What is it with Obama and Embryonic Stem Cells?

As you may recall, back in August a federal judge blocked president Obama's expansion of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Which got me to thinking "why does Obama love embryonic stem cells?" Contrary to garbage "news" stories like "Science, not Politics" ESCR is 100% politics. If we look at the science, there is no reason to perform ESCR.

First off, ESCR does not work, for a very simple reason. In 1901 Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types, which was an important step in our understanding of the human immune system and tissue rejection. Today we can transplant major organs. But organ transplants are not "natural". The body naturally attacks tissue that does not belong there. Organ receivers have to take powerful drugs to suppress their immune systems. These drugs make the person susceptible to infections and have all sorts of other nasty effects. It's worth it, if you need a heart, though.

While not an entire organ, embryonic stem cells are similar in that they are tissue from another human's body, and the immune system reacts to it. Because of this, people treated with embryonic stem cells develop cancers and immune system problems.

Secondly, even if one solved the immune system problems, there is no need to use embryonic stem cells. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IpSC) have been proven to be identical in function to embryonic stem cells. The difference is that IpSCs are created without the destruction of human life.

Thirdly, why pour money into research that is decades away from solving a problem, when we have other avenues of research that are solving those problems today? Adult stem cell research has produced cures for over 70 diseases/conditions.

The current administration has done its best to confuse the issue in the public eye, and has reduced funding of adult stem cell research in order to put the money into ESCR. Quite frankly, I'm angry that my money is being thrown away and used to kill humans. Or to put it another way:

I have been told that I need to respect the opinion that human embryos are just a mere clump of cells and full of promise for cures.  Well, respect is a two way street.  If you want embryonic stem cell research, then you pay for it.

Don't make me, and millions of people like me who find research that relies on the destruction of human embryos morally reprehensible, support it with our tax dollars.   When you do, you are forcing your belief that a human embryo has no value on me.

But why? Why not fund adult stem cell research? IpSC research? Why must it e ESCR? I didn't have a good answer, until I read an interview with a former ESCR scientist, Theresa Deisher. Ms. Deisher says:

Embryonic stem cells have never been used in a viable treatment, despite research on animals going back to the late 1970s. On the other hand, research on adult stem cells began a decade later and has already led to many viable treatments.

Nonetheless, she says, human embryonic stem-cell research is more attractive commercially because the cells are patentable. A patent-owning drug company will be able to charge $50,000 to $500,000 per patient for individual treatments. “Adult stem-cell treatments are much more affordable, around $10,000, and without side effects.”

And it all makes sense. So perhaps, in addition to the ethical and scientific objections, we should ask why our president, who claims to want to reduce health care costs, uses federal dollars to fund research whose only goal is to allow drug companies to charge more for the same patient benefits.

Read More

God Spelled

Seems like I've been thinking too much about health care lately, so let's get onto a different topic.

How many times have you heard “God spelled backward is dog?” This is true in an orthographic sense, but also in other ways (more on that blow). Dogs have been on my mind lately. They seem to be popping up all over. As a kid we had (at various times) gold fish, tropical fish, gerbils, a cat and a rabbit, but no dogs. I'm not sure why not, but I always had enough friends with dogs to satisfy any dog cravings I had.

Last week I had lunch with my friend Mike. Mike is an EMT and was telling me about a call he had gone on. A woman saw a dog in the road and, rather than hit the dog, swerved into an oncoming car and put a whole family in serious condition in the hospital. Mike said in frustration, “Car full of kids...dog...hit the damn dog!” Mike, I will note, is a dog owner and dog lover, but as much as he cares for dogs he cares for people more. And as much as I would hate to hit an animal, I have to agree that a carful of kids should take precedent.

Another friend of mine, Tina (aka Snup) has a basset named Jake who is ill (that's Jake at the top of this post, by the way). Tina, being poor and a student, has spent countless hours not only tending to Jake, but researching his ailment and how best to treat him. The latest news is that Jake needs surgery to take care of a mass in his ear (which is pictured at right) so she has started a blog for Jake and is selling homemade doggie treats to raise the money for Jake's surgery. Please help her out by going to http://jaketakes.blogspot.com/2009/10/cookies-by-jake.html

The third story is about the “Crush Act”. It seems there is a relatively recent law, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.1887.ENR:) prohibiting the sale of material “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed”. First off, I would think that ti would be a no-brainer that selling material depicting illegal activities would itself be illegal, so I don't know why this is a special case, but it certainly sounds like a reasonable law.

It seems one Robert J. Stevens was convicted in 2005 for marketing three dog fighting videos. The amazing (and disturbing thing) is the following (http://www.aspca.org/news/national/10-16-09.html#3)

In July 2008, a United States Court of Appeals overturned Stevens’s conviction, ruling that the Crush Act was “an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Due to this ruling, the Crush Act is no longer in effect. Internet trafficking in crush videos, which had slowed significantly since 1999, has reportedly surged—and in April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review U.S. v. Stevens to determine the future of the Act.
“This is only the second time in history that the Supreme Court has taken on a case directly related to animal cruelty,” says Dr. Randall Lockwood, ASPCA Senior Vice President of Anti-Cruelty Field Services. “It represents a difficult conflict between two traditionally ‘liberal’ values—freedom of expression and animal protection—so it is unclear how and if the court may be divided.”

Difficult conflict? I see no conflict. Aside from the fact that this is “commercial” speech, which is (and should be) under a stricter standard than “free” speech, these videos are evidence of a crime. Any supreme court justice who finds this decision "difficult" should be disbarred.

I'll throw in a bonus fourth, non-dog story. GE Healthcare has formed a biotech partnership to develop products based on human embryonic stem cells in hopes that their use will replace lab rats in drug development and toxic drug tests (http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=5074)

GE Healthcare, the medical research subsidiary of General Electric, has formed a partnership with a leading U.S. biotech company to develop products based on human embryonic stem cells that can be used to develop new drugs.

On June 30, GE Healthcare and Geron Corporation announced a multi-year alliance where Geron will provide GE scientists with an undisclosed amount of human embryonic stem cells.

The human cells will be used “to develop and commercialize cellular assay products derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) for use in drug discovery, development and toxicity screening,” according to a news release.

GE Healthcare, which is based in Britain, hopes that human embryonic testing will spare lab rats from having potentially toxic drugs in or on the animals.

So let's save the poor lab rats by killing human beings to use in these experiments. You have to be seriously ignorant not to see the irony of GE's attempt at “more ethical” drug testing.

As usual, the church worked out the ethics of all these situations long ago. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm):

Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.¹⁹⁴ Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.¹⁹⁵
2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.¹⁹⁶ Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.¹⁹⁷ Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

In other words you should not love animals instead of people, or place them above the needs of people. On the other hand, one should love and protect them and give them the respect due them as God's creatures. Causing an animal to suffer needlessly is contrary to human dignity, not just the animal's dignity. Likewise ignoring human suffering for an animal is to reject human dignity. We should love our dogs, but not put diamonds on them while children starve.

One of the reasons why I love the Catholic Church is that Her positions are middle of the road. Rather than taking a biblical passage out of context and using that to support a position that is popular or convenient (or unpopular or inconvenient), the whole of sacred scripture is considered, as well as tradition, science, and other factors.

I'll leave you with this video that was posted by another friend, Barb.

Read More

The Stem Cell Debate is Over?

These were the words of Dr. Oz to Michael J Fox on Oprah earlier this year. Sadly, though the science is settled, the debate rages on. Hopefully that can be changed.

I recently came across this article, which claims that Chinese scientists have created stem cells that are identical to embryonic stem cells. Here's the equivalent article form the Washington Post. So, what did they do, and what does it mean? This isn't supposed to be a comprehensive explanation of the topic, but I hope it will help you to understand the issues. For a more in depth discussion of the science involved you can visit the National Institute of Health. Of course, their information ignores some issues and is a bit out of date on some points, but you get the idea.

What is a Stem Cell?

You are composed of cells, trillions of them. Those cells are all 100% genetically identical, and uniquely you. However, most of your cells have special duties. Cells specialize to perform those duties by differentiating. That means that although they have the same DNA they express it differently. It like everybody having the same song book but reading different musical parts to sing in harmony. So instead of having all identical cells, you have a brain made of brain cells, a heart made of heart cells, skin made of skin cells and so on. If your liver fails, you can't take a kidney and move it to the right place and have it turn into a new liver. Stem cells are cells that aren't differentiated, so they can become other cells.

The hope of stem cell research is that we can learn to grow these cells and teach them to become other cells at will. So, when you have tissue damaged by disease or accident, you can regrow that tissue and replace the damaged part. By regrowing pancreatic cells we could potentially cure diabetes. By regrowing nerve cells we could potentially cure paraplegics, or parkinson's disease patients.

Why are there different kinds of Stem Cells?

Most Americans think (and have been encouraged to think) that stem cells are stem cells. It is unfortunate that the media often doesn't even report what type of stem cells they are talking about, because there are three different kinds, and there are very important differences between them. Let's talk about the different kinds.

At one time you were composed of just one cell, and all of the cells you have now came from that one cell that was you. So, at some point you had cells that could grow into any part of you. These cells are called "stem" cells, because all of the different kinds of cells stem from them. These cells are called embyronic stems cells because they are present in embryos.

Even today, if you get a cut in your skin you can grow new skin over the cut (as long as it's not too big). If you have a heart attack your heart can regenerate new muscle. The cells that can regenerate are also stem cells, but for some reason they can only grow into certain types of tissue. For instance, stem cells from your heart can grow heart tissue but can't grow brain tissue. These cells are called adult stem cells, because they are present in adults.

As I've mentioned, all of the cells in your body have the same DNA. That is to say, they all have the complete song book. So why can't we get the cell to look at the whole "book"; to "undifferentiate", or go back to the state it was in before it became a heart cell or a skin cell? It turns out we can. Scientists have learned to take skin cells and make them revert into stem cells. Cells produced this way are called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.

There are other types of stem cells, such as fetal and amniotic stem cells, but these are the "big three" that make the news all the time.

What's the difference?

There are drawbacks to each of these types of stem cells. The biggest drawback to embryonic stem cells is not a scientific one, but an ethical one. To extract these cells, an embryo, which is a whole living human being, must be killed. This makes them sort of like, well, Dracula, where the living are sacrificed and their "life essence" extracted to provide the vampire with life. Some scientist, politicians, actors, etc. would have you believe that an embryo is not a living human being, yet it is clearly human, or we could not use the cells, and clearly living, as we are extracting living tissue from it. In fact, just read an embryology textbook and you'll see that they are wrong.

Other scientists et. al. would argue that we'd only kill embryos that nobody wants anyway. That argument doesn't hold water ethically, as it's the same one used to justify the genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany. There is no ethical way known to obtain embryonic stem cells, and scientist, politicians - well, you know how - who say they will use them "ethically" are flat out liars, or completely ignorant of the facts.

OK, that's one drawback, but there are also scientific problems with them. The major scientific problem is related to the ethical problem; they are not your cells. If you attempt to cure diabetes by growing pancreatic cells, you are not growing your own body's pancreas, you are growing someone else's, and so you have all the problems of tissue rejection that people who receive transplants have. Then there is the fact that they don't behave like your own cells, and often go haywire in the environment of your body, turning cancerous.

The state of the art in embryonic stem cells is exemplified by the articles I quoted in an earlier post on stem cells. We see doctors struggling to find a way to keep the stem cells from forming dangerous tumors.

OK, what about adult stem cells? We can take adult stem cells from your body, grow them until we have as many as we need, and insert them back into the body, where they will happily grow into healthy tissue. There is no issue with rejection or cancer, because it is your own tissue. In fact this has been done successfully for many disease over the past years. The drawback is that adult stem cells can only become certain types of tissue, not any type. Therefore you need to take stem cells from the organ that needs to be repaired. Thus, to repair heart tissue, part of your heart needs to be surgically extracted. Also, it is not known how to extract stem cells for some types of tissue. So, while there have been many success stories (in fact, all of the successful "stem cell cures" discovered so far use adult stem cells), there's still a lot of work to be done.

Finally we come to iPS stem cells. These cells are the best of both worlds. Like adult stem cells, they are your own tissue. Like adult stem cells they are ethically "good". Like embryonic stem cells they seem to be able to become more than one type of tissue. So, what's the down side? The key word is seem. Nobody was sure if they coudl actually become any cell, or if embryonic stem cells still had an "edge" in that department.

What does the article really say?

The article I mentioned at the beginning of this post describes experiments done by researchers in China. They took iPS cells from a mouse and grew another complete mouse from those cells! If you can grow a complete organism from a stem cell, then clearly those stem cells are the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells, and they can become any kind of tissue. This is definite proof, since if the cells couldn't become heart tissue, for example, the resulting mouse wold have no heart and would not live.

Now this does not mean there are no problems with iPS stem cells. We are still learning how to make them and how to use them, but it does mean that there is now no possible reason to use embryonic stem cells for research, as they can be replaced cell for cell by an iPS stem cell that doesn't have the ethical or rejection issues.

Read More