Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

[alex_de_large]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=53D5BAF7-E7F2-99DF-3F377459000E76DE&chanID=sa003

My post is more a general question then a criticism of this veto. About a year ago I had read that stem cells could be aquired from a freshly cut umbilical cord, thus leaving the newborn infant completely unharmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4157362.stm

If this is the case, then why do people still oppose stem cell research?

[shade]

I thought it was cute that he said "To destroy life in an effort to save life is unethical and immoral".

Iraq?

[whocares]

I thought it was cute that he said "To destroy life in an effort to save life is unethical and immoral".

He really said that? Wow, he's not only evil, he's way too stupid as well. :lmao:

[kledster]

bush is only delaying what could be a breakthrough for millions of handicapped people. and for what? for his own delusional ideologies. somebody kick this retard out of office please. i hope his wife gets parkinson's.

[alex_de_large]

I just have trouble understanding his reasoning. Stem cell research no longer entails killing fetuses. Taken directly from the article:

The move marked the second time in two years that Bush, bowing to his conservative base, vetoed such a package, despite growing public support and a new study showing that most patients at U.S. fertility clinics would likely donate surplus stored embryos for stem cell research if given the option.


He also signed an executive order urging scientists to work with the federal government to come up with ways to derive cells without destroying embryos.

Ummm... we already have a way of doing this. Several ways actually. And if this is the only concern, why not ban stem cell research that involves killing embryos and allow all the other kinds?? Very fishy indeed. Could the pharmaceutical companies be persuading Bush against stem cell research?


EDIT: I also just found this on google news a few minutes ago. Pretty amazing stuff.

Parkinson's Gene Therapy Breakthrough May Enter Clinical Trials by Year-End

Promising results delivered in the first human clinical trial testing the procedure against the neurodegenerative disorder.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=558593E2-E7F2-99DF-323B5CB288BBD005&chanID=sa003

An innocuous gene-bearing virus injected into the midbrains of a dozen patients suffering from Parkinson's disease improved the subjects' motor function while causing no adverse effects, says a new study.

This is the first time gene therapy has been tested to fight Parkinson's, which affects an estimated 500,000 Americans. The promising findings, published this week in The Lancet, opens the door to a new treatment option for the neurodegenerative disease. "The safety and effectiveness clearly indicate that this is something worth pursuing," says lead study author Michael Kaplitt, a neurological surgeon and director of movement disorders at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "We're not finished, clearly; we still need to do a larger, more definitive study to prove this for sure."

Parkinson's disease, a disorder that typically strikes people their 60s, is characterized by tremors, stiffness, loss of speech and difficulty with motor function. Neuroscientists have tracked its biological cause to the loss of neurons, or nerve cells, in a midbrain region called the substantia nigra, which produces the neurotransmitter dopamine (that helps maintain proper movement control). When dopamine levels are low the subthalamic nucleus, a sliver of neurons just above the substantia nigra, overproduces glutamate, which is the brain's primary excitatory chemical messenger. When hyped up it overstimulates downstream neurons, triggering a strong inhibitory response that results in disrupted movement.

Kaplitt and senior study author Matthew During, a senior research associate at Weill Cornell, focused on trying to calm down the overactive subthalamic nucleus. They used a harmless virus called an adeno-associated virus to transport a gene that codes for the enzyme glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) into the neurons of the subthalamic nucleus. The gene prompted these subthalamic cells to produce gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the brain's primary inhibitory neurotransmitter, which made them settle down and restored normal motor function.

Because of federal regulations, the team could only inject the virus into one hemisphere of each person's brain. "This allowed us to compare the two sides of the brain," Kaplitt says, which enabled researchers to judge the effectiveness of their treatment.

Researchers monitored the 12 subjects over the next year and discovered that motor function improved from 25 percent to 65 percent. They also found that the treated sides of the brain showed normalized brain activity in key regions downstream from the subthalamic nucleus: the thalamus, also implicated in motor function, and parts of the cerebral cortex involved in movement. Most encouraging to the scientists was that the improvement persisted even when the patients were on their Parkinson's medications meaning that, as Kaplitt describes, "the therapy was causing additional improvement to the medicines."

Kaplitt and During had a number of safety concerns at the study's inception: The viral packages could damage target cells by provoking the immune system; there was a chance of overinhibition of the neurons in the subthalamic nucleus; and there were worries about unknown side effects that the researchers had not anticipated. But Kaplitt reports their fears were unfounded—there were no incidents of infection, immune response or toxicity.

In an editorial accompanying The Lancet article, Jon Stoessel, a professor of neurology at Pacific Parkinson's Research Center in Vancouver, calls the new work a "provocative approach to the treatment of neurodegenerative disease." He questions, however, whether this is a better treatment option than deep-brain stimulation, the most effective current therapy, which involves implanting a brain "pacemaker" to electrically stimulate either the thalamus or subthalamic nucleus

Kaplitt, who hopes to have a full-scale clinical trial for the gene therapy approach underway by year-end, says there are several "inherent advantages" to this new option. Most notably, there are no wires or batteries in the body that could cause infection, it avoids the risks of putting a new electrical source in the brain, and the pacemaker has to be tuned frequently, whereas the gene, according to animal studies, should remain effective for several years.

[shade]

You guys confuse "ban" with "not fund".

He vetoed a bill that would "fund" embryonic stem cell research. He did not "ban" embryonic stem cell research. He simply said that "we aren't going to take money from tax payers and use it to fund what many consider to be abortion".

The private sector is allowed to do anything they want regarding embryonic stem cell research, other than attempt to clone a human.

All medical research should be privately funded. All research, in fact. That is what entreprenuers are for, R&D is for, investors are for, etc.

[droogsteve]

You guys confuse "ban" with "not fund".

He vetoed a bill that would "fund" embryonic stem cell research. He did not "ban" embryonic stem cell research. He simply said that "we aren't going to take money from tax payers and use it to fund what many consider to be abortion".

The private sector is allowed to do anything they want regarding embryonic stem cell research, other than attempt to clone a human.

All medical research should be privately funded. All research, in fact. That is what entreprenuers are for, R&D is for, investors are for, etc.


That's a bit of a weaselly response, Shade. Whether or not all medical research should be privately funded may be debatable. However, at this time, much research IS publicly funded, and that is not debatable. That's a fact. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether certain people's religious beliefs should determine which research is funded and which is not. Personally, I believe that scientific research decisions should be left to scientists, not religious leaders. I guess I'm just funny that way. Scientists should decide which research should be funded and which should not.

How about if we stop funding AIDS research because certain fundies believe it's God's punishment for immoral behavior? Or perhaps stop Medicare from paying for blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witnesses believe they go against the word of their God?

When you let religion dictate science, things get really scary, really fast.

[DazednConfused]

I don't see a problem with government funded research, especially when it's for something as important as the medical field.

The potential for abuse isn't large (oh no, company A will now unfairly be able to provide useful services that company B and C won't!) and the benefits to society can be great. Paying for research results in more research being done, which yields advances in technology. The only thing that sets us apart from cro magnon man is that we know more.

[_Joe]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=53D5BAF7-E7F2-99DF-3F377459000E76DE&chanID=sa003

My post is more a general question then a criticism of this veto. About a year ago I had read that stem cells could be aquired from a freshly cut umbilical cord, thus leaving the newborn infant completely unharmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4157362.stm

If this is the case, then why do people still oppose stem cell research?

The Federal gov't should not be wasting money on things like stem cell research. That's not to say, however, that individual states should still be allowed to fund it.

The reason me and Ron Paul are against it are different from Bush's reasons. He is a hard line Pro-Lifer, and would outlaw abortion nationally if he could.

[whocares]

Wasting money?? On a research that could find cure or greatly help to find cures to many health issues? WOW!!

[_Joe]

Wasting money?? On a research that could find cure or greatly help to find cures to many health issues? WOW!!

Yes.


What is so hard to understand about that? It would be much easier to just ask one's governor for the funds rather than making it a federal issue. The Fed spends way to much money to begin with. I agree that it's shitty that they don't spend on this while spending on so much more, but I still fundamentally agree that it shouldn't be federally funded.

[whocares]

Yes.


What is so hard to understand about that?
That I don't think that it would be a waste of money.

[_Joe]

That I don't think that it would be a waste of money.

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.

For the Fed, it is a waste of money. For a state or private investors, it would bring unmeasurable benefits for cancer and medical research, not to mention how it would create an influx of medical industry to a governor's state. That could be a big incentive to fund it.

[whocares]

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.
Yah, it was great, wasn't it? ;)

[shade]

That's a bit of a weaselly response, Shade. Whether or not all medical research should be privately funded may be debatable. However, at this time, much research IS publicly funded, and that is not debatable. That's a fact. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether certain people's religious beliefs should determine which research is funded and which is not. Personally, I believe that scientific research decisions should be left to scientists, not religious leaders. I guess I'm just funny that way. Scientists should decide which research should be funded and which should not.

How about if we stop funding AIDS research because certain fundies believe it's God's punishment for immoral behavior? Or perhaps stop Medicare from paying for blood transfusions because Jehovah's Witnesses believe they go against the word of their God?

When you let religion dictate science, things get really scary, really fast.

I would contend that when you let government dictate science, things get really scary, really fast.

Especially if the fear it generates makes people willing to give up money, liberty, and power (global warming).

[MelL]

I like how you ignored the rest of my post.

For the Fed, it is a waste of money. For a state or private investors, it would bring unmeasurable benefits for cancer and medical research, not to mention how it would create an influx of medical industry to a governor's state. That could be a big incentive to fund it.

Think about how, in the future, such an investment may help to lighten the burden of disability claims due to disease. More people able to work = more people making money = more people paying taxes. Sounds like a keen thing to me! :)

[SmoothKnight]

why must we have a retard running our country? who the fuck elected him?