New possibilities for stem cell research
Rick Weiss,Jonathan Moreno
Sunday, August 10, 2008
As America struggles with such weighty issues as the war in Iraq, the 
foundering economy and the run-up to a historic presidential election, it 
may be difficult to recall that seven years ago this month the most 
wrenching issue facing the nation was human embryonic stem cell research.
Scientists and patient advocates were clamoring for studies on the cells, 
whose vast therapeutic potential was just coming to light, while others were 
decrying the research as immoral because it necessitated the destruction of 
days-old human embryos.
On Aug. 9, 2001, President Bush devoted his first nationally televised 
address solely to this subject. After months of introspection and deep 
discussions with experts in bioethics, he said, he had decided on a policy 
that would allow scientists "to explore the promise and potential of stem 
cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line."
That policy, still in effect, would allow federal funding of research on 
embryonic stem cells already created as of the date of his address, but not 
on cells derived thereafter.
Bush's approach stood in contrast to that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, 
whose plan was never implemented because it was completed in the 
administration's final months. Under Clinton's proposal, the decision of 
which cell colonies were eligible for study with federal funds was based on 
whether the cells had been ethically derived - whether the women who donated 
their discarded embryos for research did so with a full understanding of 
what was to be done with their cells, for example, and whether coercion or 
an expectation of better medical care had influenced their decision.
Recent revelations that many of the Bush-approved stem cell colonies were 
obtained in clear violation of widely recognized ethics rules have now laid 
bare the moral hollowness of Bush's approach.
At least five of the 21 cell colonies approved for federal funding by virtue 
of their having been derived before Bush's 2001 address came from embryos 
that were "donated" by women who were either not told anything about what 
they were agreeing to or were expressly told that their cells would not be 
preserved as regenerating cell cultures.
Other colonies were obtained with lesser but still troubling ethics lapses. 
Having learned of those failures of informed consent, at least six of the 
nation's leading academic stem cell centers - four of them in California - 
are now reconsidering whether to allow those cells in their research 
protocols. An expert committee at Stanford University recently recommended 
banning these cells.
New rules being considered by the Proposition 71-created California 
Institute for Regenerative Medicine, while useful in some ways, could paper 
over the problem by allowing research on cells that otherwise do not pass 
ethics muster.
The question of how we got into this mess is worthy of a congressional 
probe. Insiders at the National Institutes of Health have said they were 
under intense pressure from the White House to ignore the ethics problems 
surrounding many of the Bush-approved cell lines. The fear, apparently, was 
that if the number of cell lines available for study with taxpayer dollars 
were to prove too small, then scientists and patients would revolt against 
the policy.
In fact, it is a marvel that science and health experts have not already 
revolted. Though Bush said in his 2001 address that there were "more than 
60" cell colonies that would be eligible for study with federal funds under 
his plan, only 21 have turned out to be available. Under the terms of the 
Stanford ethics review, that number shrinks to 16.
Meanwhile, hundreds of new lines of embryonic stem cells have been derived 
since 2001, using superior methods that enhance the cells' biomedical 
potential - in compliance with strict ethics guidelines crafted by the 
national academies.
It is time to move beyond the Bush era of stem cell research, with its faux 
moral high ground and simplistic reliance on a TV broadcast date. There is 
nothing moral about telling women that cells from their microscopic embryos, 
left over from fertility treatments and already set to be discarded, cannot 
be donated to researchers for the purpose of understanding diseases and 
developing cures.
And there is nothing moral about forcing U.S. scientists to struggle with 
old and degenerating cell lines while competitors overseas busily file 
patents on potential therapies that take advantage of the latest and best 
cells available.
Both presidential candidates have voted for legislation that would loosen 
Bush's research restrictions while locking in, for the first time, strong 
ethics rules for how embryonic stem cell research should be done - 
legislation that Bush vetoed twice.
Now, given the ethical cracks in the Bush policy, the candidates need to 
stand behind that legislation. Whoever is elected should order that 
ethically derived embryonic stem cells be made available for study by 
America's publicly funded researchers, who for too long have been hobbled in 
their desire to understand disease and reduce human suffering.
Rick Weiss and Jonathan Moreno are senior fellows at the Center for American 
Progress, a Washington think tank. E-mail us at [log in to unmask]
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/10/INDB1269RM.DTL
_______________________________________________
CAMR.friends mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://www.freehood.net/mailman/listinfo/camr.friends

Rayilyn Brown
Director AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
[log in to unmask] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn