stem cell research

[Guest guest]

,

Don't forget, if it is banned in the USA - Medicare will not pay for it. In

most

states BC/BS will not pay for it. We could easily be in a situation where an

AIDS

patient can get $100,000 treatment, but a MSA patient can't get a one time cure

costing $75,000. There is something radically wrong with the ethics of that

picture.

Hey Anne, does Australia pick up new immigrants immediately on their medical

coverage? )

Take care, Bill and Charlotte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sabo wrote:

> This is only good news.

> If the research is progressing anywhere in the world this is good news.

> All problems will find solutions. Aren't scientists marvelous?

> And not to be funny or a troublemaker..... Gore will win .....

>

> >Hi all,

> >

> > and Terri Moller and I heard some really good news and some really

> >bad news

> >tonight about stem cell research.

> >

> >The good news is that it may happen in as little as two to three years for

> >Parkinson's patients. It is already working for some previously incurable

> >cancers. It may work for MSA as soon as they find the exact cells which

> >need to

> >be repaired. They have produced neurons which do produce dopamine from

> >embryonic stem cells.

> >

> >The bad news is that they have not produced that type of neuron from adult

> >stem

> >cells. The worse news is that Bush has decided against the wishes of

> >many member's of his own party including Spector (R-PA); Thurmond (R-SC);

> >

> >(R-OR); Mack (R-OR) and even McCain (R-AZ); that he will not allow NIH to do

> >stem cell research, if he becomes President.

> >

> >Stem cell research will not cause one abortion under the guidelines

> >proposed by

> >NIH. The embyros to be used would be destroyed either way as they are only

> >allowed to be used for producing a baby in the woman who originally

> >donated the

> >eggs so she could have a fertilized egg implanted in her womb. We have to

> >consider the ethics of deciding that small masses of cells so small that they

> >cannot be seen without a microscope should be flushed down the toilet rather

> >than being used for research to cure MSA. Should the USA stop doing research

> >that will quite possibly cure cancer, diabetes, MSA, Parkinson's and

> >Parkinson's

> >Plus disorders be stopped? This research was stopped for 12 years during the

> >Reagan/Bush years in the USA and has come far in the last five years.

> >Should we

> >stop research which could possibly repair severed spinal cords like

> >

> >Reeve's? Should we stop research which might reverse brain damage done by a

> >stroke?

> >

> >Part two of the bad news. If it is banned here in the USA - the first

> >trials on

> >Parkinson's will probably be done in Europe and your insurance will

> >probably not

> >cover you getting the stem cells as it will not have been approved in the

USA,

> >therefore most insurance will not cover it - even if it means a complete

cure.

> >

> >Oops, forgot one more item. Some people are worried about cloning a human -

> >sorry that is not an option. The cells they are working with could only

> >become

> >brain cells or nerve cells and could not clone a person. They are actually

> >growing the stem cells now and can 'clone' the indivdual stem cells. They

> >have

> >learned enough to get the stem cells to turn into dopamine producing

> >neurons and

> >at least two other types of brain cells. The cloned cells do have a specific

> >lifetime so you would still die, but only when your body wore out, not

because

> >your brain will not make the rest of you work. Charlotte's mother lived to

88

> >and her father lived to 80. Charlotte is now 61 and has been diagnosed for

> >over10 years.

> >

> > Moller is getting a copy of a letter written by a microbiologist who is

> >also a strong Pro-Life worker. The man explains in detail why stem cell

> >research is completely different than fetal tissue transplantation. He also

> >explains that stem cell research will go ahead even without NIH

> >involvement and

> >that NIH involvement will actually put strict controls on the research which

> >will not need to be followed if it is all done by private firms. NIH

> >involvement could mean a cure as much as 5-10 years earlier. We will

> >post the

> >letter when he gets it.

> >

> >Take care, Bill (Charlotte stayed home)

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Bill, I encourage every one on this list to eamil their congress people, as

I did. Unfortunately these things take time. I remember when AIDS wasn't

covered either.

S

>,

>

>Don't forget, if it is banned in the USA - Medicare will not pay for it.

>In most

>states BC/BS will not pay for it. We could easily be in a situation where

>an AIDS

>patient can get $100,000 treatment, but a MSA patient can't get a one time

>cure

>costing $75,000. There is something radically wrong with the ethics of that

>picture.

>

>Hey Anne, does Australia pick up new immigrants immediately on their medical

>coverage? )

>

>Take care, Bill and Charlotte

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Sabo wrote:

>

>> This is only good news.

>> If the research is progressing anywhere in the world this is good news.

>> All problems will find solutions. Aren't scientists marvelous?

>> And not to be funny or a troublemaker..... Gore will win .....

>>

>> >Hi all,

>> >

>> > and Terri Moller and I heard some really good news and some really

>> >bad news

>> >tonight about stem cell research.

>> >

>> >The good news is that it may happen in as little as two to three years for

>> >Parkinson's patients. It is already working for some previously incurable

>> >cancers. It may work for MSA as soon as they find the exact cells which

>> >need to

>> >be repaired. They have produced neurons which do produce dopamine from

>> >embryonic stem cells.

>> >

>> >The bad news is that they have not produced that type of neuron from adult

>> >stem

>> >cells. The worse news is that Bush has decided against the

>>wishes of

>> >many member's of his own party including Spector (R-PA); Thurmond (R-SC);

>> >

>> >(R-OR); Mack (R-OR) and even McCain (R-AZ); that he will not allow NIH

>>to do

>> >stem cell research, if he becomes President.

>> >

>> >Stem cell research will not cause one abortion under the guidelines

>> >proposed by

>> >NIH. The embyros to be used would be destroyed either way as they are only

>> >allowed to be used for producing a baby in the woman who originally

>> >donated the

>> >eggs so she could have a fertilized egg implanted in her womb. We have to

>> >consider the ethics of deciding that small masses of cells so small

>>that they

>> >cannot be seen without a microscope should be flushed down the toilet

>>rather

>> >than being used for research to cure MSA. Should the USA stop doing

>>research

>> >that will quite possibly cure cancer, diabetes, MSA, Parkinson's and

>> >Parkinson's

>> >Plus disorders be stopped? This research was stopped for 12 years

>>during the

>> >Reagan/Bush years in the USA and has come far in the last five years.

>> >Should we

>> >stop research which could possibly repair severed spinal cords like

>> >

>> >Reeve's? Should we stop research which might reverse brain damage done

>>by a

>> >stroke?

>> >

>> >Part two of the bad news. If it is banned here in the USA - the first

>> >trials on

>> >Parkinson's will probably be done in Europe and your insurance will

>> >probably not

>> >cover you getting the stem cells as it will not have been approved in

>>the USA,

>> >therefore most insurance will not cover it - even if it means a

>>complete cure.

>> >

>> >Oops, forgot one more item. Some people are worried about cloning a

>>human -

>> >sorry that is not an option. The cells they are working with could only

>> >become

>> >brain cells or nerve cells and could not clone a person. They are actually

>> >growing the stem cells now and can 'clone' the indivdual stem cells. They

>> >have

>> >learned enough to get the stem cells to turn into dopamine producing

>> >neurons and

>> >at least two other types of brain cells. The cloned cells do have a

>>specific

>> >lifetime so you would still die, but only when your body wore out, not

>>because

>> >your brain will not make the rest of you work. Charlotte's mother

>>lived to 88

>> >and her father lived to 80. Charlotte is now 61 and has been diagnosed for

>> >over10 years.

>> >

>> > Moller is getting a copy of a letter written by a microbiologist

>>who is

>> >also a strong Pro-Life worker. The man explains in detail why stem cell

>> >research is completely different than fetal tissue transplantation. He

>>also

>> >explains that stem cell research will go ahead even without NIH

>> >involvement and

>> >that NIH involvement will actually put strict controls on the research

>>which

>> >will not need to be followed if it is all done by private firms. NIH

>> >involvement could mean a cure as much as 5-10 years earlier. We will

>> >post the

>> >letter when he gets it.

>> >

>> >Take care, Bill (Charlotte stayed home)

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

Continuing,

Isn't this where the various research studies could get patients help

for low coast? Or is this too naive?

S

>,

>

>Don't forget, if it is banned in the USA - Medicare will not pay for it.

>In most

>states BC/BS will not pay for it. We could easily be in a situation where

>an AIDS

>patient can get $100,000 treatment, but a MSA patient can't get a one time

>cure

>costing $75,000. There is something radically wrong with the ethics of that

>picture.

>

>Hey Anne, does Australia pick up new immigrants immediately on their medical

>coverage? )

>

>Take care, Bill and Charlotte

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Sabo wrote:

>

>> This is only good news.

>> If the research is progressing anywhere in the world this is good news.

>> All problems will find solutions. Aren't scientists marvelous?

>> And not to be funny or a troublemaker..... Gore will win .....

>>

>> >Hi all,

>> >

>> > and Terri Moller and I heard some really good news and some really

>> >bad news

>> >tonight about stem cell research.

>> >

>> >The good news is that it may happen in as little as two to three years for

>> >Parkinson's patients. It is already working for some previously incurable

>> >cancers. It may work for MSA as soon as they find the exact cells which

>> >need to

>> >be repaired. They have produced neurons which do produce dopamine from

>> >embryonic stem cells.

>> >

>> >The bad news is that they have not produced that type of neuron from adult

>> >stem

>> >cells. The worse news is that Bush has decided against the

>>wishes of

>> >many member's of his own party including Spector (R-PA); Thurmond (R-SC);

>> >

>> >(R-OR); Mack (R-OR) and even McCain (R-AZ); that he will not allow NIH

>>to do

>> >stem cell research, if he becomes President.

>> >

>> >Stem cell research will not cause one abortion under the guidelines

>> >proposed by

>> >NIH. The embyros to be used would be destroyed either way as they are only

>> >allowed to be used for producing a baby in the woman who originally

>> >donated the

>> >eggs so she could have a fertilized egg implanted in her womb. We have to

>> >consider the ethics of deciding that small masses of cells so small

>>that they

>> >cannot be seen without a microscope should be flushed down the toilet

>>rather

>> >than being used for research to cure MSA. Should the USA stop doing

>>research

>> >that will quite possibly cure cancer, diabetes, MSA, Parkinson's and

>> >Parkinson's

>> >Plus disorders be stopped? This research was stopped for 12 years

>>during the

>> >Reagan/Bush years in the USA and has come far in the last five years.

>> >Should we

>> >stop research which could possibly repair severed spinal cords like

>> >

>> >Reeve's? Should we stop research which might reverse brain damage done

>>by a

>> >stroke?

>> >

>> >Part two of the bad news. If it is banned here in the USA - the first

>> >trials on

>> >Parkinson's will probably be done in Europe and your insurance will

>> >probably not

>> >cover you getting the stem cells as it will not have been approved in

>>the USA,

>> >therefore most insurance will not cover it - even if it means a

>>complete cure.

>> >

>> >Oops, forgot one more item. Some people are worried about cloning a

>>human -

>> >sorry that is not an option. The cells they are working with could only

>> >become

>> >brain cells or nerve cells and could not clone a person. They are actually

>> >growing the stem cells now and can 'clone' the indivdual stem cells. They

>> >have

>> >learned enough to get the stem cells to turn into dopamine producing

>> >neurons and

>> >at least two other types of brain cells. The cloned cells do have a

>>specific

>> >lifetime so you would still die, but only when your body wore out, not

>>because

>> >your brain will not make the rest of you work. Charlotte's mother

>>lived to 88

>> >and her father lived to 80. Charlotte is now 61 and has been diagnosed for

>> >over10 years.

>> >

>> > Moller is getting a copy of a letter written by a microbiologist

>>who is

>> >also a strong Pro-Life worker. The man explains in detail why stem cell

>> >research is completely different than fetal tissue transplantation. He

>>also

>> >explains that stem cell research will go ahead even without NIH

>> >involvement and

>> >that NIH involvement will actually put strict controls on the research

>>which

>> >will not need to be followed if it is all done by private firms. NIH

>> >involvement could mean a cure as much as 5-10 years earlier. We will

>> >post the

>> >letter when he gets it.

>> >

>> >Take care, Bill (Charlotte stayed home)

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that update Bill. I heard a news clip last night of Bill

Clinton announcing that stem cell research would go forward and I said

to my husband... now he's finally done something worth remembering him

for. I didn't know Bush was against it. My husband is a US

citizen and can vote in presidential elections even though we live in

Canada. I'll let him know of Bush's feelings on this issue.

My feeling is that it's much better to use a few human cells than to do

excessive animal experiments. I presume the parents of the embryo would

have a choice whether to donate or not... the same way they have a

choice of donating organs when a child is killed in an accident.

Love,

Pam

[Guest guest]

,

Usually if you can meet the requirements for the intitial studies, and are

accepted

everything is covered. When the results are in you find out if you were a

member

of the placebo group and get the option of getting the treatment again if it

helped

the people that got the real thing.

At least that is the way government funded studies work. Sometimes if you are

not

near the place where the study is taking place, you have to pay to get there.

If

we had been accepted for the fetal tissue transplant study in New York many

years

ago, we would have had to get to New York on our own, but they would have paid

to

go to Denver for the operation.

Take care, Bill and Charlotte.

Sabo wrote:

> Continuing,

> Isn't this where the various research studies could get patients help

> for low coast? Or is this too naive?

> S

>

> >,

> >

> >Don't forget, if it is banned in the USA - Medicare will not pay for it.

> >In most

> >states BC/BS will not pay for it. We could easily be in a situation where

> >an AIDS

> >patient can get $100,000 treatment, but a MSA patient can't get a one time

> >cure

> >costing $75,000. There is something radically wrong with the ethics of that

> >picture.

> >

> >Hey Anne, does Australia pick up new immigrants immediately on their medical

> >coverage? )

> >

> >Take care, Bill and Charlotte

> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Sabo wrote:

> >

> >> This is only good news.

> >> If the research is progressing anywhere in the world this is good news.

> >> All problems will find solutions. Aren't scientists marvelous?

> >> And not to be funny or a troublemaker..... Gore will win .....

> >>

> >> >Hi all,

> >> >

> >> > and Terri Moller and I heard some really good news and some really

> >> >bad news

> >> >tonight about stem cell research.

> >> >

> >> >The good news is that it may happen in as little as two to three years for

> >> >Parkinson's patients. It is already working for some previously incurable

> >> >cancers. It may work for MSA as soon as they find the exact cells which

> >> >need to

> >> >be repaired. They have produced neurons which do produce dopamine from

> >> >embryonic stem cells.

> >> >

> >> >The bad news is that they have not produced that type of neuron from adult

> >> >stem

> >> >cells. The worse news is that Bush has decided against the

> >>wishes of

> >> >many member's of his own party including Spector (R-PA); Thurmond (R-SC);

> >> >

> >> >(R-OR); Mack (R-OR) and even McCain (R-AZ); that he will not allow NIH

> >>to do

> >> >stem cell research, if he becomes President.

> >> >

> >> >Stem cell research will not cause one abortion under the guidelines

> >> >proposed by

> >> >NIH. The embyros to be used would be destroyed either way as they are

only

> >> >allowed to be used for producing a baby in the woman who originally

> >> >donated the

> >> >eggs so she could have a fertilized egg implanted in her womb. We have to

> >> >consider the ethics of deciding that small masses of cells so small

> >>that they

> >> >cannot be seen without a microscope should be flushed down the toilet

> >>rather

> >> >than being used for research to cure MSA. Should the USA stop doing

> >>research

> >> >that will quite possibly cure cancer, diabetes, MSA, Parkinson's and

> >> >Parkinson's

> >> >Plus disorders be stopped? This research was stopped for 12 years

> >>during the

> >> >Reagan/Bush years in the USA and has come far in the last five years.

> >> >Should we

> >> >stop research which could possibly repair severed spinal cords like

> >> >

> >> >Reeve's? Should we stop research which might reverse brain damage done

> >>by a

> >> >stroke?

> >> >

> >> >Part two of the bad news. If it is banned here in the USA - the first

> >> >trials on

> >> >Parkinson's will probably be done in Europe and your insurance will

> >> >probably not

> >> >cover you getting the stem cells as it will not have been approved in

> >>the USA,

> >> >therefore most insurance will not cover it - even if it means a

> >>complete cure.

> >> >

> >> >Oops, forgot one more item. Some people are worried about cloning a

> >>human -

> >> >sorry that is not an option. The cells they are working with could only

> >> >become

> >> >brain cells or nerve cells and could not clone a person. They are

actually

> >> >growing the stem cells now and can 'clone' the indivdual stem cells. They

> >> >have

> >> >learned enough to get the stem cells to turn into dopamine producing

> >> >neurons and

> >> >at least two other types of brain cells. The cloned cells do have a

> >>specific

> >> >lifetime so you would still die, but only when your body wore out, not

> >>because

> >> >your brain will not make the rest of you work. Charlotte's mother

> >>lived to 88

> >> >and her father lived to 80. Charlotte is now 61 and has been diagnosed

for

> >> >over10 years.

> >> >

> >> > Moller is getting a copy of a letter written by a microbiologist

> >>who is

> >> >also a strong Pro-Life worker. The man explains in detail why stem cell

> >> >research is completely different than fetal tissue transplantation. He

> >>also

> >> >explains that stem cell research will go ahead even without NIH

> >> >involvement and

> >> >that NIH involvement will actually put strict controls on the research

> >>which

> >> >will not need to be followed if it is all done by private firms. NIH

> >> >involvement could mean a cure as much as 5-10 years earlier. We will

> >> >post the

> >> >letter when he gets it.

> >> >

> >> >Take care, Bill (Charlotte stayed home)

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

[Guest guest]

Pam,

Yes, the donars of the egg and the sperm or their heirs would have to agree to

it - many have already agreed, but under the new guidelines would have to sign a

statement that they fully understand the implications of what that would mean

morally and ethically as well as the fact that they would never receive any

money or compensation of any kind for the embryo.

In truth this could save abortions as some underdeveloped countries may become

fetus factories if we don't do the research. The one company does clone the

individual cells now and will only need new cells as they determine which cells

they need to end up with. That company has also developed markers for the three

types of cells needed for dopamine production, so they will be able to track

them with PET scans and make sure they are living and producing dopamine. There

is no doubt that the research will go ahead in another county if we do not do

it. There are huge sums of money to be made.

There were about 130 people at the meeting and about 40 wanted to sign up right

there on the spot. But the company cannot do the tests here until there is a

valid protocall in place. NIH cannot make up a protocall without having the

guidelines in place.

The problem is that NIH has the proposed guidelines out and they have not been

approved by Congress. Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) have

introduced a Bill to go ahead and put the proposed guidelines in place. Gore

and most Democrats support the stem cell research but not fetal tissue

transplant at this time. Most of the republicans who support the research have

friends or relatives with a Parkinson's or Parlinson's Plus disorder. It seems

to get down to this, if Gore gets in the research will go ahead, because the

Republicans will not have the votes to stop it. They may still be able to stop

it by cutting the NIH budget or putting strings on the budget. If Bush wins, he

will stop NIH from doing the research like his father and Reagan did and the

Democrats will not be able to overturn the order.

Here in Virginia, Senator Warner ® will probably join Senator Spector and vote

for stem cell research and Senator Robb (D) will too (he has a relative with

Parkinson's). However, Robb is up for re-election and the Republican has

also climbed on the side against stem cell research. The NRA is all over Robb

(the guy was a Marine) who has voted for trigger locks and against cheap

handguns. Robb is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress but may

lose because the ads are all painting him as a liberal. When Bush was in office

Robb voted for Bush proposals more than many Republicans. In fact six years ago

if the Republicans had put a moderate () against him, I would have voted

for the moderate Republican.

Unfortunately, I am an Independant and and Democrats call me a conservative

where Republican friends call me a liberal ) Actually since I have worked

for more local Republicans, Charlotte and I are both always getting Republican

Party literature. I actively supported Warner ® in his last election.

and Terri had to leave for Vermont as 's mother died and is being

buried today. They stayed to hear the info on stem cell research before they

left. He knew the man who had the letter and said he will get a copy when he

gets back.

Take care, Bill and Charlotte

-------------------------------------------------------

Pam Bower wrote:

> Thanks for that update Bill. I heard a news clip last night of Bill

> Clinton announcing that stem cell research would go forward and I said

> to my husband... now he's finally done something worth remembering him

> for. I didn't know Bush was against it. My husband is a US

> citizen and can vote in presidential elections even though we live in

> Canada. I'll let him know of Bush's feelings on this issue.

>

> My feeling is that it's much better to use a few human cells than to do

> excessive animal experiments. I presume the parents of the embryo would

> have a choice whether to donate or not... the same way they have a

> choice of donating organs when a child is killed in an accident.

>

> Love,

> Pam

>

>

[Guest guest]

guys, thanks for the update on stem cell work. sorry i am new to this site

and i don't mean to be nieve' but 1, would this help someone with

spinal-cerebeller ataxia (hereditary ataxia--where the cerebeller is actually

attacked and little by little is destroyed). 2, WHERE (ie what

universities) are starting to do tests and how can you become

eligible for inclusion in the study? i have a very fast acting case and

cannot wait the 5 to 10 years for this to become " common " . any advise?

<<< hugs, pamela.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Pamela!

You wondered:

> ... i am new to this site and i don't mean

> to be nieve' ...

Always ask! This is an amazingly supportive group. No flames will come

your way when you ask...

> ... 1, would this help someone with spinal-cerebeller

> ataxia (hereditary ataxia--where the cerebeller is actually

> attacked and little by little is destroyed).

Yes, this will replace the neurons. It will require constant practise and

therapy for the new neurons to take over the work of the failing neurons,

but it does help.

2, WHERE (ie what universities) are starting to do tests ...

Sorry, I can't help here. However, I really do empathize. For example, I'm

not certain if my condition is truely sporadic (no one else in the family

ever had anything like this), if it is heridtary, or if it is dominant (but

expresses itself more in some individuals that others). I would love to

think this research would help me. But it might help my kids. And that is

enough! If they don't have to go through this, it is definitely worthwhile

research.

> any advise?

Pamela, my best advice is to learn to deal with a chronic illness. Much

easier said than done! I just spent the past 6 months dealing with pretty

severe depression over this.

You might want to read:

A Delicate Balance: Living Successfully with Chronic Illness

by Milstrey Wells

It's an excellent book. No answers, just real life examples of how other

people deal with ongoing (and progressive) chronic illness.

And please know that this is a very good place to express your frustrations,

anger, and concerns with your situation. Everyone here does a good job of

listening. It's a good community that will help you.

Regards,

=jbf=

B. Fisher

[Guest guest]

http://www.drtomdooley.com/scr.html

The Dilemma of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

P. Dooley, Ph.D.

CEO of IntegriDerm Inc., CEO of ALtruis LLC, &

President of the Biotechnology Association of Alabama

Advances in biomedical research are occurring at a rapidly increasing rate.

Information from the nearly completed Human Genome Project, coupled to

additional new research methodologies such as molecular biology, robotics, and

computational methods will dramatically improve our nation’s research and

healthcare capabilities during the next decade. New fundamental insights are

being gained daily into various diseases and disorders, and biomedical

researchers are rapidly impacting medical diagnostics and therapies. Toward this

end a new discipline has emerged, which some proponents suggest will

dramatically impact biomedical research – stem cell research. Stem cells appear

at this juncture to have some very interesting properties, suggesting that they

might help in the treatments of certain diseases and wound healing.

However, it should be noted that stem cell research is in its infancy, and few

individuals (either professionals or the general public) have given serious

thought to its research, medical, societal, ethical, moral, and religious

implications. Given these uncertainties, the following principles are worthy of

serious consideration at this critical time.

Stem cell research is multi-faceted, and not a single issue per se. There are at

least two major categories of stem cell research:

I. Embryonic stem cells – utilizing the cells derived from a single-celled human

being (a zygote formed by an egg and a sperm) or beyond in early embryonic

development, whether propagated either in utero or in vitro in the laboratory

II. Adult stem cells – derived from human cells or tissues, other than the egg,

sperm, zygote, and early embryonic cells

Although proponents of embryonic stem cell research are touting the " potential "

for this new entity in healthcare, one must also consider that pure research of

any kind can yield potential favorable results. For instance, by not funding

embryonic stem cell research, the monies could be diverted to another research

approach, such as development of pharmaceutical- or recombinant protein-based

therapies for the same healthcare need. This poses the question of whether the

researcher proponents are objectively considering all available options and

routes to accomplish the same goal, or are merely claiming " Let’s climb Mount

Everest, just because it is there! " Given that the methodologies and results

obtained to date are opening new doors to many uncertain potential outcomes,

both good and bad, a prudent individual would weigh all possible alternatives

before proceeding.

Perhaps the most important reason to give consideration to this issue at this

critical time, is the ethical, moral, and religious " can of worms " that it opens

up. Any research on embryonic stem cells per se is work performed on the

earliest stages of life of a human being. Although some proponents of embryonic

stem cell research might carefully " wordsmith " their arguments to make this

issue less than clear and more palatable to the unaware, it is biologically true

that the entire potential for a human being rests in the zygote! A human being

starts biologically as a zygote. Therefore, any research performed on the zygote

or early embryo has the potential and is very likely to terminate a human life,

just like " therapeutic " abortions performed by OB/GYN physicians terminate a

human life. Research on embryonic stem cells replaces the potential of a human

being (e.g., a baby) for the potential of a desired research outcome. It is

literally that simple. Does one discard one option for the other? It is arguably

difficult to advocate for embryonic stem cells, if an individual is ethically,

morally, or religiously opposed to this " pro-abortive " research methodology.

And, in the USA today, millions of citizens stand in direct opposition of

" pro-abortive " methodologies. This is a serious issue worthy of consideration

and action.

The dilemma is also compounded by the fact that the scientific justifications

and merits per se of embryonic stem cell research have not yet been

demonstrated. Furthermore, subsequent to the development of clinical in vitro

fertilization methodologies (much of which was and is conducted without the

oversight of the Public Health Service or National Institutes of Health),

numerous highly questionable medical practices have been reported over the past

few years. For instance, human beings have been formed with zygotes containing

DNA (i.e., genes) from sources other than a single egg and a single sperm. They

are by definition " genetically-modified organisms " , and at the " germline " level,

meaning that it can transfer to subsequent sons and daughters. In addition

zygotes have been formed for the explicit purpose of not producing a baby,

rather to perform research on embryonic stem cells. These examples of recent

clinical practices are proceeding without oversight or restriction. Should not

the general public and our representational form of government in the USA be

involved in this debate and oversight of these practices?

However, unlike research on " embryonic " stem cells, there are diminished or

minor concerns expressed by most individuals over " adult " stem cells. The adult

material can be obtained for instance from an adult tissue, surgical discard

material, cultured cell lines, or placenta. Given the choice between the two

major categories, the vast majority of the ethical dilemma rests on the side of

" embryonic " stem cells.

Therefore, it is a worthy proposition:

(1) to educate the public regarding the differences between embryonic and adult

stem cell research with regard to the science and the ethical dimensions (e.g.,

moral, ethical, religious, etc.)

(2) to ban research of any kind involving human " embryonic " stem cells

(3) to ban the intentional creation of human life by means of " cloning " or use

of embryonic stem cells

(4) to ban the intentional creation of human life in which the zygote has been

genetically modified by any means

(5) to ban funding of research for items #2-4, above

(6) to hold accountable researchers and clinicians who violate imposed

restrictions

(7) to proceed cautiously with research proposals involving " adult " stem cells

Copyright ALtruis LLC 2001 July 2001