Wednesday, November 1, 2006

"Clear Choice on Stem Cells": Vote Green

In today's installment of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board's slow-motion endorsement of Jim Doyle for governor, the topic is stem cell research.

Despite the fuss over the ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox, embryonic stem cell research is hardly a bellwether issue in the race for governor. For this Editorial Board, it's an easy call.

Gov. Jim Doyle and Wisconsin Green Party gubernatorial candidate Nelson Eisman have the right idea.

Doyle has embraced this research and done everything in his power to support it, committing millions of state dollars.

Republican Rep. Mark Green, on the other hand, has consistently voted with President Bush to continue the unreasonable restrictions the president imposed in 2001 on new federal funding for such research. Green has maintained that stance even while a growing number of fellow conservative Republicans have split with the president because they, like Doyle, appreciate the tremendous therapeutic possibilities of embryonic stem cells.

Why are there restrictions on new federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research?

There are ethical considerations, considerations that even Bill Clinton acknowledged.


In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning, Doyle's pet project, a "troubling prospect."
"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Obviously, Doyle and The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board do not share the concern that President Clinton harbored in 1997 about the morality and spirituality of playing with human embryos.
Green points out that he has no objections to private funding. But as one researcher put it, the private dollars available are "a drop in the bucket."

Now, why would the private dollars available be only "a drop in the bucket"?

Wouldn't private investors jump at the chance of making millions or billions of dollars in stem cell research, the new frontier for miracle cures?

Of course they would.

So why aren't the private dollars there?

It's not a wise investment.


At this point, EMBRYONIC stem cell research is problematic. It's been unsuccessful. The promise lies in adult stem cells and cord blood.
...Green fully supports adult stem cell research, which has delivered some therapeutic benefits. But embryonic cells hold more promise because they can become any tissue in the body.

Correction: Adult stem cell research has delivered the ONLY therapeutic benefits of any stem cell research.

In spite of the promised promise of EMBRYONIC stem cells, they have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses. None.

He objects because the current research requires the destruction of the embryo. But because the embryos used are from fertility clinics and scheduled to be discarded anyway, that argument lacks credibility.

To the contrary, an argument should be made that those embryos scheduled to be tossed away like yesterday's trash should not be discarded.

A case should be made for the ethical handling of human life. Green is right to object to the destruction of the embryo.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board lacks moral grounding. Respect for life doesn't enter into the Board's arguments. They are shallow and uniformed and inhumane.

Green proposed using $25 million in state money to look for ways to extract stem cells without killing the embryos. But developments in this area have been called into question, and far more research is needed to know whether such procedures are viable.

Yes, and developments in EMBRYONIC stem cell research have been called into question.

For example:

--In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.

--Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

Simply put, EMBRYONIC stem cells are currently not viable for treatment purposes.
Between the two major-party candidates, this issue has been muddied by rhetoric, but the bottom line couldn't be clearer: Doyle is right.

The stem cell research issue hasn't been muddied by rhetoric of the two-major party candidates.

It's been muddied by the liberals' dishonesty.

It's been muddied by lies -- from the likes of the Doyle camp, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, Michael J. Fox, and the intentionally deceptive Old Media.

The most productive research and beneficial results have come from adult stem cells.

The bottom line couldn't be clearer: Green is right.

23 comments:

Dave said...

First Adult Stem Cells research has been researched for 40 plus years whereas Embryonic Stem Cells reserach is still just 10 years old and has been severly set back because of W. Many major scientific breakthroughs don't come from the private sector, here's a couple public sector items to prove it: Digital Computer, The Internet and of course the Atom Bomb... I'd say one way or another these 3 things have created trillions of dollars and started new industries but private industry didn't create them? how odd.
Embroyinc Stem Cell research simply has the greatest potential to not only come up with cures but also create an economic boom for Wisconsin. Green is wrong!

Mary said...

Of course, there have been scientific breakthroughs that were rooted in the public sector.

The point is nothing is stopping the private sector from cashing in on the alleged embryonic stem cell gold mine.

So why aren't investors seeking to reap the profits that you believe are guaranteed by pursuing embryonic stem cell research?

Not surprisingly, you fail to address the ethical component of embryonic stem cell research, creating human life with the sole purpose of destroying it.

Do you know what an embryo is?

Jayce said...

In spite of the promised promise of EMBRYONIC stem cells, they have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses. None.

I don't understand why anti-embryonic advocates keep touting this as fact. It's clearly not. Here's just one link proving you wrong - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/tech/main1734662.shtml

If you have ethical concerns, fine. But let's try to keep our facts straight. And don't use Clinton's views about cloning to support your views on embryonic stem cell research; they're two seperate issues.

Jayce said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jayce said...

Hopefully this will work:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/tech
/main1734662.shtml

Dave said...

No the point is, that this is exactly the type of scientific research that starts with public funding and then one day the private sectors runs with it. This is science for the sake of doing science. Cures and treatments are still down the line because it is still so new, and the lack of funding is setting the US and more specifically Wisconsin back.

I didn't address the "ethical" component cause it's pointless. Do you think sperm are dead? Are you against In Vitro Fertilization? Do you understand these embroyos get tossed into the circular bin everyday? Do you understand that a woman's body naturally aborts embryos? Without being in a human body these cells will never ever be a baby. What they will be is garbage in the medical waste can.

Ummm there is no "creating human life with the sole purpose of destroying it." These embryos were created for IVF!

Green is wrong!

Mary said...

In response to Jayce:

Your link doesn’t prove that I’m wrong at all. My statement is absolutely true.

EMBRYONIC stem cells have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses. None.

To prove me wrong, you will have to cite a current treatment or cure for afflicted people that utilizes embryonic stem cells.

The story you link to is about paralyzed rats, not paralyzed people. It also details the complexities of making it work in humans, decades away.

Furthermore, Doyle and other extreme Leftists want to clone embryos for stem cell research. They’re not two separate issues.

Therefore, I do think Clinton’s views are applicable.

Mary said...

In response to Dave:

1. You don't understand capitalism.

2. There is no lack of funding for anything that shows promise in a country that runs on free enterprise.

3. Clearly, there is no point in debating the morality of the issue with you.

4. You don't specify which embryos you expect to be used in experimentation. It's important to note that Doyle is pro-clone.

5. Green is right!

Dave said...

1> You don't understand science.

2> If capitalism will find the money for anything that shows "promise" then I ask why didn't private industry develop, oh I don't know the Internet, World Wide Web (not the same as the Internet), atom bomb, fax machine, or the digital computer???? I'd say those items turned out to "show a lot of promise".

3> Winner:)

4> So you understand the embroyos in question come from the leftovers of IVF, there's something like 200,000 awaiting to be tossed in the garbage can. i.e the trash! Incidentally are you against IVF? They regularly destroy embroys?

5> Green is a rightwing extremist!:)

Jayce said...

Mary,

Of course Embryonic Stem Cell research hasn't done anything for humans - it hasn't been tried yet.

But you're being blatantly disingenuous to say that "they have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses." They have proven successful in animals. Humans will be next. It is how the process works.

And you didn't specifically say humans, so technically you are wrong. It has, in fact, delivered treatment for illness.

If scientists found a cure for cancer in lab rats, would you run around spouting off about how the new cure hasn't treated any humans? You'd look silly then just as you do now.

Would you at least admit that embryonic cells are more promising than adult stem cells? Or do you disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists?

Mary said...

To Jayce:

You've got to be kidding.

My post, and the stem cell debate in general, refers to treating illnesses in human beings, not lab rats. At this point, the efficacy of adult stem cells in actually alleviating human suffering beats embryonic stem cells. FACT.

Speaking of looking silly, why don't you mention a reason embryonic stem cells aren't currently helping to treat human illness?

There's that nasty little side effect. They've been shown to cause tumors.

Who's looking silly? It's not me.

Yes, scientists consider the potential of embryonic stem cells to be great, which is why efforts to extract such cells without destroying embryos are so important and exciting.

Would you at least admit that an incredible stem cell research breakthrough, "British scientists have created an artificial liver--from scratch--using stem cells," DID NOT come from embryonic stem cells?

The cells came from umbilical cord blood.

Mary said...

To Dave:

1. You're ignoring science.

2. You're illogical. Do I really need to delineate all the scientific advances and inventions that weren’t federally funded?

3. In my eyes, your cavalier, amoral approach to the destruction embryos in no way makes you a winner. Therefore, there is no debating the subject from an ethical perspective because you don't take into account the sanctity of life.

4. When it comes to Doyle's plans for embryonic stem cell research, the embryos in question are not only the "leftovers." He supports the cloning of embryos. I respect life. There is no such thing as a spare embryo.

In terms of the morality of in vitro fertilization, you should understand that I'm Catholic. I believe that the routine destruction of human embryos by clinics is immoral.

5. Mark Green respects life. It's a truly sad thing when respecting life is considered extreme.

Dave said...

1> ESC is less than 10 years old! ASC is 40 years old of course ASC is further along! duh

2> No but I think you'd be hard pressed to beat out the internet, atom bomb and the digital computer as terribly significant developments. Developments that would of take years longer had they waited for private industry to figure it out, much like ESC today.

3> Do you understand the human body "cavalierly" destroys embryos? i.e. the body rejects and aborts the embroyo, and that this is pretty common. Should we save those too? So you understand my point here Mary your own body believes that this is not true: "There is no such thing as a spare embryo."

And I'm serious in wanting this answered as well. Is sperm life and if is, should we save the sperm as well?

So you believe IVF should be banned as well, at least you're consistant but that is clearly an extremist view right there. I wonder is Mark Green is just as extreme... hmmm probably.

4> Oddly the researches at UW doing the work have specifically described the process of how they would get access to those embroyos i.e. from the 200,000 but I guess they're wrong...

5> Mark Green is Right. Yup he's so far right he's extreme:)

Dave said...

Quick follow-up here. Here's a link that states how UW had gotten the embryos in the past.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/facts.html#2

Ohh from IVF!

Jayce said...

You've got to be kidding.

I was thinking the same thing about you...

My post, and the stem cell debate in general, refers to treating illnesses in human beings, not lab rats.

No, not really. The debate is whether or not government should be funding research on ESCR. I believe it should because, among other things, ESCR has shown the most promise. Remember, it has only been conducted for the past 8 years. The pluripotency of ESC and the current success in mice and monkeys have provided sufficient proof that funding these programs is a good thing.

Speaking of looking silly, why don't you mention a reason embryonic stem cells aren't currently helping to treat human illness? There's that nasty little side effect. They've been shown to cause tumors.

That is a current problem, though it doesn't make anyone look silly. It just points to the need for more research. The current understanding of the problem is that they stem from introducing cells with a different DNA.

This gets us back to your misunderstanding of cloning. Therapeutic Cloning is cloning of cells and not human cloning. Current thought is that if we are able to therapeutically clone ESCs from the host, tumor growth would not be a problem.

Yes, scientists consider the potential of embryonic stem cells to be great, which is why efforts to extract such cells without destroying embryos are so important and exciting.

Now we're making progress.

And to answer your question - that is an incredible breakthrough. I'm not advocating cutting other forms of stem cell research. It is all good.

Jayce said...

Therefore, there is no debating the subject from an ethical perspective because you don't take into account the sanctity of life.

Pardon me, Dave, for stepping into your argument (you obviously don't need any help).

Why is he less ethical than you just because he believes human life starts at a different stage than you do?

You do realize that a blastocyte is just a clump of unspecialized cells, right? You do know that they are being thrown out, right? You do know that a women's body naturally throws these out all the time, right? (Interesting note - studies have found that the "rhythm method" advocated by the Catholic Church results in an increased number of embryos that do not attach. Is that murder?)

Why is his definition of human life automatically dispensable? There are no true right or wrong answers with respect to the begining of human life. It's all just a religious/philosophical debate.

Mary said...

Bottom Line:

Your comments are riddled with factual errors and logical fallacies.

For instance, embryonic stem cell research is NOT ten years old. Try twenty-five.

Both of you make wild accusations, illogical leaps, and stray off topic when confronted with arguments that refute your statements.

You attribute beliefs and comments to me that I do not hold and I did not make.

Any intelligent reading of this page of comments would come to that conclusion.

Like Mark Green, I disagree with Jayce's statement, "There are no true right or wrong answers with respect to the begining of human life."

That's the moral relativism of the Left on parade. I reject it.

Mark Green is a strong supporter of stem cell research. He understands that medical breakthroughs do not have to come at the price of cheapening life.

Doyle is pro-abortion, pro-clone, pro-embryonic destruction.

Mark Green respects life.

I'm voting for him.

Jayce said...

"Your comments are riddled with factual errors and logical fallacies."

No, they're clearly not. You can't say something like that without backing it up. You try, unsuccessfully, in a few cases.

"For instance, embryonic stem cell research is NOT ten years old. Try twenty-five."

Here's a religious link (one of 103,000 other links) that disagrees with you - "Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998." - http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem012.html

"Both of you make wild accusations, illogical leaps, and stray off topic when confronted with arguments that refute your statements. "

Another unbased comment. C'mon, you can do better than that...

"Like Mark Green, I disagree with Jayce's statement, "There are no true right or wrong answers with respect to the begining of human life.""

I would bet Mark Green would agree with me. In fact, I'd bet a lot that he'd agree with me. When do you think life begins? How do you know? By definition it is a matter of philosophy and religion. You won't find one scientist or doctor who can give you a difinitive answer.

If you're going to disagree with things I said, do so in an intelligent manner. Don't just dismiss them as "factual errors and logical fallacies" and then not back that up... at all. That's weak.

Dave said...

Mary,
"A breakthrough in human embryonic stem cell research came in November 1998 when a group led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison FIRST developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells when derived from human blastocysts." The type of ESC we are talking about is less than 10 years old!! (as you pointed out we are talking about human ESC not mice).

Beyond that you dodged every question asked... You called IVF immoral but didn't say you would ban it? (Which was the question)
Though it is logical to believe you want that banned as it is these very embroys we are talking about (you can look at the UW website for this information)

Now that sounds pretty extreme to me.

The rest of your post said nothing and answered no questions.. so it is clear to me and I would think most people who've read this you're wrong.

Thanks please come again:)

PS I didn't respond till today because I was out east experiencing some real history in Philly.

PSS Even if you look at the one non-human ESC break through prior to the the UW work ESC is still 20 years behind ASC which is the point

Mary said...

I invite readers to go over the comments already posted here and determine the merits of the arguments.

I'm not willing to spend time writing a dissertation dissecting the factual errors and logical fallacies of "Dave and Jayce's" comments.

They're evident.

Vote for Mark Green.

Dave said...

Mary has taken her ball and gone home:)

Jayce said...

If you can't beat 'em, just quit.

Mary said...

Personal attacks and straying off topic with the intent to harass is a sign of intellectual impotence.

There is a clear pattern here.

That is evident.