reasonable about of time, is much higher (perhaps infinitely so) if you use modern means.

bmd wrote:
This is exactly the sort of research the government should fund. It is very expensive, but there is very little profit to be made from most applications. Most of the prospective treatments involve conditions and diseases which are relatively rare. The example cited at the start of this thread involves perhaps a few hundred, or a few thousand, new cases each year. No company is going to put millions of dollars into a product with that few applications. Now, if there was the possibility of making a man's dick longer, or a woman's boobs bigger, then biomedical companies would be all over stem cell research. But, repairing a few thousand spinal injuries, or a few hundred disease-ravaged brains, just isn't worth it to them.

So Billy, you readily admit that the reason drug companies won't pay for this research is because there is no profit in it for them.

Out of curiosity, I don't suppose you can justify spending so many citizens hard earned tax payer dollars for research that benefits such a small percentage, less then .0006% of the population?

And on the small chance that you think you can justify spending so much money for such a small return, perhaps you can tell me where in your copy of the constitution paying for this procedure is covered. Because I’ve read my copy and I can't seem to locate the article that would cover this research anywhere.

Aaron wrote:So Billy, you readily admit that the reason drug companies won't pay for this research is because there is no profit in it for them.

Out of curiosity, I don't suppose you can justify spending so many citizens hard earned tax payer dollars for research that benefits such a small percentage, less then .0006% of the population?

First, Clyde, the percentage of the population who would be helped by such treatments would undoubtedly be my higher than your hypothetical. Take just spinal injuries, as an example. There are about 200,000 such cases each year in the US (per the CDC; I underestimated it in my earlier post), that alone is far more than your proposed percentage. Add in all the stroke victims, and brain traumas and the yearly total would be much higher. Therefore, over ones lifetime, there would be a fairly good chance of individually benefiting, or having a close family member benefit, from such treatments (even if only a fraction of cases would be treatable via stem cells).

But, putting aside this example for the moment, how large a percentage of the population do you think should benefit before federal funds should be invested?

Aaron wrote:And on the small chance that you think you can justify spending so much money for such a small return, perhaps you can tell me where in your copy of the constitution paying for this procedure is covered. Because I’ve read my copy and I can't seem to locate the article that would cover this research anywhere.

Next time you look, see if you can also find where it says we should build roads and bridges, put satellites in orbit, or have food and drug standards.

bmd wrote:This is exactly the sort of research the government should fund. It is very expensive, but there is very little profit to be made from most applications. Most of the prospective treatments involve conditions and diseases which are relatively rare. The example cited at the start of this thread involves perhaps a few hundred, or a few thousand, new cases each year. No company is going to put millions of dollars into a product with that few applications. Now, if there was the possibility of making a man's dick longer, or a woman's boobs bigger, then biomedical companies would be all over stem cell research. But, repairing a few thousand spinal injuries, or a few hundred disease-ravaged brains, just isn't worth it to them.

bmd wrote:First, Clyde, the percentage of the population who would be helped by such treatments would undoubtedly be my higher than your hypothetical. Take just spinal injuries, as an example. There are about 200,000 such cases each year in the US (per the CDC; I underestimated it in my earlier post), that alone is far more than your proposed percentage. Add in all the stroke victims, and brain traumas and the yearly total would be much higher. Therefore, over ones lifetime, there would be a fairly good chance of individually benefiting, or having a close family member benefit, from such treatments (even if only a fraction of cases would be treatable via stem cells).

Quite a contradiction you got going on there William. What’s the matter, can’t you make up your mind which side of the fence you want to be on? Or is it you got caught with your pants down, fat ass hanging in the wind and now you're doing a Texas two step trying to cover for your earlier mistake?

Now that you’ve been exposed, let’s take a look at what we really have going on here.

My percentages were based on your numbers. In your first argument where you wanted government funding, you claimed it was because no pharmaceutical company, in your words, “is going to put millions of dollars into a product with that few applications.”

But that suddenly changed when you were called on your numbers and you now suggest that every person in America would benefit from this research in one way or another when you say, again, in your words “over ones lifetime, there would be a fairly good chance of individually benefiting, or having a close family member benefit, from such treatments.”

So if everyone in America stands to benefit, why wouldn’t these companies that initially weren't going to put money into something with so few applications suddenly be fighting hand over fist and pouring vast amounts of money into research and development so that they could realize the profits from so many benefiting.

Not even everyone in America would benefit from a longer dick or bigger boobs and we both know how pharmaceuticals throw money after those causes. If stem cells are suddenly as big as you suggest, then funding shouldn’t be a problem and you wouldn’t need my tax dollars, right William!!!

bmd wrote:
Next time you look, see if you can also find where it says we should build roads and bridges, put satellites in orbit, or have food and drug standards.

We're not discussing roads and bridges William (you don't want to have that argument with me, you'll lose), we're discussing stem cell research and if you can't find the justification for the funding, don't try and change the subject, man up and admit you don't know.


PSSSST...There's a reason you can't find it.

Aaron wrote:
So if everyone in America stands to benefit, why wouldn’t these companies that initially weren't going to put money into something with so few applications suddenly be fighting hand over fist and pouring vast amounts of money into research and development so that they could realize the profits from so many benefiting.

Not even everyone in America would benefit from a longer dick or bigger boobs and we both know how pharmaceuticals throw money after those causes. If stem cells are suddenly as big as you suggest, then funding shouldn’t be a problem and you wouldn’t need my tax dollars, right William!!!

Let's try this again. I'll just use short, basic words, so even you might be able to comprehend, oops, get it. I stated that MOST applications, oops again, uses for stem cells will probably involve too many people to make it economically viable, grrr, money making enough for private companies to invest in stem cells right now. Even tens of thousands (that's thousands of times the number of fingers on both your hands) of patients sick people are not enough to justify the R&D (research and development; you may have to get an adult to explain that one to you) of a one-time treatment.

Right now, stem cell researchers are just beginning to understand how to utilize this technology. It will probably be several years, and I would guess hundreds of millions of dollars, before any marketable products result. Too long a time line, without enough pay-off, for corporations to fund this sort of basic research.

Take artificial joint replacements as a comparison. Most, probably almost all, of the basic research into the efficacy of artificial joints was developed via government funding (here and in other countries). Private companies eventually marketed the actual joints that are implanted in folks every day, but the original, basic, research was largely the product of government funding. All the people who are able to walk today because of artificial hip and knees would, in all likelihood, be unable to do so if not for the government support of basic research in that field. Similar arguments can be made for artificial cardiac pacemakers, cardiac stints, and a plethora of other treatments and devices.

If you don't like the fact that tax dollars go toward developing such medical devices, TOUGH. Our society has determined that, for the common good, our government should support such research. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.