Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Miracles in making?

Stem cell breakthroughs hold major promise

Rocky Mountain News

Published June 6, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

The announcement Tuesday that an Aurora spinal surgeon performed the first disc surgery in the United States using somatic (adult) stem cells to repair the patient's injured spine is the latest tangible advance in this path-breaking therapy. The company that grew the patient's stem cells from his own bone marrow, Regenerative Sciences Inc., is based in Westminster.

Another potential breakthrough comes from the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital. Last fall, physicians used somatic stem cells to treat recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, a rare but fatal genetic skin and digestive disorder in children.

Remarkably, seven months after surgery, 25-month-old Nate Liao shows signs of normal development - and a brother who also has the disease received similar treatment May 30.

And in a third positive development, Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law this week a measure setting up a state Adult Stem Cell Cure Fund giving new mothers the option of donating stem cells from their umbilical cords to a state bank where the cells can be used for research. Colorado joins a half-dozen states nationwide with similar programs that take advantage of a research tool that would otherwise become medical waste.

Continuing breakthroughs involving stem cells grown from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and even human skin may someday render the debate over the ethics of using embryonic stem cells meaningless. But they haven't yet, meaning this good news must be tempered by the stubbornness of the Bush administration, which in its final months continues to block an expanded federal role in embryonic stem cell research.

The president refuses to update a 2001 executive order limiting federal research on embryonic stem cells to a few dozen existing lines - twice he has vetoed legislation reversing that order.

Over the past seven years it has been learned that nearly all the lines covered by the executive order are unsuitable for various reasons (including contamination with other stem cell lines), and those that are viable will not be forever.

The president and his allies on this issue are morally opposed to the destruction of embryos, but this principled position is difficult to reconcile with the fact that there is no federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. States, universities and private companies now finance it, and federal labs can conduct research on the approved lines.

Moreover, the legislation Bush vetoed last year would have mandated federal oversight of any stem cell research conducted in the United States through the National Institutes of Health. The absence of a national set of ethical guidelines has led to a patchwork of state rules, with some states having no regulations at all. For instance, several states allow varying levels of cloning research using stem cells while others ban cloning applications entirely.

Colorado 1st District Rep. Diana DeGette, who championed the legislation Bush has twice vetoed, is drafting a new bill but hasn't decided whether to introduce it before the election.

There's no guarantee that Congress can pass a new measure by a veto-proof margin. But the next president will certainly be more sympathetic than Bush has been. Sen. Barack Obama has said he would reverse the executive order; Sen. John McCain hasn't publicly gone that far, but he voted for both earlier bills.

As we said, this debate may end up an academic exercise if breakthroughs in adult stem cells continue at their lively pace. But until and if that happens, we'd be more comfortable with federal guidelines setting boundaries on this entire field of research. Fortunately it appears that the next president will allow that framework to develop.

Comments

  • June 6, 2008

    8:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anarchist writes:

    Hadn't the liberal democrats decared this sort of breakthrough IMPOSSIBLE? "Colorado 1st District Rep. Diana DeGette, who championed the legislation Bush has twice vetoed, is drafting a new bill but hasn't decided whether to introduce it before the election.", of course she will wait, and hope more liberal democrats are elected, Diana(Pat Schroder clone, and you thought only sheep had been cloned) DeGette is right on schedule, and where does Ritter plan to get the funds for his plan, in the pockets of the taxpayers of course. Vote wisely this election, the country you save could be your own.
    But lets celebrate the breakthrough for now.

  • June 6, 2008

    9:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    thats_just_me writes:

    What is the final goal of all of this? No pain? no death? Is that truly best for humanity?

  • June 6, 2008

    10:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Faux_Noise writes:

    anarchist:

    Please provide a quote from ANYONE supportive of embryonic stem call research claiming this was impossible. I say anyone because, as you should know, it's not just "liberal democrats" who support HESC research; Orrin Hatch for instance.

    I know you can't, which makes you both a liar and a poor propagandist.

  • June 6, 2008

    12:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    This is wonderful, and thats just me, yes this is best for humanity, because it repairs a person to lead a normal live.

    What a curmudgeon you are. Humans will not be around for ever as a species, so let us take the best care of each other that we can.

  • June 6, 2008

    1:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    Are we going to start creating human/animal hybrids? That's what Bush said in a State of the Union speech.

  • June 6, 2008

    2:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    thats_just_me writes:

    me2 - but, normal life for how long??? Indefinitely? Having us all live "normal lives" well into our 100's is good for humanity?

  • June 6, 2008

    3:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    tjm, i don't understand your opposition here. are you afraid that someone will live longer than you or what?

  • June 6, 2008

    6:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anarchist writes:

    Faux_Noise, then you are saying this was one of Bush's most popular stands, and that monuments should be erected? Why then would the schroeder clone DeGette have her panties in a bunch over it and want to introduce needless legislation like that which was vetoed 2 times, please explain, I am listening.

  • June 6, 2008

    8:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    thatsjustme, no one is saying this is to live for 100 years. They just repaired a broken spine with a new method.

    If you break an arm, do you want the best repair, or something they used 75 years ago?
    Should they have let the babies die? If it were your choice would they be dead now?

    TJM. Look into your own reasoning and give me, and yourself, 10 sincere reasons why these advances are bad. Then explain why.

    In 25 million years or so, we will be only a thin layer of sediment in the Earths geology. All we ever were will probably be an inch thick.

    So, while we are here, can we just make the best of it?

    See there is no right or wrong answer to your questions. These are subjective, and you are the subject complaining.

    Why is this so personal to you?