HOME HELP SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS FEEDBACK EDITORIAL BOARD ABOUT DOC NEWS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Federal Funding of Stem-Cell Research

In 2000, President Bush issued an order placing strict limits on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Several states have since adopted their own stem-cell research initiatives.

In April 2005, the National Academies released guidelines for human embryonic stem-cell research, including a ban on payments to embryo donors, rules for informed consent, and a ban on cross-species transplantation. In May, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift restrictions on federal spending on research. Bush vows to veto the bill if it passes the Senate.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) supports stem-cell research, including research using stem cells derived from human embryos, provided that it is consistent with federal guidelines.

DOC News asked:

Should the federal government step up support and ease restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research?

I am not a very political person, but I'm really disappointed in President Bush's attitude towards scientific research as valuable as stem-cell. Is there any way I can get involved in Missouri? I have a best friend who has been a quadriplegic since high school. The president has obviously never been touched by such a tragedy, or he'd drop the self-righteous religious judgment and let miracles happen for millions of people. I would like to help the cause in any way I can.

Lisa Baragiola, RD, LD

Dietitian

Ballwin, Mo.

Personally, I don't mind if there are some gentle restrictions to make [stem-cell research] go slow for a little while. There are a lot of ethical issues, the nature of which I don't fully comprehend, that will be best overcome with a softer approach to the issue.

As a clinical scientist, I don't have any concerns. None whatsoever. I have no concerns about the science of stem cells. I trust those who I see talking about it 100%. But it has to get past the rest of the community. The community has to feel comfortable with it as well. That's why I think it's reasonable to have gentle restrictions. I don't know the details, but limitations allow time for the community to feel some comfort with the issue.

Organ donation, in vitro fertilization, these things were [ethical] issues. Slowly, communities come around to accept a more liberal attitude

Brian G. Hutchison, MD

Nephrology

Perth, Australia

I absolutely think they should be loosened up. The current administration uses religion to dictate science. Stem-cell research offers the promise of cures for illnesses that affect a lot of people. Without federal support to incubate research, I don't think we'll be able to fully explore those options.

Carmella Evans-Molina, MD

Endocrinology Fellow

Charlottesville, Va.

Maybe you should ask the question like this: Should the federal government step up support and ease restrictions on tiny baby experimental research or small child experimental research? Of course, an embryo isn't a fully developed baby, but it is a human being. Unequivocally human from the moment of conception! How can anyone argue otherwise? It certainly isn't a fish or a turtle. An embryo is a human being, therefore it is of value and not to be destroyed for anyone else's benefit. In the same way, neither you nor I should be destroyed for someone else's benefit.

When a woman has an embryo inside her body and it is wanted, we call it a baby. We say congratulations and throw her a baby shower. When the same women has an embryo inside her and it is unwanted we call it "an embryo," "prelife," "a blob of cells." The only difference is the words you use; the life itself (embryo) hasn't changed. Dr. Seuss said it best: "A person's a person no matter how small."

Secondly, embryonic stem-cell research is not promising; it hasn't cured one thing. Adult stem-cell research on the other hand has. Why not focus your efforts in an area that is already successful and in no way destructive?

Brooke Pittner, RD

Dietitian

Tucson, Ariz.

It's an important topic, but I think we'll have to wait many years to see it being used to treat people. Investigators are talking about using stem cells to treat myocardial infarction. That would be wonderful. But whether or not the U.S. government should support stem-cell research, I don't know.

Talma Rosenthal, MD

Internal Medicine

Tel Aviv, Israel

There's a debate going on about the trade-off between religious feelings and the guarantees and benefits that science can offer. I'm not suggesting that people have a threshold, above which they'll discard their religion and go with the benefits of science. But there might be something like that. Stem-cell research may restore tissue. In that case, maybe we'll say that God always intended for us to have this knowledge, and that under these circumstances it's probably okay.

Whether research should be expanded or not may not be the right question, because it's very political. When the question is asked in political terms, people tend to take a Republican stance or a Democratic stance, and if you don't toe the line you're a traitor of some sort. Had the country not been polarized by the last few elections, there'd be a nice midstream debate about where my religion ends and yours begins, and where my tolerance for the merciful treatment of the sick and elderly begins and yours ends. It's sad that this is not the case, but we'll live through it.

There's no way to avoid liberalization. The states have begun taking care of it to some extent. It may not be so terrible for science to watch the states and see how things shake out.

Emery J. Stephans

Point-of-care Testing Consultant

Stamford, Conn.

The ethical issues are too contrary to many people's beliefs, and adult stem cells need to be studied in more detail until they are found not to yield the desired end points.

I believe that the current push for utilizing embryonic stem cells is based on false hopes and a bias by those researchers and politicians in support of it who have a vested interest (monetary and intellectual) in pursuing such research, and [it] flies in the face of [many] prior negative results to date. I personally object to the ADA's political agenda to promote embryonic stem-cell research and may very well resign from membership as a result.

Gary Treece, MD

Endocrinologist/Diabetologist

Yakima, Wash.

TALK BACK: BIG APPLE DIABETES DATABASE New York City health officials have proposed that city laboratories be required to report all glycated hemoglobin (A1C) test results to the health department to gain a better understanding of how well people with diabetes are managing the disease. Officials say the information would provide them with the most extensive system in the nation for tracking control of diabetes, and would be the first such database to follow a chronic disease, according to a July 8 article in The New York Times. An estimated 520,000 adult New Yorkers have diabetes, the Times reports, and an additional 265,000 New Yorkers are estimated to have diabetes without knowing it. What do you think? Is surveillance of diabetes management feasible? How might it improve prevention and treatment efforts? Send your comments to docnews{at}diabetes.org.

 

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

eLetters:

Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                What's this?