Antioch Road

Iowa Cloning Ban Repeal Getting Close

The Iowa Senate, voting 26-24, has passed legislation repealing Iowa's ban on human cloning (Iowa Code chapter 707B). Governor Chet Culver campaigned on that issue, promising the repeal in order to create a human embryo farm in Iowa City. Iowa Democrats also hold the Iowa House, 54-46. The Gazette reports, however, that "House Speaker Pat Murphy said Thursday it was unclear whether there are 51 votes in the House" to repeal the ban. Let us remember House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy's indication, just after the 2006 elections, that the House will steer clear of divisive social issues.

UPDATE (2/23/2007): Iowa's human cloning ban was short-lived, as the Iowa House passed the repeal 52-45.

Culver Moves Forward With ESCR Funding Plan

Apparently, the new Democratic leadership in the Iowa government is not going to "steer clear of divisive social issues." Governor Chet Culver announced today that his proposed budget will include $12.5M to establish an Orwellian "Iowa Center for Regenerative Medicine" in order to conduct embryonic stem cell research, reports the Gazette. (The Des Moines Register says it will be called the "Iowa Institute for Biomedical Discovery.") That's $2.5M more than his campaign promise. To go along with the proposal, Iowa Democrats plan to remove the state ban on human cloning.

Culver's $12.5M is just 0.4% of what California is spending, not to mention the numerous other states and private organizations involved in embryo destruction. So you can see how it is obvious that top scientists are going to flock to Iowa, making the state "a leader in offering cures to the world," as promised by Lt. Governor Patty Judge.

The State of the Stem Cell Wars

Time's Michael D. Lemonick asks "Are the Stem Cell Wars Over?" based on a new report in Nature Biotechnology that researchers have derived stem cells from "amniotic fluid that surrounds a developing fetus" that are "very close to a complete state of non-specialization," like embryonic stem cells. The stem cells derived from amniotic fluid do not require the killing of human embryos or fetuses.

Lemonick is wrong to suggest the war may be over. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research will almost certainly continue to seek government funding for such research. There is, after all, a lot of money involved. In fact, the idea of stem cells derived from amniotic fluid is not new. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported in August 2005 that "University of Pittsburgh researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly similar to embryonic stem cells in their ability to regenerate a wide variety of tissues. The cells, called amniotic epithelial cells, potentially could be used to produce new liver cells to treat liver failure, or new pancreatic islet cells to cure diabetes or new neurons to treat Parkinson's disease." Yet the movement to have you pay for human embryo destruction continues unabated. Senator Tom Harkin, one of the sponsors of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S.5), which would provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, issued a statement today asserting that the amniotic fluid stem cells research "does not in any way diminish the need to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act."

But even if Lemonick were right, he takes the opportunity to lob a parting grenade:

[O]pponents exaggerate the promise of adult stem cells, which are partially specialized. Those are all you need, say some right-to-lifers--essentially a lie, since they have no way of knowing.

(Emphasis added.) One of the great benefits of online publishing is the ability to link to a source. Sometimes we are too lazy to do so, but when we accuse someone or a group of people of lying, we ought to do so. I noted Lemonick's lack of a source for his accusation in the comments section, asking "What right to lifer says that adult stem cells are 'all you need?'" I'm familiar with the writings of many of the prominent pro-life writers and have never read any of them make such a claim. I further wrote, "The point has always been that adult stem cells are better because they have actually been proven to work and that they do not involve the killing of human life, not that they are magic."

Comments on Time's blogs are moderated and so do not appear on the site until author approval. Lemonick approved my comment, but did something I have never seen before in the comments section of a blog. He edited my comment by adding in his reply within my comment. He did so in a way (by just preceding his reply with a couple of dashes) that if you were not paying close attention, you would think his comments were actually mine. If that's not outside the bounds of blog decency, it should be.

In any event, Lemonick ignored my question and focused on my statement that adult stem cells "have actually been proven to work." Which is true. But Lemonick responded, "But in fact, they haven't been 'proven to work' in the sense that they can treat the enormous variety of diseases that involve cell death, or even a small subset of those diseases," and thus I "demonstrate the very hype [he's] talking about." Lemonick thus accused me of unwarranted hyping of adult stem cells based on words I did not use ("in the sense . . .").

Democratic Moderates to Prevent Overturning of Iowa's Human Cloning Ban?

New Iowa House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Des Moines says that the House will, in the words of the Des Moines Register, "steer clear of divisive social issues" and will instead govern in the "mainstream." What does that mean for Governor-elect Chet Culver's promise to overturn Iowa's ban on human cloning?

Culver Will Fund Human Embyro Research and Seek to Overturn Cloning Ban

Iowa Secretary of State and Democrat Party Gubernatorial candidate Chet Culver has denounced Congressman and Iowa GOP Gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle's vote against HR 810, the embryonic stem cell research funding bill, and Nussle's subsequent vote not to override President Bush's veto of the bill.

Culver's denouncement included an announcement that, if he is elected Governor, he will fund a "$10 million investment in the creation of a Center for Regenerative Medicine in Iowa City, which will conduct cutting edge research and attract the top scientists in the field to Iowa." Who is he kidding? California is in the process of spending $3 billion killing human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells. Connecticut is spending $100 million. The Harvard University Stem Cell Institute is spending milliions of its own, and has now gone headlong into human cloning.

What does Culver think $10M is going to do to bring the top scientists here?

Culver is deceptive in his release. First, he says that Nussle is "standing directly in the way of this life-saving research that will one day help our family members and friends, and win the battle against deadly diseases." (Emphasis added.) In fact, Culver has no idea whether embryonic stem cells will produce viable treatments for anything, because no one knows. Unlike treatments derived from adult stem cells, presently there are no treatments derived from embryonic stem cells. There aren't even any treatments in clinical human trials.

Culver also says that Iowa has a "ban on important stem cell research," something he will lead to overturn. There is no such ban, and Culver surely knows it. What he is talking about is Iowa's ban on human cloning, enacted in 2002 (Iowa Code chapter 707B). But Culver lacks the backbone to stand up and say he wants Iowa's ban on human cloning revoked, so that Iowans could create and destroy human embryos for research purposes.

This is not the first time Culver has been deceptive on this issue. In a Culver advertisement during the Democratic primary campaign, a narrator stated about candidate Mike Blouin: "Blouin supports the Bush ban on stem-cell research." No such ban exists.

Elsewhere among Iowa Democrats, Senator Tom Harkin, in not one of the finer moments of rhetoric in U.S. political history, said, "Who set up the President of the United States -- this President -- as our moral pope? The president of the United States is not our moral Ayatollah. He may wish to be, but he's not." Harkin's preference is to abandon morality if it gets in the way of the wishes of scientists. As to who "set up the President" to be able to veto this legislation, or any legislation, for any reason he chooses, it was we the people who gave him the authority to exercise the power granted to him under Art. I, sec. 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, William H. Buckley has a typically insightful column on the subject. He writes:

When I was very young I would play with my younger sister weighty moral games. I remember one of them which said ... Suppose by pushing down just here (I touched my thumb down on a spot of grass) we could kill one Chinese at the other end of the world and we'd get $1 million. Should we do it?

No, Tish said. That would be murder.

I tried to prolong the grand inquiry by pointing out that there were different kinds of murder, some more sinful than others. "It wouldn't be as though we pulled out a pistol and shot the man."

She lingered for a moment, but came back. No, she said.
. . . .
Critics of the president, in high fury, say numerous things, among them that embryos by the millions are fated to die as a matter of course, so that to single out those that die, so to speak, under the researcher's knife is arbitrary and morally meaningless.

Well, so the argument goes, but we can take whatever satisfaction we wish from the knowledge that there is one Chinese there, whose life has been saved.

Read the whole thing.

Stossel on Proposition 71

ABC News' John Stossel, who unfortunately supports embryonic stem cell research, nevertheless had a good report on 20/20 tonight on why California's Proposition 71---which would require California taxpayers to spend $3 billion killing human embryos in the name of science---is a bad idea:

Maybe stem-cell research will be a great thing. But government is force. By making this a ballot initiative, it means that millions of people will be forced to pay for something they consider murder.

Stossel pressed multimillionaire Bob Klein, one of the leaders of the Proposition 71 movement, on why taxpayers should have to shoulder this burden when California is already in debt, many people oppose it, and the rich backers of the proposal could fund this themselves:

"We need long-term funding that only the public can really provide," Klein said.

But THEY have the money. Gates wouldn't even notice it. It's $3 billion out of the $40 billion he has. Why does the government always have to do it?

"As a democracy," Klein said, "we vote for public schools and everyone contributes tax dollars to public schools. What we're doing is really no different. We're trying to bring society together."

Bringing society together sounds so nice, but it's force. Government is force. Voluntary contributions to charity bring people together for the public good.

If these people want to "bring society together," there's nothing stopping them (banning embryonic stem cell research is another topic for another day). They can bring individuals together all they want to privately contribute to this destructive research. But it is not enough for these people to be in charge of their own money. They want to be in charge of your money, too.

Fetal Stem Cells . . . In Adults

Some fascinating new research, as reported by LifeNews.com (Steven Ertelt, "Unborn Children May "Cure" Mothers' Diseases Via Fetal Stem Cells," 7/14/2004):

Researchers at the Tufts-New England Medical Center reported last week that that unborn children may be giving their mothers the gift of life.

As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers have uncovered evidence that fetal stem cells may be migrating from the developing unborn child to diseased tissue and organs in the mother's body.

Evidence of the curing work of the fetal stem cells has been found in the livers, spleens, and thyroids of pregnant women.

Dr. Diana Bianchi is the chief of medical genetics at the hospital and was the lead author of the paper on the research.

She told the Boston Globe newspaper, "If we can prove these are stem cells, and harvest them from the blood or tissue of a woman who's been pregnant, they could have therapeutic potential for that woman, her children and perhaps even unrelated individuals."

Combine this with the evidence of the transformative ability of adult stem cells in marrow, and the killing of preborn human beings may not even be necessary to realizing the promise of stem cells.

Where Would John Kerry Draw the Line on Scientific Research?

Eric Cohen asks some important questions of John Kerry in the July 5 issue of The Weekly Standard ("Kerry's Zealotry: Extremism in defense of science is no virtue."), questions Kerry has yet to answer at the same time he criticizes the President for his stand on embryonic stem cell research:

The one-dimensional zeal of Kerry's stem cell campaign is striking. He offers no serious discussion of the ethical dilemmas involved in destroying nascent human life--just assertions that the ethical issues will be "resolved." He shows little respect for citizens who believe destroying human embryos is wrong--just demands that their tax dollars be used to support it. He says that we should "push the boundaries of medical exploration"--but says nothing about what ethical boundaries, if any, should be inviolable. For example: Should we use public funds to produce cloned embryos for research and destruction? Should we develop embryos--cloned or uncloned--to the fetal stage as a source of spare parts? Should we implant human embryos in animal wombs? Is there anything a civilized people should refuse to do--even if it might advance medicine in the future? On these ethical questions, Kerry is utterly silent. Or rather, he says, "I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass"--but says nothing about what compass they'll use.

Before being taken seriously on this issue, Kerry must begin to answer these questions.

The Stem Cell Cover-Up

The Stem Cell Cover-Up (Michael Fumento, Insight, 5/24/2004)

Another excellent article on the great progress of adult stem cell research (ASCR) compared to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). The article also addresses the "stem cell wars" being fought in, and often by, the media. Despite the current significant advantage ASCs have on ESCs, and despite that ASCs are catching ESCs' potential quotient, ESCs continue to far outpace ASCs in hype.

One of the often cited benefits of ESCs over ASCs has been that ESCs could differentiate into any type of tissue in the body; ASCs were thought to be more limited in terms of their differentiation possibilities. This supposed benefit is starting to disappear:

"There's no law of physics or such that I know of that says that [ASCs] are inherently more limited than embryonic stem cells," [Dr. Darwin] Prockop[, director of the Gene Therapy Center at Tulane University,] told Citizen.

We do know that ESCs give rise to all three germ layers (as in "germination") that become all the forms of human tissue. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they can be converted into each and every one of those tissues. Moreover, Catherine Verfaillie and her colleagues at the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute recently have found stem cells in human marrow that appear to transform into all three germ layers. "I think Verfaillie's work is most exciting and translatable into the clinical arena," says Dr. David Hess, a neurologist at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. "They seem to give rise to every cell in the body. She seems to have a subpopulation with basically all the benefits of ESCs and none of the drawbacks."

Dr. Verfaillie's discovery of a possible "ultimate stem cell" in marrow was first noted in January 2002, and she and her team appear to have made continued progress:

Verfaillie calls the cells "multipotent adult progenitor cells," and has isolated them from mice, rats and people. They already have been transformed into cells of blood, the gut, liver, lung, brain and other organs. Just a few months ago, researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey published a paper explaining that in a mere five hours they had been able to convert bone-marrow cells into neurons both in petri dishes and in rats. Under the old dogma, that was simply impossible. More importantly, "We found that they express genes typical of all three embryonic germ layers," the researchers told Citizen. "In aggregate, our study and various others do support the idea that one [ASC] can give rise to all types of tissue."

Even if that promise proves fleeting, it may not matter:

That's because in recent years researchers have found that they can tease ASCs into many more types of mature tissue than was previously thought possible. Moreover, researchers now seem to be finding ASCs essentially wherever they look - including blood, bone marrow, skin, brains, spinal cords, dental pulp, muscles, blood vessels, corneas, retinas, livers, pancreases, fat, hair follicles, placentas, umbilical cords and amniotic fluid. You don't need "one size fits all" if you can provide all sizes.

As for why scientists and celebrities (led by Christopher Reeve) continue to seeking additional funding for ESCR, well, it's a fight for their jobs. And then there is always the potential for fame and fortune. As for why they seek taxpayer funding, and chastise President Bush for not providing that funding:

Private investors avoid them because they don't want to wait perhaps 10 years for commercial products that very well may not materialize and because they're spooked by the ethical concerns. That leaves essentially only Uncle Sam's piggy bank, primarily grants from the National Institutes of Health, to keep these labs open. This, in brief, explains the "stem-cells wars," the perceived overwhelming need grossly to exaggerate petri-dish advances with ESCs, while life-saving new applications of ASCs are downplayed or ignored.

ASCs have both the ethical and practical advantage over ESCs. Our funding -- public and private -- and our attention should reflect that.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is the Wrong Path for More Than Just Moral Reasons

As Reuters is reporting that "[t]he world's first embryonic stem cell bank opened in Britain on Wednesday, breaking new ground in one of the most controversial areas of medical research," and people continue to chide the President for not opening up funds to create additional embryonic stem cell lines, Wesley J. Smith reminds us of the serious problems embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has encountered. (Link via Ben Domenech.) At the same time, adult stem cell research continues to make great strides.

ESCR's effectiveness is a separate question from its morality, and thus even if it was showing significant progress, it would be wrong. But the significant progress appears to be missing in any event.