Monday, April 09, 2007

Ask your senator to vote for stem cell research

The United States Senate is set to vote to reauthorize funding for stem cell research for essential, new stem cell lines not included in the President’s original moratorium on funding. Please take the time to encourage your senator to vote for this important bill [S. 5 and S. 997 Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research]. Without it, little progress can be made with the few authorized stem cell lines.


Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds great promise. Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research could transform the lives of millions of Americans, restoring them to health.

This is not mere speculation. In animal studies, cells derived from ESC lines have produced dramatic results. For example, neurons derived from animal ESC lines have restored motor function in paralyzed rats. Human ESC has been used to produce insulin-secreting cells and cardiovascular precursor cells, which could result in treatments for diabetes and heart disease.


There are many spare embryos available from IVF procedures. In vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures produce thousands of unused and unwanted embryos each year. Best estimates are that there are about 400,000 spare embryos. Although not all of these spare embryos are suitable for research and many may not be donated, even if only one tenth of them are used for research, this would vastly increase the number of available stem cell lines.


The spare embryos available from IVF procedures cannot develop into adult humans. Opponents of ESC research claim that it results in the destruction of a potential human being. However, by definition, spare embryos will never be implanted in a uterus and, therefore, cannot possibly develop into adult humans. If they are not used for ESC research, they will simply be discarded.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3) expressly provides that embryos may be used for research only if it is "determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded."

It is misleading to characterize an embryo as a potential human when the possibility of its developing into a human is zero.
The possibility of alternative sources for stem cells does not imply we should not utilize a proven source.

The argument that we do not need ESC because of so-called alternative sources of stem cells not only assumes that there are practical alt ernatives — which, as indicated, has not been demonstrated — but also rests on the false premise that having another possible source for stem cells means we should not use the proven source for stem cells, namely ESC. To the contrary, we should use all available means to advance research in this area, including ESC.

Significantly, virtually all scientists support this conclusion, including the scientist who has helped generate stem cells from amniotic fluid, Dr. Anthony Atala. In addition, the Director of NIH, Elias Zerhouni, recently testified before the Senate that the Senate should remove President Bush’s restrictions on funding of ESC research.
ESC research enjoys wide public support.

The overwhelming majority of Americans supports federal funding of ESC research. Surveys indicate that 60 to 70 per cent of the public support federal funding, whereas only 20 per cent of Americans support the current policy.


Policy Recommendation
The Center for Inquiry and its sustainers strongly recommends Senate passage of the Stem cell Enhancement Act of 2007 and it urges President Bush to sign this act into law when it reaches his desk. Life-saving research has been delayed long enough. Using cells for research to potentially save lives is better than allowing them to fall into disuse and eventually being discarded.

What’s At Stake?
— Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise: In animal studies, cells derived from embryonic stem cell lines have produced dramatic results. For example, neurons derived from embryonic stem cell lines have restored motor function in paralyzed rats.
— All research to date indicates that adult stem cells are less therapeutically useful than embryonic stem cells: For example, they cannot multiply as well as embryonic stem cells and do not possess the same capacity to differentiate into all types of tissue. In short, if we want effective therapies, adult stem cells are not sufficient – we need to use embryonic stem cells.

— The only impediment to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is the position of some that the embryo is the equivalent of a human person. This position is based largely on religious belief: There is no scientific basis for treating the embryo as the equivalent of a human person. The embryo does not have the capacities and properties associated with humans, such as rationality, consciousness and the ability to have sensations. Although religious beliefs must be respected, they cannot be allowed to dictate public policy.

Center for Inquiry, Washington DC, 621 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003 T: (202) 546-2331 F: (202) 546-2334 Web: www.cfidc.org

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This article seems very misleading to me. Contrary to the information provided in this article, there have been numerous successes in using non-embryonic stem cells to treat actual human patients (as opposed to lab rats)--something that cannot be said for embryonic stem cells. For one example, please read this recent news article on a study treating type 1 diabetes with adult stem cells.
http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/19360
69980118906311222031130270605094496
(The link was not wrapping properly, so I hit enter after 19360...you'll have to put it back together....I don't do this often:)

There are many such examples. Also, stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood show a pluripotency similar to ESCs.

I would also mention that leftover embryos cetainly CAN be (and have been) implanted in the womb if the parents consent to their "adoption". There are more people willing to "adopt" these embryos than there are willing "donors". The embryo can be implanted into the womb of the adoptive mother.

I would just like to see fairness in the discussion of non-ESC research and therapies.