Stem Cell Success

From the Chicago Tribune, the self-identified "World's Greatest Newspaper" (and given their exceptionally good taste in magazines, who are we to disagree?):

Scientists transformed human embryonic stem cells into muscle-controlling motor neurons in laboratory tests for the first time, a discovery that may lead to treatments for Lou Gehrig's disease and spinal cord injuries.

Whole story here.

Reason's Ronald Bailey has been documenting stem cell research for years. His most recent column on the issue, from December 2004, is online here. And here's a compendium of more coverage.

Comments

[plunge]

Oh noes, won't someone think of the zygotes!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Who cares if they can treat Lou Gehrig's disease and spinal cord injuries? Those satanic, secular humanist, scientists are making Baby Jesus cry!

[chthus]

It appears that Dr. Zhang's research is funded both through private sources and the NIH.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/news/061203symposium/speakers.asp#24

I'm curious to know if this research was done with one of the fed approved em-stem cell lines. Trying to check out the Nature Biotech paper, but the site seems slow, maybe heavy traffic.

[chthus]

"The accomplishment has created a great deal of excitement at the ALS Association, which provided partial funding for the research. The National Institutes of Health also funded the work."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/10774812.htm?1c

So being partially NIH funded, this research would have been done using one of the fed approved lines. This means that unlike a commonly heard complaint, these lines are not useless, and Bush has neither banned em-stem research or fed funded em-stem research, he has merely limited the fed funded sort.

On the other hand, this also shows significant promise for em-stem research that has not been accomplished with adult-stem research (at least according to a quick pubmed search). This should be considered when discussing loosening or eliminating the current restrictions.

[Harville]

You say you're quoting the Tribune but then you link to the Sun-Times?

Whuh?

[Juanita]

This just shows how we need stricter laws to prevent cloning. I don't think we should do this type of reasearch because I think it is f@#ked up.

[chthus]

Stem cells, not cloning. I think you have the wrong thread Juanita.

[Rick Barton]

Get the Feds out of this research all together. The evidence is that as long as they don't impede it, it will yield dramatic progress against suffering.

You say you're quoting the Tribune but then you link to the Sun-Times?

Uh huh. This is an obvious attempt to curry favor with Rodger Ebbert. Why? Get ready H&R posters. It's Coming: REASON, the movie!!

[chthus]

"Get the Feds out of this research all together."

I figure this will happen once we get a Libertarian majority in congress, plus in the White House to avoid the veto. That may take an election cycle or two.

In the mean time, it might be useful to discuss how to modulate limits on fed funded em-stem cell research in the short term. This may help us avoid further damnation for benefitting from the deaths of embryos or help us from falling further behind the Koreans and Europeans in this area of research. Depending on which direction we want to go.

[isildur]

cthus,

Scan some other comment threads looking for posts by Juanita, and you'll understand.

On-topic:
Whether we go forward with this kind of research or not is irrelevant. The first time scientists in any nation are able to reverse aging or cure Alzheimers with embryonic stem cells, the barriers against the research elsewhere will collapse.

Progress can't be held back, nowadays. In 1200, the Church could condemn cutting open corpses for research purposes, and hold back medical advances. In 2010, society is too open and unbounded for any agency, religious or secular, to do more than slow advances down slightly.

[Jennifer]

I enjoy hearing people explain why their "pro-life" position makes them oppose the best chance available to cure diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Pro-life apparently only applies to life within the womb; once you pop out, then to hell with you.

[chthus]

Jennifer,

I've always been under the impression that the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels referred a bit more narrowly to those issues involved in the abortion debate. This would mean that the life is referring only to that of a potential child, and the choice would only refer to that between having an abortion or not. Otherwise one would expect what you've described as well as the common rightie line of, "are they pro-choice when it comes to choosing to own a gun?"

Though your post did evoke thememory of the Bill Hicks outside the cemetary gates protest.

[Jennifer]

Chthus-
But those who oppose stem-cell research do so ONLY on the grounds that it involves abortion; I have yet to hear of a person who thinks abortion is okay but stem-cell research is not.

[chthus]

That similarity in stance may indeed be the case, but it doesn't make it the case that their stance of "pro-life" is meant to include anything more than the life of a potential baby in both cases. To attempt to expand this defintion to include all life is your doing not theirs. You can complain that the term is misleading, but I would disagree as it is a widely understood limited definition term, just like pro-choice. You are of course free to point out this supposed hypocrisy, but I would counter that it is no more meaningful than people who mock pro-choice people for not agreeing with them on the school choice issue.

[John T. Kennedy]

Is the the position of writers at Reason that the government should be funding stem cell research?

[plunge]

It's probably their position that if given the choice between stem cell research, and federal meddling in the public school system, stem cell research is the better bet. But then, no publically collected funding for any inherently private projects would be the best option.

[Rick Barton]

John T. Kennedy,

I'm pretty sure that none of the regular writers at Reason are in favor of government funding of stem cell research?

chthus:

...it might be useful to discuss how to modulate limits on fed funded em-stem cell research in the short term.

Tweaking the limits on federal funding doesn't seem like a very good strategy for keeping this valuable research going. ANY federal funding increases the risk of aggravating public sentiment against stem cell research and mobilizing public pressure for a ban. Also, it's not fair to those who believe that it's unethical, to force them to fund this bountiful scientific endeavor. The market and the anticipated market for its resultant products are a far better way to spur this research than federal funding is. BTW, federal funding may come with progress killing restrictions. It has before.

[SM]

"Is the the position of writers at Reason that the government should be funding stem cell research?"

I don't think there's ever been anything written here or in the magazine that would support any such conclusion. In fact, the californians on the staff voted against the initiative on stem cell reasearch precisely because of government funding; look it up in the archives.
However, one rhetorical question deserves another - Why do people opposed to stem cell research on luddite/religious grounds always pretend that its merely the government funding thats at issue ?

[Rick Barton]

SM,

I'm thinking that those who oppose stem cell research on luddite or religious grounds pretend that it's only the government funding that's the problem do so because there's more political traction addressing the issue that way. If that's really is where the most traction is, I think it's a net plus for the prospects for liberty generally.

[Rick Barton]

John T. Kennedy,

Obviously I shouldn't have put a question mark at the end of my answer to you. Sorry, my bad, as they say.

[kevrob]

Federal funding or no federal funding, this research took place at the Evil University Of The State Government of Wisconsin, so my taxes are going to support it in either case. Boo! Hiss!

I do support privately funded stem-cell research of all sorts, (assuming the cells don't come from third trimester fetuses or some such.) I'm pretty much "pro-choice" on abortion, but I respect the opinion of my fellow citizens who are morally opposed. I think they are wrong, but are not necessarily idiots.

Kevin

[SM]

Rick Barton,

Point taken. But, I gotta say, with guys like Kass you at least know where the argument stands & can attempt a rational counter. It's different when people use big govmint as a smoke-screen for "repugnance" or some such crap.

[SM]

Rick,

Note the administrations enthusiastic support for UN Resolution Number XXXVIV gainst "cloning" from a couple of months ago. We all know what an exemplar of small government values the UN is. Not.

[Rikurzhen]

assuming the cells don't come from third trimester fetuses or some such.

I don't mean to be rude, but embryonic stem cells come from embryos (i.e., balls of undifferentiated cells that are so small you probably couldn't see them and if you could you wouldn't be able to tell whether they were from a human or a mouse... Just didn't want that idea to get around.

[Rikurzhen]

Also, for advocates of small government: cutting federal spending on biomedical research is probably about the last thing you'd want to prioritize, just before you privatize roads and the military. The money is going to be distributed by a grant-proposal process one way or another. It's a lot more economically efficient to have a single set of administrators at NIH who can force academics to do the reviewing for free than to have a gazillion different granting agencies with their own staff and their own applications.

[Rick Barton]

Rikurzhen,

It's hard to make economic efficiency arguments for government funding vs. private funding because with government funding there is such an attrition rate on the dollars from the time that they are extracted from their rightful owners, the taxpayers, till they get to the NIH before they even are awarded. Also, it's not just efficiency that makes the case for private funding. It's fairness. Some folks object to stem cell research. I vigorously disagree, but it's not fair to force them to fund it.

[Rikurzhen]

Rick, that obviously depends on your political philosophy. Likewise, that argument doesn't always apply: I objected to the Iraq war but I'm paying for part of it nonetheless and I don't see that a Libertarian would object to paying for the military decisions of an elected government.

My suggestion is that government funded research is a non-zero-sum government function -- it is not mere redistribution, and so there are good reasons to keep it as a part of government. Thus, it does not deserve the ire of small government enthusiast.

[Rick Barton]

Rikurzhen,

There's lots of objection to the Iraq war, on principle, from libertarians. Certainly not all military decisions of an elected government meet libertarian criteria for sanction. US military actions must be necessary for the protection of the liberty and security of the American people to merit sanction.

The fact some government funded research yields things that some, or even most, people value does not excuse its existence because the people who value it should, one way or the other, pay for it.

Now, as we phase out government funding of scientific research I would like to see tax credits for this research. (as we are reducing tax rates on businesses in general, because I don't want to use the power of taxation, even if it's used as an incentive to avoid taxes, to specifically direct peoples activity too much)

Also, I'm pretty sure that private funds support bio-med research now, even in university settings, by financing laboratories and such. Do they not?

[kevrob]

Rikurzhen:

I kinda figured em-stem cells didn't come from late-term concepti, but I just wanted to show where I draw my line.

BTW, Tick is right, and you are wrong about government funding for research. Once can make a case for military spending, as it is an enumerated power of the Congress. Other research is not.

Kevin

[kevrob]

Tick is right...

That should be Rick. Spoon!

Kevin