Pearl's fireball at sunset this evening.
The following continues the serialization of Chapter 2 from SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity:
Stem Cells
Stem cell research is all about human engineering. Is it morally right to do this? James Watson of double-helix fame has been quoted to say: “If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease…so I’d like to get rid of that…People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.” Needless to say, there are contrary opinions from moral purists.
Well, what is a stem cell? It is a cell found in all multi-cellular organisms and has the ability to differentiate into a diverse range of specialized body parts. In other words, certain human cells can initiate a process to create muscles, a heart or whatever, regardless of where it came from. Bone marrow, a particular stem cell, for example, has been transplanted to treat a wide variety of diseases. Or, someday, a doctor might be able to inject a few stem cells into your failing heart, leading to a complete cure. It is reported that 100 million Americans living with incurable diseases from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s to ALS to MS…can be helped. You can add broken bones, brain damage, severe burns, some cancers, hepatitis, and stroke.
Would the ethical concern be tolerable if an empty cow egg is utilized to fuse human DNA? U.K. universities (King’s College London and the University of Newcastle) were given the green light to proceed in 2007. What about from human skin?
How did all this get started? Glass was invented around the year 100 AD, and lenses were formed not long thereafter, but the earliest mention of eye glasses for improving sight was not until the 13th century. The father and son Dutch team of Hans and Zaccharias Janssen in 1590 carefully placed several lenses in a tube, inventing the microscope, leading to Italian Galileo Galilei, looking from the other end, building a telescope just after the turn of the century. In 1665, Englishman Robert Hooke published Micrographia, reporting on some of his biological observations through a microscope, and coined the term, cell. Dutch Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, who lived to the ripe old age of 90, was inspired by Hooke’s book and shifted using the microscope from improving textiles into the natural world. He later became known as the “Father of Microbiology.”
In the early 1900’s, European scientists reported that blood cells came from one particular stem cell. In 1963 Canadian cellular biologist Ernest McCulloch and biophysicist James Till at the University of Toronto discovered stem cells in blood forming systems and in 1998 a group led by developmental biologist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin isolated and grew stem cells from human embryos, which led to the ethical concerns of today.
There are three categories of stem cells: embryonic, adult and cord blood. Embryonic stem cells are the most valuable, for they can differentiate into 220 cell body types (which accounts for the whole body) and have an unlimited capacity for self-renewal. They are obtained from the inner cell mass of a 4-5 day old embryo. That is the controversy. It is a moral, and, usually, religious issue. You are killing a human being. A simple solution might be to agree that life begins at one week instead of at conception.
For all intents and purposes, federally funded research in this field is limited. The religious factor sways Republicans, especially President George W. Bush, to be against embryonic stem cell research. [President Barack Obama favors stem cell research.] In 2008 the Democratic U.S. Congress might pass a pro-research bill, but this will be vetoed by the President, and will not be overridden. But science is moving forward faster than politics, so there will be other options to neutralize politics.
Adult stem cells are not much of an issue, and reports keep surfacing that they can now be extracted from human skin, ordinary cells, human amniotic (liquid in which the fetus subsists) fluid, and more. Geneticist Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University has mixed a chemical cocktail of four ingredients to treat adult cells for this purpose. In November of 2007, Cell reported Yamanaka’s team is now able to make patient-specific stem cells for therapies without fear of immune rejection and Science featured an article from the University of Wisconsin similar to the Kyoto development, in effect reprogramming implanted skin cells to convert them to stem cells. Furthermore, it was reported in Nature that an American group had found a way to extract embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo. [Nature later, on December 2006, amended this article, for all these embryos were, in fact, destroyed.] Yes, this was a mouse embryo, but something new pops up weekly.
In any case, the private sector and states can themselves fund stem cell development. California has earmarked $3 billion ($300 million/year for 10 years) and New Jersey $270 million. However, court challenges from mostly religious groups have stalled progress. Yet, it is reported that Stanford’s human embryonic stem cell lab, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, has already received the largest grant, $26 million.
Private donors have contributed more than $150 million in California alone, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $100 million to The Johns Hopkins University, where he went to school and obtained a science degree, largely for R&D in this field. When you add the rest of the world to any undercover research, this field is booming.
The entire human embryonic stem cell research budget for the National Institutes of Health this past year was $40 million. A particular irony, is that more human embryos now are available for research than if President Bush had not imposed any restriction. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated that 2002 data showed $270 million supporting 1000 scientists in 30 firms in industry. That was in 2002!
In polls:
o CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll from May 4-6, 2007
Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?
Should = 53%
Stem cell research is all about human engineering. Is it morally right to do this? James Watson of double-helix fame has been quoted to say: “If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease…so I’d like to get rid of that…People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.” Needless to say, there are contrary opinions from moral purists.
Well, what is a stem cell? It is a cell found in all multi-cellular organisms and has the ability to differentiate into a diverse range of specialized body parts. In other words, certain human cells can initiate a process to create muscles, a heart or whatever, regardless of where it came from. Bone marrow, a particular stem cell, for example, has been transplanted to treat a wide variety of diseases. Or, someday, a doctor might be able to inject a few stem cells into your failing heart, leading to a complete cure. It is reported that 100 million Americans living with incurable diseases from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s to ALS to MS…can be helped. You can add broken bones, brain damage, severe burns, some cancers, hepatitis, and stroke.
Would the ethical concern be tolerable if an empty cow egg is utilized to fuse human DNA? U.K. universities (King’s College London and the University of Newcastle) were given the green light to proceed in 2007. What about from human skin?
How did all this get started? Glass was invented around the year 100 AD, and lenses were formed not long thereafter, but the earliest mention of eye glasses for improving sight was not until the 13th century. The father and son Dutch team of Hans and Zaccharias Janssen in 1590 carefully placed several lenses in a tube, inventing the microscope, leading to Italian Galileo Galilei, looking from the other end, building a telescope just after the turn of the century. In 1665, Englishman Robert Hooke published Micrographia, reporting on some of his biological observations through a microscope, and coined the term, cell. Dutch Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, who lived to the ripe old age of 90, was inspired by Hooke’s book and shifted using the microscope from improving textiles into the natural world. He later became known as the “Father of Microbiology.”
In the early 1900’s, European scientists reported that blood cells came from one particular stem cell. In 1963 Canadian cellular biologist Ernest McCulloch and biophysicist James Till at the University of Toronto discovered stem cells in blood forming systems and in 1998 a group led by developmental biologist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin isolated and grew stem cells from human embryos, which led to the ethical concerns of today.
There are three categories of stem cells: embryonic, adult and cord blood. Embryonic stem cells are the most valuable, for they can differentiate into 220 cell body types (which accounts for the whole body) and have an unlimited capacity for self-renewal. They are obtained from the inner cell mass of a 4-5 day old embryo. That is the controversy. It is a moral, and, usually, religious issue. You are killing a human being. A simple solution might be to agree that life begins at one week instead of at conception.
For all intents and purposes, federally funded research in this field is limited. The religious factor sways Republicans, especially President George W. Bush, to be against embryonic stem cell research. [President Barack Obama favors stem cell research.] In 2008 the Democratic U.S. Congress might pass a pro-research bill, but this will be vetoed by the President, and will not be overridden. But science is moving forward faster than politics, so there will be other options to neutralize politics.
Adult stem cells are not much of an issue, and reports keep surfacing that they can now be extracted from human skin, ordinary cells, human amniotic (liquid in which the fetus subsists) fluid, and more. Geneticist Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University has mixed a chemical cocktail of four ingredients to treat adult cells for this purpose. In November of 2007, Cell reported Yamanaka’s team is now able to make patient-specific stem cells for therapies without fear of immune rejection and Science featured an article from the University of Wisconsin similar to the Kyoto development, in effect reprogramming implanted skin cells to convert them to stem cells. Furthermore, it was reported in Nature that an American group had found a way to extract embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo. [Nature later, on December 2006, amended this article, for all these embryos were, in fact, destroyed.] Yes, this was a mouse embryo, but something new pops up weekly.
In any case, the private sector and states can themselves fund stem cell development. California has earmarked $3 billion ($300 million/year for 10 years) and New Jersey $270 million. However, court challenges from mostly religious groups have stalled progress. Yet, it is reported that Stanford’s human embryonic stem cell lab, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, has already received the largest grant, $26 million.
Private donors have contributed more than $150 million in California alone, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $100 million to The Johns Hopkins University, where he went to school and obtained a science degree, largely for R&D in this field. When you add the rest of the world to any undercover research, this field is booming.
The entire human embryonic stem cell research budget for the National Institutes of Health this past year was $40 million. A particular irony, is that more human embryos now are available for research than if President Bush had not imposed any restriction. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated that 2002 data showed $270 million supporting 1000 scientists in 30 firms in industry. That was in 2002!
In polls:
o CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll from May 4-6, 2007
Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?
Should = 53%
Should not = 41%
o USA Today/Gallup Poll from April 13-15, 2007
As you may know, the federal government currently provides very limited funding for medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos. Which would you prefer:
No Restrictions = 22%
Ease Restrictions = 38%
Current Restrictions = 20%
No Funding At All = 16%
o ABC News/ Washington Post Poll from January 16-19, 2007
Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell research?
Support = 61%
o USA Today/Gallup Poll from April 13-15, 2007
As you may know, the federal government currently provides very limited funding for medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos. Which would you prefer:
No Restrictions = 22%
Ease Restrictions = 38%
Current Restrictions = 20%
No Funding At All = 16%
o ABC News/ Washington Post Poll from January 16-19, 2007
Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell research?
Support = 61%
Oppose = 31%
o Newsweek Poll from October 26-27, 2006
Do you favor or oppose using federal tax dollars to fund medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos?
Favor ............................Oppose
Republicans = 34% ...Republicans = 54%
Democrats = 62% .....Democrats = 27%
In mid-2006, President Bush used the first veto of his Republican presidency to block a Democratic congress’s act lifting the 2001 Republican ban on federal funding for most stem cell
research.
o Newsweek Poll from August 24-25, 2006
Do you approve or disapprove the way Bush is handling federal funding for stem cell research?
Approve = 31%
o Newsweek Poll from October 26-27, 2006
Do you favor or oppose using federal tax dollars to fund medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos?
Favor ............................Oppose
Republicans = 34% ...Republicans = 54%
Democrats = 62% .....Democrats = 27%
In mid-2006, President Bush used the first veto of his Republican presidency to block a Democratic congress’s act lifting the 2001 Republican ban on federal funding for most stem cell
research.
o Newsweek Poll from August 24-25, 2006
Do you approve or disapprove the way Bush is handling federal funding for stem cell research?
Approve = 31%
Disapprove = 52%
These results are, actually, surprising, as Chapter 5 will show that Americans are a highly religious group, and most of the opposition to stem cell research is from religious groups. The Republican opposition and Democratic support would be expected. In any case, there is something about President Bush that should change the national priorities with the next president in 2009.
From the religious perspective, a poll commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in May of 2006 showed the following results:
o Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person’s tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments:
Support = 38.6%
Oppose = 47.8%
Don’t know = 11.9%
Refused = 1.7%
The results were just the opposite. Just goes to show it is in how and who you ask. Also, therapeutic cloning appears to be gaining in support, as two-thirds of Americans are in favor to produce stem cells for this purpose. In any case, stem cell research will thrive into the future as scientists sufficiently adjust to overcome religious discomfort. {Plus, the Obama factor will no doubt regain American leadership in this field.]
These results are, actually, surprising, as Chapter 5 will show that Americans are a highly religious group, and most of the opposition to stem cell research is from religious groups. The Republican opposition and Democratic support would be expected. In any case, there is something about President Bush that should change the national priorities with the next president in 2009.
From the religious perspective, a poll commissioned by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in May of 2006 showed the following results:
o Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person’s tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments:
Support = 38.6%
Oppose = 47.8%
Don’t know = 11.9%
Refused = 1.7%
The results were just the opposite. Just goes to show it is in how and who you ask. Also, therapeutic cloning appears to be gaining in support, as two-thirds of Americans are in favor to produce stem cells for this purpose. In any case, stem cell research will thrive into the future as scientists sufficiently adjust to overcome religious discomfort. {Plus, the Obama factor will no doubt regain American leadership in this field.]
-
The Dow Jones Industrials continued to climb, up 61 to 9279, while world markets were mixed. Crude oil surged today into the $72/barrel range. However, there are some saying that triple digits will not be reached for a long time to come. Yet, there are hurricanes, the matter of Peak Oil and China. Gold edged up a buck to $943/toz.
-
Typhoon Vamco, at 125 MPH has, oops, turned slightly EAST towards Hawaii. However, all signs point to this storm soon going north. Maybe it will collide with Guillermo, which is bringing some extra precipitation to Hawaii. But Hurricane Bill in the Atlantic, at 135 MPH, could well strengthen to 145 MPH over the next day or two, and remain a Category 4 storm through the early part of the weekend. While most services predict Bill to move sufficiently north, there are various models not so optimistic:
-
No comments:
Post a Comment