Mary Meets Dolly

Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: The finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide -- the gravest injustice a society can tolerate -- in the name of “social justice.”

And:

Furthermore, National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price.

There is the obvious "sanctity of life" connection, but this passage from Dr. Nuckols really put it together for me:

According to the Daily Mail, [Lady Warnock] now supports a "duty to die."

Lady Warnock, 84, was the head of the committee which during the 1980s opened the way for legal research on human embryos.

Influential in education as well as in medical ethics, she became an open supporter of euthanasia after her ill husband was helped to die by his doctor in 1995.

She told the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work: 'I've just written an article called A Duty to Die? for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there is nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.'

She added: 'I am absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there is a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they are a burden to their family or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.'

Does it surprise me that someone who advocated for the destruction of human embryos for research would also advocate death for those that feel like a burden to their families? Absolutely not.

But what I realized is that Lady Warnock and others who share her opinions really think there are humans that have a "duty to die." Not just the sick or elderly who are a burden on their families, but also the "left-over" embryos from IVF.

This twisted logic says that "left-over" human embryos in the deep freeze have a "duty to die" to give the rest of us "cures." It is the frozen embryo's duty to be ripped open for the "betterment of society" just like it is the duty of the sick and eldery to get rid of themselves.

I shudder to think where this "duty to die" will end. Do the disabled have a duty to die? Do the mentally ill? Do the obese?

I am guessing that Lady Warnock thinks everyone has a duty to die as long as it is not her or anyone she loves.

There has been a lot of debate about where the new vaccine against HPV is going to promote promiscuity. The vaccine is recommended for girls as young as 11. The argument is that the earlier that vaccination, the better the protection against HPV.

There are some Catholics who feels very strongly that the HPV vaccination is evil. I disagree and so does the Catholic Medical Association. Just because HPV is a sexually transmitted virus does not mean that prevention is unethical.

What is unethical is making the vaccine mandatory. HPV is not pertussis or polio or the measles or even the chicken pox. You do not "accidentally" get HPV. HPV can be prevented by responsible sexual behavior. Girls and their parents should have a choice whether or not vaccination for HPV is right for them.

That is why this story from USA Today makes me angry:

A new requirement that girls as young as 11 be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus before they can become legal U.S. residents is unfair, immigration advocates say.

The federal rule added Gardasil to the list of vaccinations that female immigrants ages 11 to 26 must get before they can obtain "green cards."

The series of three shots over six months protects against the strains of the human papillomavirus blamed for most cases of cervical cancer and genital warts. But the vaccine is one of the most expensive on the market and controversial.

"This is a huge economic, social and cultural barrier to immigrants who are coming into America," said Tuyet Duong, senior staff attorney for the Immigration and Immigrant Rights Program at the Asian American Justice Center.

At a cost of $400, Gardasil places an added burden on green card applicants already paying more than $1,000 in form fees and hundreds of dollars for mandatory medical exams, advocates say.

I am all for legal immigration. I am all for making sure the legal immigrants that come to the U.S. are healthy and get the same vaccines that are required for my children. But mandating that girls as young as 11 get vaccinated against HPV is downright wrong. Education? Yes. Give us your daughter so we can inject her with a vaccine that may or may not protect her from a sexually transmitted virus that is detectable with routine pap smears or else you cannot live here? Absolutely not!

I have to wonder how much the immigration official who made this insane decision is getting from the makers of the vaccine.

In a formal acknowledgement of the value of combining Western and Eastern medical techniques to optimize patient care, Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center, the nation's largest fertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF) center, announces the opening of a full-service holistic center in its Rockville headquarters offering complementary therapies such as fertility-focused acupuncture and yoga.

As of Oct. 1, Pulling Down the Moon -- founded in 2002 in Chicago through a similar alliance with Fertility Centers of Illinois -- will offer Shady Grove Fertility patients the option of supplementing their conventional treatment program with Integrative Care for Fertility(TM), its proprietary holistic approach that includes fertility yoga, acupuncture, massage, nutrition counseling, spiritual guidance and more.

"Our philosophy is that the best infertility treatment involves a truly holistic approach that maximizes potential for a successful conception and pregnancy through a range of therapies -- from ancient Chinese healing arts practiced for thousands of years, to the latest techniques developed by today's Western-trained researchers," said Tamara Quinn, who along with Elisabeth Heller, co-founded Pulling Down the Moon after both women succeeded at conceiving following a combined East-West treatment program. "When it comes to fertility treatment, the whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts."

If yoga and accupuncture means more women can get pregnant the old-fashioned way, creating human lives in the protection and love of a womb instead of in a laboratory petri dish, then I am all for it. If holisitic treatment means less embryos will be frozen indefinitely, or discarded, or chopped up for research, then I say, "You go Shady Grove!"

You know our society is upside down when nutrition and exercise are considered "alternative treatment" and making human beings in a dish and then putting them in the deep freeze is considered "traditional":

"The logical next step for us is to offer a full array of fertility-specific holistic services under our roof through this alliance. As a premier clinical research facility committed to advancing the science of fertility treatments, Shady Grove Fertility has a responsibility to ensure that complementary fertility treatments are carefully considered as part of the care next to traditional fertility technologies."

By not distinguishing between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, the politicians and the media have created a confusion that is hurting the very people that stem cell research is supposed to help. How is that? Lumping human cloning, embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell research together and just simply calling it all "stem cell research" has brought controversy to non-controversial stem cell science like bone marrow transplants and cord blood banking. This unwarranted controversy slows progress because too much time is spent re-educating a confused public.

The political machine and the media think that if they just call everything "stem cell research", leaving out the part about creating and destroying embryos, that we will just take it at face value and swallow it all whole. They think that this approach somehow will advance the science. They would be wrong. So very wrong.

The intentional obfuscation hurts the stem cell research that we all can embrace. Research that is already helping patients. Consider the following quotes and you will see what I mean.

From the Star-Tribune:

Stem cells can be harvested from adults and embryos, and the latter case has attracted enormous controversy....

For stem-cell advocates, the controversy has become a distraction because some people, including those in the industry, continue to lump together adult and embryonic stem cells.

"The biggest disappointment from the summit is that stem cells automatically equals embryonic stem cells," Haider said. "This makes it more difficult for the rest of the industry. Stem cell has become a word like Kleenex, a brand name for everything. We spend great deals of time educating people, getting their heads to turn back."

From MedicalNewsToday:

Proven cures for blindness using adult stem cells are already available, says a noted advocate for the blind. But these cures are being held back by politics and the use of stem cells as a wedge issue in election campaigns, she says. Helen J. Harris, founder and president of RP International in Los Angeles, says that even though the main controversy revolves around ethical use of embryonic stem cells, politics has infected the entire scientific field and has had a chilling effect on adult stem cell applications as well.

Acrimonious political campaigns have spread misunderstanding and discouraged funding of all stem cell research in the United States, says Ms. Harris. For example, she points to an adult stem cell transplant program at a Louisiana State University hospital that was quietly discontinued in the midst of public political rancor, even though it did not involve embryonic cells and had already led to a successful degenerative blindness cure back in 1984, according to Ms. Harris, who had been personally involved with the project.

From SuburbanChicagoNewsOnline.com:

Steve Klein regularly coordinates blood drives through Good Shepherd United Methodist Church in Bartlett, but his latest effort to find donors has been more challenging than usual.

In recent weeks, Klein has worked to publicize stem cell donor drives in Elgin and Bartlett. The events aim to add area residents to a national registry that matches sick patients who need transplants of healthy blood-forming cells.

The cells are collected from the blood of adults and are not related to highly controversial embryonic stem cells. Still, Klein said that some people incorrectly link the two and are deterred from participating in the drives.

Julie Tilbury, coordinator of the National Marrow Donor Program for the Rock River Valley Blood Center, said cells will be collected at the drives from healthy volunteers ages 18-60 through quick cheek swabs.

"Our need is so much larger than the transplants that we do," Tilbury said. "The biggest challenge is we just don't have the donors."

Tilbury said confusion about the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is one barrier to convincing people to join the registry.

"Often times, when you hear stem cells, there's a belief that there's only one type of stem cells — those that come from embryos," she said. "The reality is that there are so many different sources of stem cells. Our marrow is one source."

"This has just been pushed to the obscure side," Klein said about the need for stem cell donors. "People are dying because of it." [my emphasis]

So to all politicians, advocates and those in the mainstream media (you know who you are), be truly honest and make the distinction between stem cells that come from embryos and those that do not. The next time you want to tell half-truths about "stem cell research" because you think it will advance your agenda or influence the public debate, DON'T! It only creates confusion and "People are dying because of it."

I recently blogged about Barbara Wagner who was told by the Oregon State Health Plan that they would pay for assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy her doctor recommends. Anyone who has followed assisted suicide around the world knows this is one of the many consequences of offering death instead of care and compassion.

Why do I think this is relevant on a blog about biotechnology? Interestingly, it was the big-bad-for-profit-biotech company Genentech that offered Barbara the drugs for free. It was the government-run health insurance that told Barbara that they would pay for her to die and not for her to live.

Washington State will vote this November on I-1000, an initiative, like the one in Oregon, that would allow physicians to write a lethal prescription for terminally ill patients. It's supporters say is about compassion and choice for those who suffer from a terminal illness. Look closer and one sees that it is the insurance companies that will have the "choice" to offer the much cheaper assisted suicide instead of the more expensive medical treatment and pain control. Those who are the least able to pay, will be the most effected.

Martin Sheen, who everyone knows is no conservative talking head, agrees. From the NO on I-1000 website:

For his part, Sheen was eager to make a statement against assisted suicide.

"I try to work when I'm not on the screen to help improve conditions for the most vulnerable people in our country -- low wage workers, immigrants, the disabled and the poor," Sheen said. "We have a health care system where the more money you have, the better medical care you receive. Initiative 1000 is a dangerous idea -- because so many people do not have the money necessary to get the care they need. When I heard about Initiative 1000, I wanted to help stop it before it harms people who are at risk."

You can hear his radio ad here.

For those of you who live in Washington state take notice. If you want your insurance plan to write you a letter like the one Barbara received when you have a terminal illness, then vote for I-1000. If you would rather have your insurance pay for the expensive doctor-recommended treatment instead of the cheap over-dose that will kill you early, then vote NO on I-1000.

I have always been impressed with Dr. Thomson. I know he destroyed human embryos in his research, but he has never trivialized it. He has always been very clear that destroying human embryos was a significant moral issue. Unlike many in the scientific community, he does not describe a human embryo as nothing more than just some amorphous ball of cells. He said in the 2007 interview:

If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.

In fact, Thomson was so concerned about the ethical implications that he consulted two ethicists before starting his work with human embryos:

In 1995, he began consulting with two ethicists at his university, Dr. Norman Fost, a physician, and Ms. Charo, a law professor. He wanted to anticipate what the ethical problems might be and what the criticisms might be.

Dr. Fost was impressed.

“It is unusual in the history of science for a scientist to really want to think carefully about the ethical implications of his work before he sets out to do it,” Dr. Fost said.

Thomson rightly knows that science has no answers to questions of morality. But just because ethics are not scientific, it does not mean they do not matter. Unlike Gov. Doyle of Wisconsin, Thomson knew he needed guidance from other disciplines.

The main point I want to drive home is this: In this age where society thinks science has all the answers, we need to remember that while science has improved our lives immensely, it will not continue to do so without proper ethical oversight. We have a right, no matter what our education or occupation, to say where we want our tax dollars to go and want kind of research we want to go on in our institutions of higher learning. We cannot give researchers carte blanche to play with human lives, no matter how immature, in the name of scientific advancement. To do so means we "have not thought about it enough."

The problem with iPS cells was that to induce pluripotency (the flexibility to become many different types of cells) researchers had to use retroviruses that would insert transforming genes into genetic material of the cell. These retroviruses have been known to cause cancer.

Last week scientists announced that they induced pluripotency with adenoviruses, which are considered to be harmless because they do not insert the transforming genes into the DNA of the adult cell. From the Washinton Post:

Scientists last year shook up the scientific and political landscape by discovering how to manipulate the genes of adult cells to convert them into the equivalent of embryonic cells -- entities dubbed "induced pluripotent stem cells," or iPS cells -- which could then be transformed into any type of cell in the body. Subsequent work has found that the cells can alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's disease and sickle cell anemia in mice.

But the first iPS cells were created by ferrying four genes into the DNA of adult cells using retroviruses, which can cause cancer in animals. There was also concern because the viruses integrated their genes into the cells' DNA. In the new work, Hochedlinger and his colleagues used a different type of virus, known as an adenovirus, to carry the same four transformative genes into the DNA of mouse skin and liver cells. The adenovirus does not integrate its genes into a cell's DNA and therefore is believed to be harmless.

"The adenovirus will infect the cells but then will clear themselves from the cells. After a few cell divisions there are no traces of the virus in the cell," Hochedlinger said. "You can't tell the virus was ever there."

As with iPS cells produced using retroviruses, tests showed that the new cells were indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells and could be transformed into any type of tissue, including lung, brain, heart and muscle; unlike the retrovirus-engineered cells, they do not produce cancerous tumors.

"What our experiment shows is you can do this without an integrating virus. You do not need integration of the DNA into the genome to produce iPS cells," Hochedlinger said.

On Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill via unanimous consent that is designed to help reduce the number of abortions of babies with Down syndrome and other conditions....

The legislation would require giving families who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other condition, pre-natally or up until a year after birth, pertinent helpful information.

The information would include facts about the condition and connections to support services and networks that could offer assistance in raising a disabled child.

Sen Sam Brownback, a pro-life Kansas Republican and co-sponsor of the bill, told LifeNews.com he's glad the Senate approved it.

“This bill will greatly benefit expecting parents who receive the sometimes overwhelming news that their unborn child may be born with a disability," he said. "This legislation will provide parents with current and reliable information about the many options available for caring for children with disabilities.”

He said he hopes it will reduce the percentage of abortions in such cases -- with some studies showing as many as 90 percent of parents with an unborn baby diagnosed as having Down syndrome having an abortion.

That percentage is similar for children pre-natally diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida, cystic fibrosis and dwarfism....

The Pre-natally and Post-natally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act would provide for the expansion and further development of a national clearinghouse on information for parents of children with disabilities, so that the clearinghouse would be better equipped to assist parents whose children have recently been pre- or post-natally diagnosed.

The bill also provides for the expansion and further development of national and local peer-support programs. The bill also calls for the creation of a national registry of families willing to adopt children with pre- or post-natally diagnosed conditions....

“It is difficult, sometimes overwhelming, for expecting parents to receive news that their unborn child may be born with a disability,” Brownback said.

“This legislation will help parents receiving such news by supplying them with current and reliable information about the many options available for caring for children with disabilities," he added.

Usually these patients are consenting adults who are over 25. They can understand the implications and act appropriately. But what if a parent tests positive for a inherited predictive gene and wants to test their child? Is 18 old enough? What about 16? Would it shock you to know that some parents test their children for cancer predicting genes as young as 4?

The AP has a great piece on the implications of testing children too early. What is too early? It depends on the clinical relevance of the particular test. If those who have the BRCA variant rarely develop cancer before the age of 25, then what would be the point of genetic testing for a 4 year-old? If there is nothing that is to be done until the child is older why burden them the information?

Here are some reasons given to test a child:

"I'm the kind of person that, like my mom, am more comfortable knowing something about myself than not knowing," said Stoller, who tested positive earlier this year, shortly after her 18th birthday. Her mother made her wait five years after revealing her own positive test result, even though Jenna wanted to be tested at age 13.

"I remember thinking on my 17th birthday that I had another year to wait till I could make the decision for myself," she said.

Research also shows there can be benefits to at least talking about testing and inherited cancer risks with teens. It led some to quit smoking, one study found. Others, like Stoller, were advised to limit alcohol and avoid birth control pills, which can raise the risk of breast cancer though they also lower the risk of ovarian cancer.

Yes, information is a good thing. But can't the parents of these children warn them about risky behavior without getting the test done? Then the child can choose for themselves if they want the genetic information or not. My father warned me that his side of the family had a history of alcoholism. I didn't need a genetic test to avoid heavy drinking.

The major concerns with testing children are the ethical and emotional implications. Can a child really give informed consent and is the information too much for them too handle?:

So the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups say that when the risk of childhood cancer is low and nothing can be done to lower it, children should not be given gene tests.

"The rule is, do no harm — test only if you can offer something that will help," said Mary-Claire King, the University of Washington scientist who in 1990 discovered the first breast cancer predisposition gene, BRCA-1....

Most parents do not peek inside their child's gene toolbox, Friedman said. "It does deny the actual patient informed consent."

"I feel very strongly that people should not test their children, but children should make their own decision," said Jill Stoller, a New Jersey pediatrician who is the mother of Jenna, the Cornell student.

Hear hear! And this is why I agree:

"The life of a young girl is complicated enough already. There is nothing about it that needs to change" if she carries one of these genes, King said....

...Jennifer Scalia Wilbur, a counselor at Women and Infants Hospital in Providence, R.I., told of a 19-year-old who had testing without counseling and now wants to remove her breasts and not have children.

"It was extremely distressing" to talk with her now and try to correct her overly dire outlook, she said.

Genetics is rarely 100% predictive but in this age where science is king, children and young adults may feel that they have been handed a genetic death sentence. This may also effect their plans for children and family:

Another of her studies, recently published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, explored how sons and daughters ages 18 to 25 were affected by learning that a parent had tested positive....

Most said the knowledge had no big negative effect, but six of the 22 said they felt frightened or disturbed.

"I was shocked, scared. I wondered if I was going to get the gene and realized I could pass it to my (future) kids. I would feel like it was my fault if they got cancer," one daughter said in the survey.

Two sons said the knowledge might change their plans to have children.

If you or someone you know decides to test their children for cancer or other predictive genetic tests, all I can say is counseling is critical. Do not take the test results, stick them in a drawer and then live in guilt and fear. Take them to a genetic counselor and get informed!

Hat Tip: Bioethics.com

The people of Wisconsin chose science over religion and politics, and have said to us that they want scientists to go into the laboratories and to push forward.

And he asks:

Should “science triumph over personal ideologies?”

Doyle's answer would be a resounding "Yes!"

So let us take a closer look at what Doyle is really saying. "Religion, politics, and personal ideolgies" is really just inflammatory language. There are people of all religions that support embryonic stem cell research and atheists who do not. There are Republicans that support embryonic stem cell research and Democrats who do not. And there are lots of people with "personal ideolgies" that think embryo-destructive research is fine. Doyle is one of them.

What Doyle is really saying is that science should trump any "religion, politics, and personal ideolgies" that dare to limit therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Doyle thinks science should not be detered by those who have qualms about the ethics of the research. He believes science should only be held accountable to those who want it to go forward regardless of how many human embryos are created or destroyed.

Because science has no internal way to decide on ethical issues, it needs philosophy, history, theology and the law to be it's moral compass. Nothing is quite as scary to me than the idea of science with no ethical constraints. Science without guidance from such scientifically distasteful things as "religion, politics, and personal ideolgies" is a horror I never want to witness.

So what Doyle means when he says he wants science over "religion, politics, and personal ideolgies" is that he wants science over ethical restraints. Science over ethics.

No thank-you Governor Doyle.

A recent study on the benefits of in-state embryonic stem cell research is fueling new debate over Proposition 2 on the state's November election ballot....

The study by Wayne State University economics Professor Allen Goodman concludes that lifting the ban could save the state tens of millions of dollars annually, create biotech jobs and provide relief for 770,000 Michigan residents with spinal injuries, Parkinson's disease and a slew of other debilitating illnesses.

The study attracted media attention and garnered praise from Michigan Citizens for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (MCSCR), a pro-embryonic stem cell research group that does not back specific ballots because its nonprofit status. MCSCR Executive Director Marcia Baum lauded the study for being an important educational resource for voters.

In Goodman's paper, he calculated Michigan would save $80 million per year by reducing health care costs by 1 percent. In theory, those savings would come about if Michigan repealed the ban, if in-state researchers then discovered cures to diseases including Lou Gehrig's, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and if those cures were used to treat 770,000 ill Michigan residents. [my emphasis]

Those are some pretty big IFs. I am seriously wondering how anyone to come up with a study that speculates about anything regarding the impact of embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell treatments for patients don't even exist yet! This "study" sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. But I am not the only one:

But critics like Michael Craw, a political science professor at Michigan State University, challenge those findings.

"It's an unfair and certainly ambiguous analysis," Craw said. "It's really not supported by data."

Craw took issue with the how the study measured economic benefits, specifically on estimates that health costs would fall by 1 percent on a treatment that doesn't yet exist.

He said the 1 percent figure is misleading.

"It only sounds impressive because he applies 1 percent to a really big number," Craw said....

Ross Emmett, co-director of the Michigan Center for Innovation and Economic Prosperity, said he has no reason to doubt such research could create jobs. But he is skeptical of Goodman's analysis.

"I have a very hard time believing that the actual estimates are anything more than just a big guess," he said.

Even the author, Goodman said his numbers are questionable:

Goodman acknowledged critics may take issue with the estimates and that the economic gains could be smaller than predicted. Asked about the 1 percent figure, Goodman acknowledged it was somewhat "arbitrary."

I suggest the Michigan Citizens for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (MCSCR) "praise" a better study if there is one. And that maybe the point. If this is the best "study" forthcoming on the "benefits" of embryonic stem cell research, then that is pretty pathetic. Let us hope Michigan residents aren't fooled.

UK doctors are estimating that two normal fetuses are miscarried for every three Down syndrome fetuses that are detected. Here is a perfect example of genetic testing gone horribly wrong. Genetic testing can be a positive thing, except when it is used for a "search-and-destroy" mission. From the Telegraph:

Two healthy babies are miscarried for every three Down's Syndrome babies that are detected and prevented from being born, research has suggested.

The losses are down to the invasive methods used to test for the condition, which affects approximately one in every 1,000 babies conceived, the researchers claim.

If an expectant mother is deemed to be at risk of carrying a Down's baby following a blood test, she will then go on to undergo an amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) test, which involves inserting a fine needle through the abdomen to either withdraw amniotic fluid or take a tissue sample.

DSEI chief executive Frank Buckley and Professor Sue Buckley, who conducted their research using a database at London's Bart's Hospital, also point out that 95 per cent of women deemed to be high risk by the blood test will not be carrying a baby with the disorder, yet most go on to have the tests.

"The screening for Down's syndrome has consequences for every pregnant woman," they said. "You cannot look at it as just a search-and-destroy mission focused on babies with Down's alone."

"Prevented from being born" Wow. That certainly is a nice way of saying "ripped out of mother's womb and killed for having an extra chromosome."

Hat Tip: Wesley J. Smith

It doesn't stop there. Once creating human lives outside the womb is acceptable, then human cloning is the next logical step. IVF has begotten human cloning. Don't believe me? This story proves the link between IVF and human cloning. And this clinic is by no means unique. From Domain-B.com:

The Australian government has issued the world's first licence to clone a human embryo, allowing scientists at in-vitro fertilisation firm Sydney IVF to create cloned human embryos to extract embryonic stem cells.

Sydney IVF said it would use only eggs that are unusable for IVF and which donors had given consent for in the research, adding, three different types of cells - embryonic stem cells, cumulus cells attached to the collected eggs and skin cells – would be used to produce the cloned embryos.

The IVF firm claims to have a unique combination of skills, technology and access to 7,200 human eggs for its research. Sydney IVF also claims to be the first, in 2004, to extract stem cells from Australian IVF embryos. It has since extracted and grown 10 more colonies of embryonic stem cells this way, the firm said.

Now it is therapeutic cloning, or cloning-to-produce stem cells. But, when reproductive cloning, or cloning-to-produce children, becomes a reality, it will be the IVF clinic that offers it as part of their "reproductive choices" menu.

Injecting stem cells into the brains of mice that recently suffered a stroke can reduce nerve cell (neuron) damage by up to 60 percent, according to new research.

But the stem cells do not simply replace damaged tissue as previously believed. Instead, the immature cells trigger adult brain cells to switch gears and block a stroke-induced immune response that causes nerve damage.

"It is a paradigm shift," says Sean Savitz, a neurologist at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, who was not involved in the study. "The original idea is that you put cells in there and it would reconstruct the cells that died. … The beauty of this is there's not just one mechanism; they are acting in many different ways."

Over the past 10 years, he says, research has shown that stem cells have the potential to reduce inflammation, morph into new nerve cells, and stimulate production of fresh blood vessels (to nourish cells) and axons (the long fingerlike projections that neurons use to send information to neighboring cells).

Study co-author Darwin Prockop, director of the Texas A&M University Health Science Center's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, says that previous studies have shown that mesenchymal stromal cells (bone marrow stem cells) can reverse neurodegeneration in the brain caused by disorders such as Parkinson's disease. But scientists were not quite sure how.

"This is the first time really that the mechanisms were laid out," Prockop says.

The finding, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, not only promise to pave the way for new therapies but may also help physicians assess the success of these treatments.

Embryonic stem cells are not even close to adult stem cells in trials and treatment for disease. But anytime that fact is brought into the open, ESC supporters say that ESC research is vital to understanding how a disease progresses and for use in drug discovery. The idea is to make or take embryos with certain diseases then rip them open, harvest the pluripotent stem cells inside and then use those stem cells for research into disease progression and new pharmacological treatments.

I have read repeatedly that using human embryos in this way is not only important but necessary. Not so much. Researchers have created 10 pluripotent stem cell lines with diseases ranging from Parkinsons to diabetes. These lines did not come from embryos, but from patient cells that have been reprogramed or "induced" back to pluripotency. They call these iPS cell lines. From Cell:

Tissue culture of immortal cell strains from diseased patients is an invaluable resource for medical research but is largely limited to tumor cell lines or transformed derivatives of native tissues. Here we describe the generation of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from patients with a variety of genetic diseases with either Mendelian or complex inheritance; these diseases include adenosine deaminase deficiency-related severe combined immunodeficiency (ADA-SCID), Shwachman-Bodian-Diamond syndrome (SBDS), Gaucher disease (GD) type III, Duchenne (DMD) and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), Parkinson disease (PD), Huntington disease (HD), juvenile-onset, type 1 diabetes mellitus (JDM), Down syndrome (DS)/trisomy 21, and the carrier state of Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. Such disease-specific stem cells offer an unprecedented opportunity to recapitulate both normal and pathologic human tissue formation in vitro, thereby enabling disease investigation and drug development.

These iPS lines are now going to be used for research into these diseases. The ethical alternatives keep on coming.

Bangalore, Sep. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - In yet another shocking incident of deep-rooted cultural prejudice against girl children in India, the parents of twin babies who died due to premature delivery have left behind the dead body of their baby girl child in a Mumbai hospital, taking the dead body of the baby boy for burial.

The dean of Sion hospital in Mumbai told reporters that a week after the dead body of the baby girl was moved to the mortuary, no one had came forward to claim the body. Subsequent inquiries found that the parents had taken away the remains of their baby boy on September 3.

India has one of the most skewed sex ratios in the world, with fewer than 925 young women for 1,000 young men, due to a deep-rooted gender bias against girls. In the Hindu tradition, a father cannot attain moksha (salvation) unless he has a son to perform his last rites. This religious sanction makes girls unwanted in a culture that now puts heavy pressure dowry demands that make girls an economic liability for families of limited means.

According to the federal government, more than 10 million girls have gone "missing" in India during last two decades because of clandestine sex-determination tests that are often followed by abortions if the unborn child is female. Despite a legal ban on sex-determination tests, many private hospitals and clinics quietly provide the service, camouflaging the tests as routine pre-natal procedures.

Federal president Pratibha Patil - India's first woman president - earlier this week sought an urgent report from the Maharashtra state government on the sex ratio in her home town of Jalagaon, after media reports indicated that the president's own home is a hotbed of sex-selection abortions.

In some places, "every child a wanted child" means "keep aborting till you get a boy."  I fear that "every child a wanted child" in this country can already be losely translated into "keep aborting until you get the perfect child you want."  Girls, genetic defectives, disease ridden, and other "unwanteds" need not apply.

You knew this was coming. Scientists have reported that they have found a "marriage" gene. From the Baltimore Sun:

Scientists at Sweden's Karolinska Institute reported recently that for the first time, they have found a direct link between a man's genetic makeup and his aptitude for marriage. Their research showed that men who lack a particular variant of a gene that influences brain activity are more likely to be devoted, loving husbands and more likely to be involved with women who praise them as emotionally close and available.

By contrast, men who possess the gene variant, called an allele, are more prone to marital discord and divorce, and the women who put up with them are more likely to describe them as distant and disagreeable. If marital fidelity and contentment are hard-wired into some men's brains, there's certainly a temptation for women to try to increase their chances of a happy union by screening potential spouses' genetic codes.

Of course, genetics is rarely 100%. Which means just because you have a genetic variation doesn't mean a whole lot unless you also take other factors like environment, morality, promises made before God, etc. into account.

I don't need to test my hubby for this one though. I know he doesn't have the "distant and disagreeable" variant. But, I sure would like to know about these others that the writers at the Baltimore Sun talk about:

Brides-to-be with a human-engineering turn of mind surely also will want to check out the possible presence of a gene for taking out the trash, folding the laundry and picking up stuff off the floor - not to mention the all-important money-making gene. None of these crucial but elusive fragments of DNA has been detected yet in the lab. Scientists should keep digging.

It is unfortunate that I feel compelled to write this entry at all.  The rhetoric surrounding Roe vs. Wade has crippled us in this discussion.  It has confused biological fact with questions that cannot be answered by science.

Let me be very clear.  The debate IS NOT when human life begins.  A new human life identifiable by his or her unique DNA is created at conception. 

What we are REALLY discussing is whether or not that life has VALUE. 

Now, that IS a question worth debating.  If you think that a human embryo does not deserve protection under the law then say so.  It does no one any good trying to assert that a human embryo or fetus is not a human life.  Focusing on the wrong debate really gets us nowhere.

So much for our compassionate and inclusive society that embraces our "differences." It is apparently fine to be different as long as you are not "genetically defective." Then you are fair game. The media can say you are "afflicted" and drag your mother and sister through the mud and it is perfectly acceptable.

Forget about commending the Palins for loving their child. No, that would be wrong. Because in the back of every one of these media bigots' mind is the thought that Trig should have been aborted. The only explanation I can come up with for assaulting little Trig is that in the liberal media's eyes, Trig's crime isn't that his mother is running for Vice President, it is that he was born with an extra chromosome 21. Disgusting.

Has anyone even thought of Trig? What about his feelings? What about how this sickening media blitz is affecting his world, his family, his life? It is like a big bully and a group of his degenerate friends picking on the "slow" kid. Vanity Fair should hang their heads in shame.

I gave a mediocre answer about being vocal and holding the media accountable for their lopsided coverage of the advances in both arenas. As I sat there after, I realized that I wished I would have given the following answer instead.

Nothing is more powerful than a person with paralysis, or diabetes, or Parkinson's or heart disease speaking out and demanding that public money and attention be paid to research and therapies that are already treating patients or are in human clinical trials. If I was suffering from a disease, I would be hopping mad that any taxpayer money was going to fund things like human cloning because it is a field that is decades behind adult stem cell research. Imagine how much faster cures would come if that 3 billion dollars that California has earmarked for stem cell research was put into ethical research instead of paying scientists to tinker around with human cloning for the next 20 years.

If society is to know that adult stem cells are the way to go, those with diabetes, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis, blindness, Alzheimer's, lupus, sickle cell anemia, autism (and the list goes on and on) have to get mad and DEMAND it.

Stem cells are supposed to cure everything, if you buy into the media frenzy. First we were told that embryonic stem cells were the best. But because of Bush's very right but very unpopular stance on funding ESC and cloning research, scientists have been looking for alternatives. Induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS, came from looking at alternatives to riping open existing embryos or cloning new ones to obtain pluripotent stem cells. iPS cells are adult stem cells that have been "reprogrammed" back to a pluripotent or "embryonic" state.

Scientists at Harvard have used nuclear reprogramming technology to take normal pancreatic cells, not stem cells, and program them to produce insulin. From the LA Times:

Harvard study may ultimately shift treatment options away from stem cells for a variety of diseases.

Injecting a cocktail of proteins directly into the bodies of diabetic mice, researchers have converted normal pancreas cells into insulin-producing cells -- a genetic transformation that could pave the way for treating intractable diseases and injuries using a patient's own supply of healthy tissue.

The Harvard University scientists activated a trio of dormant genes that commanded the cells to transform themselves, much as a person might upload a new operating system onto a computer to change a PC into a Mac.

Within 10 days, the pancreas cells ceased their normal function -- making gut enzymes to digest food -- and instead produced insulin to regulate blood sugar, according to a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and the study's senior author, said the same approach could be used to generate motor neurons for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, to make cardiac muscle cells for heart attack victims or to create other crucial cells that can repair damage wrought by a range of illnesses.

"We were able to flip the cell from one state into another," Melton said, adding that the approach should be useful in treating disorders in "any case where there's a cell type missing and there are neighboring cells that are still healthy."

This is really great news for diabetics. And as the headline suggests, this announcement may shift the focus away from embryonic stem cell research and even stem cell research altogether.

This made me wonder how the pro-cloning-embro-destructive research crowd are reacting to this development. I needed to look no farther than a press release from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine or CIRM. In case some of you are not familiar with CIRM, it is the regulatory body that oversees the $3 billion dollars of California taxpayer money that is earmarked for cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Californians were told that if they funded cloning and embryonic stem cell research, cures would come. And even during a state budget crisis, Californians bought it.

This press release is more about how CIRM is still relevant, than it is about the amazing work of these Harvard scientists:

CIRM applauds the creativity and value in the research reported and shares the excitement in the promise it might hold. However, it emphatically refutes assertions by opponents of embryonic stem cell research that this new study proves embryonic stem cell research is not necessary. In fact, the Harvard study poignantly points out the value of embryonic stem cell research.

This maybe true, but this seems like a super desperate attempt to make sure everyone still believes that embryonic stem cell research is still king. Case in point, this section describing the limitations of nuclear reprogramming:

The research reported in Nature is a major advance but it has significant limitations. It can be considered a type of gene therapy and has many of the same limitations and concerns that have been identified in the field of gene therapy. The genes that reprogrammed the cells were carried into the cells by adenoviruses, which have caused severe immune reactions and triggered cancers in gene therapy. The mice in this study were immune compromised mice, so that complication was not seen in this model, but to-date has proven difficult to overcome in humans.

Huh, last I checked, immune response and tumor formation were "significant limitations" to embryonic stem cell research as well. Funny how that is not mentioned. I love the last paragraph which basically screams "we are still important and by-gum people still love us":

CIRM was established in early 2005 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 229 research and facility grants totaling more than $614 million, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world.

I really hate it when Catholics deny the teachings of their own church and then say that they are still staunchly Catholic. So you don't agree with Church teaching on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia etc? Fine. Just say you disagree. Don't say that you support abortion on demand and then pretend that you follow Church teaching to the letter.

It irks me because it makes non-Catholics confused. My neighbors just recently moved. It wasn't until the last weeks before they left did they discover that I was staunchly pro-life. They knew I was Catholic from the moment they moved in, but they were afraid to express their pro-life views because most Catholics they encountered thought Roe vs. Wade was the best thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately, their experience with "cafeteria catholics" had left a bad taste in their mouth and had them seriously confused about the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life.

I hate it more when this phemenon occurs at the national level as in the case of Nancy Pelosi who swears up and down she is a faithful Catholic but at the same time thinks abortion is morally acceptable.

Let us clear the air and dispel any confusion. The Catholic Church teaches that because science shows that a new human life begins at conception, and we can never know for certain when we are ensouled by God, we must err on the side of life and protect all human life from beginning to end. There is no "magic" cell division where we suddenly become human enough to deserve dignity and protection. This means that embryo-destructive research, abortion at any stage and assisted suicide are morally WRONG!

This is not a debatable Church teaching. But do not take my word for it. Here is an official Church statement responding to Nancy Pelosi's blatant disregard for Catholic moral teaching:

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion....

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became ob