Hope or Horror? Kerry Says Bush Snubbing Science, May Cost Lives Mon Oct 4, 2004 13:58 64.140.158.71 Kerry Says Bush Snubbing Science, May Cost Lives Mon Oct 4, 2004 12:20 PM ET SOURCE: By Greg Frost HAMPTON, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry on Monday broadened his attack on President Bush to include stem cell research when he accused his rival of ignoring science that could offer millions of sick Americans a chance at a cure. Campaigning in New Hampshire aside actor and activist Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, the Massachusetts senator said if elected he would remove Bush's restrictions on using federal money for stem cell research and boost funding. Stem cells are unprogramed master cells that can give rise to various cells and tissues. Scientists believe that while the cells could lead to cures for ailments like Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, such advances would be years and perhaps decades away. Citing ethical concerns, the Bush administration in 2001 sharply limited federal spending on research involving stem cells taken from human embryos. "The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, this president is making the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology," Kerry told a town hall meeting on science at a New Hampshire high school. "President Bush just doesn't get it. Faced with the facts, he just turns away," Kerry said. "Time and again, he's proven that he's stubborn, out of touch, unwilling to change, unwilling to change course." Kerry's campaign released a new television ad devoted to stem cell research that will air in battleground states. In the 30-second spot Kerry says it is time to lift political barriers to the research and that "millions of lives" are at stake. SURGE IN POLLS Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt called Kerry's attack "baseless" and "dishonest," noting that there is no ban on stem cell research in America and that Bush was the first president to federally fund stem cell research -- albeit confining it to a few dozen existing lines. Kerry, however, noted that many of the stem cell lines available for federal research money have no scientific value or have been polluted by mouse cells. The attack came as a new poll by USA Today confirmed that Bush's lead over Kerry had evaporated following last week's candidates' debate, the first of three face-offs between the two men. The poll showed the race in a dead heat with less than 30 days to go until the election. Continued ... Kerry has criticized Bush's stem cell research policies before, but the latest attack appeared part of a larger effort by the Democrat to portray Bush as someone who stubbornly ignores facts both at home and abroad. In Thursday's debate, which opinion polls show Kerry won, the Democrat attacked the president's stay-the-course resolve -- a trait typically seen as one of Bush's strengths. As Bush said he would not wilt under pressure on foreign policy, Kerry noted that it was possible to be certain but also to be certain and wrong. Since then, Kerry has repeatedly bashed Bush for avoiding facts -- whether in the president's justification for invading Iraq or in his bullish assessment of the U.S. economy. © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved. ============= Hope or Horror? ... disease? Or threaten society with the horror of humans created solely for their stem cells and the prospect of designer babies? ... Hope or Horror? Texas Physicians Choose Hope in Backing Therapeutic Cloning By Ken Ortolon Senior Editor Will stem cell research give physicians new ways to treat disease? Or threaten society with the horror of humans created solely for their stem cells and the prospect of designer babies? That was the debate reignited in February when South Korean researchers revealed that they had successfully harvested stem cells from a cloned human embryo. Some in Congress want all embryonic stem cell research banned. USA Today reports that 33 state legislatures are considering laws supporting, funding, or condemning embryonic stem cell research. But supporters say stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic cloning" should be embraced because of their great potential for creating new cures for disease. They urge lifting a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before the United States falls behind other nations. Meanwhile, several private institutions, including Harvard University, are moving forward with stem cell research without federal money. In May, Texas physicians joined the fray. The Texas Medical Association House of Delegates voted to support research on both embryonic and adult stem cells and to support therapeutic cloning in biomedical research. However, the house also decided to oppose cloning for producing a human child. Corpus Christi clinical geneticist Raymond C. Lewandowski Jr., MD, says abandoning or limiting research on any type of stem cells would be "premature and ill-advised since we haven't seen what the potential of any of them really is yet." Measuring the Potential The new policy the house approved was recommended by the TMA Council on Scientific Affairs in consultation with the Board of Councilors. The policy, based largely on an American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs report, supports biomedical research on multipotent stem cells, including embryonic, adult, and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It also supports somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology, or therapeutic cloning, for biomedical research; opposes cloning specifically for producing a child; and encourages public support for federal funding for research involving pluripotent stem cells. Dr. Lewandowski, a member of the council and primary author of the report, says the research community does not support reproductive cloning. "No one within the organization or within the legitimate scientific community believes that human cloning should ever occur." Therapeutic cloning is another matter, however. In its report, the council concluded that all types of stem cells show great potential for therapeutic application, but embryonic stem cells have the maximum potential. "In most cases, to be useful in research and eventually medical therapies, these cells must be able to be grown in tissue culture, maintain genetic stability for at least eight months, and have the ability to differentiate into any organ type," the report states. "Under some circumstances, freshly collected stem cells may be useful without cultures. Stem cells from embryonic tissue clearly possess all of these potentials. It is not currently known if stem cells derived from adult tissues have these potentials." There are four potential sources for embryonic stems cells. They are embryos created for reproduction that went unused and are stored by fertility clinics, SCNT, parthenogenesis, and more than 70 embryonic stem cell lines that existed before President Bush's August 2001 ban on federal funding. While the 70 stem cell lines can be used in government-funded research, only 13 are available to U.S. researchers. Parthenogenesis involves selecting eggs at a point in their maturation cycle when they still have their full complement of genes and artificially stimulating them to induce cell division. It has been successful in rodent embryos, but not in humans. Building a Better Cell SCNT involves removing the nucleus from an egg and replacing it with a nucleus from an adult cell. This "new cell" then forms a blastocyst from which stem cells can be harvested. The council concluded that embryonic stem cells created through SCNT are better for therapeutic purposes because they can be administered to the nucleus donor without eliciting an immune response. O. Edwin McClusky, MD, former chair of the Council on Scientific Affairs, and Albert Sanders, MD, former chair of the Board of Councilors, say those panels backed embryonic stem cell research, including SCNT, because of its tremendous promise in treating a wide range of diseases. While acknowledging concerns that "some rogue" scientist might attempt to use SCNT to produce a human child, Dr. Sanders says the Board of Councilors feels the risk versus the reward is worthwhile. "If you've got appropriate safeguards on it and complete agreement that cloning leading to production of a child is wrong, then I think you can keep a lid on it so that it's only used for valid research." The Council on Scientific Affairs began examining the issue of therapeutic cloning last summer, and its report was vetted with several other TMA councils and committees, TMA physician leaders, and some physicians known to hold pro-life positions prior to approval by the full council at TMA's Winter Conference in February. The council received little negative feedback, and the House of Delegates approved the policy without debate. Where's the Therapy? However, not all physicians support the policy. New Braunfels family physician Beverly B. Nuckols, MD, spoke against it before a House of Delegates reference committee. She said therapeutic cloning is a misnomer because it provides no therapy for the organism that is the subject of the research. She believes embryonic stem cell research violates a physician's first duty to "do no harm," and destroying a human embryo, even one created artificially through SCNT, amounts to taking a human life. "I don't believe any human has a right to kill another human and, by species definition, these embryos are human beings, Homo sapiens. I believe we need to draw the line now as to whether humans are to be killed by other humans for the benefit of a third or fourth person, or whether we're going to say no, humans will not be killed by other humans unless that person is a direct danger to another." AMA policy says cloning for biomedical research is "consistent with medical ethics." Ken Ortolon can be reached at (800) 880-1300, ext. 1392, or (512) 370-1392; or by e-mail at ken.ortolon@texmed.org . Hope dawns as cloning horror fades — Insight, Mon Oct 4 14:07 Monitoring Stem Cell Research — The President's Council on Bioethics, Mon Oct 4 14:16
Hope or Horror? Kerry Says Bush Snubbing Science, May Cost Lives Mon Oct 4, 2004 13:58 64.140.158.71 Kerry Says Bush Snubbing Science, May Cost Lives Mon Oct 4, 2004 12:20 PM ET SOURCE: By Greg Frost HAMPTON, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry on Monday broadened his attack on President Bush to include stem cell research when he accused his rival of ignoring science that could offer millions of sick Americans a chance at a cure. Campaigning in New Hampshire aside actor and activist Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, the Massachusetts senator said if elected he would remove Bush's restrictions on using federal money for stem cell research and boost funding. Stem cells are unprogramed master cells that can give rise to various cells and tissues. Scientists believe that while the cells could lead to cures for ailments like Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, such advances would be years and perhaps decades away. Citing ethical concerns, the Bush administration in 2001 sharply limited federal spending on research involving stem cells taken from human embryos. "The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, this president is making the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology," Kerry told a town hall meeting on science at a New Hampshire high school. "President Bush just doesn't get it. Faced with the facts, he just turns away," Kerry said. "Time and again, he's proven that he's stubborn, out of touch, unwilling to change, unwilling to change course." Kerry's campaign released a new television ad devoted to stem cell research that will air in battleground states. In the 30-second spot Kerry says it is time to lift political barriers to the research and that "millions of lives" are at stake. SURGE IN POLLS Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt called Kerry's attack "baseless" and "dishonest," noting that there is no ban on stem cell research in America and that Bush was the first president to federally fund stem cell research -- albeit confining it to a few dozen existing lines. Kerry, however, noted that many of the stem cell lines available for federal research money have no scientific value or have been polluted by mouse cells. The attack came as a new poll by USA Today confirmed that Bush's lead over Kerry had evaporated following last week's candidates' debate, the first of three face-offs between the two men. The poll showed the race in a dead heat with less than 30 days to go until the election. Continued ... Kerry has criticized Bush's stem cell research policies before, but the latest attack appeared part of a larger effort by the Democrat to portray Bush as someone who stubbornly ignores facts both at home and abroad. In Thursday's debate, which opinion polls show Kerry won, the Democrat attacked the president's stay-the-course resolve -- a trait typically seen as one of Bush's strengths. As Bush said he would not wilt under pressure on foreign policy, Kerry noted that it was possible to be certain but also to be certain and wrong. Since then, Kerry has repeatedly bashed Bush for avoiding facts -- whether in the president's justification for invading Iraq or in his bullish assessment of the U.S. economy. © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved. ============= Hope or Horror? ... disease? Or threaten society with the horror of humans created solely for their stem cells and the prospect of designer babies? ... Hope or Horror? Texas Physicians Choose Hope in Backing Therapeutic Cloning By Ken Ortolon Senior Editor Will stem cell research give physicians new ways to treat disease? Or threaten society with the horror of humans created solely for their stem cells and the prospect of designer babies? That was the debate reignited in February when South Korean researchers revealed that they had successfully harvested stem cells from a cloned human embryo. Some in Congress want all embryonic stem cell research banned. USA Today reports that 33 state legislatures are considering laws supporting, funding, or condemning embryonic stem cell research. But supporters say stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic cloning" should be embraced because of their great potential for creating new cures for disease. They urge lifting a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before the United States falls behind other nations. Meanwhile, several private institutions, including Harvard University, are moving forward with stem cell research without federal money. In May, Texas physicians joined the fray. The Texas Medical Association House of Delegates voted to support research on both embryonic and adult stem cells and to support therapeutic cloning in biomedical research. However, the house also decided to oppose cloning for producing a human child. Corpus Christi clinical geneticist Raymond C. Lewandowski Jr., MD, says abandoning or limiting research on any type of stem cells would be "premature and ill-advised since we haven't seen what the potential of any of them really is yet." Measuring the Potential The new policy the house approved was recommended by the TMA Council on Scientific Affairs in consultation with the Board of Councilors. The policy, based largely on an American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs report, supports biomedical research on multipotent stem cells, including embryonic, adult, and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It also supports somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology, or therapeutic cloning, for biomedical research; opposes cloning specifically for producing a child; and encourages public support for federal funding for research involving pluripotent stem cells. Dr. Lewandowski, a member of the council and primary author of the report, says the research community does not support reproductive cloning. "No one within the organization or within the legitimate scientific community believes that human cloning should ever occur." Therapeutic cloning is another matter, however. In its report, the council concluded that all types of stem cells show great potential for therapeutic application, but embryonic stem cells have the maximum potential. "In most cases, to be useful in research and eventually medical therapies, these cells must be able to be grown in tissue culture, maintain genetic stability for at least eight months, and have the ability to differentiate into any organ type," the report states. "Under some circumstances, freshly collected stem cells may be useful without cultures. Stem cells from embryonic tissue clearly possess all of these potentials. It is not currently known if stem cells derived from adult tissues have these potentials." There are four potential sources for embryonic stems cells. They are embryos created for reproduction that went unused and are stored by fertility clinics, SCNT, parthenogenesis, and more than 70 embryonic stem cell lines that existed before President Bush's August 2001 ban on federal funding. While the 70 stem cell lines can be used in government-funded research, only 13 are available to U.S. researchers. Parthenogenesis involves selecting eggs at a point in their maturation cycle when they still have their full complement of genes and artificially stimulating them to induce cell division. It has been successful in rodent embryos, but not in humans. Building a Better Cell SCNT involves removing the nucleus from an egg and replacing it with a nucleus from an adult cell. This "new cell" then forms a blastocyst from which stem cells can be harvested. The council concluded that embryonic stem cells created through SCNT are better for therapeutic purposes because they can be administered to the nucleus donor without eliciting an immune response. O. Edwin McClusky, MD, former chair of the Council on Scientific Affairs, and Albert Sanders, MD, former chair of the Board of Councilors, say those panels backed embryonic stem cell research, including SCNT, because of its tremendous promise in treating a wide range of diseases. While acknowledging concerns that "some rogue" scientist might attempt to use SCNT to produce a human child, Dr. Sanders says the Board of Councilors feels the risk versus the reward is worthwhile. "If you've got appropriate safeguards on it and complete agreement that cloning leading to production of a child is wrong, then I think you can keep a lid on it so that it's only used for valid research." The Council on Scientific Affairs began examining the issue of therapeutic cloning last summer, and its report was vetted with several other TMA councils and committees, TMA physician leaders, and some physicians known to hold pro-life positions prior to approval by the full council at TMA's Winter Conference in February. The council received little negative feedback, and the House of Delegates approved the policy without debate. Where's the Therapy? However, not all physicians support the policy. New Braunfels family physician Beverly B. Nuckols, MD, spoke against it before a House of Delegates reference committee. She said therapeutic cloning is a misnomer because it provides no therapy for the organism that is the subject of the research. She believes embryonic stem cell research violates a physician's first duty to "do no harm," and destroying a human embryo, even one created artificially through SCNT, amounts to taking a human life. "I don't believe any human has a right to kill another human and, by species definition, these embryos are human beings, Homo sapiens. I believe we need to draw the line now as to whether humans are to be killed by other humans for the benefit of a third or fourth person, or whether we're going to say no, humans will not be killed by other humans unless that person is a direct danger to another." AMA policy says cloning for biomedical research is "consistent with medical ethics." Ken Ortolon can be reached at (800) 880-1300, ext. 1392, or (512) 370-1392; or by e-mail at ken.ortolon@texmed.org .
Main Page - 10/04/04
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES
