It is good to see that the stem cell research decision has been reversed

I quote from the report in U.S. News & World Report:

Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research can continue while the government appeals an injunction that would block such financing, a federal court ruled Tuesday. The decision counts as a victory for the Obama administration, which argued that stopping the research while the case proceeded would harm experiments that could yield life-saving medical treatments. In August, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth froze federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, based on a 1996 Congressional law that prohibits federal money from being used for scientific research that destroys human embryos. The latest ruling allows funding to continue until the appeals court reaches a final decision. Exactly when that will happen is unclear—it could be several weeks or months until a final ruling is issued

More on the stem cell research decision

Bob Parks writes:

On Monday federal judge Royce Lamberth, appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, blocked the use of federal funds for research using embryonic stem cells on the grounds that extracting the cells kills human embryos. It is of course true that, for good or ill, every embryo has the potential to become a totally unique human being. The same is true of every zygote created by the fusion of gametes in an in-vitro fertilization Petri dish. One or more of the resulting embryos will be transferred to the patient's uterus a few days later. There will typically be many embryos left over. They are stored cryogenically in case a second transfer is necessary. By 2008 about 500,000 frozen embryos had accumulated in cryogenic facilities around the United States. That would be closer to 1 million by now, all of which retain the potential to become unique human beings. Does Judge Lamberth’s decision mean that society must now assume responsibility for the continued viability of this growing population of potential people?

Sally Lehman writes in the September edition of Scientific American:

When researchers first demonstrated in 2007 that human skin cells could be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells that can fully differentiate into other cells, scientists and politicians alike rejoiced. All the potential of embryonic stem cells might be harnessed with the new techniques—without the political and moral controversy associated with destroying a fertilized egg.

That optimism, however, may be misplaced; these transformed cells, known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), actually present equally troubling ethical quandaries, according to bioethicists who met at the International Society for Stem Cell Research annual meeting in June. Not only do many of the ethical challenges posed by embryonic stem cells remain, but the relative ease and low cost of iPS techniques, combined with the accessibility of cells, accelerate the need to address futuristic-sounding possibilities such as creating gametes for reproduction. Scientists have already reported progress in growing precursor cells for eggs and sperm from both iPS and embryonic stem cell lines.

Image source

Clearly we need to discuss in some detail the ethics of stem cell research and of the techniques that will be generated by this research. Of course those whose ethical positions are influenced by their religious views (either on the embryo or the responsibility to people who might be helped by new medical techniques but will not be due to delays in the research) have the right and perhaps the responsibility to put forward their views in that discussion. On the other hand, lets not let Congress slip policy into amendments to funding bills without proper debate, nor let judges use judicial activism without full discussion and the participation of those scientists who can best estimate the importance of stem cell research.

Congress should act to restore stem cell research

Image source: Scientific American

A federal judge this week found that federal funds could not be used to finance any stem cell research that involved embryonic stem cells, finding that doing so would contravene the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that has been added to appropriation bills for the last decade. The judge, Royce Lamberth, has been responsible for a number of highly visible cases since assuming his post, and it seems likely that he has made a reasonable interpretation of the law, albeit one that is more draconian that that of either the Bush or the Obama administration.

Since stem cell research offers major advances in both scientific knowledge and medical technology, and since embryonic stem cells still seem to have properties that can not be duplicated by treatment of stem cells from other tissue sources, I would hope NIH will soon resume funding embryonic stem cell based projects.

The solution is clear. The fiscal year is almost over. The Congress, in passing the next fiscal year's appropriations, should either not include the Dickey-Wicker Amendment or it should revise the Amendment to make clear that Congressional intent is not to ban embryonic stem cell research.

A Review of the Status of Stem Cell Research

Source: Clive Cookson, The Financial Times, June 24 2009.

The discovery of stem cells only occurred ten years ago, but there are huge, probably excessive expectations of their medical importance and the speed with which stem cell therapies will enter clinical practice.

The Bush administration crippled embryonic stem cell research, but several years ago researchers discovered means to turn the stem cells of adults into a pluripotent form. Research is under way now to discover whether these induced pluripotent stem cells are true equivaltents of embryonic stem cells, or if not in which ways they differ.

The Obama administration has complied with a campaign promise and reduced restrictions on government funding of embryonic stem cell funding, but this article holds that states that have established embryonic stem cell research funding initiatives should continue to fund stem cell research since the new administration still has some restrictions.

Interestingly, much of the current research funding has been generated in response to advocacy groups and focuses on the public service aspect of stem cell research, although the pharmaceutical industry is now entering the field with profits in mind.

The first human clinical trials are about to be authorized in the United States. However. although the article does not say so, some hospitals in other countries are already offering (unproven) stem cell therapies.

Other approaches will be forthcoming, including drugs intended to increase the effectiveness of the patient's own stem cells in combating disease and disability.

"Obama To Loosen Stem Cell Funding"

Rob Stein has an article in today's Washington Post stating that the Obama administration is going to remove some of the limits imposed by the Bush administration on embryonic stem cell research.

I am no expert on stem cells, but this seems to me to be a significant step forward. The current regulation refuses to allow federal funding for stem cell research, except for a very few lines of cells that existed before the ban. Obviously there could be differences among stem cell lines as profound as the differences among people, and limiting research to only a few lines seems foolish, given the hopes that we have for medical breakthroughs via stem cell research.

Every once and a while there is a newspaper article stating that some new approach has been found to produce pluripotent stem cells from other than embryos, which is all to the good, but as far as I can tell that work does not eliminate the importance of embryonic stem cell research. So too, a number of states and private funding agencies have stepped in to fund U.S. embryonic stem cell research in the absence of federal funding, and there are of course programs in other nations, but the Bush administration effectively chained the "800 pound gorilla" of biomedical research funding -- the federal government. Moreover, it is both morally and economically wrong to depend on other countries to develop stem cell technology.

The Bush administration was concerned that creating embryonic stem cell lines required the sacrifice of embryos. They were unmoved by the fact that large numbers of embryos are discarded every year when no longer needed for implantation, and that it is clearly better to use these for something that could benefit mankind than to flush them.

Of course we should regulate stem cell research, but we should not let religious superstitions get in the way of reasoning as to the most moral approach to that regulation, much less should we let pandering to a narrow political constituency dominate this or any area of public policy.