Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Column Archive |  On Twitter: J Huget and MisFits  |  Fitness & Nutrition News  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Appeals court lifts ban on stem cell funding

An appeals court Thursday lifted a temporary injunction barring the federal government from funding research involving human embryonic stem cell research.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a request from the Justice Department to stay an injunction issued Aug. 23 blocking the funding. In a major victory for supporters of the research, the court said the Obama administration could resume funding the research pending a full appeal of the case.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, ruling in a lawsuit filed by two researchers working on alternatives to the cells, said the funding violated a federal rule that prohibits federal tax money from being used for research that involves the destruction of human embryos.

Here's an excerpt from Thursday's order:

O R D E R
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and for
immediate administrative stay, it is
ORDERED that the district court's August 23, 2010 order be stayed pending
further order of the court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court
sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and
should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C.
Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2010). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellees file a response to the emergency motion
by September 14, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. The appellants may file a reply by 4:00 p.m. on
September 20, 2010. The parties are directed to hand-deliver the paper copies of their
submissions to the court by the time and date due.

The original decision was hailed by opponents of the research, who argue it is immoral to destroy human embryos. But it was condemned by supporters and advocates for patients, who said it was a major setback for one of the most promising areas of biomedical research.

In response to the order, the National Institutes of Health announced it was suspending consideration of any new grants for such research. Any researchers who had already received funding could continue their work, but their grants would not be renewed when they come up for routine review, the NIH said. As a result, hundreds of scientists around the country are scrambling to try to figure out how they are going to continue their research.

The Justice Department asked that the injunction be lifted as it appeals the decision, arguing the halt to the funding was causing irreparable harm to researchers, the federal government and patients hoping for cures.

Thursday's decision was hailed by supporters of the research.

"We are very pleased that the Court of Appeals has stayed the preliminary injunction. It is crucial that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research be restored permanently and this stay is a step in that direction," said Lisa Hughes, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a coalition of patient advocacy groups, scientists and research organizations that has lobbied for the funding. "While this issue continues to be argued in the courts, we call on Congress to move swiftly to resolve this issue and secure the future of this important biomedical research."

By Rob Stein  |  September 9, 2010; 12:20 PM ET
Categories:  Stem cells  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A better way to dry
Next: Is that right? Bed bug fixes not covered by insurance?

Comments

Essentially, the standing was initially granted so that two people could create something else so that they could get rich? How did they even have standing to challenge the funding of stem cell research in the first place?

Posted by: nsu1203 | September 9, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hurray!

Posted by: asmith1 | September 9, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Cool - science & logic wins - religious nuts lose!!!!!!!

Posted by: rspecht52 | September 9, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Cool - science & logic wins - religious nuts lose!!!!!!!

Posted by: rspecht52 | September 9, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Lamberth was too arrogant. Nice to see him smacked down by his fellow judges.

Posted by: RickJohnson621 | September 9, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

There is no constraint on private capital being used to fund embryonic stem cell research.The problem is a large segment of our nation prefers their tax dollars not be used .Some are motivated by personal values; others are disgusted with federal tax money being used as venture capital in unnecessary projects that will be a payoff to the medical/big pharma crowd at the expense of fiscal sanity.

Posted by: bowspray | September 9, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why any of our tax dollars are used to compete with the private sector research? Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years.

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net | September 9, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This country will not be blessed. It is a horrible crime and sin to kill innocent unborn babies to harvest their stem cells. What a lot of rot! We know adult stem cells work better, but we're going to go the slippery path and slide down to hell in the meantime. God has the last say. He won't permit this to continue. Mark my words!

Posted by: allforher58 | September 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Logic, science and decency prevail. Another example of why we must elect Democrats. They tend to appoint and confirm judges who are not 15th century true believers.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | September 9, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

My tax dollars should not be used to fund research which I find to be morally abhorrent. Since 'choice' is such an important concept for those who believe human life is disposable (at whatever stage) I should be able to exercise my prerogative to choose not to fund such research. And of course, I would not want to take advantage of any protocols developed through the use of such research, just as I would never want to use any procedure, however life-saving, discovered through the experiments of Jozef Mengele.

Posted by: Christine_Flowers | September 9, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

It is a question of law, not of who is a religious nut. What is or is not prohibited by law is the sole question. Whatever the court result it should be a matter for the Congress to ultimately decide. The budget is the sole province of the Congress. Neither Courts or the President can override Congress just because they want to. So lets clarify the intent of Congress and that can only be done by Congress itself.

Posted by: kdjkdj | September 9, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This country will not be blessed. It is a horrible crime and sin to kill innocent unborn babies to harvest their stem cells. What a lot of rot! We know adult stem cells work better, but we're going to go the slippery path and slide down to hell in the meantime. God has the last say. He won't permit this to continue. Mark my words!

Posted by: allforher58 | September 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

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

Why is it, that you so willingly, show your ignorance.

It is NOT necessary to abort a fetus to get stem cells. You can get them from bone marrow donation, off skin samples and other methods.

Educate yourself before posting nonsense. Makes you look real stupid.

Posted by: mackiejw | September 9, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

This is great news!

If tax dollars can be used to kill people in wars, they can also be used to save people's lives.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 9, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"But it was condemned by supporters and advocates for patients, who said it was a major setback for one of the most promising areas of biomedical research."

Is there anyone who even still believes this lie?

Embryonic stem cell research -- moral issues aside -- is one of the biggest boondoggles and failures in recent memory.

It has produced absolutely nothing. It is the ethanol of the medical research field.

If we're going to use taxpayer money for anything, how about giving it to those areas of biomedical research that are, you know, actually producing results?

But no, we have to waste more money in the name of political posturing. One thing is for sure, science has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: etpietro | September 9, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"
Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years.
"

Umm..The internet?

Posted by: DarthVader | September 9, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"My tax dollars should not be used to fund research which I find to be morally abhorrent. "


Good luck with that. I find my tax dollars being spent to support your stinking religion in that faith-based crap to be more than just morally abhorrent, I find it to be religious theft.


Nobody cares that I don't want my money being used to support your delusions, and nobody cares about your delusions either.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 9, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

don't know if it is a moral issue or not but if it is such a great break through, it could be funded by outside sources instead of the federal gov't and not by tax money. If something is found, will the gov't benefit from it or will it go to the medical field? I'll bet that industry will reap the profits, not the tax payer that funded the research.

Posted by: dy19spider57 | September 9, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Thou shalt not kill; (unless science and logic prevail)

Posted by: bruce18 | September 9, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Attention all wingnuts! Please read up on a topic before you get your backward panties in a bunch.


Posted by: lencharette | September 9, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

To those advocating that private money be used for embryonic research: the vast majority of private funding of research is fueled by the expectation that the results will generate profits in the relatively short term. Most basic research would dry up if there was no public funding. The computing industry and the internet would not exist if there had not been prior substantial investments in research by the Federal government. Neither would a great deal of consumer electronics. The only significant research by private companies is pharmaceuticals which, being driven by profits, more often than not results in small improvements on existing drugs at enormous cost to consumers.

Posted by: serban1 | September 9, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

“Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years.”

You haven’t been paying attention have you. Do just a little research from the Space program alone.

“This country will not be blessed. It is a horrible crime and sin to kill innocent unborn babies to harvest their stem cells.”

So is it a horrible crime for Christians to create 100’s of thousands embryos to produce one child each? Maybe those people should be required to flush their unused embryos instead of donating them to scientific research.

“My tax dollars should not be used to fund research which I find to be morally abhorrent.”

Let’s start with two wars of choice.

Posted by: knjincvc | September 9, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

A great day for science, progress and humanity!

Too bad we're broke or we might accomplish something!

Posted by: andrew23boyle | September 9, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

America's scientists are not the only ones in the world doing research......thank goodness. so just cool down nay sayers....

Posted by: jeanlovegrove | September 9, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I was hit by a drunk driver at 19 years old. I have been confined to the hell of paralysis since. I am 47 years old and pray every day that one day before I die, I will be able to take a walk. Just one time. I'm so grateful to the Obama administration for focusing on science and thanks to the terrific DOJ staff who appealed the terrible decision. Please don't stop - this is critical to any hope many like me have for a cure.

Posted by: BigR1 | September 9, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Please explain why any of our tax dollars are used to compete with the private sector research? Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years."

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net | September 9, 2010 1:44 PM

...........................................
Oh, good grief! The absoute ignorance of some people.

How about ten, simpy from NASA research that has secured over six thousand technology patents alone.

1. Invisible Braces
2. Scratch-resistant Lenses
3. Memory Foam
4. Ear Thermometer
5. Shoe Insoles
6. Long-distance Telecommunications (TELECOMMUNICATION SATELLITES)
7. Adjustable Smoke Detector
8. Safety Grooving
9. Cordless Tools
10. Water Filters

There are countless other inventions whose creation are the result of governmenr funded research; in fact anyone reading this over the Internet is using a "government-created invention."

So Mr. Holt, you are simply wrong, and dreadfully ignorant of how government research has helped this society.

Posted by: kuvasz | September 9, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the court's order did not state that "the Obama administration could resume funding the research pending a full appeal of the case." In fact, the court stressed that the "administrative stay" was for the limited purpose of deciding the government's emergency motion for a stay pending the appeal: "The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion." Regardless of how you feel about the merits of the case, this is an important distinction. One wonders if there is any editorial oversight at the WP.

Posted by: mvlissides | September 9, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why any of our tax dollars are used to compete with the private sector research? Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years.

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

You might want to start with the National Science Foundation website: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06316/

Posted by: sr31 | September 9, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The ruling is just another example of the courts usurping the will of the people and imposing their own moral judgement.

Posted by: wwshoemaker1 | September 9, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Science be praised!

Posted by: ozpunk | September 9, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The ruling is just another example of the courts usurping the will of the people and imposing their own moral judgement.

Posted by: wwshoemaker1


maybe this is the will of the people in your trailer park. Why is it you white trash christians can't see beyond the liquor store on the corner, this is a Big Country full of people who think you're and idiot.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 9, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years."

Microwave ovens, GPS, every last bit of early digital technology? The NASA programs in the 60's spawned whole new generations of tech. And that's leaving out medical advances made by federally-funded researchers at universities and colleges, which are then bought by Big Pharma and developed for the market.

Posted by: Techbot5000 | September 9, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse


This country will not be blessed. It is a horrible crime and sin to kill innocent unborn babies to harvest their stem cells. What a lot of rot! We know adult stem cells work better, but we're going to go the slippery path and slide down to hell in the meantime. God has the last say. He won't permit this to continue. Mark my words!

Posted by: allforher58 | September 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

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

Why is it, that you so willingly, show your ignorance.

It is NOT necessary to abort a fetus to get stem cells. You can get them from bone marrow donation, off skin samples and other methods.

Educate yourself before posting nonsense. Makes you look real stupid.

Posted by: mackiejw | September 9, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

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

Actually true stem cells can not come crom bone marrow or skin samples or anything of the like. Ive actually spent the last 6 months doing a paper on the different kinds of cloning and what it could entail in our future. As far as the stem cell research goes I have mixed feelings on its content. I feel that it should be allowed but that when parents are told about it by doctors that the entire truth needs to be told.

Stem cells can only be collected after a cell has divided for 5 days but must also be collected before those cells have become anything specific. The reason stem cells are wanted so badly is because they have not become bone or muscle or any other thing specific as of yet. Also the collection of stem cells WILL destory the embryo that they come from. Typically a bit of confusion comes in now as to how the doctors are going to collect these stem cells after your child is already born. The answer being they scrape cells from the uteran wall and clone these cells from the original fetus creating a new one. This new fetus ( yes technically a clone of your child ) is then harvested for the stem cells. Too many people ramble on about morals and ethics, god and religion, but yet they do not understand the actual process. Before making an educated assumption from rumors you have heard find out the truth for yourself and dont call other people stupid untill you yourself is 100% sure on the topic.

Posted by: Xythius | September 9, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

1. That looks like only a temporary stay. So we may be out of luck in couple of days.

2. I would not accuse judge Lamberth of bias just because we do not like the ruling. He is not an expert and the defendant side was clearly poorly argued hence the outcome. I hope the government takes a notice.

3. Arguments on the plaintiff side are factually wrong, bordering on ridiculous. If the matter comes to trial, they will be destroyed by sheer force of facts, if of course defendants wake up by that time and calls some actual stem cell scientist as witnesses.

4. Contrary to what principal plaintiffs like to say, they have very poor scientific track. For those who do not believe me, check Dr. S. website and you will plainly see that he cannot make even a good cell microphotography and his recent experimental work is on the level of advanced high school project. It would not even be considered for Intel prize IMHO.

5. Contrary to widespread notion, most of the funding affected concerns BASIC SCIENCE. That is type of research which deals with creating new knowledge. Uncovering unknown unknowns in Rumsfeldian terms. This is a high risk high reward type of science, which never would be funded from private money, just because risk is high. But precisely such research brings the amazing conceptual advances which change our world and world view for better. It is in our best interest to fund basic science, since without it industry will run out new ideas quickly.

6. Embryonic stem cells hold not only a distant therapeutic promise, but most importantly offer a experimental window into our own making. The major advances steming from hESC currently are advancing our knowledge how we work, elucidating how genome brings forth all the amazing cell types our bodies are made of etc. and allows to identify uniquely human features of our genomes and development.

7. The often heard talk of adult stem cells being a panacea is just parroting of talking points of the well organized anti-reason opposition. The only clinically working adult "stem cell" transplant is bone marrow transplant, which can cure blood borne diseases with quite horrible rate of side effects, and possibly skin transplants can be seem as such. None of them is a pure stem cell therapy anyway. Such therapies have very narrow spectrum of diseases they can treat, so no marrow transplant for Alzheimer's.

8. The reason why we need embryonic stem cell research is precisely because the adult stem cells fail to do the job in most of ours organs. If it was not a case we cold regenerate ourselves. Grow cut limb, fix severed spinal cord spontaneously, grow new eyes etc. There are organism which can do it, like newts, but not humans. Our adult stem cells are by that time spent or to restricted to do anything good.

9. Since the basic research studies unknown unknowns it is not reasonable to reject a certain avenue of research.

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If there's one thing that the government is good at it is wasting money.

That's usually a bad thing but it's good when it comes to scientific research. Because it doesn't exist for profit, the government is more willing to invest in very risky new technologies that will take a lot of time and investment before the can be made economically viable than is the private sector. Most private concerns can't afford to do that or calculate (usually correctly from their perspective) that the potential outcome is not worth the massive cost.

The people who make decisions for corporations are accountable to their share-holders and are driven to make a profit. When such profit is not immediately apparent or too risky to pursue, they won't do so.

The government on the other hand is, apparently, accountable to no one. (They act like they are and we let them so for all intents and purposes ...) Usually I find this situation deplorable but, again, it does have its benefits when it comes to research.

Stem-cell and genetic research have incredible potential and I'm glad to see it being funded again. It makes alot more sense then a lot of stuff for which we're paying out the nose. If we need money to fund it, for instance, we can stop buying signs to tell people that the signs were bought with "recovery" funds or we can quit subsidizing digital TV converter boxes or a million other really stupid things that our government funds years.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | September 9, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why any of our tax dollars are used to compete with the private sector research? Also name one thing government research has brought to the market in the past 200 years.

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net | September 9, 2010 1:44 PM | Report
----------------------------------------
Ever used anything plastic?
Ever sat on foam-cushioned chair?
Ever made a cup of soup or a chip dip from a packet of dried ingredients?
Ever used a transistor radio?, a calculator?, a computer?, the internet?
Ever had polio?, Malaria?, Tuberculosis?
Ever been saved by a bulletproof vest?
Ever worn a seatbelt?
Ever wonder what the weather will be like on your birthday?
Ever flown in an airplane?, helicopter?, glider?
Ever wonder how a cop knows how fast you're driving.
Ever listen to the radio?
All of these things were either designed from the ground up for the military or space exploration, or they were ideas co-opted and perfected for those uses.
Without govenment funded research, you would either not have or not be able afford any of the above mentioned amenities.
Private entities would have balked at many of these things as not profitable due to the huge amount of capital required.

Posted by: KJR1 | September 9, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Operative phrase:


Pending full appeal. This court does not have the authority to ban the funding. The Supreme Court will decide this.


Washington Post, your reporting is so biased, it is embarrassing.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | September 9, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

continued:

10. I take exception to the widespread notion that creation of ESCs is a destruction of embryos. ESC are embryonic cell put into stasis. If needed they likely could be used to make more embryos. That at least what animal studies teach us about it.

11. In my opinion, although I am not a lawyer and I bet there are some bizarre legal twists, the Dickey-Wickers itself is not constitutional under the first amendment, since it forces a narrow sectarian view on the rest of us.

12. To those who oppose funding based on "I do not want my money to fund things I do not agree" - that is how taxes work. If we extended that logic the government could not fund anything. How much money is at stake? Roughly an equivalent of 6 minutes of parking time at small town for an affluent taxpayer, about 3 minutes of DOD operations. Literally one spends ~million times more in taxes to fund the military operations, which some may oppose on moral grounds too. Remember - that nickel you just dropped on the ground would buy you something amazing in future.

13. And we come to the "baby killing nazies" arguments finally. Of course it is insulting nonsense, but why? Discussions about embryonic stem cells are marred by an equivocation fallacy. This becomes evident in any discussion threads on this subject when inevitable paradoxes start to crop up. For instance:
- skin cells have the same genome as ESC cells, are they human?
- embryo can split into two giving rise to twins, was the blastocyst a single human or two?
- two early embryo can fuse giving rise to single individual. We clearly do not observe such fusion of two human beings. If blastocyst A was a murderer and and B a saint should the A+B go to prison?
- skin cells can be reprogrammed to ESC like state and give rise to a individual (a sort of clone), are the skin cells fully formed humans?

This confusion arises from an equivocation, use of the word "life" to describe two analogous but distinct processes. Any careful student of biology will recognize that there exist two separate processes of life, that meet the definitions of life:
a) cellular life – organized from molecules as building blocks
b) organismal life – organized from cell as building blocks – a metalife
Human as we know them exist at the level (b), we do not care about level (a).
Life at level (a) is a continuous process that started ~3 billion years ago. Life at level (b) periodically emerges from the level a). Can we definitively determine when life (b) starts and ends? Not really, mainly due to lack of necessary knowledge. However, there are periods of time when we can determine with certainty presence or absence of life (b), based on criteria of life. In particular we would expect: i) clearly defined borders (blastocyst has one at level (b) ), ii) existence of metabolism (only level (a) in the case of a blastocyst), iii) existence of regulatory system ( only level (a) in the case of blastocyst, no nervous system).

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

ah the 3000 character limit society we living ;)

continued:

Thus the preimplantation does not meet criteria for life (b). In case of humans, life (b) likely emerges around ~40-50 days post fertilization.

Thus: in objective and factual sense embryonic stem cells are not a result of destruction of an embryo or human being.

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I see more myth to be dispelled:

- none of the proposed research that is affected by Lamberth ruling involved derivation of new lines.

- derivation of new lines requires, as any human subject research, a consent of the adults. The blastocyst are donated by the couples with full knowledge. People who raise such naive objections should learn how the IRB panels work and how the ethical guidelines for human subject research work.

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

As another has posted here, there are a number of ways to collect embryonic stem cells (ESC's). Some of them do not include destroying embryos. They can be harvested from the umbilical cord at birth, without any harming mother or child. Stem cells can be obtained by de-differentiating adult somatic cells, using a 3-gene transfection process.

Some say that the research may yield cures for [name your favorite malady] and is therefore is too important to exclude this potentially valuable resource. BUT the end should never justify the means. Dare we march down THAT road?

Destroying embryos with government monies is so contentious that every Congress since the mid-90's has passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to ban funding of the practice. Even Democrat-controlled Congresses.

On the other hand, groups funded by states or private foundations have always been free to legally create all the ESC's that they want. The destruction of embryos for research purposes is not an illegal procedure. The Congress has simply (always) drawn the line at funding the procedure. This seems an appropriate and reasonable balance. Regardless, only CONGRESS can change the law prohibiting such funding - this President must learn that he cannot ignore or supercede the law based on his own judgment.

Posted by: burgoonm1 | September 9, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Killing infants in the womb is murder of the most innocent among us. Using the bodies of those infants for "research" is akin to cannibalism. It is not the same as using a body donated to research for a medical class, because in this case the "donor" has no voice in the matter. The next step would be cultivating embryos specifically for research. Where is the boundary? When does it become too barbaric? In this case, there is a law passed by our congressmen barring the use of human embryos in such research. Why is the executive branch seeking to override their own law?

Posted by: growerotl | September 9, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

[quote]maybe this is the will of the people in your trailer park. Why is it you white trash christians can't see beyond the liquor store on the corner, this is a Big Country full of people who think you're and idiot.[/quote]

Well, now, let's see who the "idiot" is...
Maybe this is the will of the people in your trailer park. Why is it you white trash Christians can't see beyond the liquor store on the corner? This is a big country, full of people who think you're an idiot.

There now, all tidied up with correct grammar and spelling...

Posted by: growerotl | September 9, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

It's a sad day when you can go grocery shopping and have as an item on your list "human embryo". We have denigrated the human being to a commodity in the same column as toilet paper, Oh and look, we can wipe our bottoms with one of these if we choose. No wonder young persons are throwing babies into the local dumpsters, their older and wiser counterparts have shown them the value that should be placed on life! May God Judge Us, no not bless, judge.... He can't and won't bless this!!!

Posted by: greenplbg | September 9, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

As Lamberth has ZERO clout in China--India--France--and the entire rest of the world, all he was doing was assuring that the future of stem cell research would not happen in the United States (where the anti stem cell folk MIGHT have had some say)--He must have the insight of a piece of granite. Research WILL happen, and Lamberth to the contrary the world will be a better place for it.

Posted by: Skerns0301 | September 9, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

@ growerotl :

ESC research does not involve killing infants. Please read my post. If using hypothetical stem cell cures is cannibalism, so is the heart transplant.

@ burgoonm1:
cord blood cells have very limited developmental potential akin to bone marrow cells. So they are very different from hESC

also @ burgoonm1: NONE of the research affected by Lamberth ruling proposed any stem cell derivation. Merely studies using, quite often tangentially, existing, for years, hESC lines.

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

you know, before long Big Pharma will probably have giant human breeding farms to supply these stem cells. anyone know where i can apply for a position?

Posted by: shiferbraenz | September 9, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: greenplbg

It's a sad day when you can go grocery shopping and have as an item on your list "human embryo". We have denigrated the human being to a commodity in the same column as toilet paper, Oh and look, we can wipe our bottoms with one of these if we choose. No wonder young persons are throwing babies into the local dumpsters, their older and wiser counterparts have shown them the value that should be placed on life! May God Judge Us, no not bless, judge.... He can't and won't bless this!!!

-----

I don't even know where to start on this one...

Posted by: thornwalker1 | September 9, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@ greenplbg:
"No wonder young persons are throwing babies into the local dumpsters, their older and wiser counterparts have shown them the value that should be placed on life!"

It is not a new problem, just check how many peoples last names suggest that their ancestors were found abandoned as infants.

In my opinion the baby in the dumpster is largely a (unintended I hope) consequence of the Christian right agenda:
- by denying access to sexual education and contraceptives
- by stigmatizing out of wedlock pregnancies.

Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Embryonic Stem Cells come from embryos and have 1 goal only. They split + split through cell mitosis for 7 weeks until there is a fetus the size of a thumbnail. When they are manipulated to be used for treatment, they often revert back to their original goal. This means that they will start splitting uncontrollably at the site of injection, disease or injury. The natural result of this uncontrolled splitting is the development of cysts + tumors that often become cancerous. Because of this, Embryonic stem cells have NOT been used to treat any diseases in humans to date. Because embryonic stem cells are very likely to be rejected by the body, patients are frequently required to take immunosuppressive drugs. The ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cells for treating patients is the main issue that has stymied their research + use around the world, while the ethical + moral dilemmas further delay research in the USA. The FACT remains that Embryonic Stem Cells are considered a dead end in regard to treatments by some of the top Stem Cell minds in science (including the top embryonic stem cell scientists!).

To date, Embryonic research has been 100% fruitless (in regard to generating treatments) for well-funded + government supported scientists around the world for the last 11 years.

Dr James Thomson, father of embryonic research said: “…embryonic stem cells are not being used in any clinical applications yet, while alternatives such as adult stem cells figure in scores of therapies.”

Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, abandoned his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, was quoted in U.S. News & World Report: “…embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete….. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on.”

Embryonic stem cells MAY be researched further with federal funding + may provide great insights into medicine + disease but will NOT generate treatments for decades to come, if ever.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are the body's natural healing cells. Their one job is to heal damaged organs and tissues. Adult stem cells have been used in bone marrow transplants for 40 years and have over a half decade of treatment in humans. Adult stem cells have virtually no side effects…in fact, a stem cell treatment using cells from your own body, when following standard quality controls, carries about the same amount of risk as drawing blood. To date, 130+ diseases have been treated with Adult Stem Cells with approximately 2/3 of patients deriving therapeutic benefits.

To learn more: http://bit.ly/StemCellBlog

Posted by: StemCellBlogger | September 9, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@StemCellBlogger:
You need to be more specific. Your post seems just to parrot talking points.

Could you provide us with what diseases can be cured with bone marrow stem cells other than blood-borne diseases and some oddities? Could illuminate us what happens to the other 1/3 patients which do not derive benefits? Hint Graft vs Host disease.

You claim that "are the body's natural healing cells", could you explain why they fail to heal us in countless of diseases, be it degenerative, traumatic or congenital, in natural settings?

You claim that adult stem cells have no side effects. Can you ensophistrate (because I can find no other word) how graft versus host disease is not a side effect?

Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep, abandoned his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.”

Could you tell us what is the context of that quote? Could you embrigthen us what is the connection between hESC and Wilmut's cloning attempts?

Could you provide context of other quotes? Because they sound like a typical quote mining.

You create here a strawman argument. There other benefits from ESC studies than direct therapeutic use. So even if your objection to therapeutic use would be valid, it would not invalidate the need of ESC research. But of course you are wrong here.

Also I dare to say that "The FACT remains that Embryonic Stem Cells are considered a dead end in regard to treatments by some of the top Stem Cell minds in science (including the top embryonic stem cell scientists!)." is a BOLD FACE LIE.


Posted by: enzo0 | September 9, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse


Major brands always give out their popular brand samples (in a way it is similar to coupons) I alway use qualityhealth to get mine http://bit.ly/9fz66r enjoy your free samples

Posted by: reginaldjo10 | September 10, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse


Beware the words of Thomas Jefferson.

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -

Thomas Jefferson, 1821

We no longer have a "judicial" system. It is now a "legal" system where judges and the Bar Assoc. run amok. JUSTICE and TRUTH have long since been deleted.

The courts are a symptom of our demise.

Posted by: esquire2 | September 11, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Not all stem cells come from dead babies.

Posted by: ezcookin123 | September 14, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

From reading some of these comments, it seems that many do not know that a lot of the human embryonic stem cells used in research are the remnants of invitro fertilization. They would be thrown out anyways so why not use this to our advantage? Science does not go at the speed of light. It takes time and patience. We should try and help the people suffering who are already on this planet. Don't focus on bringing new lives (if that's what you want to call a ball of cells without feelings or the ability to identify with the human race)into this world of chaos and disease. Focus on helping those already in need. And I'm including the conservative nutjobs under the phrase "in need".

Posted by: shutuplikenoway | September 14, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

And @enzo0, please stop. You're making yourself look like an ass.

Posted by: shutuplikenoway | September 14, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

People need to stop being so STUPID. It is ADULT stem cells that are showing promise again and again, while baby-killing research is showing NOTHING. We need to simply discard needless child-killing research and focus on what really works.

It is also morally wrong to kill one child to save another's life. Human beings are human beings, regardless of stage of development, and they deserve the same right to life.

Posted by: mm23 | September 15, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company