Image

November 29, 2007

 

Image

 

Washington Office Edition
 

 

Stem-Cell Success Story
CMA Commentary on Stem Cells - Washington Times
CMA Commentary on Abortion - Washington Post

 

Stem-Cell Success Story
Excerpted from commentary by the editors of National Review Online, November 21, 2007 -- Today’s papers bring news of an enormous advance in stem-cell research. Scientists in the United States and Japan have managed to turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells — achieving what they’ve sought until now through the destruction of embryos, but without the need to use embryos, to use cloning, or to use eggs.

 

It is, to begin with, an extraordinary scientific achievement, with immense scientific potential. The new technique is much easier and cheaper than the use of embryos in research, and will likely bring about an explosion of new work on pluripotent stem cells and their applications.

 

But it is also, no less importantly, a powerful vindication of the premise behind much of the opposition to the destruction of embryos for research this past decade: the conviction that scientific advance need not require, and should not compel, the abandonment of ethical principles, and especially the principle of human equality that should cause us to cherish and guard every human life, from beginning to end.

 

Image
For several years now, the president has clearly understood that the potential for scientific alternatives to the destruction of embryos could offer a powerful means to that end. Helped along by a variety of experts who saw that promise — perhaps most notably William Hurlbut of Stanford University, who was a member of Bush’s bioethics council — he came to recognize that stem-cell science could solve the ethical quandary stem-cell science had created.

 

This leaves the nation with a crucial lesson for what will certainly be many ethical quandaries to come as biotechnology advances: The answer to unethical science is not to give up on ethics, but rather to pursue ethical science.

 

CMA Vice President for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody:  "This summer, I attended an event at the White House during which President Bush vetoed a bill seeking to fund embryo-destroying research. At that time, the president also announced an executive order directing that, 'The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus.'

 

"In his remarks that day at the White House, President Bush noted, 'I'm joined on stage by two good docs, really smart, capable people: Dr. Bill Hurlbut, Professor of Stanford University Medical Center; and Dr. Don Landry, Professor at Columbia University Department of Medicine. The reason they're here is these are brilliant biologists who are seeking new ways to develop stem cell lines without violating human life.'

 

"As I took this photo at that White House event (above), I noticed that standing behind the president (far right), Dr. Hurlbut appeared a bit uncomfortable--and probably for good reason. As a person of faith and a scientist bucking the establishment, Dr. Hurlbut has risked his reputation by aggressively advancing support for research intended to promote therapies without destroying human embryos. In a sense, he stood at the White House that day on behalf of all of us who share his commitment to protecting human life while advancing health and science.

 

"That day at the White House, Dr. Hurlbut took the stand for ethical science, defending the principles of our faith. Your day may come at the White House or at the water cooler. Following in the footsteps of the biblical Daniel ("But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself…"), make up your mind now to take that stand."

 

CMDA Ethics Statement: Human Stem Cell Research and Use
Honoring Life While Saving Lives
Misleading Headlines: Embryonic Stem Cells Heal the Hearts of Rats

 

Back to menu
 

 

Stem cell breakthrough winners and losers - CMA commentary in Washington Times

Image
Published by the Washington Times. By Jonathan Imbody, CMA Vice President for Government Relations. November 28, 2007--In the wake of a scientific breakthrough that obviates the drive to destroy human embryos for their stem cells, it's worth checking the scoreboard and determining the winners and losers in the debate over stem cell ethics and cures ("Skin cells alter stem-cell debate," Wednesday).

 

Politicians and scientists lobbying for embryo-destroying research tried to push aside ethical standards upholding the sanctity of human life by posing a stark utilitarian choice between saving human patients or saving tiny human embryos, whom they derided as literal pinheads. Their deadly dichotomy now has been exposed as a pied piper's song. Situational ethics loses; life-honoring standards win.

 

Some politicians, grant-seeking researchers and institutions managed to convince voters that embryo-destroying research would have paralyzed patients literally leaping from their wheelchairs. What progress has been made since scientists first isolated mouse embryonic stem cells (1981) and isolated and grew human embryonic stem cells (1998)? To track results, some scientists compiled a literal scoreboard (www.stemcellresearch.org) showing what stem cell research has actually benefited patients. The score: adult stem cell research, 73 treatments; embryo-destructive stem cell research, 0.

 

That rout is especially impressive given the millions of dollars unfortunately diverted into embryo-destructive stem cell research that could have been used more wisely to further adult stem cell research, already shown effective with real patients. (Last) week's scientific breakthrough will hopefully help redirect stem cell funding to non-destructive research as the most efficient and ethical path to cures.

 

If that happens, some egg-faced politicians may lose, but patients will win.

 

CMDA CEO David Stevens, MD:  "It was fascinating to watch the scramble by embryonic stem cell scientists and institutions to the news of an ethical, affordable, practical and relatively easy procedure for producing stem cell lines that could be done in over a thousand research laboratories in the U.S. tomorrow. They were left with only a weak, 'But we aren’t sure this will treat all diseases, so we should pursue both lines of research.' Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly, had already pronounced a few days earlier that the human cloning necessary to make ESC-based therapy a reality was so impractical that he was giving up and devoting his full attention to cell reprogramming.

 

"The big losers are the institutions and individuals that had so much money to gain from their embryonic stem cell patents. The big winners are the patients that desperately need the realization of the promises of regenerative medicine. For them, turning skin cells into pluripotent stem cells was more significant than if scientists had turned lead into gold.

 

"Embryonic stem cell research proponents may want to head quickly for the same exit that Ian Wilmut used. It looks like there may be a traffic jam at the door. Oh, and the last one out, turn off the lights. There isn’t going to be funding to pay the bill."

 

CMDA Issues & Ethics: Stem Cell Research
Standards 4 Life: Stem Cell Research
Stem Cells: Potential & Problems (PPT) - CMDA Members Only

 

Back to menu
 

If 'Roe' Were Overturned

Image
Published by the Washington Post. By Jonathan Imbody, CMA Vice President for Government Relations. November 4, 2007--Understandably cynical about "ukases from the federal judiciary," George F. Will seems unduly fixated on California in concluding that reversing Roe v. Wade would hardly cause a ripple in abortion's status quo [Abortion's 'So-What' Factor, op-ed, Oct. 28].

 

Granting Mr. Will's point that the doctrine of stare decisis poses a potential roadblock to a jurisprudential revolution, one can still hope that a case with all the logic of the Dred Scott slavery decision cannot long endure.

 

Eventually the people will prevail. As with slavery, Americans regret the injustice of abortion on demand. A Gallup poll released in June showed that an overwhelming (2-to-1) majority of Americans consider it "morally wrong."

 

If a revival of federalism sent the abortion issue back to the states, states such as Virginia would not be likely to follow the Left Coast's lead in denying the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the unborn. Overturning the injustice of Roe would result in a network of safe-haven states where inalienable rights and equal protection are accorded to all members of the human race.

 

CMDA Issues & Ethics: Abortion
CMDA Ethics Statement: Abortion
Standards 4 Life: Abortion

 
 
DISCLAIMER

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations is a non-partisan organization that does not endorse political parties or candidates for public office. The views expressed herein reflect judgments regarding principles and values held by CMDA and its members and are not intended to imply endorsement of any political party or candidate. Use of news articles is allowable within the guidelines of the copyright fair use law.

 

Your comments are always welcome. Though we may not be able to personally respond to each one, your insights are carefully read and can impact our future analysis. Copyright notice: CMDA News & Views may be copied and re-transmitted by electronic mail. Individual copies of a particular News & Views e-mail transcript may be printed, provided that such copying, re-transmission, printing, or other use is not for profit or other commercial purpose. CMDA's News & Views may not be reproduced on the World Wide Web or in broadcast, print or other media without permission from CMDA. Any copying, re-transmission, distribution, printing or other use of News & Views must cite: © 2007 Christian Medical & Dental Associations. View CMDA's Privacy Policy.

 

This message is intended only for the use of the individuals to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and all of its attachments.

 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. View CMDA's Privacy Policy.

          Admin    Contact Us    Link to Us    Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Sitemap

This is an iMIS Web site