ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Stem Cell Research”

Health

The Stem Cell Breakthrough That Could Help Solve America’s Organ Transplant Shortfall

By Sy Mukherjee on Feb 8, 2013 at 12:05 pm

In a technological breakthrough that holds special promise for the future of stem cell research, researchers at Heriot Watt University have successfully used a 3D printer to create viable human stem cells of a predetermined shape and size, CNET News reports.

The development — which constitutes a novel and unprecedented application of an already-nascent technology — has researchers considering its implications for the future, including the possibility of full scale organ and tissue printing that would make organ donations and transplants less vital for public health:

The printer creates 3D spheroids using delicate embryonic cell cultures floating in a “bio ink” medium. They end up looking like little bubbles. Each droplet can contain as few as five stem cells. Basically, this comes down to the printer “ink” being stem cells rather than plastic or another material.

Dr. Will Shu is part of the research team working on the project. “In the longer term, we envisage the technology being further developed to create viable 3D organs for medical implantation from a patient’s own cells, eliminating the need for organ donation, immune suppression, and the problem of transplant rejection,” Shu said in a release from Heriot-Watt.

Perhaps most importantly, the stem cells survived the printing process and remained viable. Shu says this is the first time human embryonic stem cells have been 3D printed. Printing out organs may be far down the line, but it’s just one potential application. The method could also be used to print out human tissue for drug testing.

Research into the use of embryonic stem cells has long been considered by scientists to have life-saving — even revolutionary — potential. While some public figures have used stem cells as a platform for political demagoguery, the Heriot Watt researchers’ achievement highlights the gulf between the overheated rhetoric and the promising reality of stem cell research.

The eventual goal of using the technology for organ and tissue printing — including the direct printing of organs into the human body — is particularly significant given America’s shortfall of organs available for transplants. There are approximately 113,000 Americans on waiting for an organ donor at any given time, but only 30,000 transplants are performed every year.

Justice

Supreme Court Allows Assault On Stem Cell Research To Die

By Ian Millhiser on Jan 8, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Two years ago, Reagan-appointed Chief Judge Royce Lamberth suspended all federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in a sweeping opinion that even invalidated funding permitted under President George W. Bush’s policies. Despite the fact that the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations all agreed that Judge Lamberth misinterpreted federal law, Lamberth relied on a federal law forbidding funding of “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed” to hold that federal spending not only cannot fund the destruction of a new embryo, it also cannot fund research that builds on past research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo.

Lamberth’s decision was eventually reversed by a conservative panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeals court held, correctly, that even though Lamberth might have proposed a plausible reading of federal law, longstanding Supreme Court precedent generally requires courts to defer to an agency’s reading of a statute. As the appeals court explained, “the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an [embryonic stem cell] from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an [embryonic stem cell] will be used.” Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced it would not hear this case, effectively killing this challenge to stem cell research.

This is an important victory for science, and it is just as much a victory for judicial restraint. As the near-success of the Affordable Care Act lawsuits demonstrate, conservative judges and justices are increasingly willing to substitute their policy preferences for the law, even when they must rely on legal theories that, in the words of one of the nation’s most conservative judges, have no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” The requirement that judges defer to agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes is an important check on the judiciary’s ability to impose their policy views on the nation. Agency leaders change with each presidential election; judges do not. And so the power to interpret a genuinely ambiguous statute should rest with officials whose legitimacy flows more closely from the will of the people.

Health

VIEWPOINT: For Stem Cell Research, The Election Matters

By Guest Blogger on Nov 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Our guest blogger is Dr. Timothy J. Kamp, Professor of Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Co-Director of its Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center.

The promise of stem cell research has been protected by President Obama, but the election of Mitt Romney would send Wisconsin’s signature biotechnology field back into chaos, costing the state its national reputation as a good home forward-looking, job-creating business, to say nothing of dashing the hopes of thousands of patients waiting for new therapies to treat incurable diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimers and diabetes.

There are many types of stem cells, and the Obama Administration has supported the full range of research to meet our moral commitment to improve the lives of the sick and hurting. But while some of these — such as “adult stem cells” — have been touted as sufficient to meet our needs, human embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard for the basic science research necessary for the entire field to advance. Indeed, they laid the groundwork for the 2007 breakthrough by James Thompson at University of Wisconsin-Madison and Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka in Japan that generated the “induced pluripotent stem cells” that may, in the future, provide yet another avenue toward patient cures. Under President Obama, the NIH has been directed to support this basic research provided the cell lines were obtained in a responsible fashion from embryos that could no longer be used for human reproduction and were otherwise to be discarded.

Why does this matter?

In the 14 years since the discovery and isolation of human embryonic stem (ES) cells by James Thomson and colleagues, researchers at UW-Madison have had access to human cell types in abundance that were not previously available for research, allowing them to investigate diseases in new ways by growing human cells in a dish.

Read more

LGBT

Wisconsin Bishop: Vote Against ‘Intrinsically Evil’ Homosexuality And Abortion

By Zack Ford on Oct 29, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Green Bay Bishop David Ricken

Another member of the Catholic hierarchy has used his godly decree to condemn liberal social values, calling them “intrinsically evil,” including homosexuality and abortion. Green Bay, Wisconsin Bishop David Ricken penned a letter to parishioners last week urging them to consider social values when they vote for president, though mentioning neither candidate by name, including five “non-negotiables” that they must consider lest they risk putting their “soul in jeopardy”:

I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.

They are:

1.  abortion
2.  euthanasia
3.  embryonic stem cell research
4.  human cloning
5.  homosexual “marriage”

These are intrinsically evil. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.” Intrinsically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger.

But what does this have to do with the election?  Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.

These are clearly the words of a religious leader abusing the power of his position. Ricken may not mention Barack Obama or Mitt Romney by name, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t clearly threatening Church-goers with the fate of their souls in this election. One’s fear of Hell should not be a factor in making a thoughtful vote, and Ricken’s letter makes evident how little respect the Church has for the people impacted by these issues. (HT: Towleroad.)

Election

Why Stem Cells Are 2012′s Sleeper Issue

By Zack Beauchamp on Aug 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Stem cell research was, along with marriage equality, the culture war issue of the Bush years. Embryonic stem cell research — which involves pushing malleable cells taken from a human embryo to develop into cells that can be used to treat ailments — continues today with the help of federal dollars, a policy on which President Obama and Mitt Romney differ sharply. So why isn’t anyone talking about it?

The answer appears to be part science and part politics. Several alternatives to embryonic research have been developed in recent years and, though they haven’t yet completely replaced embryonic research (more on that later), the promise of medical advancement without raising ethical hackles has attracted a great deal of the available dollars, lowering the salience of embryonic research as a political issue. Further, Republican radicalism prevents any legislative action. Though federal support for embryonic stem cell research was a bipartisan issue as recently as 2007, the 2010 elections swept in a wave of Republicans more likely to push their own hardline laws on the issue than pass a bill cementing federal research funding.

This means the status quo, where the President determines whether government dollars subsidize embryonic research through executive order, seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Which is a bigger deal than you might think: a 2011 review of recent scientific work found that the most promising alternative to embryonic stem cell research, induced pluripotent (iPS) stem cell research, depends heavily on continued embryonic research to remain viable. Further, federal funding is becoming increasingly important to the field as support from cash-strapped states dries up. In other words, November’s election decides the fate of a significant source of funding for research that, according to the NIH, could “offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.” And no one’s really talking about.

So what do the candidates think? in 2009, President Obama repealed President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding for research that creates new stem cells lines, an integral part of embryonic research that involves destroying an embryo to acquire new cells for laboratory use. The Bush ban on the creation of new lines crippled research receiving federal funding, while Obama’s repeal funneled funding to more scientifically viable embryonic research.

Romney, by contrast, appears to want to go back to Bush’s policies or, worse, ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research altogether. Though his campaign is slippery on what he’d do once elected (it did not return request for comment on this piece), Romney said during his first run for the Presidency that he opposed the use of federal dollars to support the creation of new lines. The remarks didn’t clarify whether President Romney would simply return to the Bush policy of only funding research on existing stem cell lines or whether, as Yale bioethics expert Steven Latham suggests, “he opposes the public funding of any embryonic stem-cell research.” Romney’s more recent public remarks aren’t helping: when asked this year if he was “100 percent pro-life, meaning embryonic stem cell research” he simply said “I’m pro-life. I’m in favor of protecting the sanctity of life. I will cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.” His campaign site does not clarify his position beyond saying “Quite simply, America cannot condone or participate in the creation of human life when the sole purpose of its creation is its sure destruction.”

Pro-life groups believe Romney supports their maximalist position on stem cells. Mallory Quigley, a spokesperson for the Susan B. Anthony List, told ThinkProgress that “The SBA List has endorsed Governor Romney for President and is 100 percent confident in his pro-life position on stem-cell research. As a pro-life candidate, Governor Romney has pledged to advance research using morally unproblematic adult stem cells and other non-destructive alternatives.” In short: Romney supports some sort of anti-science policy on embryonic stem cell research. It’s just not clear which one.

Romney has argued, in line with Quigley’s position, that alternatives like iPS cells render further embryonic research unnecessary. However, it’s near-impossible in practice to separate federal funding for embryonic research from funding for iPS work, as many iPS research today uses embryonic research as a compliment. Implementing Romney’s position would severely limit the iPS research he claims to support.

But even if you grant the practicability of Romney’s position, the science is far too unsettled to make clear determinations about which research is most likely to yield medical results. John Gearhart, a pioneer in the stem cell field who was on the first team to report successfully derive embryonic stem cells back in 1998, told ThinkProgress that “we are still learning things from the basic science.” In his view, it’s near-impossible to make hard-and-fast determination as to what method of stem cell research will be necessary to make medical breakthroughs. That’s in itself strong reason to allow federal dollars to go to whatever research the NIH believes to be the most promising.

Further, Gearhart said, there are some compelling reasons to believe that embryonic stem cells are particularly critical to scientific progress given the state of the current science. Embryonic stem cells are the only human cells that naturally differentiate into new types — i.e., heart tissue cells that could be used to repair damaged areas. All alternative stem cell research essentially attempts to create artificial equivalents, and may fail to do so in an effective or safe fashion unless they can be tested against embryonic cells. That’s why iPS researchers today still use embryonic stem cells as a point of comparison. Moreover, according to Gearhart, embryonic cells are (to date) the only sort of stem cell that can be grown at the scale required to develop treatments for humans. “If you put a couple thousand cells into [a mouse] heart you can see some remarkable improvement,” he said. “To do the same thing in a human, you need millions.” This view isn’t limited to Gearhart — a number of prominent stem cell scientists have recently reiterated the importance of continued embryonic research even in light of developments in iPS research.

“We need money in this area. Badly,” Gearhart told me.

Politics

Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants To Outlaw Use Of Human Fetuses In Production Of Food

By Adam Peck on Jan 24, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Oklahoma State Sen. Ralph Shortey (R)

Oklahoma GOP State Senator Ralph Shortey is on a mission to finally put an end to his state’s allegedly rampant cannibalism problem. Alarmed after his own research, which consisted of reading a nameless report stating that companies have used stem cells in the production of food, Shortey introduced a bill that would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of food “which contains aborted human fetuses.”

Shortey explained his reasoning to local radio station News Talk Radio KRMG in Tulsa:

There is a potential that there are companies that are using aborted human babies in their research and development of basically enhancing flavor for artificial flavors.

Shortey was unable to provide any specific examples of the problem he’s trying to curb, and admits that it’s possible there aren’t any human fetuses in Oklahoma’s food. “I don’t know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be,” he said.

NPR suggests Shortey may have caught wind of a boycott waged against PepsiCo and others last year after they contracted with the San Diego research and development company Senomyx, which employed the use of stem cells in their research. But the cell line in question dates to the 1970s, and can be traced back to human embryonic kidney cells, a far cry from Shortey’s claim of human fetuses.

Health

Newt Gingrich Deceives On Stem Cell Research, Mocks Evolution

By Guest Blogger on Sep 30, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Our guest blogger is Chris Mooney, a editor of The Intersection.

In a Q&A after his event yesterday to announce a “New Contract With America,” Newt Gingrich was asked if he would work to make “Christian social issues the law of the land,” by a questioner who cited stem cell research in particular.

Here was his response:

I am very much for adult stem cell research, and I am very much for stem cell research that comes from, for example, any device other than killing an embryo. But I am opposed to getting involved in a process of killing children in order to have research materials. And I think you’re finding, you look at what’s happening with stem cell research, we have less and less demand that you have anything except regular stem cells, because we’re learning how to use them. So I think that’s an ideological fight, rather than a scientific fight.

The bit about “killing children” is absurd. According to the NIH, most embryos used are leftover from in vitro fertilization clinics, and have been designated for research with the “informed consent of the donors.” They never have any chance of becoming children because they’re never implanted in a womb.

And not only are there no dead children here. Gingrich’s claim about adult stem cells — the “regular” stem cells, he claims — is also way off. He’s engaging in classic hype that the religious right uses whenever this issue comes up — claiming that we don’t really need embryonic stem cells because adult stem cells are so wonderful that they can take care of everything. That would surprise the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which offers this statement on adult stem cell hype by Dr. David Scadden:

Adult stem cell therapies are powerful, but they are not as wide-ranging as claimed. They have a narrow record of disease types for which the therapy is extremely valuable, a success story that is enormously encouraging evidence for stem cell research leading to methods of positively affecting people’s lives. It took approximately 25 years between discovery and routine clinical application of adult stem cell therapy. It is not known how long it will take for embryonic stem cells to become a useful therapy or whether they will ever directly do so. However, it would be unwise to ignore the potential for either adult or embryonic stem cells to result in a meaningful new approach. Adult and embryonic stem cells are complementary subjects of research and studying them side by side offers the greatest potential to rapidly generate new therapies.

Sorry, Newt. And this is a guy who likes science, at least when it suits him.

Gingrich ends the latest clip with a lampooning of evolution — we’re talking Bishop Wilberforce-type stuff.

I always tell my friends who don’t believe in this stuff, fine, how do you think — we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?

Evolution by natural selection is not a random process–though this is a standard creationist talking point. So Gingrich almost hit an anti-science trifecta here — all he had to do was snub global warming too. So close!

NEWS FLASH

Perry Pushed Bill That Could Enrich His Doctor’s Stem Cell Research Company | NBC reports that three months ago, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) pushed a bill through the legislature that “paves the way for a company co-owned by his doctor to become the first state-approved ‘bank’ to store and cultivate such cells for medical treatment.” The possible show of favoritism came soon after Perry himself received an experimental injection of his own adult stem cells to relieve back pain. The measure was adopted without public hearings and could be a financial windfall for Celltex Therapeutics Corp., which is owned by Stanley Jones, Perry’s surgeon, and David G. Eller, a longtime political donor to Perry who has served as an adviser for his presidential run.

By Marie Diamond on Sep 2, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Justice

Appeals Court Reverses Decision Striking Down Stem Cell Funding

By Ian Millhiser on Apr 29, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Last August, Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan-appointed trial judge in DC, suspended all federal funding for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research — a decision which limits such research in a way that even President George W. Bush found untenable. Today, a divided D.C. Circuit panel reversed Lamberth’s decision:

Two scientists brought this suit to enjoin the National Institutes of Health from funding research using human embryonic stem cells (ESCs) pursuant to the NIH’s 2009 Guidelines. The district court granted their motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding they were likely to succeed in showing the Guidelines violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, an appropriations rider that bars federal funding for research in which a human embryo is destroyed. We conclude the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an ESC from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an ESC will be used.

To translate this a little, Lamberth held that all federally-funded ESC funding violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.” Even though no federal money goes to studies that actually destroy an embryo, Lamberth concluded that such research requires scientists to build upon previous research that involved the destruction of an embryo, and that this is not allowed.

Lamberth’s decision, however, cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. NRDC, judges are normally supposed to defer to an agency’s reading of a federal law unless the agency’s interpretation is entirely implausible, and the Obama administration quite plausibly read the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to only prohibit federal funding of the actual destruction of an embryo — not federal funding of subsequent ESC research. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed.

Today’s decision is a very hopeful sign that Lamberth’s questionable understanding of this law will no longer undermine stem cell research. Both of the judges who joined today’s majority opinion are conservative Republican appointees. Judge Douglas Ginsburg is a hardcore tenther who once called for a return to an Depression-era vision of the Constitution that struck down child labor laws and other very basic legal protections. Judge Thomas Griffith was appointed by George W. Bush.

Their decision did leave open a slight possibility that Lamberth could try to suspend stem cell research once again. The appeals court expressly decided not to weigh on two alternative claims by the plaintiffs, including a claim that federal ESC funding is illegal “research in which a human embryo or embryos are . . . knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,” because these claims were not first considered by the court below. Nevertheless, the appeals court made clear that “the plaintiffs have not identified, nor have we found, any precedent for upholding a preliminary injunction based upon a legal theory not embraced by the district court.”

So it appears very likely, if not entirely certain, that stem cell research will ultimately be upheld against all challenges.

Climate Progress

Bill Maher On Anti-Science Republicans: ‘Not One Believes Global Warming Is Real’

By Brad Johnson on Sep 22, 2010 at 4:36 pm

Last week, the Wonk Room published an exclusive analysis of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate, finding that only Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) supported action to fight global warming pollution. That Tuesday, Castle was defeated in his primary by Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, who believes evolution is a myth and opposes stem-cell research. Yesterday, Bill Maher cited that report in a discussion with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, bemoaning the dominance of anti-science Republicans. After Matthews played a clip of O’Donnell warning in 2007 of “mice with fully functioning human brains” — evidently a mangled reference to a mouse with surgically constructed ear from cow cells grafted onto its back — Maher noted that the “real issue” is the Republican opposition to science:

MAHER: I don’t know, when I saw all this coverage of the witch stuff, I was laughing yesterday. Because that is not really important to the election. It is just a side show, as you would say. It was funny. I don’t think it should hurt her. It was something she was doing in high school. But when you think this about scientific issues facing this nation, people could be really helped by stem cell research. That’s a real issue. There are 37 Republican candidates for the Senate. Not one believes global warming is real and man made. Except the one, Mike Castle, the guy she defeated in Delaware.

MATTHEWS: That is serious.

MAHER: That’s a real issue.

MATTHEWS: They don’t believe in evolution, they don’t believe in science, all the evidence of science they all hold up as somehow elitist thinking.

Watch it:

The threat in November to science-based policy is very real, as a Republican surge of conspiracy theorists, polluter apologists, and anti-medicine activists plan to take back the House and the Senate.

Transcript: Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up