Would it be better to have stem cell research privately funded with
government oversite (ie...laws limiting certain types of research) or
have the government maintain full control and access to stem cell
lines with subsequent bureacracy?
Please educate me to the relevant issues.

---

Request for Question Clarification by kriswrite-ga on 14 Oct 2004 07:44 PDT

First, it's important to realize that it is not illegal (in the United
States) for private organizations to conduct fetal stem cell research.
The federal government simply won't put tax dollars into it.
Therefore, we're currently at a place where private organizations are
in full control.

Given this, are you wanting to know the arguments for and against this
continued practice?

Kind regards,
Kriswrite

---

Clarification of Question by kingsighze-ga on 15 Oct 2004 04:10 PDT

Thank you eschat, mathtalk and Kriswrite for your comments,
To clarify; what I hope to understand are the relevant issues in
pursuing stem cell research in the private and public sector. Clearly,
without programs like the NIH grant system, many science discoveries
would not happen. But there is a significant amount of privately
funded research occuring specifically to investigate individual
subjects (with both altruistic and capitalist motives!)
What is not clear to me is - in the more narrowly defined "field" of
stem cell research, which route will illuminate successful therapies
derived from stem cell science fastest? While I appreciate eschat's
comments about qualitative discovery, I am looking to understand the
potential of a pathway we currently are not exploring. Is there a
better way? This is one person's opinion, of course - but what I seek
(and am happy to pay for...)is the knowledge of someone very familiar
with both approaches to "discovery" and who could present for me the
relevant points at play in the pursuit of therapies from stem cell
research. I realize it is impossible to seperate the two (goverment
from private sector) in this isssue now, but partisan politics
("republican morality") over the issues aside, I would like a thorough
discussion of the elements that would most likely contribute to the
quickest determination of the validity of stem cell research and
subsequent therapies. Is it better in the hands of our Government, or
privately funded companies? Why?
Thank you so much for your thoughts,
Kingsighze

---

Request for Question Clarification by mathtalk-ga on 16 Oct 2004 19:31 PDT

Hi, kingsighze-ga:

Perhaps I can restate what I think you're asking, and it may shed some
light on the request.

Stem cell research is technically a promising area for the next few
years.  This is in part because of some "proven" therapies using
"adult" stem cells (a misnomer) for various hematalogical disorders,
plus some animal model experiments involving "embryonic" stem cell
treatments.

So one topic that would bear discussion is the technical aspects of
existing and planned stem cell research as it relates to healthcare
for humans.

Another dimension is public policy and economics, what incentives
there are for "private" and "public" investment in this research and
what differences are foreseeable in the speed at which biological
discoveries mature (or not) into useful medical treatments.

This is actually a tiny part of a larger controversy over the
application of the "business efficiency" model to the healthcare
system.  I have the impression that you are primarily but not
exclusively interested in how these issues will play out in the
American arena, vs. Europe, Asia, etc.

I'm thinking that for the list price offered it would be difficult to
cover all the issues (technical and economic) to the depth such an
important topic deserves, but you may be fortunate to receive a lot of
cogent feedback to one side or the other by interested Commenters.

regards, mathtalk-ga

This sort of research is impossible to control.
Ban it in the USA and it will pop up in China or South America.

Although kriswrite can truthfully say "it is not illegal (in the
United States) for private organizations to conduct fetal stem cell
research," she could well have added the word "yet".

The Bush adminstration is using the UN to promote a global ban on stem
cell research by lumping it in with a ban on human cloning:

[Scientists, Patients Fight UN Stem Cell Study Ban]
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6492392&section=news

I conclude the Bush administration has no qualms about giving the
world a veto over American healthcare research policies, if it suits
their immediate political purposes.

regards, mathtalk-ga

kingsighze,

your question is perhaps unclear because the current legislation is
actually somewhat both. Although it is privately controlled, the
government has incentivized research into only the certain lines that
already exist. The two major means of analyzing and learning about
stem cells are to systematically compare across numerous cell lines
for a comparative analysis, or to intensively research a few lines.
The current government policy hopefully will be a boon to us, since we
have not eliminated broad comparative analysis, but are focusing on a
qualitative understanding of stem cells. If there is any fruit to stem
cells, I believe the qualitative method will give more practical
results. Comparative analysis is more descriptive, but if stem cells
can be "controlled," our ability to control them will likely come from
the qualitative analysis. The other part of your question is the
classic "how big should government be" question that dems and reps
argue.

hope this helps.

ignore my comments to mathtalk below, if you'd like. it's my axe.

mathtalk,

Re-read the article carefully. Bush seeks a ban on all therapeutic
cloning, not a ban on all stem cell research. You make an
oversimplification (or carry it from the title into your premise
here). In other words, he does not want additional/new embryonic stem
cell lines harvested from cloned embryos. I believe Bush sees the
existing stem cells lines as already put into existance, and no action
can remake (at this time) the embryos destroyed in harvesting those
stem cells. But it would be a waste to destroy those lines, so the
existing lines are being sustained. That seems consistent with the
essence of what the legislation he signed aims to emphasize. The
article you quoted is poorly titled, as the concrete statements within
it show inconsistency with the title either by editorial bias or
carelessness.

Bush also initiated government funding for stem cell research (or at
least signed the legislation that began the funding, which before did
not exist). He also did not prohibit private stem cell research (even
of non-government approved stem cell lines). He also probably didn't
want the US to fall behind the global research that would as frde-ga
stated, happen whatever the US/Bush might do. Bush is Republican, many
Republicans have a capitalist bias, so it would likely be in his
interest to make sure the US doesn't fall behind. I believe the world
won't listen too much to the UN anyways...they'll do their research,
or find ways around it too if there is money or power in it. So if the
US is trying to slow the rest of the world down to get further ahead
in the stem cell research race, it won't matter. The race will go on.
If he is not trying to slow them down, but politically posturing for
the election (which I believe I have refuted above), then I think the
world will go on anyways.

Kingsighze --

It's a least worth noting that U.K. and U.S. laws differ on ownership
of medical research and technology.  Whereas there are private genetic
testing labs in the U.S., in the U.K. I believe that all of that work
must be done in government labs, according to science writer Matt
Ridley.

This is not a stem cell issue, it has more to do with definitions in
the legal system.  Kind of like the Queen owning all of the swans, I
guess.

Several Google Answers researchers are in the medical field.  Perhaps
they can bring out this distinction more clearly.

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Hi, eschat-ga:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  Since kingsighze-ga asked
"Please educate me to the relevant issues," your points are worthwhile
regardless of whose axe is being sharpened.

Poor wording of headlines is a problem, but I'm not convinced the
substance of the linked report is easily dismissed on that account. 
The UN is scheduled to debate a treaty next week on human cloning,
according to the Reuters article, about which unanimous agreement
exists regarding a ban on "reproductive" cloning.  The US and Costa
Rica have drafted a resolution instructing the treaty writers to
prohibit "all forms of human cloning".  Such a broad instruction might
well result in treaty language that forbids any new human embryonic
stem cell lines from being created, in the opinion of 125 scientific
and patients' groups opposing this resolution.  The resolution in
English, the original Spanish, and several other languages is linked
from this page:

[Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention 
  against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings]
(scroll about 3/4ths down or search "Costa Rica" in the page)
http://www.un.org/law/cloning/

The interested reader may be able to pull the English version from the
link that I got:

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/330/84/PDF/N0333084.pdf?OpenElement

There it may be seen that the proposal is to criminalize somatic cell
nuclear transfer _or_ embryo splitting "resulting in the creation of a
living organism, at any stage of physical development, that is
genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing
human organism."  As I read this (NB: I'm not a biologist), even a
single new human cell created in this way could be a crime.

I'll also comment on two of eschat-ga's factual claims.

eschat-ga wrote:
"Bush also initiated government funding for stem cell research (or at
least signed the legislation that began the funding, which before did
not exist)."

Bush signed no legislation with respect to this and did not initiate
the programs for federal funding of human embryonic stem cell
research.  NIH's Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis gives this
account:

[OLPA Legislative Updates - Stem Cell Research]
http://olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/108/pendinglegislation/stemresearch.asp

"The Clinton Administration published guidelines governing the use of
human embryonic stem cells in the Federal Register on August 23, 2000.
On April 25, 2001, a scheduled review of pending grant applications
was postponed to provide President Bush and the new Administration
with the opportunity to review the issue. On August 9, President Bush
issued a long-awaited decision on stem cell research. He authorized
funding for stem cell research using existing pluripotent stem cell
lines that were derived from human embryos before August 9. At that
time, it was estimated that there were 78 derivations that would be
eligible for funding."

This estimate was quite inaccurate.  Only two such stem cell lines
were available then, and even today only 22 "hESC" federally eligible
lines are available (many of which are duplicates or unsuitably
characterized for therapeutic research purposes).  For updated
information consult the NIH's Stem Cell Registry:

[NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry]
http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/

eschat-ga wrote:
"He also did not prohibit private stem cell research (even of
non-government approved stem cell lines)."

Again, Bush signed no legislation.  Bush issued an executive decision
about federal funding.  As President, Bush has no authority to
prohibit private stem cell research.  I find his push to achieve this
through the UN treaty process ironic.

Taken in context with the paucity of existing human embryonic stem
cell (hESC) lines (which for practical reasons are defined by certain
surface antigens), a prohibition on creating new lines can be viewed
as a substantial impediment to innovative healthcare research.

As a mathematician, I like eschat-ga's syllogism, "Bush is Republican,
many Republicans have a capitalist bias, so it would likely be in his
interest to make sure the US doesn't fall behind."  However my mom
taught me that people aren't logical; they're psychological.

regards, mathtalk-ga

Perhaps a point that all of you have missed in this discussion, is,
that by banning government funded stem cell research, you have
drastically reduced the ability of scientists to communicate their
results.  When profit is the goal, comparing and validating your work
with others is secondary.  So much of stem cell research is still in
the basic science phase, without academic freedom to push disclosure
of important scientific milestones, we will continue to see countries
such as Korea leap ahead in this lucrative area.   As was mentioned
earlier, you cannot stop this type of research because of the
financial benefit that comes from effectively treating disease. 
Science is a global market, and it will rapidly become more global in
the future.

If you were paralyzed and it only cost you $2500 and a plane ticket to
Korea to get fixed up, would a government policy stop you?

Microsoft, Intel, etc... these are all American companies founded on
american innovation.  Doesn't it seem stupid to tie the hands of our
innovators? Thanks Mr. Shrubbie. I think I'll go back to reading my
books on creationism.

In terms of specific areas, the Bush administration has decided to
limit government funded research to a number of stem cell lines that
have already been established.  The problem with this is that it fails
to allow people to openly explore the field and answer the basic
science questions.  What happens if you establish 500 cell lines?  Do
we see different properties?  5,000?  5,000,000?  Is it possible to
develop 5,000 cell lines in a non-academic fashion and be able to find
all of the valuable properties besides those that your company funded
research has allowed you to examine?

Another area that is important to address is in the area of developing
our own scientists.  By limiting the research, we limit the ability to
train our future scientists to use all that we know.

Certainly there are ethical issues involved.  Certainly there are
matters that should be legislated, but one must also consider the real
value of such work and the global implications.

Chugs,
Bob

There have been concerns that the human embryonic stem cell lines
established before August 2001 (and thus eligible for study with
federal grant monies) would prove unsuited for medical treatments
because they were grown with the assistance of mouse feeder cells.

These concerns have now been confirmed:

[US stem cells tainted by mouse material]
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996604

14:25 01 November 04

"Fred Gage at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California and Ajit
Varki at the University of California, San Diego, US, have shown that
human embryonic stem cells (hESC) cultivated on a scaffolding of mouse
?feeder? cells take on the properties of the rodent cells.
Consequently, if implanted in a human they would provoke an immune
response that would kill the hESCs, they say."

regards, mathtalk-ga

Strangely enough, the California ballot measure to finance $3B of
stem-cell research was passed overwhelmingly.  It will be interesting
to see if state-sponsorship is sufficiently successful to create a new
paradigm for scientific/medical funding.

regards, mathtalk-ga