Posted by: Sister Toldjah on February 9, 2007 at 10:00 am
This is great news you won’t hear much about in our pro-embryonic stem cell research media. Michael Fumento reports:
While the Democratic-controlled House voted 253-174 to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, it fell far short of the 290 votes needed to override a virtually guaranteed presidential veto. A tragedy for victims of everything from Alzheimer’s to warts? Not at all. Each year there are stunning breakthroughs with adult stem cells, and 2007 has already brought its first.
Adult stem cells cure and treat more 70 diseases and are involved in almost 1,300 human clinical trials. Scientists also keep discovering that adult stem cells are capable of creating a wider variety of mature cells. Perhaps the most promising of these was announced in the January issue of Nature Biotechnology.
Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, reported that stem cells in the amniotic fluid that fills the sac surrounding the fetus may be just as versatile as embryonic stem cells. At the same time they maintain all the advantages that have made adult stem cells such a success.
This has caused great consternation on the part of those seeking increased taxpayer embryonic stem cell funds. The reason is that there are currently no practical applications for this type of cell. There hasn’t even been a single clinical trial involving them. Researchers admit we won’t have approved embryonic stem cell treatments for at least 10 years.
One advantage of embryonic stem cells has been that most types of adult stem cells cannot be multiplied outside of the body for very long, while embryonic ones may replicate in the lab indefinitely.
But Atala’s new amniotic stem cells grow as fast outside the body as embryonic stem cells (doubling every 36 hours), and he’s now been growing the same cell line for two years, with no indication of slowing.
That leaves embryonic stem cells with only one possible advantage – potential.
[...]
There are over four million births each year in the United States, yet Atala calculates that merely 100,000 amniotic stem cell specimens could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population’s needs for perfect matches for transplants. (That assumes a perfect match is even needed.) About 700,000 amniocentesis procedures are performed in the United States and Western Europe each year. Some embryonic stem cell researchers have downplayed the Atala findings. The work will “still require a lot of replication from other groups before they can be conclusive,” Stephen Minger, an embryonic stem cell scientist identified only as a “lecturer in stem-cell biology” told a British newspaper. “They have only shown that these particular stem cells can turn into a couple of different types of other stem cells. I would say that a hell of a lot more work is required.” Other media outlets would say the same. Newsweek International claimed, “Many scientists are quick to emphasize that comprehensive human trials are still many years away.”
The New York Times refused even to allow people to read between the lines – they simply never reported the news about Atala’s work. When a reader complained to the “Public Editor,” an online ombudsman, about the omission, the Times responded that its genetics reporter, Nicholas Wade, “looked at the Atala paper last week and deemed it a minor development.” Wade said of the paper, “It reports finding ‘multipotent’ stem cells in amniotic fluid. Multipotent means they can’t do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called ‘pluripotent’).”
Read the rest here.
The NYT virtual blackout on any news contra embryonic stem cell research is a dereliction of their duty to inform rather than advocate -a dereliction of the highest order. It looks almost deliberate as the snow job embryonic stem cell research advocates pulled on the state of Missouri last year.
Write NYT Public Editor Byron Calame and let him know what you think: public@nytimes.com
Velvet Lair
The NY Times excuse probably is that it ISN’T NEWS that adult stem cells have been far more useful.
They choose what is news you know.
Notice the similarity to the entire global warming debate? The true science is unimportant, only the ideology. We can’t report on the fact that embryonic stem cells aren’t the panacea claimed, and that adult and amniotic stem cells offer a higher probability for successful use, that’s against the ideology. Lies, distortions, and deliberately ignoring contrary data, you see it in every debate the liberals are involved with, global warming, Iraq prewar intel, reporting about what’s actually happening in Iraw, stem cell reporting, it’s a theme that liberals apply to everything.
Ignoring facts is a damned bad way to ever have a discussion or come to a conclusion about what to do or fund. Silencing critics, or failing to report or acknowledge inconvenient facts, just insures that the final decision, while potentially ideologically pure, will not work and just waste time and money at best, or insure failure and more damage to society at worst. Sooner or later reality will trump ideology, no matter how much you think what you believe is reality really is.
Notice that this isn’t getting the attention it deserves either:
“Multipotent means they can’t do as much as bona fide embryonic stem cells (which are called ‘pluripotent’).”
Can’t do as much…??? Embryonic stem cells haven’t done ANYTHING!!
It’s worse than that Marshall, if embryonic stem cells did nothing that’d be better by far than the horrific things they have done in the trials to date. Tumors, cancers, hair growing in brain tissue, etc. It’s bad enough trying to convince people that something can go from nothing to good, going from horrifically bad to good is a much larger journey.
But this again isn’t the issue with the liberal supporters of ESC research. It’s an ideological issue, the lack of success isn’t even an issue to them. It is part and parcel of the entire debate that places abortion and lack of rights of the unborn as a sacrament, regardless of the science or the ethics of the issue. How else can you rationalize partial birth abortion and generating embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them for their cells? By no stretch of the imagination can you say that a 7 month old fetus is not a baby deserving of rights and protections, babies born more premature than that live every day thanks to modern medicine. But the same people who support ESC research so vehemently also refuse to allow any limitations on abortion, no matter how well thought out and rational. The same mindset that will refuse to recognize that partial birth abortion is, due to modern medicine, practically indistinguishable from infanticide also refuse to acknowledge the startling lack of success with ESC research and the remarkable and amazing success with adult stem cells.
Thank you, Sistah, for bringing this to our attention. I note that when Mr. Calame queried science editor Laura Chang, Ms. Chang responded, about the Washington Post’s having run the story this way:
“The Washington Post may have put the report on the front page, but far down on the jump page . . . ”
But the point is, they ran the story. And they ran it on the front page. Now, just for fun, I pick up the printed New York City edition of the Times, and I look far down the jump page today, where I find:
“A Brutal Sport Is Having Its Day Again in Russia”
The article describes dogfighting. Huh? Wha? Who cares? “Ah. Hah,” I think. This must be their bid for one of the 10 most e-mailed stories of the day. I click on the website and check. Ah. Hah. Again. Doesn’t make it. Not even at number 10. Sorry my feisty canines.
Now, just for fun, I look at the news index on pg. A2: “Iran Warns Against Attacks”? That rates page A10, “Prosecutors Finish Leak Case” [about the Plame trial]? That gets A14. Oh, and “A Slap at Pentagon Analyses” (it was the featured story on the Washington Post website this morning), more about the runup to the war and the inspector general’s report, gets page A9.
[warning: this comment is meant only as a dissection of the proclivities of the New York Times. No opinion is implied here about the effectiveness of various sorts of stemcells, and none shall be inferred.]
Only slightly off topic:
The U.S. finds breakthroughs in medicine (drugs) because of it’s economic system and less government manipulation and controls.
The argument that embryonic stem cell research hasn’t had any breakthroughs (unlike the 70 uses found for adult stem cells) because the federal government isn’t “funding” it is ludicrous. The free market finds a “supply” for a cure due to the fact that there is a “demand” for a cure with the resources available. Research has been performed to abysmal results – the formation of tumors and other odd complications.
This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, but one of using all the ammunition at our disposal to cure disease.
The facts are:
518 scientific organizations, patient advocacy groups, universities and the Episcopal Church support embryonic stem cell research; 17 theocratic organizations oppose it. Don’t you wonder why?
There are 9 adult stem cell cures for blood disorders and cancers, not the claimed 60-80 (including Parkinson’s disease). This after 40 years of research and 3 or 4 times as much money spent on ESCR(ESCs isolated in 1998.)
Embryonic stem cell research involves learning about how microscopic undifferentiated cells behave to discover the etiology of disease, not the murder or abortion of fetuses, babies, kids, or people.
We need ALL kinds of stem cell research if we are to win the war on disease.
“518 scientific organizations, patient advocacy groups, universities and the Episcopal Church support embryonic stem cell research; 17 theocratic organizations oppose it. Don’t you wonder why?”
Because only 17 theocratic organizations understand what a human being is and are willing to defend each one.
Considering most diseases (if not all) can be successfully battled through dietary changes alone, creating new human life for the purpose of experimentation is incredibly unnecessary.
518 scientific organizations, patient advocacy groups, universities and the Episcopal Church support embryonic stem cell research
Hmmm…seems to me that all but the Episcopal Church stand to profit handsomely from this if the government decides to dump big bucks into it.
Note, once again, that ESC research is NOT illegal, just not funded by government. This is the perfect storm for liberals, it supports their radical an embryo is not a human mantra AND their belief that nothing is possible unless the government does it.
Rayilyn Brown,
Respectfully your perspective is a little off. I’ll try once and hope you can hear.
1) The federal government hasn’t “banned” embryonic stem cell research
2) There doesn’t seem to be ‘promise’ with embryonic stem cell research yet the politicians want to pour our tax payer dollars into it.
3) The constitution does not call for funding for this stuff. It calls for the security of our nation – yet that priority is diluted with 1000’s of federal programs, the big three entitlement which is more than 50% of the federal budget.
4) The reason why there ARE over 70 uses for adult stem cells not the 8 that you mentioned is that adult stem cells can be specifically applied.
5) Embryonic stem cells even though researched have found the opposite of promise because they grow all sorts of stuff where ever applied without control such as teeth, hair, bone, etc. It’s basically a tumor when done.
6) Power grabs on this issue and every issue is a result of big government and more and more special interest money flowing into government. Need an earmark? Demagogue. Make it seem like somebody doesn’t “CARE” about issue “X” if they aren’t interested in using tax payer dollars to fund it.
THIS GOVERNMENT has increased funding EVERY year in every category for over 6 decades. Veterans benefits, health, medicare, social security, energy, environment, whatever the topic – 60 years of increases in spending. The PROBLEM is LEFTISM – BIGGER and BIGGER government.
The problem is NOT every crisis ever invented where leftists think conservatives don’t “care”. You are duped into thinking there is a crisis or “promise” is just around the corner if “x” leftist politician can just get passed what they want to pass.
Respectfully.
AMAZING FIND at B4B by Mark Noonan:
Drive-by legacy press does a number on Americans again huh.
Now this is the kind of stem cell research I’ve been waiting for!