Part Two: Refuting Those Who Discredit a Promising Life Science

The last time I wrote about embryonic stem cell research, (eSCR) I gave an overview of Michigan extremist laws. In this part I will discuss some of the claims against embryonic stem cell research. I apologize for the lack of brevity, but it was unavoidable.


Those who are opposed to eSCR believe that the creation and subsequent destruction of an embryo for treatment or research is in violation of their belief that life begins at conception. If opponents of eSCR used this in their opposition, I could not argue with them. That is their belief, and while I disagree with it, they are entitled to their religious freedom. Fortunately for eSCR, this belief reflects the feelings of a relatively small proportion of the population who as a whole have wide-ranging thoughts about when life begins. Since opponents cannot honestly win by advancing their own religious views, they instead attempt to defeat eSCR by attacking the science, attacking the motives of those who advocate for eSCR and attempting to create false hope that there are other, less controversial cures on the horizon.

Those opposing this research make many erroneous, often alarmist, claims about the future of eSCR, all of which have gone unfounded. Some of the most common are debunked below.

The most common lie: adult stem cell research is the most promising type of stem cell research:
Paul Long of the Michigan Catholic Conference, before the House Health Policy Committee said:

"The facts are that nearly 30 years of public and private financing for embryonic stem cell research have failed to produce any positive gains, while advancements with adult stem cells are occurring on a daily basis."

While adult stem cell research has been ongoing for 30 years, it is untrue that eSCR has been ongoing for this time. It wasn't until 1998 that researchers isolated human embryonic stem cells at the University of Wisconsin. ESCR is new research, which is being restricted by federal and state authorities.

The 65 cures lie:
The media doesn't even question this whopper of a lie anymore. Many outlets continue to print that adult stem cells have provided 65 cures for various diseases and conditions. Despite the fact that the 65 cures lie has been debunked by well-respected scientists, it continues to be repeated.

On July 15, 2006 the Washington Post ran a story about three researchers who were calling out David Prentis of the Family Research Cuncil, who stared this part of the disinformation campaign. The Post reported on the scientist's well-documented arguments:

"The claim that there are 65 adult stem cell research cures has been said so many times that it is almost becoming an accepted fact. In the July 28 issue of the magazine Science, William Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, debunks statements by opponents of embryonic research -- which were created by the Washington-based Family Research Council -- who suggest that more than 65 illnesses can be treated by adult and cord blood stem cells. According to Neaves, only nine illnesses on the research council's widely circulated list have approved adult stem cell treatments."

Most of the diseases cited in the list compiled by Prentis rely on limited clinical trials or observations from patients and doctors, rather than approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many are experiments, rather than treatments, some of which have taken place overseas.

Dr. Sean Morrison, who runs the University of Michigan adult stem cell lab, pointed out one of the most hypocritical examples in the Prentis-mentioned experiments. Despite Prentis's ties to anti-abortion groups, one procedure on his adult stem cell cures list utilized adult stem cells harvested from fetal tissue that was the product of an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, adult stem cell research is also supported by supporters of eSCR, but it doesn't have the same potential.

There are no restrictions on stem cell research in Michigan:
It is legal to do stem cell research, even on embryonic stem cells, in Michigan, if you create the cells elsewhere and import them into the state. This is where an intermingling of federal rule, Michigan law, patent protection, and practicality make any serious research efforts impossible.

Should your lab receive any federal funding, the stem cell lines must be one of the few federally approved stem cell lines, all of which are ethnically narrow and infected with mouse cells. Since most labs receive some sort of federal funding, they are eliminated from any meaningful research.

If a lab is 100% privately or 100% state funded, they could seek other sources of stem cells. Unfortunately, there is not an adequate source of stem cells from other states to study specific conditions, nor do stem cell lines exist that reflect our diverse population. Also, there are no sources of stem cells from individuals with specific disease we wish to study. Stem cell lines are also protected by patents.

Lastly, in order to treat patents, we must be able to produce stem cells from embryos in this state matching that patient's own DNA. If we cannot, patients will have to go elsewhere for treatment.

There is an adequate source of embryos in Michigan's IVF clinics, which instead of being thrown away should be used for this research. By not allowing stem cells to be created from embryos found here, it is a de-facto ban.

Allowing eSCR and SCNT will allow scientists to "clone and kill":
SCNT stands for Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. It's sometimes called therapeutic cloning and is used to create stem cells with a particular genetic makeup. Make no mistake, that’s where it ends: within the Petri dish. Opponents of the research try to lump eSCR and SCNT together with all types of cloning. Yet all types of cloning are not the same. No human being is the result of SCNT. This is true unless you believe that an embryo that was never fertilized by a sperm and never implanted in a womb is the same is a human. A rogue scientist would have to take SCNT much further and implant the embryo into a surrogate mother to take this toward human reproductive cloning.

We should adopt out embryos to create "snowflake babies":
As I have written, hundreds of thousands of left-over and unsuitable embryos from treatment facilities are destined for the trash can. A few hundred nationwide will be "adopted" and implanted in infertile couples. That said, couples who created them cannot be forced to provide them to prospective women, and many of the embryos cannot be responsibly implanted into a uterus due to defect. Opponents of eSCR rarely propose to ban infertility treatments, which would be the only way to end the creation and subsequent disposal of embryos. Opponents of eSCR also attempted to ban in-vitro procedures decades ago and lost that fight.

A new "breakthrough" prior to every vote:
For the last few years every time there has been a vote in the U.S. Senate, or U.S. Congress authorizing eSCR, there has been a corresponding announcement of a new breakthrough. First was the initial adults stem cell "cures" announcement, then there was a breakthrough in "umbilical cord stem cells". That was followed by the discovery of "amniotic cord blood cells". Most recently, there was a claimed breakthrough using adult stems cells to treat juvenile diabetes.

Unfortunately, none of the above examples were true breakthroughs. All of the types of stem cells mentioned above are really just adult stem cells, all of which have limited uses. Claims of cures for juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's' disease are fictitious or overstated and would surely surprise the millions of people worldwide who continue to suffer from these diseases and conditions.

I could go on and on to fight this fight, but I think you get the point. Opponents of eSCR will stop at nothing to discredit one of the most promising life science humans has ever discovered.

Next time: The economics of stem cell research.

Read more...

Mental Institution Michael

Pseudo Documentarian Michael Moore recently challenged possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson to a debate. His terse reply seemed to show that he was probably not interested. I am not a huge fan of Michael Moore, though I did like Roger and Me when it came out and I thought he did a good job at making a compelling story and breathing new life into documentaries. Over time, he seemed to move more towards propaganda and telling people what to think instead of drawing their own conclusions. This is certainly not new, nor is he the only one who has done this. Leni Riefenstahl did many of the same things when she made Triumph of the Will.

Before I continue, I am not suggesting that Michael Moore is a Nazi or even like a Nazi. I am suggesting that he is using the documentary format to promote a political and social aganda, much like Triumph of the Will.

I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11, so I can't comment on that one. I did see Bowling for Columbine and there seemed to be some inconsistencies and problems with facts. It turns out that I was right. There were major problems with trick editing, distortions, and outright lies. I have to give Michael Moore credit. He does a tremendous job of promoting his materials and his image as a regular, working class guy. He makes a good living at what he does and I am not suggesting that he stop. I do think it is unfortunate that his stuff is categorized as non-fiction and that many people seem to watch his material and take it in as completely factual.

I will be interested to see how his new movie Sicko will do and how much it contributes to the national debate on health care. This has been discussed on this blog before and I agree that there is major room for reform and improvements. I just hope that these debates are factually based and intelligent, though I'll admit that I doubt Michael Moore will be able to add to this in a meaningful way. I hope I am wrong.

Read more...

Joel's Dialogue of the Day

You ever just sort of sit there, pondering the state of affairs in which we live and, rather than look for solutions or, more likely, develop yet another coping mechanism, just say to yourself "this is all such a fraternity haze. It's just one big haze." Well, it is a haze. Where's the meaning? Where's the exhilaration? Where's the "making a difference?"

It is from this school of thought that I present today's dialogue of the day, more of a monologue, courtesy of Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in one of the greatest "what the hell does it all mean" movies of all time... FIGHTCLUB.

I see in Fight Club the strongestand smartest men who've ever lived.
I see all this potential.
And I see it squandered.
Goddamn it, an entire generation pumping gas.
Waiting tables.
Slaves with white collars.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes.
Working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
We're the middle children of history.
No purpose or place.
We have no Great War.
No Great Depression.
Our great war is a spiritual war.
Our great depression is our lives.
We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd be millionaires
and movie gods and rock stars.
But we won't.
We're slowly learning that fact.
And we're very, very pissed off.

Read more...

Some Legislation I Can Get Behind

Since this blog covers all things beer, I thought I would draw your attention to HR 1610. This bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code to reduce the tax on beer from $18 a barrel to $9 a barrel. I should note that a brewer that brews less than 2,000,000 barrels a year only pays $7 per barrel for the first 60,000 barrels (and $18 per barrel after 60,000). The bill has 52 co-sponsors, including one from Michigan, Dale Kildee (D).

I don't know what chance this has in the House, but I found out that the beer and wine industry gave $10 million to candidates in 2005-2006 and they probably epect something for that money. This bill is opposed by some public health groups and other assbags that want to tell me how much beer I should drink. Seriously, I think that $18 a barrel is a pretty high tax, considering the wholesale price far a barrel of beer.

Read more...

Twins!

Different from the movie whereby the "twins" looked nothing alike (is that paternal or maternal twins...I never remember), Sadly, No! has put a bunch of time into pairing wingnut mouthbreathers with some celebrity look-alike. Twins indeed. Some are uncanny, most are hilarious. Go take a look.

The winner in my mind? Michelle Malkin compared to Bat Boy of tabloid fame. Runner up? Vapid pseudo-liberal Susan Estrich = Eddie (the Iron Maiden mascot) or the Salt Vampire from M-113. I nearly fell out of my chair.

Read more...

Belated Beer Review

This has been a crushingly busy week, but right near the very end of the week I had the opportunity to taste a real treat.

The historic holder of Michigan's first brewpub license is an eclectic restaurant in downtown Detroit, not too far from the DIA, called the Traffic Jam and Snug. It's got a little bit of everything on its menu, but of most note, this weird little slice of heaven features its own dairy and its own little brewery. In fact, in 1992, the Traffic Jam became Michigan's first brewpub. Tangentally, a brew pub allows for the sale of beer brewed on-premises, but it is not bottled or sold outside of the pub.

The beer list currently holds the Grand Theft Pilsner, an oatmeal stout, an IPA and a doppelbock. I chose to try the doppel.

All in all, this was a very nicely-constructed brew. It came to the table a lovely deep brown/black with ruby highlights and a thick, pillowy off-white head.

I immediately smelled bananas-and-chocolate, backed by a lovely roasted coffee. Really, the only bitterness came from the dark-roasted malt though there was a hint of floral hops that balanced the beer well.

The taste was a very nicely balanced beer. It is nowhere near the calibre of Ayinger or Paulaner, mind you, but for locally-brewed beer in small quantities in a brew pub, it was very balanced and drinkable. There was a nice roasted flavor right up front balanced by a malty sweetness that was neither subtle nor cloying. And there, after some hops shone through, was that lovely chocolate flavor that makes doppelbocks all taste like drinking chocolate milk and beer. Yum!

Again, all in all thi was a solid, drinkable, sessionable beer. I could see sitting there for hours at a time and never switching beers. The beer was very light-bodied and slightly watery, but really those are minor in the grand scheme of this beer.

So for all 5 of my Michigan-based readers, go visit the Traffic Jam and Snug. Enjoy their beers and take home some delicious cheese...it all tastes greatwith the beers they brew (in the fine tradition of European catholic monks brewing beer and making cheese in the same place; Roquefort, anyone?).

Read more...

Part One: The Lunacy of Michigan's Life Science Laws

The following post is part one in a three-part series on stem cell research in Michigan. The series will focus on: Michigan's laws, the opposition's efforts to discredit embryonic stem cell research, and the economics of stem cell research in Michigan's life sciences industry.


For the last four years, one of my biggest projects in the legislature has been working to remove Michigan's serious restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. (eSCR) I say restrictions, but Michiganders should be aware that our state has some of the most restrictive stem cell laws in the nation. We are more restrictive than the federal policy and more restrictive than most other states. Michigan's laws are so severe that should a breakthrough take place in another state or nation, residents will have to leave the state to even received treatment. While knowledge of this situation has grown over the last few years due to some diligent reporting, eight editorials in favor of changing our laws, and hard work by stem cell supporters, we still have along way to go before our laws are no longer dictated by a vocal minority.

The prohibitions date back to 1978 when Michigan banned any research on an embryo, unless it is for the purpose of improving the viability of that embryo. It wasn't related to embryonic stem cells, which weren't isolated until 1998. Instead, it has been said that these laws were an over reaction to in-vitro fertilization, a new technology at the time, which was opposed by some of the same people opposing eSCR today. The second part of our prohibition is the ban on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, (SCNT) which is needed for the creation of stem cells matching a patent's genetic code. This law was passed during the panic that followed the cloning of "Dolly" the sheep in Scotland. The intent of the bill, which few disagree with, was to prohibit human reproductive cloning by prohibiting using SCNT to initiate a pregnancy. Instead, we enacted a total ban on all forms of SCNT, including forms need for research and the creation of cells. The sponsor of this legislation, former State Representative Kirk Profit, has said that his bill went too far and is now working to see the law amended.

It should be noted that these laws do not save a single embryo from destruction. Left over embryos are thrown in the trash by the thousands, but should a scientist perform research on them, they will be sent to jail.

The bills before the Michigan State House sponsored by State Representative Andy Meisner and Mark Meadows, will remove Michigan's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. They are similar to the bills passed by the U.S. House and Senate and passed in Missouri as a state constitutional amendment. These bills aren’t radical by any means. They are a balanced approach that will finally bring Michigan out of the dark ages.

Some may even say that the bills are a compromise because, like the federal legislation that President Bush continues to veto, they limit the research to embryos left over from infertility clinics. The bills will prohibit embryo donors from receiving any financial or other benefit from the donation and will require informed and written consent for the donation. The legislation also removes Michigan's restrictions on SCNT, so doctors will be able to treat patients.

The bill package includes two bills which will increase penalties for human reproductive cloning, to make a clear distinction in the law between SCNT and attempting to clone a person.

There are many medical benefits possible from both adult and embryonic stem cell therapies, but due to their ability to become any one of the 200 plus cell types in the body, embryonic stem cells offer the opportunity to cure many diseases and conditions that adult stem cells never will, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries and juvenile diabetes. As an example, since pancreatic adult stem cells do not exist, we will only cure juvenile diabetes with embryonic stem cell therapies.

Supporters of eSCR also support adult stem cell research and other forms of stem cell studies. But, as researchers will tell you, and despite opposition claims, there is no replacement for embryonic stem cell research for many debilitating diseases and conditions. Reputable scientists will tell you that there are nine adult stem cell treatments. I discuss this further in part two of this series.

There is a small, extreme minority who are opposed to this research. In March, a poll commissioned by MIRS, The Rossman Group and Denno-Noor Public Opinion Company confirmed what previous polls have said; that Michiganders overwhelmingly want this research to take place. The poll showed 65% support among all voters. Of the twelve regions of the state identified in the poll, every geographic area supported the research by over 60%. Previous polls have also showed similar support among Roman Catholics and majority support among those who consider themselves "pro-life".

Hopefully, the will of the people, who overwhelmingly support stem cell research, will eventually prevail and move Michigan toward a future including cures and treatments for our friends and families.

Next time: Refuting those who discredit a promising life science.

To learn more about the science of stem cell, go to the University of Michigan's Life Sciences Department here.

Read more...