Russert did not challenge Romney's misleading statements about stem cell research
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, Mitt Romney claimed Hillary Clinton "put politics ahead of people" because "she was one of 28 [senators] to vote against alternative methods" of stem cell research. In fact, while Clinton voted against legislation that would have provided funding for alternative research measures, but restricted embryonic stem cell research, she voted for a bill that contained provisions providing for research relating to "alternative method technologies" and also expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research. Romney also touted a recent "breakthrough" on "alternative methods of creating stem cells without having to create new embryos" while failing to note that the senior American scientist involved in the "breakthrough" has emphasized the need to continue embryonic stem cell research. Meet the Press host Tim Russert did not challenge Romney on his claims.
On the December 16 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, during an interview with Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, host Tim Russert did not challenge Romney's misleading statements about embryonic stem cell research. Romney claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had changed her position on support for alternative, non-embryonic stem cell research technologies, saying that she "voted for these alternative method technologies when she was first faced with it. But then, as she became a presidential candidate, she was one of 28 to vote against alternative methods. She put politics ahead of people." In fact, while Clinton was one of 28 senators who voted against the HOPE Act -- legislation that would have provided funding for alternative research measures, but restricted embryonic stem cell research -- she voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which contained provisions providing for research relating to "alternative method technologies" in addition to expanding funds for embryonic stem cell research.
In addition, Romney asserted that "the best source of our funding applications should be in terms of what is known as alternative methods" and went on to predict that "the source of great cures in this country is going to come from this [sic] alternative methods of creating stem cells without having to create new embryos." Romney then cited "this great breakthrough by Asian and American scientists," referring to the recent discovery by American and Japanese research teams, which James Thomson, the senior American scientist involved in the research, described as a "new way to trick skin cells into acting like embryos" by "reprogram[ming] skin cells into multipurpose stem cells without harming embryos." However, Russert did not note that Thomson has emphasized the need to continue embryonic stem cell research, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted. Indeed, in a December 3 Washington Post op-ed Thomson and Alan I. Leshner, the executive publisher of the journal Science, wrote that the research is still at "square one" and that the new developments "[f]ar from vindicat[e]" the Bush administration's policy "of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells." Further, a November 21 New York Times article on the new technique reported that the lead scientists "caution, though, that they still must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos." The article reported that "while those studies are under way, Dr. Thomson and others say, it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos."
Contrary to Romney's suggestion that Clinton "vote[d] against alternative methods" of stem cell research, Clinton voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which included funding provisions for alternative stem cell research, in addition to expanding funds for embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, the legislation amended the Public Health Service Act to mandate that "the Secretary...conduct and support basic and applied research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell typs of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo." From the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007:
SEC. 498E. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
"(a) In General- In accordance with section 492, the Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
"(b) Guidelines- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after consultation with the Director, shall issue final guidelines to implement subsection (a), that--
"(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required for additional research, which shall include a determination of the extent to which specific techniques may require additional basic or animal research to ensure that any research involving human cells using these techniques would clearly be consistent with the standards established under this section;
"(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit; and
"(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate techniques and research.
"(c) Reporting Requirements- Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the fiscal year, including a description of the research conducted under this section.
"(d) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not specifically authorized by this section.
"(e) Definition-
"(1) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term `human embryo' shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable appropriations Act.
"(2) APPLICABLE ACT- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or supported under this section, the Act making appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services for such fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the applicable appropriations Act.
"(f) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, to carry out this section.'.
By contrast, the HOPE Act provided only funding for alternative measures and would have allowed embryonic stem cell research be conducted only on "naturally dead" human embryos. From the HOPE Act:
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
It is the purpose of this Act to --
(1) intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions; and
(2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human embryos for research purposes and without the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo or embryos other than those that are naturally dead.
SEC. 3. HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
"SEC. 498D. HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
"(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells, including pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells (whether or not they have an embryonic source), that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, provided that the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of such cells will not involve --
"(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
"(2) the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo or embryos other than those that are naturally dead.
According to an April 11 Washington Post article, "many scientists call[ed]" the HOPE Act "a phony alternative, in part because there is no agreed-upon definition of embryo death" and "[s]everal top-tier stem cell scientists ... ridiculed the idea." From the Post article:
The alternative measure, the Hope Act, would back efforts to isolate embryonic stem cells from "naturally dead embryos" that succumbed after being created in fertility clinics. Proponents say the approach avoids the ethics quagmire of intentional embryo destruction. But many scientists call it a phony alternative, in part because there is no agreed-upon definition of embryo death.
[...]
Several top-tier stem cell scientists, however, ridiculed the idea of stem cells from "dead embryos."
"The scientific community is just laughing at this," said Thomas Okarma, chief executive of Geron, a company based in Menlo Park, Calif., that says it is close to starting the first U.S. human tests of a therapy based on embryonic stem cells. Even if live cells could be isolated from embryos that everyone might agree are dead, he said, such cells would be especially likely to be abnormal.
"I couldn't imagine using these for a therapeutic product," Okarma said.
Bernard Siegel, executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, a public interest group based in Wellington, Fla., called the Hope bill "nothing more than political cover so politicians can go back to their constituents and boast that they are supporting 'ethical' stem cell research."
From the December 15 edition of NBC News' Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: These are embryos. These are, in your mi -- word, human beings, because they are -- it has -- life begins at conception. And these are surplus embryos from in-vitro clinics that are used for research. They are destroyed. Do you still support that?
ROMNEY: I have the same position. Let me describe it because there are two parts to it. One is what I think should be legal in our society, and the other is where should we devote federal funds. With regards to what should be legal in our society, as you know, embryonic and stem cell research, generally, is a very broad term. And so we have, of course, the adult sources of embryonic cells. We have so-called surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization, and then we have new development of stem cells through cloning or through embryo farming. And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells, and I would outlaw embryo farming. I would allow on a private basis the use of surplus embryos -- so-called surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization and, likewise, the existing lines. So from a -- I faced that in Massachusetts. In the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF.
In terms of funding, I think the best source of our funding applications should be in terms of what is known as alternative methods. And this just recently -- I've been, as you know, fighting for this for some time. This just recently saw a major breakthrough with direct reprogramming of human adult cells to become stem cells that could be pluripotent cells applied to cure disease and serious conditions. Now, interestingly, Hillary Clinton voted for these alternative method technologies when she was first faced with it. But then, as she became a presidential candidate, she was one of 28 to vote against alternative methods. She put politics ahead of people, and the source of great cures in this country is going to come from this alternative methods of creating stem cells without having to create new embryos, but instead focusing on taking adult stem cells, turning them into stem cells, just as we've seen with this great breakthrough by Asian and American scientists.
RUSSERT: But, to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in in-vitro clinics are destroyed --
ROMNEY: Yes.
RUSSERT: -- for research, and you support that?
ROMNEY: I -- well, the term "support" is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose.
RUSSERT: You wouldn't outlaw it?
ROMNEY: I would not outlaw it, I would allow private laboratories and private institutes, as we currently do, and the president does as well, to use these so-called surplus or dis -- embryos that would be discarded.
Methinks little Timmy’s got a crush on another GOP flip-flopper.
It seems to me Romney is the designated successor to our current liar in chief. When he gave his speech he was introduced by Poppy Bush at Poppy's Pres Library in Houston Texas. Not too subliminal an endorsement of the deal Romney has made with the Devil.
I smell another stolen election coming...hey Chad...time to start hanging around again. Poppy must not feel his work is done and wants another 4 years of control of the WH.
Kinda scary that nobody is talking about this, subliminal message.
Russert has been fairly tough on GOP candidates since the democratic debate he hosted a few weeks ago. I was surprised he brought up such questions as:
1. "Do you really have to religion to have freedom"
Romney's answer was, in short, -- No -- claiming he was "paraphrasing" Adams which is disingenuous since morality and religion are not synonymous. What he did was twist Adams' words to appeal to evangelicals who are not among the most critical thinkers around.
2. Russert was also brave enough to bring up the race issue by asking how Romney reconciled being a member of a church with a racist philosophy as part of its doctrine as recently as 1978 when they allowed blacks to become "priests" in the LDS Church. I wasn't buying his tearful response since he was a missionary for the church during that period, despite his protestations of disdain for that doctrine. His silence and acceptance of that then is reflective of his lack of real leadership and willingness to stand up to his churche's flawed, and even evil, doctrine.
I really don't like this Romney guy.
To get back on subject, its long been clear that Russert's sympathies lie with the GOP but he still has enough journalistic integrity to put on a good show of objectivity. Whenever I start to really dislike him, I remind myself that he could be Chris Wallace or Brit Hume, two former "real journalists" that have lost all credibility and have no integrity at all.
Oops, I meant ". . . do you really have to have religion to have freedom?"
"Russert's sympathies lie with the GOP"
Russert pitches softballs, for sure. But by not being a harsh inquisitor he gets really powerful prople to speak on the record. For example, he got Romney to say of embryonic stem cell research, "I would not outlaw it."
Where's Willard?
Lawrence O'Donnell knows, especially where Willard weasels worse than today talking to Timmy The Timid.
Let's see - Russert has a long and detailed interview with Mitt Romney.
Russert grilled Romney on his Mormon faith, being a 'flip-flopper', and many many other topics....And the only thing that MMFA picks up is another "defense" of Hillary?
No comment.
I take it that you are eager to post for us a listing of the OTHER conservative lies and misinformation interspersed throughout that interview? So that we can deal appropriately with them, it would be helpful if you numbered them for us.
So now I'm supposed to do MMFA's job too?
I thought you volunteered! In fact, I am quite certain that you expressed criticism of MMFA's failure to go beyond this item.
"Let's see - Russert has a long and detailed interview with Mitt Romney.
Russert grilled Romney on his Mormon faith, being a 'flip-flopper', and many many other topics....And the only thing that MMFA picks up is another "defense" of Hillary?"
Those paragraphs clearly bespeak your conviction that MMFA should have brought forth more - and, in line with the mission statement, that means you have detected conservative lies and misinformation that MMFA missed. So, just list them out for us, again, helpful if you number them for our convenience, and we can undertake to mend our filters for future cases of this sort. Or, you might decide this would be a good time to confess that you did not detect any such additional conservative lies and misinformation, but only wished to criticize MMFA for not being Yahoo or some other news aggregator, with the mission of presenting the entire interview.
and we can undertake to mend our filters for future cases of this sort.
I'm not really sure if there is a 'sonic wall' model that will help MMFA in dealing with honest criticism. Maybe MMFA just needs to grow up a little bit and gain some maturity.
Conley- very clear and to the point
Justanotherconservative- WTF are you talking about?
If he's furthering conservative misinformation on that topic, then they should point it out. If he's doing so for the other topics, they should point that out as well. Did he?
I don't get the complaint. Is the idea that if the rest of the interview was above board, that this part of it shouldn't be criticized? Or is it that they should try to manufacture an argument about something else as well because they shouldn't pick out just one incident?
I the old days, guests on "Meet The Press" realld DID meet the press. The moderator was joined by a panel of journalists who asked a wide range of questions - not just the low-ball fluff questions Russert seems to always ask Republicans, but also the "aim-for-the-groin" questions Russert always asks Democrats.
It's time for NBC to return "Meet The Press" to its original format..
I agree wzwriter! I’d much rather watch a panel of interviewers than a single pundit any day – at least the chance of the guest letting some exaggeration or falsehood “get by” is reduced by an exponential number for each person sitting across the table. One of the things that sometimes bother me about a MM story is the nit-picking of the interviewer. Someone who is obviously promoting one side of a story is one thing – but when someone “doesn’t catch” or allows the guest to “get away with” something – I think it goes a little too far. Like I’ve said in other posts, it’s much easier to “Monday Morning Quarterback” than to have to take on the blitz as it comes.You can’t really expect Russert, or anyone else for that matter, to be able to pick up on every little discrepancy in the guest’s comments or talking points? It’s nice that MMFA is here to point them out, but to discredit the integrity of the journalist doing the interview because he or she “doesn’t catch” one particular bending of the facts is a bit out of line in my opinion. There are some really well educated and intelligent interviewers out there – but we can’t expect them all to be walking encyclopedias.
True, but when thair memories tend to advance a conservative agenda, then MMFA brings it to our attention.
Dukakis was on c-span this weekend and someone asked him about Romney.
Dukakis simply said he's a fraud.
Ah yes, that wonderful man who was to lead us out of the Reagan years. Talk about holding your nose in the voting booth. I still smell the stench from 1988. The people of New Hampshire will owe the country for a long for propelling Dukakis to the nomination. Anyway, his opinion holds little value to me, but I guess mine holds little value to others as well. It's just funny to hear from that loser again.
Dukakis was on c-span this weekend and someone asked him about Romney. Dukakis simply said he's a fraud.
Well now if Bozo Dukakis says Romney's a fraud, then that's all I need to hear.
Can't think of a better reason than that to cast my vote for Mitt ;-)
I saw the C-Span piece with Dukakis too foghornleghorn – He admitted his, and the party’s, mistakes in the 88 campaign and had a lot of good points. He went out of his way to make his comments about Romney, warning the audience that he is “a fraud”. He said nothing about the other Republican candidates that I recall. You just had 2 people – one who calls Dukakis a “Bozo” – and another calls him a “loser” and says his comments “mean nothing to me” give you typical non-substantive Republican mudslinging responses.
If anyone knows and has followed Romney’s political career, and knows what a fraud he is - it is Dukakis. I would take the analysis of the former Governor of the same state as a leading authority on the subject, no? Unlike the 2 name-callers above, Dukakis did more than just call him a fraud – he explained why. I’m sure you can see the complete show online via CSpan.org.
PJ,
I live in Massachusetts.
I think I know a wee bit more about Dukakis than you do.
The man's performance as Governor was mediocre at best.
I suggest you read up on him.
Calling him a Bozo was being kind.
Jeter
When did you move to Massachusetts?
1976
Actually I also went to college in Massachusetts so I was in state earlier.... But I moved there as a newly-wed with my wife [who is from Ma. & whom I met in college] in 1976.
>>I live in Massachusetts.
>>I think I know a wee bit more about Dukakis than you do.
>>The man's performance as Governor was mediocre at best.
>>I suggest you read up on him.
>> Calling him a Bozo was being kind.
I lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I didn't just move there in 1976. I don't agree with your assessement of Dukasis. But what I really find objectionable is that you think th at because you live in a state, you can discount someone else's post. That is rather a weak and silly argument.
How about if I say the same exact thing you do, but just substitute in "I lived there my whole life, and I might know a wee bit more that you..." Or what if someone has very valid criticisms of Bush and the Iraq war, and some knee-jerk Republican, who thinks WMDs were found, says "Well, I live in the US, so I might know a wee bit more...?"
For starters your indignation is laughable in this instance. It only stands to reason & common sense that a person living in a particular state or area of the country would be more familiar with a politician from that state or area.
That you lived in Massachusetts all your live and I only arrived in the 1970's doesn't give you one iota more knowledge about Dukakis than me since he became Governor during that time period. So even if you were a resident in 1960, it means squat.
Dukakis was/is a Liberal. You are a Liberal. I'm a moderate Conservative. That you would have a more positive opinion, & I a more negative opinion of the man is natural.
The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.
>>For starters your indignation is laughable in this instance. It only stands to reason & common sense that a person living in a particular state or area of the country would be more familiar with a politician from that state or area.
No it doesn't. That is what I am objecting to. Whenever anyone brings up common sense, that means they don't have a good argument. If a writer researches Dukasis and writes a book on him, he would know more than either of us, though he need not live in Massachusetts. You could be a knee-jerk reactionary (which you are not), so your calling Dukasis a bozo might just rhetoric.
As I pointed out, there are those in the US who would use the same argument to justify the Iraqi war, and posters on this board who do. Does some freeper who literally believes every word Rush Limbaus says have the right to tell a thoughtful German that the Iraqi war was right because he is an American and he knows a wee bit more?
I agree that I don't have any more expertise than you on Dukasis just because I was born in Massachusets, but that is my point. If you think Dukasis is a clown, then why not state why, rather than just fall back on "Well, I live there?"
By the way, I don't have strong feelings about Dukasis either way, but he seemed a pretty intelligent guy, not a clown like Hukabee.
If a writer researches Dukasis and writes a book on him, he would know more than either of us, though he need not live in Massachusetts.
Well I won't argue that, HOWEVER you are changing the argument here. Your original objection was not whether a writer would know more, but that I would discount a MMFA poster's knowledge.
You wrote:
But what I really find objectionable is that you think th at because you live in a state, you can discount someone else's post.
I still believe that you or I would be more knowledgeable about Massachusetts politics/politicians than say a poster living out in California. Just like I'd concede that Tommy & Beach [both Cali residents] would be more familiar with California politics/politicians than you or I.
You could be a knee-jerk reactionary (which you are not), so your calling Dukasis a bozo might just rhetoric.
Well yeah, I'll admit it's basically just rhetoric, not unlike your reference to Huckabee as a clown. ;-)
Dukakis was not, IMO, a great Governor. He raised taxes after saying he wouldn't, allowed government borderline corruption to continue on unchecked, he was soft, [or I'll be kinder here], too lenient on crime. His Liberal policies simply did not sit well with Conservatives in Massachusetts. As we both know Massachusetts is a very Liberal state & even when Republican Governors are in charge, they tend to be quite moderate...Weld & Romney are both good examples. Of course neither could have been elected in Mass as hard-line Conservatives.
By the way, I don't have strong feelings about Dukasis either way, but he seemed a pretty intelligent guy, not a clown like Hukabee.
Ok let's talk about Huckabee. I don't like the guy either. I can see past that Aw Shucks persona. I see a shrewd & cunning & manipulative politician. The guy has issues the media needs to focus on to give us a fuller picture of this guy. Thus far I think he's getting a pass.
Now here's a good instance where I'd welcome the input of a poster here from Arkansas, or a state close by.
Back in '92 I almost voted for Bill Clinton. But at the last minute decided on Papa Bush. My wife has relatives down in Tennessee. We'd never heard of Clinton before his run for Prez, but I remember my wife's Aunt giving us an earful. Apparently Bill was a well known commodity down South ;-)
Since my wife's Aunt is a staunch Republican I'll let you use your imagination on what she had to say about Bill ;-)
Just an observation, but...
"He raised taxes after saying he wouldn't..."
and then:
"Back in '92 I almost voted for Bill Clinton. But at the last minute decided on Papa Bush."
Does the phrase "read my lips" jump into anyone else's mind here?
I actually don't think that's a genuine reason to vote against someone. Sometimes taxes have to be raised, or new taxes have to be instituted, but nobody can afford to say that when they're running for office.
jeter2: My comments were regarding the legitimacy of Dukakis calling Romney a fraud and what weight his firsthand knowledge and position as Governor had on his comments.
What relevance does Dukakis' performance have to do with it? You're just using a typical Republican tactic here - "shooting the messenger" in an attempt to cloud the issue.
AN ANTONIO, Dec. 17 -- Breast reconstruction with adipose-derived stem cells has shown promise in Japan for improving cosmetic outcomes after breast cancer surgery.
Score another one for adult stem cells. :-)
See:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SABCSMeeting/tb/7716Hey, AA. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, the article you linked to is about using a patients own cells in reconstructive surgery, and has nothing to do with the controversial areas of stem cell research.
Maybe that was all you were trying to get across.If so, carry on.
HBL,
I read the article yesterday in the papers and found this thread today.
I thought it interesting and relevant and timely. I've been searching the web for recent news of any embryonic stem cell breakthroughs and haven't, as of yet, found any.
If anyone has some recent news regarding successes in the embryonic stem cell area, I think that too would be noteworthy.
It's a shame that this has to be pointed out over and over again, but I guess it does.
We've had over three decades of research time on adult stem cells. They have provided therapies that have been helpful in a limited set of medical conditions.
It's been less than a decade since we were first able to isolate embryonic stem cells. Once that was done, the isolation technique had to be refined. ESC lines had to be produced. Experiments to determine ESC capabilities and techniques for application had to be designed. Once designed, they had to be funded and set up. Once set up the experiments could commence. This part of the research has been slowed by lack of federal funds and limited ESC line availability.
Once those stages had been completed actual experiments on application of ESC therapies could be proposed. Those proposals would then be evaluated. Those that were deemed worthy then found funding and could then be set up. After they were set up the actual experiments on therapies could commence.
Those experiments are now in their early stages. They've shown a great deal of promise, but, as with virtually all medical research, unexpected barriers pop up. I'm not positive, but I don't think they've reached the stage of controlled tests on human subjects yet. This isn't surprising because there SIMPLY HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO PRODUCE ACTUAL THERAPIES FROM EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
People who think that we should be seeing therapies ready for widespread use are IGNORANT. People who say we should are either IGNORANT OR LYING.
Regardless, here's a report of progress in ESC therapy for you: Scientists overcome obstacles to stem cell heart repair
Bill,
I'm not trying to be flippant but your post begs the question: Do you have any idea on what is an acceptable amount of time before we should see any results from embryonic stem cell research?
BTW, thanks for the link. I see that this embryonic stem cell breakthrough is not one that has an immediate payoff. I couldn't find anything about a time frame on this research either.
I noticed related articles that researchers are also using adult stem cell research for regenerative heart therapy. To be fair, there are challenges there as well and again I did not find time frames.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter9.aspAlthough there is much excitement because researchers now know that adult and embryonic stem cells can repair damaged heart tissue, many questions remain to be answered before clinical applications can be made. For example, how long will the replacement cells continue to function? Do the rodent research models accurately reflect human heart conditions and transplantation responses? Do these new replacement cardiomyocytes derived from stem cells have the electrical-signal-conducting capabilities of native cardiac muscle cells?
Stem cells may well serve as the foundation upon which a future form of "cellular therapy" is constructed. In the current animal models, the time between the injury to the heart and the application of stem cells affects the degree to which regeneration takes place, and this has real implications for the patient who is rushed unprepared to the emergency room in the wake of a heart attack. In the future, could the patient's cells be harvested and expanded for use in an efficient manner? Alternatively, can at-risk patients donate their cells in advance, thus minimizing the preparation necessary for the cells' administration? Moreover, can these stem cells be genetically "programmed" to migrate directly to the site of injury and to synthesize immediately the heart proteins necessary for the regeneration process? Investigators are currently using stem cells from all sources to address these questions, thus providing a promising future for therapies for repairing or replacing the damaged heart and addressing the Nation's leading causes of death.
I also noticed the articles on heart therapies using adult stem cells. If those work, great. It's not as though there is a goal among scientists to destroy as many embryos as possible. If the use of ESC works better, of course that is the therapy that should be used.
The problem is that there are limitations on ASC that aren't there for ESC. This is from the University of Wisconsin:
However, because adult cells are already specialized, their potential to regenerate damaged tissue is very limited: skin cells will only become skin and cartilage cells will only become cartilage. Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs, so when those tissues are damaged, scar tissue develops. Only embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any kind of human tissue, have the potential to repair vital organs.
Another limitation of adult stem cells is their inability to proliferate in culture. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have a capacity to reproduce indefinitely in the laboratory, adult stem cells are difficult to grow in the lab and their potential to reproduce diminishes with age. Therefore, obtaining clinically significant amounts of adult stem cells may prove to be difficult.
Time is always a factor in medical treatments. However, many ailments are found before they become emergency situations. It would be great is stem cell therapies give another option for intervention.
As for when we should expect to see medical applications, I'd say "when they're ready." I read another article which told of ESC used to halt degeneration of spinal cells. They didn't restore function, but the doctor who led the research believes the results are good enough to warrant human trials. Others urged more research. Regardless, even if it took another decade for the first therapies to emerge, at least we will have done the work necessary to gain those benefits 10 years from now.
If ongoing experiments cease to offer hope, then there should be discussion of pulling the plug on it. There are no indications that this is the case.
I just get very irritated when the successes of ASC are brought up as a method of criticizing ESC research. It's not a rational comparison.
P.S.
One of these days I'm going to research how long it took from isolation of ASC to the delivery of actual medical benefits.
Any idea how long it'll take? :-)
Bill,
Perhaps the recent discovery of coaxing adult skin stem cells to act like embryonic stem cells will soon make this argument moot.
I, for one, am glad to see adult stem cells have proven medical results, but when I think of the denial of research into embryonic stem cells then I run into these metal warnings:
-because other countries are not so legislatively "moral" in regards to research if embryonic lines do, and I am certainly not implying they will, prove to hold the cures for diseases far above and beyond what adult stem cells can do, are we not nailing our own coffin?
Because the U.S. will not hold the patents our economy, again worst case scenario, takes a horrendous hit.
I think the best choice would have been to proceed with research and once we hold the patents make the decision to move forward or not.
IMO, big mistake, made on emotion and not logic. Will you really not fly your kid to Korea to save his life via stem cells if that is the only treatment available?
He just had to temper the report of his findings so that the pro-abortion crowd wouldn't come after him for stating the truth.
The left doesn't like the truth. It scares them. It invalidates them.
"He just had to temper the report of his findings so that the pro-abortion crowd wouldn't come after him for stating the truth."
Who?
"The left doesn't like the truth. It scares them. It invalidates them."
Are you sure you're on the right thread?These random pronouns and delusional generalizations and projections are a bit tough to follow. Flesh those thoughts out a little.
I believe he was talking about the people who support abortion; the pro abortion people. You know, the people who are "pro choice" on abortion but anti-choice on everything else.
"He" is the pro-abortion people. Got it.
Um, no. "He" is the scientist who made the report: James Thomson.
I wish you guys would figure out who you're talking about before you post.
Rino,
Seriously, you seem to be rabid in our opposition to abortion. At the risk of getting way off topic, I wonder what if any assistance you anti government folks are willing to give these women whom you will force to give birth. To be consistent with your views and put them into practical use, I expect you to do your part and adopt if you haven't done so already. While you are at it ask yourself this, How many children has James Dobson adopted, how about Falwell, Robertson, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the list goes on and on. Talk, talk, talk, but never any action. I find that repulsive, because if I was as passionate about an issue as much as you seem to be about abortion, I would contribute and I ain't talking money.
"At the risk of getting way off topic, I wonder what if any assistance you anti government folks are willing to give these women whom you will force to give birth"
Forced to give birth? Kind of like we forced these women to have sex and get pregnant? Get real. In life you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you mess up, you have to accept responsibility for your mistakes. I know all kinds of pro life people who adopt children. There's lots of people who aren't able to have children themselves who would love to have one of these babies that are being aborted. Most pro life candidates also have pro life policies of increasing adoption. I vote for these pro life candidates who stand up for life.
RH,
If I may jump in, according to this website (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2005.htm)between 115,407 children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.
According to this website (http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm) 107,750 abortions happen every month.
If abortion was outlawed, and, say 50% of those women who would have had abortions put their children up for adoption, we would be looking at roughly 600,000 more foster children per month. I realize that there are some wonderful people who are willing to adopt, but, what do you propose we do with the increase in foster children? Would you support higher taxes to build more orphanages?
Sure, if it came to that. I think that life is the most important issue. I wouldn't have a problem spending money for that. Obviously being in an orphanage is a bad situation to be in, but it's still better than being dead. It's really that simple.
Hey, its Mr. Wrong, the guy who was so, so wrong on the Iraqi war, which cost at least 100,000 people their lives, now coming to lecture us about life. Or are you going to spread your normal lies, like when you said the Democrats wanted abortion in the third trimester, when the supreme court ruled it was illegal? Even when I pointed that out, you continued to lie right through your teeth.
No, it is not as simple as that. The children wouldn't be dead because they were never human beings. They would be unborn. If you want to protect the unborn, then I guess we better get rid of birth control, too, because hey, we are not allowing sperm to become human. And we better urge everyone to have 20 kids or more, because if they don't, they are depriving someone of a human life.
And, yes, RH, some women are forced to have sex (rape and spousal rape are problems to deal with).
Not to mention cases of incest and child abuse.
But fortunately we've got snowflake babies to take up the slack from the invitro fertilization places.
Those are very rare cases. The vast majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy mothers who have perfectly healthy babies who weren't forced to have sex.
But they do happen, should there be any exceptions? How do you propose to pay for six times the orphanages and foster care we would need?
I believe the only exception should be for the life of the mother, but many other pro life people believe there should be an exception for rape and incest as well. I don't know where you get the 6X figure from. My guess is it would be much less than that. Many women would still choose to keep their baby and raise it.
Again, they don't have healthy babies; they have healthy fetuses. What is the source for "the vast majority?"
In life you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you mess up, you have to accept responsibility for your mistakes. If you mess up, you have to accept responsibility for your mistakes
Rino that is the most truthful statement you’ve made. Yes you have to take responsibility for your actions and abortion is taking responsibility. You don’t like the fact that women take responsibility for their actions by having an abortion, but they ARE taking responsibility.
I think that life is the most important issue.
I must assume from that statement you’re against the death penalty. If LIFE is truly the MOST important issue for you then the killing anyone should be something that you’re against.
ACHRIS,
Your argument is illogical. One does not have to adopt to be pro-life just as one does not have to perform abortions if one is pro-choice.
One does not have to march in Washington if one is against the war. Similarly, one does not have to force their children to enlist if they are for the war.
AA,
I think Chris is just saying that it would further their credibility on this issue if they adopted. You are right, those who are pro-life don't have to adopt, but if their passion runs so deep that they refuse others any other alternatives, I think (just my opinion) if they adopted a child if would strengthen my view of their strongly-held opinion
Same with the war in my eyes. I know we have argued this, but it would lend a ton of credibility to those supporting War in Iraq if they had a stake in the equation. Its easy to tell someone else she has to have a baby or fight a war if the supporter doesn't have to, but when the supporter is forced with the alternatives they are advocating and choose not to opt in (i.e. adoption, fighting), its harder for me (and Chris, it appears) to take their opinion seriously.
Similarly, one does not have to force their children to enlist if they are for the war.
Dropped the ball on that one. If a war is justifiable enough to send someone else's kid off to die, then you should at least be willing to send your own or go yourself if eligible.
Marv,
You seem to forget that the enlistee's have their own free will. No parent can force their children to enlist.
It's not like one has to be Abraham and their child Isaac to be placed on an alter for sacrifice.
So your argument doesn't make sense. Rather than decide how motivated one is to support one's stand, lets simply concentrate on their reasons and argue over those. :-)
Oh, it's Mr. Wrong. The guy who was so wrong on the Iraq war is now coming to lecture everyone.
Are you going to lie again like you did last time when you who claimed that the Democrats wanted third trimester abortions even though the supreme court outlawed it?
Your own article says that Romney was not wrong. Hilary did vote against a bill to restrict embryonic stem cell research in favor of higher funding alternative methods. The fact that she may have later compromised and allowed some funding to go to alternative methods does not detract from that statement.
And Romney was right again according to your own piece that there have bee recent breakthroughs in alternative method research. The fact that scientist on the team making those breakthroughs insists embryonic stem cells are still needed only begs the questions, "What could we have seen if we gave full backing to alternative methods?"
And the fact that Russert did not mention these does not mean he is a right-slanted news man it means that they had nothing to do with the story or the interview taking place.
The fact that scientist on the team making those breakthroughs insists embryonic stem cells are still needed only begs the questions, "What could we have seen if we gave full backing to alternative methods?"
Fascinating logic. The question begged for is How long did we delay significant progress on viable treatments by not giving full backing to embryonic stem cell research?