Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Posts Tagged stem cells

More Heat Than Light

Feb 7

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Current Events | No Comments

Just before the November elections, some nice lady in California, Jill Asher, called me a crazy nut case for opposing Amendment 2 here in Missouri. Clearly Ms. Asher is passionate about the subject because her step mother has Alzheimer’s which is a terrible disease. However, she isn’t particularly knowledgable about the amendment, and while she linked to a pro and anti site each, she didn’t both to link to the actual text of the amendment.

“So when I hear about you nut cases voting against Amendment 2, you are voting to halt research against this horrible disease that affects my family – and soon will affect YOURS in some way. I guarantee that as you age, you or one family members will be doomed with this horrific disease – or other’s that can be cured with stem cell research.”

First off, stem cells aren’t likely to cure alzheimer’s.Secondly, there is a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells that Ms. Asher is ignoring. I’m all in favor of studying adult stem cells. Pour the money there, please.

And finally, a vote against amendment 2 wasn’t a vote to halt any research whatsoever. Amendment 2 was a preemptive change — it ties restrictions in Missouri to Federal restrictions. Since there are no stem cell research restrictions in Missouri, no reaserch would have been halted if Amendment 2 didn’t pass — and no reaserch started because restrictions were lifted by the passage of Amendment 2. The only effect is on the ability of institutions, mainly Washington University, to attract money and researchers for embryonic stem cell research because Missouri would be no worse than any other state. Needless to say, supporters didn’t mention this angle.

“Sorry if I sound bitter, but I can’t imagine that so many people would actually vote against funding that will help us all in the future, and possibly find cures for so many diseases. I know I probably won’t change your mind, but I hope you get a crystal clear picture of what you will be going through in the future.”

Funding? What funding? Maybe you are confused because California voted on funding embryonic stem cell research, but here in Missouri there was no funding involved.Also, next time you have a failure of imagination, maybe you should do more investigation and ask yourself “maybe I’m wrong?”. It works wonders for me.

And no, you won’t change my mind with a post like that. You’re passion means nothing to me; your reasoning, facts, and acknowledgment of my reasoning and facts mean everything.

“Do you understand what stem cell research can do for you and your family?”

Well here’s the deal. The results so far indicate that adult stem cell therapies can provide all the benefits more easily than embryonic stem cell therapies. I understand the desire of scientists to study everything, but ethical factors should and do limit research from time to time. No doubt not all that long ago vivisection would have provided a great deal of useful medical knowledge, but it was outlawed for ethical concerns. And it would be much easier to experiment on people without their knowledge, but again we limit that as well for ethical reasons. Now I understand we disagree about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, but please understand that ethical concerns are my objection to embryonic stem cell research, which means appeals to utility fall on deaf ears.What I disliked most about the amendment was the deception involved. The amendment claimed to ban all human cloning while it specifically only banned creating a clone for reproduction and not for research. The Amendment claimed to guarantee access to stem cell cures for Missourians but there are no restrictions on the cures and there are no embryonic stem cell cures at the moment.

Ms. Asher called me a crazy nut case (yeah, that will help change my opinion) while linking my ballot measures roundup post wherein I thought I made clear the reasons I was opposed to the Amendment and summed up: “While I don’t think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I’m voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn’t belong in the constitution.”

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see how that makes me a crazy nutcase.

Tags: , ,

More Heat Than Light

Feb 7

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Current Events | No Comments

Just before the November elections, some nice lady in California, Jill Asher, called me a crazy nut case for opposing Amendment 2 here in Missouri. Clearly Ms. Asher is passionate about the subject because her step mother has Alzheimer’s which is a terrible disease. However, she isn’t particularly knowledgable about the amendment, and while she linked to a pro and anti site each, she didn’t both to link to the actual text of the amendment.

“So when I hear about you nut cases voting against Amendment 2, you are voting to halt research against this horrible disease that affects my family – and soon will affect YOURS in some way. I guarantee that as you age, you or one family members will be doomed with this horrific disease – or other’s that can be cured with stem cell research.”

First off, stem cells aren’t likely to cure alzheimer’s.

Secondly, there is a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells that Ms. Asher is ignoring. I’m all in favor of studying adult stem cells. Pour the money there, please.

And finally, a vote against amendment 2 wasn’t a vote to halt any research whatsoever. Amendment 2 was a preemptive change — it ties restrictions in Missouri to Federal restrictions. Since there are no stem cell research restrictions in Missouri, no reaserch would have been halted if Amendment 2 didn’t pass — and no reaserch started because restrictions were lifted by the passage of Amendment 2. The only effect is on the ability of institutions, mainly Washington University, to attract money and researchers for embryonic stem cell research because Missouri would be no worse than any other state. Needless to say, supporters didn’t mention this angle.

“Sorry if I sound bitter, but I can’t imagine that so many people would actually vote against funding that will help us all in the future, and possibly find cures for so many diseases. I know I probably won’t change your mind, but I hope you get a crystal clear picture of what you will be going through in the future.”

Funding? What funding? Maybe you are confused because California voted on funding embryonic stem cell research, but here in Missouri there was no funding involved.

Also, next time you have a failure of imagination, maybe you should do more investigation and ask yourself “maybe I’m wrong?”. It works wonders for me.

And no, you won’t change my mind with a post like that. You’re passion means nothing to me; your reasoning, facts, and acknowledgment of my reasoning and facts mean everything.

“Do you understand what stem cell research can do for you and your family?”

Well here’s the deal. The results so far indicate that adult stem cell therapies can provide all the benefits more easily than embryonic stem cell therapies. I understand the desire of scientists to study everything, but ethical factors should and do limit research from time to time. No doubt not all that long ago vivisection would have provided a great deal of useful medical knowledge, but it was outlawed for ethical concerns. And it would be much easier to experiment on people without their knowledge, but again we limit that as well for ethical reasons. Now I understand we disagree about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, but please understand that ethical concerns are my objection to embryonic stem cell research, which means appeals to utility fall on deaf ears.

What I disliked most about the amendment was the deception involved. The amendment claimed to ban all human cloning while it specifically only banned creating a clone for reproduction and not for research. The Amendment claimed to guarantee access to stem cell cures for Missourians but there are no restrictions on the cures and there are no embryonic stem cell cures at the moment.

Ms. Asher called me a crazy nut case (yeah, that will help change my opinion) while linking my ballot measures roundup post wherein I thought I made clear the reasons I was opposed to the Amendment and summed up: “While I don’t think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I’m voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn’t belong in the constitution.”

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see how that makes me a crazy nutcase.

Tags: , , ,

Michael J Fox, Missouri, and Amendment 2

Oct 27

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Local Politics | No Comments

I didn’t have a lot of reaction to Michael J Fox’s ad for embryonic stem cell research and Claire McCaskill when I first saw it. Surprise, surprise, surprise, a political ad that doesn’t tell the whole truth. Personally, I found it much more interesting that he pronounced Missouri as Missoura – the pronunciation used in the rural part of the state which means the ad was aimed more at conservative democratic voters and not the urban and suburban voters.

I don’t get a lot of the complaints – Mr. Fox is entitled to his opinion, he’s entitled to express it, and he’s entitled to endorse politicians as he sees fit. If a politician or political group thought putting my mug on a TV ad would help persuade people to their position, you’d be seeing my mug on TV ads.

As far as playing up his disease, Parkinson’s is a terrible disease. And for those of us (yes, me included) who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I think we owe it to sufferers to hear them out, to see how it affects them, and then to tell them the honest truth of our thoughts and they should hear us out. If you want my sympathy Michael, you already have it. But that doesn’t mean that your suffering, or my suffering, outweighs all else.

Nobody is against adult stem cell research. Lot’s of people are against embryonic stem cell research because they think as I do that you are destroying human life in the process, or something close enough that it’s protection outweighs possible cures – especially when adult stem cells show much greater promise for real life cures. Why is it that supporters of embryonic stem cells won’t come out and make that distinction? Given that is the reason that most of us who oppose ESCR actually oppose it, why make an emotional play that has nothing to do with our opposition? Is it because fundamentally you don’t understand the opposition?

Last night I saw the other ad, this time with a mix of local and national celebrities, this time with a couple of St. Louis celebrities, Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan. Was it wrong for them to speak out? While I think the Fox ad did a better job of presenting it’s case, the rebuttal ad did a better job of addressing the actual Amendment 2.

The Michael J. Fox Ad


The Rebuttal Ad

Tags:

A Real Breakthrough

Aug 24

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

For those of us who object to embryonic stem cell research because it destroys human life, this is a real breathrough: removing a single cell from an embyro. The embryo is apparently unharmed, and the single cell can be used for stem cells.

Right now, my biggest objection is changing apparently unharmed into definitely not harmed. Since the procedure of removing a cell has already been performed on many people who started life in vitro, I’m hoping that they can be studied to determine the safety of the procedure.

There is the concern as well that this involves experimentation without consent. One answer is that it is already being performed, so we aren’t talking about something new. But more fully, the question is one of safety. Unlike cloning , where animal clonings have shown real problems and for which I would have big concerns for that reason, this method has been used for testing purposes on people and again apparently isn’t a big problem. If there are problems, then I would object that it is experimentation without consent.

As to the claim that you could, through further manipulation, create a clone embryo and thus human life this way, I’m not impressed. The possibility exists that someday any cell may be turned into an embryo via manipulation, but I’m not going to stop brushing my teeth because I knock a few cells loose from my cheeks and flush them down drain when doing so.

I have to guard my optimism because medicine is a field that over announces breakthroughs — but tends to deliver improvements.

Tags:

Too Good to Be True

Dec 5

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | 1 Comment

Moderate consumption of alcohol reduces the odds of obesity. So maybe those beer adds where whippet thin yuppies meet to run and then have a light beer aftwards isn’t so far fetched after all.

Maybe this is just good news for me, given as how I have far more than I want, but research by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine indicates that stem cells from hair follicles help heal skin.

I sit on the pinnacle of happiness because I said “I do” 17 years ago.. Or in the words of a researcher “Some commitment appears to be good, but more commitment appears to be even better”, and marriage is a the top of the committment heap.

Tags: , ,

Skin Embryonic Stem Cell Fusion

Aug 22

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | 1 Comment

Good news on the stem cell front – a Harvard group claims that they can turn skin cells into embryonic stem cells without having to form an embryo first. Instead, they fuse a skin cell with an existing stem cell and the result is an embryonic stem cell with the DNA of the skin cell (and thus the person who provided the skin cell). But before you get your hopes up that Aunt Jenny is going to walk tomorrow, the cells aren’t exactly usable in humans because they are hybrids and the embryonic stem cell nucleus has to be removed before it can be used. So this is step on in a multi-step process. But at least it’s a journey I don’t object to.

Tags:

Stem Cells

Mar 29

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

They’ve found another source of stem cells — hair follicles. Scientists have turned them into nerve, brain, skin, and muscle cells. I’m sure that with a little more time, the list will grow. Remind me again shy we have to have fetal stem cells to conquer disease when the adult body is rife with them?

Tags:

Adult Stem Cells Might Cure Diabetes

Mar 15

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

The Journal of Clinical Investigation published the results of an experiment using bone marrow stem cells to produce insulin. These cells, transplanted from a male mouse to female mouse, actually produced insulin and behaved like normal pancreatic beta cells. This was a significant experiment, and shows the possibilities in using adult stem cells.

Tags: , ,

Media Bias in Action

Oct 25

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Media Criticism | No Comments

The debate over embryonic stem cell research came up in the Talent/Carnahan debate the other night. Just to get it out, I’m against abortion except to save the life of the mother and against destroying embryo’s for research because I believe what starts at conception is a human being and thus worth protection; the only objection I have to reproductive cloning is that it currently represents non-consensual experimentation on a human. Anyway, what I’m trying to point out is how on the one hand, the media is all up in arms about how troglodyte pro-lifers are blocking embryonic stem cell research while far more sympathetic to efforts by a different group blocking the use of genetically modified foods. And yet on the one hand you have a principled objection about killing people (whether you agree or not, that’s the objection) over research that would work better with adult stem cells both ethically and medically and which while promising hasn’t actually moved beyond research, and on the other the media shows a great deal of respect for an objection based on fear of technology over use of something that would have an immediate and obvious impact on reducing starvation and improving people’s health through better diet. And that tells me where the sympathies of the people in the media are, and how important is to have diversity of opinion in the media to combat bias; relying on a near uniformly biased group to self-control their way to objectivity just doesn’t work. Far better to have multiple sources provide multiple biases and viewpoints.

Tags: