[paula_w]

How will this work now? The executive order makes a change that is perhaps ready to go? Or must organize how to execute from scratch with more esc available?

From Pres. Obama:

"For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions. The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind."

Sec. 2. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.

As i understand it:correct errors - please!This provision lifts the date limits set by Pres. Bush which means that more left over embryos are available, but it is still not permissible to use them in any way to destroy them, which means that federal funds cannot create lines with them. This remains limited to private funds. Then, it seems ok to use them for research. I'm assuming this is because of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits creation and destruction of esc..

But must they be purchased? Are we looking at new small businesses to make escr lines or will they be funded at academic institutions thru donations? Lots of money spent and to be made. Is this the best way? Will it be faster than waiting for public funding? It appears that the limitations remain signficant with esc; was this designed purposely to get started quickly? ; will there be an attempt to repeal the Dickey Wicker amendment? And how are they going to solve any rejection problems without therapeutic cloning?

I'm not trying to give Debi Brooks more work. I'm so glad you are here Debi, it enables us to move faster too - finally And Amy Comstock R.....this is your area - I can't make it to PAN, would love to have you respond, but know you are so busy right now with the forum starting next weekend.

Sec. 3. Guidance. Within 120 days from the date of this order, the Secretary, through the Director of NIH, shall review existing NIH guidance and other widely recognized guidelines on human stem cell research, including provisions establishing appropriate safeguards, and issue new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order. The Secretary, through NIH, shall review and update such guidance periodically, as appropriate

NIH has no power to change the Dicky Amendment. How hard will anyone push for congress to do this and how long will it take? Is the pd community ready to work together with respect for eveyone's feelings, values and opinions?To get this done if necessary [personally, I'm hoping while we are doing this....that private businesses and donations will fill the need.] we must. But NIH has all the money.

We all do not agree.....but who wants to behave like congress? For those who do, the option to go and change their minds is an option for you. Let's not waste time, tho, trying to change each others' minds. I'd rather heal myself, don't like the idea of putting other peoples "stuff" in my head, but I have become totally exasperated over unsubstantiated claims and working for future generations to successfully receive this therapy is pure speculation at this point. So let's do this and why give up on us [more advanced]? We musn't let them convince us.....and they have and i have believed that....that we who are advanced have to sacrifice ourselves. That was what essentially happened whem gdnf was halted and i believed that it was over for us then.. i've changed my mind - i still want something now and it's not a DBS; So I'll help in any way I can with ESCR for future pwp, but expect more work on things for now , - altho it's an exaggeration that Obama has changed much and it's true that Bush actually did start this research. He also provided lines. I am unclear about Obama providing lines and am asking for help there and anywhere I am in error please. Why is it not obvious from the defects in the lines, that attention must be given to age or other factors, rather than blame Bush? This is one issue...we have to stick to it and with the facts. Now if the embryos are defective, do we blame Obama? No, we still will probably blame Bush..lol

I'm not getting political, i'm stating the facts, which have long been distorted. I am not knowingly distorting anything about Obama. Feel free to disagee, but if my facts are incorrect., it's not political; i think i have proven that I am not about Bush or Obama - it's about time.

What a big mouth i've become....out it flows... i'm sorry to be so dominating, please jump in...I could use the support and don't want errors in my information.

ok i have to clean the house since i'm getting a visitor ....Carey's coming before she goes to PAN. I think my husband is moving out for a few days.....we'll drive him crazy and probably won't stop talking and won't sleep the whole time she is here. I'm going to post, then edit.

let's hear your thoughts,
paula

[lurkingforacure]

Paula, I have stayed out of the ESC discussions, past and present, because I have one concern that nobody but a very few scientists or doctors will acknowledge (one of them being Andrew Weil) but which I feel is huge. Here it is:

According to my research, approximately 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. My own doctor has told me that many women do not even know they were pregnant. This is nature's way, as we all know, of weeding out the embryos with which something is not right. I don't belittle miscarriage, I have had several myself (all wanted pregnancies, by the way) so I know the grief associated with one. But the issue is that these "eggs" they are using for ESC research have no guarantee that they would have been carried to term, in other words, that they would have gone on to develop into a healthy baby.

I have not been able to find any research where they are able to guarantee that a 3-5 day old embryo is free of any of the zillion things that can cause a miscarriage (or harder to consider, the fetus makes it to term but is born with health issues), or that they even do testing for the known things, like chromosome irregularities, etc. So how can tests done with such cells, of unknown quality (for lack of better words), be really valid?

Additionally, it is my understanding that most of the embryos at fertility clinics are from folks having problems getting pregnant to begin with, ie older parents (I am an older parent myself, so again, not belittling anything or anyone), and it is common knowledge that older eggs have more problems, that is why it is harder to have a healthy baby the older we get. The rate for Down's Syndrome alone skyrockets past the age of 40.

I hate to sound cruel, but are those really the cells these experiments should be done with? I would hate to see taxdollars, and valuable TIME, the most important thing, expended on experiments with ESC, only to find out later that the results were questionable because the ESC would, had they continued as a fetus, not made it to term (ie, miscarried) or been born, but not as a healthy baby, for any of a zillion reasons nature has.

Again, not being political, moral, or religious, just scientific. I guess I would feel better about the science of this if the ESC were from a pair of healthy 25-year-olds with no known health issues (including fertility issues).

I'm all for progress, just not sure steps have been taken to make the most and best use of this knowledge.

[Curious]

Excellent post Lurking. Thank you.

[indigogo]

Here is a good article from the Washington Post today about the ramifications to NIH guidelines for ESCR, including the possibility for SCNT - Obama clearly left room for that yesterday; the NIH was actually surprised that he left it so wide open for the NIH to write the guidelines:

Excerpt:
In anticipation of Obama's decision, the NIH had begun drafting guidelines assuming that funding would be limited to lines from embryos discarded after in vitro fertilization. That is what officials had proposed during President Bill Clinton's administration and what would be accomplished under legislation Congress passed twice and will consider again.

But proponents of the research had hoped that Obama's order would be free of caveats, fulfilling his promise to leave such decisions to scientists. Obama cast his decision that way, coupling it with an order aimed at removing politics from scientific decisions across the government.

"This order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America," Obama said.

NIH officials said yesterday that they would consult guidelines produced by other groups, including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which allow for the use of cells from a wide range of sources.

"The goal is to expand the opportunities for human embryonic stem cell and human stem cell research, and the president's order offers us the opportunity to look carefully at how we might best identify responsible and scientifically worthy science that the NIH should be funding," said Story C. Landis, who heads the NIH stem cell task force.

Proponents of expansive federal funding said they were encouraged.

"I'm hopeful the NIH will look at all the different sources and make all the sources of lines available for research," said George Q. Daley, a leading stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston.

Although Congress may try to revisit this issue, federal law prohibits the direct use of taxpayer money to create or destroy embryos for research purposes. But it is legal to do so with private funding. The ethical debate centers on whether permitting federal funding on cell lines from those sources will encourage such activity.

"This is a really explosive issue," Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist. "There are lot of people on the left and the right sides of our political spectrum who are opposed to that -- to create a life to destroy it," Green said. "My gut feeling is at the least that should be deferred to the future."

Likewise, critics say funding research on cells derived using cloning techniques should also be off-limits. Scientists hope such techniques will eventually enable them essentially to create replacement body parts for transplantation that would be a perfect immunological match to the patient. But the concern is that encouraging such research could yield techniques that rogue scientists could use to attempt to clone a person.

read the whole thing here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

And also a Washington Post article about how the new guidelines will effect state budgets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[indigogo]

Here's a great article from the New York Times that discusses the topic of the "state of stem cell research" after 8 years without federally funded ESCR


Excerpt:
However, the president’s support of embryonic stem cell research comes at a time when many advances have been made with other sorts of stem cells. The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications,” Dr. Kriegstein said. For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and there have never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells.

For therapy, far off as that is, treating patients with their own cells would avoid the problem of immune rejection.......

Stem cell research is the best known of several avenues of investigation into what is known as regenerative medicine. To regenerate the aging body with its own subtle repair systems, of which stem cells are one component, would be far more effective than the brute methods of drugs and surgery used today.

But scientists are still merely at the threshold of understanding how the body’s 200 different types of cell interact with one another. It seems likely to be years before biologists know all the settings that must be adjusted in a human cell’s chromosomes to make it become a well-behaved cone cell in the retina or a dopamine-making neuron of the type destroyed in Parkinson’s.

Despite the new interest in reprogrammed stem cells, human embryonic stem cells are still worth studying, both to track the earliest moments in disease and to help assess the behavior of the reprogrammed cells.

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/sc...lth&emc=hltha1

[paula_w]

lfac,That makes a lot of sense. I wonder how much the defect shows up in the embryo? I can't swallow very well but it didn't show up on a swallow test. Some were contaminated....but who knew? Searching for answers is productive. I read that MJF was in the Himalayas.....looking for answers? He needs his fun ....his foundation is going to solve a lot of this.

But getting back to your point, if they are going to induce PD into already defective embryos and they don't get better, will we know why?

Carey, our many years here have taught us too much. I think Obama was given all the right words to say and he was very eloquent as usual. But i don't know if he will go out on a limb - until congress wrestles with it, and he gets a better feel from the people - a possibility I am trying to deal with - having to still go thru another ugly battle. Exhausted thinking about it. I think you are right that it's safe to say he would approve therapeutic cloning. it's a battle for younger people who want it badly - it's too much at my stage to fight for - that benefit vs. risk of a heart attack trying to get it...wish I was kidding. oh well now i have to get my house ready and you need to buy shorts...lol


thanks all,

paula

[girija]

At the risk of repeating what has been discussed several times here, I start:
ES cells for therapy has a long way to go and we know it (evident from all the ongoing disucssions). ES resarch provides a great opportunity to understand the basic developmental processes, facilitating, much needed ground work for future therapies. It may be neurons for PD or a heart or a pancreas for a patient who needs it.

Going back to the questions and concerns expressed here I have a few answers:
Chromosomal abnormalities and the associated developmental problems increase as cells divide and so early stage blastocytes will likely to be free of chromosomal abnormalities. I dont know if fertility clinics do a chromosomal spread for thier clients, but if they do that would be valuable. I do agree we cannot say that the blastocytes are "normal". How do you define normal when each is unique?

If you look into Pubmed, you notice that molecular, cellular and developmental biologists have developed very sophisticated and sensitive methods (not my field to go into details) to moniter the development and differentiation of embryonic cells in worms, flies and zebra fish. From what I understand, the lineage and the fate of every single cell in an embryo of C.elegans (worm) has been monitored and deciphered by scientists. I would imagine all that info will be utilized to understand human cell differentiation.

Also, these ES cells from the fertility clinics are going to be used to generate mostly one kind of cells or tissue at this point and not a multi-cellular organ with various cell types. ES cell growth and differentiation are tailored to one's requirements by controlling the growth factors added to the cultures. Most important thing for me is how to stop the growth and differentiation of these cells and make them stay where they are placed and needed.

I know scientists havent tried hard enough to connect outside of thier community, Please have faith in them and in the system. Most scientists are honest, ethical, dedicated to their work, put heart and soul into what they do..Most prefer to be left alone to do their work, I guess thats the problem! NIH has the world best brain power you can imagine (well, in biology!) and NIH is open, collaborative and tries to fund good grants. Clearly, they do a good job but could do better! The issues discussed in this forum are wonderful and thought provoking/ Keeps my brain cells (whatever is left in there!) active and THANKS for that!

Girija

[olsen]

I agree with Girija, My husband was once a researcher in the 70's and none of the researchers I met then or now were interested in making large amounts of money--dreaming of winning any honor whether it came with $$ or not--Yes. They all dreamed of finding the cure for cancer back then (and still do), and this was the days when nothing was patentable for the researcher--the institution, maybe, but mostly the grants were federally funded, so the govt. would own the patent. The institution was a "high powered" one and all the scientists were highly motivated and competitive for their own research projects; $$ was never mentioned except in terms of whether one got funded or not. madelyn