Obama Can 'Minimize' Opposition To Stem Cell Research By Encouraging Embryo Donation, Opinion Piece Says
Main Category: Stem Cell ResearchAlso Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 13 Nov 2008 - 9:00 PDT
The issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research could "energize conservative opponents" and "derail" President-elect Barack Obama's presidency if "[h]andled wrongly," Ronald Green -- chair of the Ethics Advisory Board of Advanced Cell Technology and a member of NIH's 1994 Human Embryo Research Panel -- writes in a Washington Post opinion piece. "There is no question that we must move ahead" on embryonic stem cell research, "but caution is key," he writes. According to Green, Obama should "minimize opposition by following the lead President Bush established in 2001" when he said that "'the life and death decision' had already been made" on the embryos used to create stem cell lines before Bush banned federal funding for research on new lines. Green writes that Bush's justification for his policy also is "true of thousands of frozen embryos stored in fertility clinics around the country," of which many will not be used and are "destined to be destroyed."
Obama should issue an executive order allowing couples to donate surplus fertility treatment embryos for use in research and the creation of new stem cell lines, rather than destroying the embryos, Green writes. "The moral parallel here is organ donation after death," Green writes, adding, "In this case, the embryo's death is an unavoidable result of its creation and subsequent non-use for reproductive purposes. The production of stem cells from these embryos could be easily accomplished without federal support, and the resulting stem cells could be donated for federal research."
Although this approach will not end the controversy surrounding human embryonic stem cell research, Obama could "succeed in reducing the most vehement opposition to a manageable level ... by observing that his policy represent[s] only an extension of the one established by his predecessor, and by stressing the beneficial use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed," Green concludes (Green, Washington Post, 11/12).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Visit our stem cell research section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/129236.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/129236.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Mr. Green Is Wrong About ESCR
posted by John on 14 Nov 2008 at 7:52 amRonald M. Green of the Ethics Advisory Board of Advanced Cell Technology is apparently unaware that the reprogramming of skin cells to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) can now be accomplished without using cancer causing viruses when he dismissed iPS use in therapies
Harvard scientists "found a safe way to coax adult cells to regress into an embryonic state" without using cancer causing agents. Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology said, "This is a huge step forward -- it could be the breakthrough we've been looking for" ("Scientists Report Advance in Stem Cell Alternative", Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2008).
President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on "change". Those who voted for him expected he would make changes for the better, but funding additional ESCR would be a very bad policy.
This would be bad morally, ethically, practically, financially, scientifically and will delay lifesaving treatments from other stem cell sources. Morally, because embryonic stem cell research using embryos kills an innocent, defenseless human being. Ethically, because the embryo cannot give consent for his/her demise.
From a practical viewpoint, funding new embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is bad because, despite billions of dollars spent worldwide, ESCR in ten years has not even provided a proof of concept that it can be used in therapies, let alone clinical trial or treatment for any disease and it will not for the foreseeable future. since ESCs generate tumors and are rejected by the recipient.
Scientifically new ESCR funding is looking backward, because the ability to reprogram skin cells to become pluripotent cells (iPS) announced in November 2007 has convinced leaders in stem cell research, such as James Thomson who discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998, to pursue research using only iPS. It is more efficient to use the readily available patient specific iPS (diseased, as well as non-diseased) which doesn't require risk to women's bodies for ova.
Financially, government funding of new ESCR would be foolhardy since it has not demonstrated the ability to help anyone. Such funding would also delay the widespread delivery of treatments (73) already available using stem cells found throughout the body, and in the umbilical cord and placenta.
Mr. Green argues for using IVF embryos for research. Again, embryos are not needed for research and they have most of the same problems as laboratory embryos and then some. For example, the National Geographic in its feature, "The Power to Divide" (July 2005, page 14), indicated that only 3% of the embryos were designated for research and of that number only a fraction are suitable for research. It would take a lot of time and money to find IVF embryos suitable for research.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.





