 |
 |
COLORADO: Scientists Wary Of Bush Politics Colorado Researchers Say Stem Cell, Other Work Is Hampered By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News April 27, 2004 President Bush gets low marks from some Colorado scientists for his policies on stem cell research and science in general. "He's been terrible," said Dr. Curt Freed of Denver, a leader in using stem cells to fight Parkinson's disease. Freed called Bush's decision in 2001 to limit stem cell research to the handful of existing lines "bizarre." Freed said that left scientists with only 11 lines worldwide, and some of those have started to mutate, meaning they may be worthless for use in human disease. Earlier this year, 20 Nobel laureates, joined by 40 other top scientists, accused the Bush administration of manipulating science for political gains. A 46-page report overseen by the Union of Concerned Scientists also accused the Bush team of "censoring" scientific conclusions with which it disagreed. The report charged that Bush administration officials ordered large-scale changes to a section on global warming in the Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment. Freed said Bush's stand on stem cells is hampering research into Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders. Stem cell lines isolated from an embryo can be maintained in a tissue culture dish for many generations. Under appropriate conditions, the stem cells can differentiate into several different tissue types - such as bone or brain - which makes them so prized by scientists. All of the established lines approved by Bush were grown on layers of mouse cells. That's problematic, Freed said, because the possibility that human and mouse cells might be mixed raises problems for any treatment that might be developed from the lines. A Harvard professor has developed 17 stem cell lines, with no help from mouse cells, but with financial help from the private Howard Hughes Foundation, said Freed, who is division head in clinical pharmacology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Bush opposes the expansion of stem cell research because the cells often come from aborted fetuses. Bush opposes abortions, and fears that women will be more likely to opt for them if they think they might be advancing the cause of science. Anti-abortion groups strongly support Bush's opposition to research that abets the killing of unborn fetuses. Colorado Right to Life opposes stem cell research, saying it violates the "equal protection" tenet of the U.S. Constitution, valuing an adult's life more than an unborn baby's. "We oppose all human experimentation not done for the benefit of the subject, except with the informed consent of the subject," the organization said on its Web site. But Freed countered that thousands of embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization are discarded each year, along with their stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells are recovered from embryos used in in vitro fertilization about five days after fertilization, Freed said. But Connie Pratt, president of Colorado Springs Right to Life, said stem cells from embryos are unnecessary for research because stem cells from placentas, umbilical-cord blood, adult cadavers and the patients themselves can be just as effective. "Such findings prove we need not choose between progress and principle," she said. But the argument that adult cells work as well as embryonic cells is specious, Freed said. "Many of us have tried using stem cells that line (the brain). These cells are very difficult to make into a specific cell type." Freed said Bush has politicized scientific review panels by appointing members who will echo his disapproval of research on stem cells, HIV and sexual preference, he said. Freed pointed to recent appointments to the panels for cancer, neurological disease and aging. "They were put on the council to make sure no research is funded that the Bush administration disagrees with," he said. At a conference in Snowmass last fall, 18 stem cell researchers from across the country were asked about Bush's ban on new lines. Fourteen either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that "there are a sufficient number of human stem cell lines," said Dr. Robert Dellavalle, a professor of dermatology at the CU Health Sciences Center. When asked whether the White House's policies were hindering research, half said "yes," a third were neutral and just one disagreed. And most disagreed with the contention that adult stem cells are a good substitute for embryonic stem cells, Dellavalle said. William M. Strauss, a professor of biology at CU-Boulder, said nothing but "sheer tenacity" let him continue his research in the face of Bush's ban on new stem-cell lines. Strauss said he needs human embryo cells to understand how early stem cells organize during development - an understanding that could lead to treatments for cancer and other diseases. "I feel like as a country we're losing our edge" because of Bush's stance on science. "We started the whole idea of stem cell research, but now, just like with the auto industry, we're losing our edge - because the government is not supporting it." CU climate scientist Roger Pielke said he is alarmed that scientists today seem happy to match their scientific opinions with their politics. "Sometimes this is cherry picking - that is, carefully selecting from available information that supports a predetermined political agenda," Pielke said. Instead of reducing choices, science generally expands them, he said. And complexities of science often make it possible to validate competing sides of an issue. "This is also because most issues - stem cells, cloning, global warming, etc. - involve considerations that go well beyond science," Pielke said. SOURCE: Rocky Mountain News, CO http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2839816,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn