Revision 28470 of "Talk:Stem_cell" on enwiki

*Talk:Stem_cell/Archive: [[Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_1|1]],[[Talk:Stem_cell/Archive_2| 2]] - (31 Dec 2004 (UTC))

== "Magical" Seoul treatment cannot be found on PubMed ==

"Researchers in South Korea announced in November 2004 that they had successfully used multipotent cord blood (adult) stem cell treatments to enable a paralyzed woman to walk with the aid of a walker."

A thorough search of the medical literature both for general keywords (stem cells, therapy, spinal cord) and the authors' names gives no results. Check for yourself on PubMed.org.  Since the treatment is from November 2004, it could be out by now. If it is so promising and novel, why is it not published officially?

In short, the paragraph should be tagged with a warning, if no more reliable publication can be found by the end of 2005.
:Wrong.  This paragraph should not be tagged with a warning.  I have added links to the articles that described the treatment. [http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt2004112617575710440.htm] [http://www.connected.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/30/wcells30.xml] It was not a study anyway.  It was a treatment for ONE woman.  I have added a link to the Korea Times article that shows a picture of the woman.  The link to the Korea Times article is on the Stem Cell page, but it was moved to the bottom in the reference section during an edit war.  A truce has been called in that edit war and now maybe the link can be added back in the article without someone removing it.  You have not signed your comments.  But no warning is required.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 12:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Keetoowah, I'm glad to see you providing a reference, but I think your threat of a warning for not signing his comment may be "biting the newcomers" (see [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers]]). And I agree: I don't know why someone would object to the Korea Times link being in the relevant section.  --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although it's definatley a 'good news' stem cell story the fact that this treatment was not reported in a peer reviewed journal, or any scientific journal for that matter, leads me to believe that this section should bear some kind of unpublished research warning, or be deleted from the article entirely. If the publication that is promised emerges then its fine--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 05:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Coverage of the US, US states, and countries beyond the US==
The article could use more discussion of what is happening beyond the US.

Specifically Singapore.  That little nation is putting billions of dollars to create stem-cell research institutions and highering many prominent British and American scientists.
:"highering" them, huh?  That sounds different.--[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Wikipedia is a resource for people around the world; many users don't speak english as their first language.  Can we not mock them?--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 04:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=== Should the section on California should have its own article? ===
IMO the whole California section should be split off (it already has its own article), and have only a very brief mention and link in the Legal section - it's not important enough to have such a large dedicated section on the main Stem cell page. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 19:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I think dealing with the US's federal funding restrictions is incomplete without dealing with California's response to it, [which, as the following figures explain, is providing ''more'' funding (all for embryonic stem cell research) than [[NIH]] is even spending on adult stem cell research].  The $300 million US that California's institute will be spending on embryonic stem cell research is 12 times the amount the main research organization that would normally be funding basic research like this in the US, the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH), spent in 2003 on embryonic stem cell research ($25 million US (on lines allowed by the federal ban)).  California's embryonic stem cell research amount is even 1/3 more than NIH spent on adult stem cell research in 2003 ($190 million), which is a larger field and is not controversial.
:Some articles I've read even claim that California's institute will have the largest endowment for embryonic stem cell research in the world.  Evan Snyder, director of the program in stem cell biology at the Burnham Institute in San Diego said "this is going to be the stem cell center of the world, not just the country."  

:I haven't been able to find figures on how much the countries that have been most active in stem cell research are spending, which is listed in a number of articles as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Israel, and Singapore, but it seems unlikely that these countries would be spending more than the US would.  (The US's purchasing power parity [[GDP]] according to the [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ CIA world factbook]is $10.99 trillion USD(2003 est.), compared with $1.666 trillion for the U.K.,  $857.8 billion for South Korea, $571.4 billion for Australia, 120.9 billion for Isreal, and $109.4 billion for Singapore.  Although, if California can spend $300 million a year, the U.K could be spending even more.  (California's GDP is given in some articles as $1.4 trillion, but I haven't seen them give sources for this.)  

:So, it is of course limited how much we can estimate about research endowments just by looking at GDPs, but I'm saying that California's institute is spending more than the US's federal government is spending, and it seems unlikely that, based on GDPs, other countries are spending more than the US.  So if California's institute makes the US federal ban irrelevant and it is the largest in the world by a wide margin, I think this makes its presence on the page important to the article.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 01:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::[...]California has only just passed 71.  It is going to take a while for it to take effect and in the meantime other states are discussing starting there own research centers--which will lead to competition for the best researchers... other states are responding to it--such as Texas.  --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 15:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::[...]The establishment of California’s stem cell research institute changed the US research scene, as well as the global research scene.  For example, US embryonic stem cell researchers will be less likely to relocate to the UK to take advantage of larger embryonic stem cell funding.
:::Until Texas endows funding comparable to $3 billion USD for embryonic stem cell research, any Texas state funding of embryonic stem cell research is not as noteworthy in the global scene as California’s institute.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 02:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::I agree with comments about Texas; however, I never tried to make the point that Texas was more important than California.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Embryonic versus Adult stem cell research==
One problem on this article has been a tendency for the article to ''advocate'' either ASC or ESC research over the other. 
It seems we have come to an agreement to follow the stance of the Canadian Government Stem Cell Council [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/2887.html], which writes: 
:"At this stage it is not clear whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells are going to be the best source of cells for therapeutic purposes."
::I agree.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)  

Points to note on this topic:
*ESC research is commonly acknowledged to have been hampered in the US by the federal funding restrictions.  In 2003 NIH spent $190 million USD on ASC research and $25 million on ESC research (on the lines allowed by the federal restrictions).  The pace of ESC research is commonly expected to pick up once California's annual funding of $300 million is in place.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 22:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*If the article describes the restrictions, I think a non-controversial choice of wording is to say that federal funding of ESC lines developed after Aug. 2001 is ''prohibited''.  This wording seems to be in line with the experience of research scientists who must be careful to not use equipment funded by NIH in studies that use non-federally-approved ESC lines, ''or risk legal action''.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
*ESC is currently 'basic research,' or 'basic science,' as opposed to research that is developed to the point that it's producing practical applications, which in this case would be treatments. --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 10:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)--[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*"although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages." (NIH)-- [[User:Oarih|Oarih]] 01:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
===Back to basics: hESC and hASC explanations===

In the introduction of the article, we introduce adult and embryonic stem cells.  I think the adult stem cell section is pretty good and I'll explain why here:
====Adult stem cells====
First: what are adult stem cells?  Answer: 
:"Stem cells can be found in all adult and young adult beings. Adult stem cells are undiferentiated cells that reproduce daily to provide certain specialized cells"  

What does that mean?  

:"—for example 200 billion red blood cells are created each day in the body from hemopoietic stem cells."  

Ok, so they specialise, right?  Answer: 
:Until recently it was thought that each of these cells could produce just one particular type of cell—this is called differentiation (see Morphogenesis). However in the past few years, evidence has been gathered of stem cells that can transform into several different forms. Bone marrow stromal stem cells are known to be able to transform into liver, nerve, muscle and kidney cells.  Adult stem cells may be even more versatile than this. Researchers at the New York University School of Medicine have extracted stem cells from the bone-marrow of mice which they say are pluripotent. Turning one type of stem cell into another is called transdifferentiation.

Ok, so what are the pros and cons of adult stem cells?  Answer:
:A major advantage of adult stem cells is that, since they can be harvested from the patient, moral issues and inmunogenic rejection are averted. There are, however, at least presently, limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also limited evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime.

That seems like a good flow for a section - it explains what adult stem cells are, where the technology has gone, what discoveries have been made, and what the overall limitations of the technology might be (though it's a bit weak in that it says that pluripotent stem cells have been found in the bone-marrow of mice and then goes on to say that pluripotent stem cells have not been found (in humans, I guess.
:::This comment is not accurate, pluripotent stem cells have been found in humans.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
====Embryonic stem cells====
Next, embryonic stem cells:

What are embryonic stem cells?  Answer: 
:Stem cells which derived from the inner mass cells of a blastocyst (future embryo) have pluripotent properties—

What does that mean?  Answer
:they are able to grow into any of the 200 cell types in the body. 

Ok, so they aren't specialised, then?  Or, how about telling us where and how the technology was developed, what it's applications might be, etc..?  Answer:
:However, there are many researchers and experts that believe that embryonic stem cells have no potential because after years of research on embryonic stem cells researchers have been unsuccessful in developing a medical treatments using embryonic stem cells while treatments using adult stem cells have been sucessful. 
::This discussion should be removed.  I believe that we have agreed not to compare ASC and ESC.  According to the Canadian govt Web site, it is like comparing apples to oranges--ASC has had the advantage of more research money spent on it and ESC is still in an undeveloped stage.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
???Huh?  Where'd that runon sentence come from?

Anyway, how about telling us where and how the technology was developed, what it's applications might be, etc...?  Answer: 
:Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a cloned embryo, created by fusing a denucleated egg cell with a patient's cell. The embryo produced is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are obtained from a clone, they are genetically compatible with the patient.

Cool.  So what are the issues surrounding hESC?
:They are also the most controversial type of stem cells, because their utilization involves the destruction of human embryos. 

Ok, that's to the point.  So how about some pros and cons?
:Some researchers have also argued that the embryonic stem cells may not be able to treat actual medical conditions because they many not be able to grow beyond the first stages of cell development. One obstacle to the application of embryonic stem cells is that they have surface proteins that often cause rejection, and implanted embryonic stem cells also have a tendency to multiply uncontrollably as a type of cancer.

That's weird, it seems like hESC don't have any pros - though given that humans have managed to grow beyond the first stages of development, this claim that hESC can't seems a bit weird...  So what's the big deal with hESC?  Do people just like destroying embryos?  

:In May of 2003, researchers announced that they had successfully used embryonic stem cells to produce human egg cells. Spokespersons stated that these egg cells could potentially be used in turn to produce new stem cells. If research and testing proves that artificially created egg cells could be a viable source for embryonic stem cells, they noted, then this would remove the necessity of harvesting human embryos. Thus, the controversy over donating human egg cells and embryos would be largely dismissed, except that an embryo is required to start each cycle.

What would the point be in that, given that embryonic stem cells aren't capable of growing beyond the first stages of development and cause caner anyway?

Ok, so that might be a bit over the top, but I guess that I feel that the flow and utility of the embryonic stem cell section is completely destroyed by the partisan interjections that litter it.  Can't we just have a short "pros and cons" / "potential promise and current concerns" section at the end after properly describing what the technology is and what it does? -- [[User:Oarih|Oarih]] 05:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::Once again, I believe that we have agreed not compare ASC and ESC because they are different animals in production and they are different animals in terms of the amount of research dollars applied to each of them.  We just don't have enough information to do a proper compare and contrast that is why I took out my comments comparing the two and simply limited my comments to the results of the Korean experiments and eliminated the bad attempt to compare the two types of stem cells.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==US Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research==

Funding of ESC research that was allowed (but not yet put into practice) under the Clinton Administration’s (Aug. 23, 2000) guidelines was restricted by Bush’s funding decision. Bush’s decision was a step down in the funding situation from what the situation was under Clinton (though not put into practice before he left office).
Clinton, in the publishing of his guidelines, was the first to approve of and initiate the process of federal funding of ESC research, not Bush; the process of NIH obtaining funding for ESC research under Clinton's guidelines was kept from completion only by the postponement on April 25, 2001 of the scheduled review of pending grant applications in order to provide the Bush Administration with the opportunity to review the issue.  Bush changed the guidelines and the funding process began during Clinton's administration completed (under Bush's altered guidelines), with funding beginning in 2002:  "NIH initiated the applications process but ultimately funding was not granted to the applications. The prior administration's process was then overtaken by events and the new policy was set."

To read a passage from the Congressional Research Service detailing this topic, go here: [[Talk:Stem_cell/Presidential and Congressional Background to Stem Cell Research]]

:''[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] has written the following on this topic (though not in direct response to the above entry).''
::I think that the thing that needs work is the question of how to describe the historical funding record.  I believe, Nectarflowed, that your description of the Clinton Adminstration's historical record is slightly bias toward the Clinton Adm.  I understand the point that you made up there, but the fact remains that the Clinton Adm was in office for eight years and HHS, under Clinton, did not fund one ESC research project and no amount of reading around the facts can make that fact go away.  Please provide the project and the date that the Clinton Adm's HHS provided funding for a ESC research project and I will gladly put that in the article.  But simply arguing that he set everything up is an attempt to make the argument that the Clinton is really the breakthrough Presidential Administration for ESC research and you and I both know that you can't provide one article that makes that argument.  Let's stick to facts.  When did Clinton fund a project?  Who did the Clinton Administrationn fund?, etc.  That is the stuff of the article, not some lame argument about well the Clinton Adm got the guidelines done and they put everything in place and they just did not get a chance to fund.  That is lame and you know it.  You are making an statement that even the most pro-ESC research advocates don't even make.  

::What you trying to argue is that: Clinton was a champion for ESC research!  And we all know that is not true, it is value-laden and it is non-NPV.  It does not belong in the article.  Is is simply wishful thinking.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 04:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

----

:::'''Re:''' ''"the Clinton Adm was in office for eight years and HHS, under Clinton, did not fund one ESC research project"'' 

:::The initation of HHS’ funding process for ESC research took time to complete.  The Congressional Research Service paper writes:
::::"In light of the presidential [1994] and legislative [1996 (the Dickey Amendment)] bans, NIH requested a legal opinion from the General Counsel of HHS on whether federal funds could be used to support research on human stem cells derived from embryos or fetal tissue."

:::The ESC research breakthrough occurred in 1998 (actually deriving human embryonic stem cells for the first time), "draft guidelines were published in December 1999, and final guidelines were issued in August 2000." These guidelines allowed HHS to work around the 1996 Dickey Amendment, and authorization for funding of pending grants was scheduled to occur in early 2001.  
:::The initation of HHS’ funding process for ESC research took time to complete.

:::'''RE:''' ''“some lame argument about well the Clinton Adm got the guidelines done and they put everything in place and they just did not get a chance to fund”''

:::The funding process for embryonic stem cell research was started under Clinton, and Bush implemented Clinton's guidelines, with the restriction that ESC lines created after Aug. 2001 were prohibited from the federal funding.

:::The CRS paper writes:

::::"After the HHS legal opinion, and despite expressions of congressional opposition, NIH indicated that  it would fund research on pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos and fetal tissue once guidelines were issued... Draft guidelines were published in the Federal Register in December 1999 and final guidelines were issued [by the Clinton Administration] in August 2000."

:::The guidelines set out the criteria that the National Institutes of Health would use to consider applications for federal grants to study ESCs.  Applications were taken and awaited authorization.  

::::“'''NIH initiated the applications process [under the Clinton Administration]''' but ultimately funding was not granted to the applications. '''The prior administration's process was then overtaken by events and the new policy was set'''."
:::What this quote refers to is that the review of (and authorization of funding for) pending ESC grant applications did not occur on April 25, 2001 as was scheduled.  It was postponed by the new Bush Administration in order to provide the administration with the opportunity to review the issue. In Aug 2001, Bush announced '''his administration was altering the Clinton administration’s guidelines'''.  The new guidelines maintained Rabb and Shalala’s interpretation of the Dickey Amendment, but were changed in one way: '''the restriction that any ESC lines created after that date were to be ‘non-federally-approved’''' (for federal funding).

:::Less than 4 monthes (Jan - April 25) of the HHS’ lengthy funding process for ESC research occurred during the Bush Administration, though because of the administration’s postponement the process didn’t complete until later in 2001.  The bulk of the HHS’ funding process occurred during the Clinton Administration.  It is correct, though, that the process was '''completed''' during the Bush Administration.

:::'''Conclusion:''' I agree that there needs to be mention in the article that there was no ESC funding before Bush's announcement.  But if we say that the funding started under Bush, we need to point out that applications began under the Clinton Administration were already pending when Bush announced that '''the funding process that began under Clinton would go still forward (though with the new restriction on lines)'''. --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 08:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::::Nectarflowed, I truly appreciate your attempts to discuss this issue and work with me.  I agree that, if we are going to go this deep into a history of the federal approval process, then we need to be precise in describing exactly what happened.  However, what you have written in your "Conclusion" to your comments is not quite accurate.  Clinton put in place guidelines that would allow the federal funding of projects that worked with ESC lines that were created by private funds.  Clinton still did not allow federal financing for projects on human embryos in any way.  What Clinton was putting in place, in his second term in office, was the potential for the federal government to fund ESC research projects that were using ESC that were created and completely funded by private sector money. 

::::Also, we need to point out that Clinton had eight (8) years to fund and he did not fund.  That is a fact.  I know that you have been arguing over and over again about the 1998 date, but the world of science did not start in 1998.  The breakthrough was in 1998, but there was research going on long before that breakthrough.  Scientific breakthroughs just don't work that way.  We don't just wake up one morning and ESC research begins.  But let's assume the 1998 date is the date to look at, which it isn't, then the Clinton Adm. took three full years to get the guidelines in place that you are trying to give him credit for.  It did not need to take three years.  I have been involved in the federal process in getting a federal regulation approved and getting a federal guideline approved and getting a federal manual approved and three years is a long time.  It depends upon the issue.  If it is a matter of National Security and we have been attacked then the federal regs, guidelines, etc. can come into existence within days, not years.  Obviously, ESC research is not on the level of national security, so don't waste time writing about the comparison. I know.  The point that I am making is that ESC research was not a high priority for the Clinton Adm.  Now, let's look at the first term.  The topic did come up, whether you acknowledge that it did or not.  Clinton adamantly refused to support federal funding for research that used human embryos.  This is a fact.  I going to quote directly from an article entitled, "Funding of human stem cell research by the United States"  By [[Phillip B.C. Jones]]. [[EJB Electronic Journal of Biotechnology]],  Vol. 3 No1, Issue of April 15, 2000.  “In 1994, the NIH established the Human Embryo Research  Panel  to develop policies for methods that  researchers should use to obtain embryos, and to determine the scope of ethical embryo research. The panel consisted of 19 scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, and community representatives.In November 1994, after ten months of deliberations, the Human Embryo Research Panel presented its guidelines for human embryo research. 1. embryos must be less than 14  days old, and 2.only if the  studies could not be performed with animal embryos and 3. only if scientists  could demonstrate a compelling  reason why the studies should be performed.  The panel also  decided that researchers should not  be limited to surplus  embryos from in  vitro fertilization procedures, and that researchers could  create embryos  in vitro  for research purposes. However, the researchers  would have  to show  that their  work with newly created embryos promised outstanding scientific and therapeutic value. The panel also warned that women should not be paid for donating their eggs for research." "During the following month, the NIH voted to adopt the guidelines. '''However, on the day of the vote, President Clinton issued an Executive Order that government funded scientists would not be allowed to  create human embryos for research ….they could only use embryos that remained after in vitro fertilization treatments.'''”

::::So clearly, the Clinton Adm was not the champion of ESC research that you are wanting to make him to be.  Also, Clinton dragged the debate about whether ESC research should be funded until when he left office.  You state somewhere else that the Clinton Adm had the funding guidelines in place for four full months when he left office.  That is simply not true.  Here are some more facts that contradict that assertion and that is what it is a value-laden, non NPV, assertion:  '''The NIH published “Final Guidelines for Stem Cell Research” in August 25, 2000 and “Approval Process for the Documentation of Compliance with the NIH Guidelines on the Use of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells in NIH Research Proposed for Support Under Grants and Cooperative Agreements, November 21, 2000.”'''  Notice the date on the Federal Approval Process ("FAP") document?  It was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2000--after the 2000 Bush versus Gore Presidential election!!!!!  Now, don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that the folks in Washington, DC are going to move forward on the Federal Approval Process for ESC research when the FAP was published after the election and everyone knew that we were going to have a new President, either Bush or Gore, but not Clinton.  No one in Washington was going to let Clinton change the policy direction on ESC by not just a lame duck President.  Now granted we did not know how the 2000 election was going to come out that point, Nov 21, but we did know that Clinton would not be in office after January 20, 2005, just two months away.  We also knew that no funding decisions were being made by anyone, the House, the Senate, or the President.  The members of Congress were not even in session and would not be for at least two more months.  They were awaiting, along with everyone else, for the results of the 2000 Presidential election.  So don't tell me that Clinton set everything up and Bush just dragged it down because Clinton did not even put everything in place until three weeks after the 2000 Presidential Election.  I going to use Oarih's favorite word, disingenuous.  I believe that it would apply to the assertion that Clinton was ready to go and Bush just shot it all down.  That is not the way that worked.  Once again, those guidelines took eight years to put in place.  Clinton had eight years to fund, but he did NOT fund.  What good is just talk?  He did not fund.  It was Bush that funded.  Those are two facts.  I repeat:  Clinton had eight years to fund, he did not fund.  Bush was in office for one year and he funded.  Clinton never funded.  He dragged out the debate for eight long years, until after the 2000 Presidential election, not really the Champion of ESC research I would say.  I repeat here are the hard cold facts:  1.  Clinton had eight years to fund.  2.  Clinton did not fund.  3.  Clinton talked about regulations for eight years, but never funded.  4.  Bush funded.  and 5.  Bush was in office for one year and he funded.  6.  No other President in the history of the US funded ESC research until Bush funded it. 

::::'''Conclusion: I agree that there needs to be mention in the article that there was no ESC funding before Bush's announcement.  ''But we should state that ESC funding started under Bush''.  We can point out that the Federal Guidelines and FAP paperwork for ESC research were developed under the Clinton Administration.  But should also point out that the actual application process did not begin until the Bush Administration.  Applications were coming in during Bush's first year.  On the date of the announcement he followed the Clinton guidelines and FAP except for the restriction that going forward federal funding of ESC research would be restricted to the 71 lines already approved by NIH.  Keep in mind that those 71 lines were approved by the Bush Adm.  It was Bush's HHS and NIH that approved those lines.  It was not the Clinton Adm'''-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 14:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)  


=== US 'federal funding restrictions' rather than 'ban' ===

The several references to a "ban" are misleading.
Clinton banned all federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in 1996.  In 2001, the Bush administration reversed the earlier ban with respect to existing embryonic stem cell lines.
:The ban was from the congressional Dickey Amendment.  The funding process for embryonic stem cell research was started under Clinton when he published his guidelines.  Some critics believe his guidelines exploited a loophole in the Dickey amendment, and there was substantial congressional opposition to the method the guidelines used to get around the Dickey amendement.
:Bush implemented Clinton's guidelines, with the alteration that ESC lines created after Aug. 2001 were prohibited from the federal funding.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 03:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:: See http://www.grg.org/escells.htm ; it appears Clinton's conservatism arose from pressure from 75 members of congress. Could we get a list?
:::I have no idea who posted this.  Was this posted by Nectarflowed or MrJones?  Either way, it is not relavant.  Can't anyone see how far we have strayed from the topic of '''Stem Cells''' that is the what the article is entitled.  Clinton, in 1994, signed an Executive Order, not an Act of Congress, and he banned the federal funding of research involving human embryos and now we want to add the article on STEM CELLS a list of the 75 Congressman that put pressure on him?  What is the relavance?  Yes, he banned federal funding going to human embryo research in 1994.  Ok, why isn't the focus on stem cell treatments, the science, etc.  Oarih, Nectarflowed and now MrJones (???) are deciding to go back ten years and try to get a list of Congressman that put pressure on Clinton, which he gave in to, I might add.  Man, are we going far back enough in history to try and prove that it really wanted Clinton's fault?  May be we should take a look at his childhood and see if we can get an understanding on why he banned federal funding research on human embryos.  May be we could talk to his middle school teachers and see why he never funded ESC research for three years or why he waited until after the Bush/Gore 2000 Presidential election was over to release the Federal Approval Process (FAP) in the ''Federal Register''.----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 16:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Also, from [http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2090527&MSID=E53CAD9578C4462F8DA0C6E4B6FC9BA7 this POV editorial]
:''Presidential candidate George W. Bush opposed it. He opposed all federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, no matter who extracted the cells.''
:''When Bush became president, he took a less extreme position ... He was expected to ban research involving future embryos. ... he also banned research using embryos already sitting on fertility clinic shelves and headed for destruction in any event. ... Bush's policy weakened previous restrictions in a couple of small ways (for example, fewer rules about getting consent from the embryo donors).''
:Once again, I don't know who posted this but it sure isn't relevant.  Bush was the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research, not Clinton.  That is a fact and all of these speculations about what Clinton might have done is not NPV.  It is simply wishful thinking that Clinton was a Champion of ESC research, which he was not.  Clinton was not a Champion of ESC research (he had eight (8) years to fund a single project and he did absolutely nothing) and to pretend otherwise is value-laden, non-NPV, speculation and does not belong in the article.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 16:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Are these assertions true, or not? Do we know what the other weakenings are? 

[[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 09:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Private funding of embryonic stem cell research==

Oarih brings up above that "the members of the committee pointed out that embryonic S.C. research can be conducted with private funds."  'Basic research' that is not going to be profitable for the private sector to pursue is normally conducted through public funding, mostly from the NIH.  

The Co-Ordinator of the Diocesan Respect Life group, Michele Morin, [http://www.vermontcatholic.org/FamilyLife/StemCell.htm asserts that]
:"until marketable therapeutic uses for any medical research are less than five to seven years away, sources of substantial private funding will not be widely not available. That is why the issue of government funding for ESCR is being so intensely debated. Private funding for adult stem cell projects is much more plentiful than for embryonic projects because successes have already been proven using adult cells, and private companies are more willing to invest where the hope of future profits is more certain."
--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 08:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)



== Rolled back edits by anons ==

I have reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/67.4.184.80|67.4.184.80]] and [[Special:Contributions/67.4.175.17|67.4.175.17]] to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stem_cell&oldid=9010731 last version] [of the article] by [[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]]. This was to deal with likely POV-pushing through removal of large chunks of information, such as specific research documents.

To [[Special:Contributions/67.4.184.80|67.4.184.80]] and [[Special:Contributions/67.4.175.17|67.4.175.17]]: Please consider [[Special:Userlogin|registering]] and provide [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]]. This allows us to more quickly understand why you were making these edits. --[[User:BesigedB|BesigedB]] <sup>([[User_talk:BesigedB|talk]])</sup> 17:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== "Blastocysts" or "Embryos?" ==
The early [[mammalian embryogenesis|embryos]] used in embryonic stem cell research are more specifically referred to as [[blastocyst]]s.  While a blastocyst is technically categorized as being an embryo, it seems inaccurate to refer to the ''early'' embryos used in ESC research as embryos instead of blastocysts. A human embryo at 8 weeks can almost be distinguished from an ape embryo at the same stage of development, whereas a blastocyst, being in between 30 and 150 cells, cannot be recognized as "human in form."  Additionally, the public, largely having little background in biology, may sometimes mistakenly picture a [[fetus]] when they read "embryo," which would be a false connection.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::I think you make a good point.  Generally, I agree with your sentiments.  However, there are limits to your line of reasoning.  The great debate in this area of research is not, as I think we have covered on numerous occasions, between allowing stem cell research or not allowing stem cell research.  I think everyone agrees with stem cell research.  That false dichonomy was the red herring of the last election.  The real debate is between HOW we should move forward with stem cell research, do we use embryonic stem cells ("ESC") or do we use adult stem cells ("ASC") or is there a happy medium between these two choices.  Bush choose to attempt to split the baby--so to speak--by deciding to use federal funding on ALL ASC research and to use federal funding on limited ESC research (only ESC lines after April 2001).  Others would divide the between the two choices in a different place.  Since the debate is between ESC versus ASC then we are limited by the current debate by the terms that are used.  ESC has the word "embryo" in the term ESC.  The term is NOT, as conventional norm in the scientific community, referred to as Blastocyst Stem Cells ("BSC").  We need to recognize and aknowledge the accepted terminology, which limits the use the term "blastocyst."----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::My second point concerns some the editing that you did on the article.  I believe that you, not necessarily intentionally, deleted many references to ASC, but did not make the same number of deletions in the reference to ESC.  This is a small issue.  I agree that we should use the term "blastocysts" where we can and but not when it distorts the issues.----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::I hope my removal of text did not seem unbalanced.  The text I removed was the paragraph of Kang's quotes covering some of his views on the field of research.  I think the paragraph should be left out because it seems to fall into the category of 'advocation' between ASC and ESC research, which we felt the article should avoid.  The other paragraphs in the potential treatments section are descriptions of the science used. Best, --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 22:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
=='Human rights' versus 'human right to life'==
Is the human [[rights|right]] to life relevant here?  Any blastocysts not used in additional fertility therapy or embryonic stem cell research are frozen indefinitely or destroyed, so [[life]] is not what's at stake here; not conducting embryonic stem cell research doesn't save lives of blastocysts.  I think the issue this concern refers to is that many people believe developing human beings should not be objectified in scientific research.  Is there anything I'm missing? --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 05:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Definition ==

The definitions given in the article are contradictory. The definition in the first sentence excludes unipotent ones, but then in the first section they are listed as one type of stem cell. I suggest changing the first sentence to something like "undifferentiated cells that retain the ability to differentiate into some or all other cell types" [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 03:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
         
This problem has still not been resolved. The definition is very problematic. I suggest that we revise it sometime soon. AxelBoldt's definition is good. Why don't we adopt it? I also suggest that we remove all speculative references to predicted treatments from the definition. We should keep that separate from the definition of a stem cell. --[[User:Nicholas Cimini|CJ]] 02:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Removed information regarding "do blastocysts have awareness and feelings" ==
 
The criteria used for "awareness" is faulty.  Brain activity on its own does not necessarily indicate awareness.  Additionally, the information regarding brain death does not refer to humans that are not yet born, including blastocysts, so it doesn't apply here.  --[[User:Holdek|Holdek]] 01:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==male/female chimeras; absence of nervous system==
I made the following (bolded) changes (while not logged in) which were reverted by [[User:Petaholmes|Peterholmes]].  Is there a problem with these two additions or with their phrasing?

:A blastocyst at the stage at which embryonic stem cells would be extracted is still young enough to be able to divide into two embryos, making [[identical twins]], or in rare cases, merge with another blastocyst, '''even one of the opposite sex[[intersexual|[1]]]''', to create a [[chimera (animal)|chimera]], an individual comprised of populations of cells with two different sets of [[DNA]]. From the [[biology|biological]] point of view, these points mean the blastocyst is not yet an individual. '''Blastocysts is far in development from possessing a [[nervous system]], and thus biologically speaking do not have [[awareness|feelings]]'''.

In my experience, many people think the blastocyst subjects of embryonic stem cell research have human feelings, which biologically speaking is a false connection. --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 00:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Sorry I may have been hasty in the revert, there are a few grammar chnages needed in the second sentence.

'''Blastocysts are a very early [[mammalian embryogenesis|developmental]] stage and do not possess a [[nervous system]], and thus biologically speaking do not have [[awareness|feelings]]'''.
--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 00:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Reorganization? ==
Perhaps this article should be split up perhaps into articles like
* Stem Cells (scientific description)
* Embryonic Stem Cells (ethical/political controversy).
[[User:Olbrich|Olbrich]] 17:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

==Shortening the article==
I think that the potential treatments section should be moved to its own page, we could call it stem cell research (currently redirects to stem cell) or something similar. This would achieve a few things, it'd decrease the page to less that 30 kb, it would allow the addition of more facts to the current article, and we could turn the research page into something sligtly more like current events in SciTech page, giving decent references and links to research. Anyone agree or violently disagree?--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 14:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:The current treatments section currently only has a 1 and 1/2 entries.  I think covering what kind of research is being done and what potential treatments may result is one of the more important areas of the article.  If we do split the page (I'm not sure it needs it) IMO we should only summarize the ethical & political sections here, and move the actual sections to their own page, such as ''Stem cells (ethics and policy).''  This seems it may be appropriate because the topic 'stem cells' is primarily a scientific endeavor, and only secondarily an ethical & political discussion, although this may be what it's famous for.  And again, I do think leaving a summary of those issues on this page would be valuable.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Agreed, the political and ethical debates would be better on another page. However, since the '''future treatments''' are (so far) speculation I do feel that they would also be better in a seperate article, and have the main article just cover the facts- maintaining encyclopedic standards--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 06:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===Introductory definition===
I think that shortening the article is a good idea. I would go even further. I think that the introductory definition is problematic. It gives the impression that stem cell technologies are going to have a very linear innovation trajectory. In other words, it implies that the future of research is already determined. This is obviously not the case. The article, quite rightly, implies that a great deal of scientific uncertainty still exists. However, in the introductory definition we are given no sense of this. The future of such technologies is by no means certain. Anything could potentially happen with stem cell research. As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes. 

The Columbia Encyclopaedia (6th Edition: 2001) restricts itself to defining stem cells as '''unspecialized human or animal cells that can produce mature specialized body cells and at the same time replicate themselves'''. This definition is not perfect. But - at least - it doesn’t present a deterministic view of stem cell research.

It might be argued that the definition escapes such problems by saying '''Medical researchers believe'''. However the audacity of the belief, that '''stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease''', does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage.

Many questions still remain surrounding stem cell research. Who will derive the most benefit from such technologies? Those who need it the most? Or rich people in the Western World? In this context '''changing the face of human disease''' is slightly over the top.  - [[index.php?title=User:Nicholas_Cimini&action=edit|Nicholas Cimini]]  [Use the signature button above the edit window to sign your name so other users know who wrote an entry -ed.]


:Re: "the audacity of the belief, that "stem cells have the potential to change the face of human disease", does require a considerable leap of faith given the fact that research is still at a developmental stage."
::The wording is derived from a quote from Robert Klein, chair of the supervising committee of the [[California_Institute_for_Regenerative_Medicine]], saying that the research being done today is a "first step in changing the face of human suffering forever."  I don't think it's controversial that stem cell research has ''the potential'' to be the central factor in eventually curing a number of diseases, and even eventually contributing to changing the relationship itself that humans have with disease in general.  
:Re:"As it currently stands the introductory definition, rather crudely, reduces the scope of potential outcomes."
::IMHO, "Medical researchers believe stem cells have ''the potential to'' change the face of human disease by..." is pretty broad in scope and open-ended.--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Dear [[index.php?title=User:Nicholas_Cimini&action=edit|Nicholas Cimini]]:  I think that you are confused.  You are mixing science with politics.  See the whole stem cell thing is shrouded with politics.  In the last election the progressives and the liberals were trying desparately to paint President Bush as a backward burger-eating moron and everyone who even thought about voting for him as backward burger-eating morons.  So in that light they constantly stated that Bush was "against stem cell" research--which of course was NOT true.  What Bush was against was ESC research, but in politics sutle differences do NOT win elections so the liberals went overboard and stated that he was against ALL SC research.  But they could NOT leave the propaganda there, they had to really ram home their misrepresentation and make the case that Bush was trying to stop Americans from finding cures for cancer and AIDS and all types of diseases so they make up the myth that stem cell research is going to cure ALL diseases.  This way, you see, they could make the argument that Bush was not only stopping ALL SC research, but he was stopping the cure for ALL diseases--make the propaganda even more rich and bombastic.  So the myth was created that SC research can and will someday cure everything if the damn Republicans and Bush was just get out of the way and let the Democrats do it--which of course was all just election year hot air, which we Americans love so much because it quite entertaining but is 99% of the time just a whole bunch of hot air.  Remember when John Edwards stood up and stated that if John Kerry is elected then Christopher Reeve and everyone like him will get out of wheelchairs and walk!!!  Just in case you believe that I am making the whole thing up.  I actually had that quote in the Wikipedia article at one time, but I was told that to dare to quote Democrats directly was unfair and partisan and so it was censored from the article.  And that is why this article refers so often to SC research being the POTENTIAL CURE FOR ALL HUMAN CONDITIONS!!!  So my suggestion is just simply realize that this article is an outgrowth of science and politics and you can get a better understanding on why all of the polyannaish SC-research-will-cure-all talk.  You just have to accept that premise--that SC research will cure all--to live with this Wikipedia page.  That premise is like Mark 3:16, it is very hard to be a Christian without it.  That premise is the holy grail of the article and you just have to accept that religous premise or all of your work will be edited out over and over again.  Don't question that premise because remember Kerry and Edwards too are going to run again and the Democrats want to save that lame argument for the next Presidential election.-----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 17:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Defining a stem cell==
Do you think that Wikipedia should represent the voice of medical research? Or, contrarily, do you think that Wikipedia should strive to be as neutral and as independent a voice as possible? (Why is there no reference for R. Klein?)

I think that there are grounds for adding an extra sentence toward the end of the introductory definition. This sentence could represent the opinions of medical researchers, but at the same time acknowledge the scientific uncertainty that exists.