Supporting Lifesaving Research
In 1995, actor Christopher Reeve was paralyzed from the neck down in a horse riding accident. He then became a tireless advocate for spinal cord injury treatment and embryonic stem cell research, asserting that "if anything is immoral, it is to deny scientists access to unwanted embryos" that could be used for potential treatment. Today, the Senate has a chance to provide hope to those suffering from similar ailments, as it will reconsider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which was vetoed by President Bush last year. Currently, 65 percent of Americans approve of "medical research using embryonic stem cells" and nearly 60 percent support "increasing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research." "The Senate this week has an opportunity to send a strong, clear message that this will be the year that the federal government lifts damaging restrictions on stem cell research, which offers great potential for a cure for diabetes and other debilitating diseases."In contrast, conservatives have attempted to stall embryonic stem cell research on so-called "moral" grounds, propagating falsehoods in order to counter support for stem cell research. Take action to support embryonic stem cell research HERE.
MYTH #1 -- NO POTENTIAL FOR CURES: The right wing often argues that embryonic stem cell research is in its nascent stages and provides only "false hope" for patients. White House spokesperson Tony Snow said "the vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells." Far from the truth. Researchers have already used embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury in laboratory animals. Embryonic stem cells have also been shown in studies to "slow vision loss, and reverse some of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. [Scientists] have used human embryonic stem cells to create cardiovascular precursor cells that could lead to treatments for heart diseases, T-cells that could lead to a cure for AIDS, and insulin-secreting cells that could lead to a cure for diabetes," according to Center for American Progress fellow Jonathan Moreno. "Embryonic stem cells are still the most medically promising type of stem cells because of their ability to differentiate into any cell in the human body."
MYTH #2 -- THERE ARE 'ETHICAL' ALTERNATIVES: In January, the White House released a document titled "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," exaggerating that there are plenty of "ethical" and equal alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, a cause that has been consistently picked up by the right wing. For example, Karl Rovecould not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells." But the scientific establishment has long known that "adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential" than their embryonic counterparts. Pro-life scientist David Prentice argued that adult stem cell research has yielded some 65 therapies for current ailments. Stem cell researcher Steven Teitelbaum refuted Prentice's assertions, finding that adult stem cell research has only yielded treatment for nine diseases. "Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites," Teitelbaum said. Another announcement that scientists have discovered the use of stem cells in amniotic fluid shows promise, but "the [new stem cells] can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells." "The discovery of new sources of stem cells is great news. It's not a reason to neglect the funding of embryonic stem cell research," states Moreno.
MYTH #3 -- 'DEAD EMBRYOS' ARE A GOOD ALTERNATIVE: Last week, Bush offered his support to legislation introduced by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to "expand" existing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to so-called "dead embryos," those which naturally cease developing in a laboratory setting. Scientists are already questioning the viability of these embryos for scientific research. Harvard Medical School professor George Daley wrote, "I am left to wonder why we would choose to allow only poor quality embryos for medical research when many thousands of normal embryos are otherwise destined to be discarded as medical waste." Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for Medical Research in London said, "There is no way to prove that an arrested embryo would have stopped growing if it had been put into a woman's womb rather than a lab dish." Endorsed by pro-life advocates like Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), the HOPE Act is an attempt at compromise that will not appreciably advance embryonic stem cell research. "The [Coleman-Isakson] bill doesn't really do anythingdoom a more liberal version" of stem cell legislation in the Senate, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Stem cell advocate Dr. Ralph Dittman notes that Isakson's approach is a "poison pill" that tries to divert political and public attention away more promising sources of stem cell research. "Passage of this bill would, in effect, negate any benefit from the passage of [Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act]. ... This is far from a compromise; it is total surrender to a theocratic interpretation of science which, if endorsed, would be highly detrimental to the nation's well being." Furthermore, the Isakson bill also threatens to pull crucial votes in the Senate needed to override a veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
MYTH #4 -- RELIGIOUS GROUPS OPPOSE EMBRYONIC RESEARCH: A central mytha group of a hundred cells no bigger than the head of a pin is not the same as a person." For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated, "With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness." The Union for Reformed Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research, asserting that the "Jewish tradition teaches us that preserving life and promoting health are among the most precious of values." The United Church of Christ is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within "ethically sound guidelines...and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health." Thus, Bush's stated opposition to embryonic stem cell research as reflecting "his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life" ignores the diversity of religious viewpoints existing today on stem cell research.
OVERTURNING BUSH'S BAN: The only viable option to adequately fund stem cell research is the immediate repeal of Bush's 2001 stem cell ban, which prohibited funding on embryonic stem cell lines created past August 2001, lines which are now plagued by genetic mutations. Today, the Senate has the opportunity to do just that when it reconsiders the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation that promotes all forms of stem cell research. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Bush's appointee as Director of the National Institutes of Health, told a Senate subcommittee that "it is clear today that American science will be better-served -- and the nation will be better-served -- if we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines." Dr. Story Landis, Interim Director of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, said that updating the current policy to allow funding for new stem cell lines "would be incredibly important." Furthermore, this legislation is endorsed by major scientific organizations, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Despite the widespread backing, Bush has pledged another veto. said last year that "recent studies" show researchers "have far more promise than from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells." Subsequently, the White House " [for science]." Politically, the introduction of the HOPE Act is an attempt by conservatives to " of the right wing's opposition to stem cell research is that there is a monolithic moral or religious view that an embryo should be treated as a human being. "Some religious communities believe that embryonic stem cell research destroys innocent life and should not be allowed," but "others believe that while the embryo has moral worth,
MYTH #1 -- NO POTENTIAL FOR CURES: The right wing often argues that embryonic stem cell research is in its nascent stages and provides only "false hope" for patients. White House spokesperson Tony Snow said "the vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells." Far from the truth. Researchers have already used embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury in laboratory animals. Embryonic stem cells have also been shown in studies to "slow vision loss, and reverse some of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. [Scientists] have used human embryonic stem cells to create cardiovascular precursor cells that could lead to treatments for heart diseases, T-cells that could lead to a cure for AIDS, and insulin-secreting cells that could lead to a cure for diabetes," according to Center for American Progress fellow Jonathan Moreno. "Embryonic stem cells are still the most medically promising type of stem cells because of their ability to differentiate into any cell in the human body."
MYTH #2 -- THERE ARE 'ETHICAL' ALTERNATIVES: In January, the White House released a document titled "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," exaggerating that there are plenty of "ethical" and equal alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, a cause that has been consistently picked up by the right wing. For example, Karl Rovecould not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells." But the scientific establishment has long known that "adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential" than their embryonic counterparts. Pro-life scientist David Prentice argued that adult stem cell research has yielded some 65 therapies for current ailments. Stem cell researcher Steven Teitelbaum refuted Prentice's assertions, finding that adult stem cell research has only yielded treatment for nine diseases. "Prentice not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the references he cites," Teitelbaum said. Another announcement that scientists have discovered the use of stem cells in amniotic fluid shows promise, but "the [new stem cells] can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells." "The discovery of new sources of stem cells is great news. It's not a reason to neglect the funding of embryonic stem cell research," states Moreno.
MYTH #3 -- 'DEAD EMBRYOS' ARE A GOOD ALTERNATIVE: Last week, Bush offered his support to legislation introduced by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to "expand" existing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to so-called "dead embryos," those which naturally cease developing in a laboratory setting. Scientists are already questioning the viability of these embryos for scientific research. Harvard Medical School professor George Daley wrote, "I am left to wonder why we would choose to allow only poor quality embryos for medical research when many thousands of normal embryos are otherwise destined to be discarded as medical waste." Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for Medical Research in London said, "There is no way to prove that an arrested embryo would have stopped growing if it had been put into a woman's womb rather than a lab dish." Endorsed by pro-life advocates like Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), the HOPE Act is an attempt at compromise that will not appreciably advance embryonic stem cell research. "The [Coleman-Isakson] bill doesn't really do anythingdoom a more liberal version" of stem cell legislation in the Senate, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Stem cell advocate Dr. Ralph Dittman notes that Isakson's approach is a "poison pill" that tries to divert political and public attention away more promising sources of stem cell research. "Passage of this bill would, in effect, negate any benefit from the passage of [Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act]. ... This is far from a compromise; it is total surrender to a theocratic interpretation of science which, if endorsed, would be highly detrimental to the nation's well being." Furthermore, the Isakson bill also threatens to pull crucial votes in the Senate needed to override a veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
MYTH #4 -- RELIGIOUS GROUPS OPPOSE EMBRYONIC RESEARCH: A central mytha group of a hundred cells no bigger than the head of a pin is not the same as a person." For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated, "With careful regulation, we affirm the use of human stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness." The Union for Reformed Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research, asserting that the "Jewish tradition teaches us that preserving life and promoting health are among the most precious of values." The United Church of Christ is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within "ethically sound guidelines...and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health." Thus, Bush's stated opposition to embryonic stem cell research as reflecting "his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life" ignores the diversity of religious viewpoints existing today on stem cell research.
OVERTURNING BUSH'S BAN: The only viable option to adequately fund stem cell research is the immediate repeal of Bush's 2001 stem cell ban, which prohibited funding on embryonic stem cell lines created past August 2001, lines which are now plagued by genetic mutations. Today, the Senate has the opportunity to do just that when it reconsiders the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation that promotes all forms of stem cell research. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Bush's appointee as Director of the National Institutes of Health, told a Senate subcommittee that "it is clear today that American science will be better-served -- and the nation will be better-served -- if we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines." Dr. Story Landis, Interim Director of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, said that updating the current policy to allow funding for new stem cell lines "would be incredibly important." Furthermore, this legislation is endorsed by major scientific organizations, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Despite the widespread backing, Bush has pledged another veto. said last year that "recent studies" show researchers "have far more promise than from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells." Subsequently, the White House " [for science]." Politically, the introduction of the HOPE Act is an attempt by conservatives to " of the right wing's opposition to stem cell research is that there is a monolithic moral or religious view that an embryo should be treated as a human being. "Some religious communities believe that embryonic stem cell research destroys innocent life and should not be allowed," but "others believe that while the embryo has moral worth,
No comments:
Post a Comment