Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 | Science : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Massachusetts Proposes Stem Cell Research Grants

by Pam Belluck

Reposted from NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09stem.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin



BOSTON, May 8 — Gov. Deval Patrick on Tuesday unveiled a $1.25 billion proposal intended to help the state maintain its status as a pre-eminent place for stem cell research and other life sciences.

The money would provide grants for university and hospital scientists, establish special research centers to make their work faster and more efficient, and train workers for biotechnology businesses.

It would also establish the first stem cell bank, a repository of all the stem cell lines created in Massachusetts laboratories, which would serve as a kind of stem cell lending library to scientists around the world.

"In many ways the health of this industry and the health of our society are very closely linked," Mr. Patrick said at an international biotechnology convention here, where he announced the plan. "That's why we will not rest on our laurels."

Mr. Patrick's plan involves $1 billion in state money over 10 years, some borrowed through bond issues, plus $250 million in matching money from private business.

Massachusetts is home to some of the most advanced research in stem cells and other life sciences, including the work of Craig C. Mello, a University of Massachusetts scientist who shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on silencing the effect of certain genes, which could lead to treatment of diabetes, AIDS and Alzheimer's disease. Scientists at Harvard and other Massachusetts research centers have created more than 30 new lines of embryonic stem cells, more than researchers in other states.

Other states have proposed committing money to the field. Among them are California, which approved a $3 billion program; New Jersey, which has proposed $270 million; and New York, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed $1 billion for stem cell research.

These states are all seeking ways to get around the Bush administration's restrictions on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, which were imposed because President Bush objects to the necessity of destroying human embryos in order to create the stem cells.

Massachusetts in 2005 enacted a law authorizing embryonic stem cell research but did not authorize any financial incentives. Mitt Romney, who was then governor, was opposed to creating new stem cells because of the destruction of embryos involved.

"We've never lacked the brain power; we've never lacked raw scientific brilliance, but at times we've not had the resources," said Jack M. Wilson, the president of the University of Massachusetts, which will be the site of the new stem cell bank.

Dr. Wilson said that in the past, when scientists came to Massachusetts, they said "it felt like joining a team of great players, but there was no coach and no strategy."

"And those teams always lose," he said.

As if to continue the sports metaphor, Jonathan Kraft, the president and chief executive of the Kraft Group, owner of the New England Patriots and other businesses unrelated to biotechnology, also spoke at the governor's announcement. Mr. Kraft pledged to support life science research and described how Massachusetts had lost its competitive edge in computer technology to California because "the public sector in California embraced high tech and the public sector in Massachusetts disregarded it."

With biotechnology, Mr. Kraft said, "we're not going to let these other places pull our researchers out of here; we're going to get more aggressive."

The Patrick plan appears to have legislative support and not as much public opposition as plans in California and some other states.

Brock C. Reeve, executive director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, said the state's investment would help scientists who have had to delay research because of limited federal financing and would "attract the new junior faculty, the rising stars."

Dr. Leonard Zon, director of the stem cell program at Children's Hospital Boston, said the stem cell bank would be "a fantastic way of distributing the stem cell lines to the world," and would be cost-effective because it would provide one location where stem cell lines could be monitored to "make sure they have the correct number of chromosomes and that they're growing correctly."

Dr. Mello, whose research concerns a gene-blocking mechanism called RNA interference, or RNAi, called the proposal a "substantial investment," adding, "There's so much we can do; it's really critical to keep the funding coming."

Comments 1 - 8 of 8 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #38889 by devolved on May 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I've extracted the following extract as an example of someone opposed to stem cell research:

The ESCR debate of the moral question is remarkable to me for two reasons. First, how could those who are pro-abortion feel the need to defend the act of cutting up a human embryo to farm it for its cells? Second, how could those who are pro-life countenance the thought? The answer to both is the same: To a large degree, neither side seems to understand the moral logic of its views.

An action is unethical when it violates a moral rule. Car theft is wrong because it violates a larger principle: It's wrong to steal another's property. That same rule has other applications, however. The moral principle covering car theft equally covers plagiarism. If someone objects to car theft, but condones her own theft of another's ideas, it's fair to question her commitment to the broader principle: Stealing is wrong. It begins to look like emotions and personal preferences are driving her choices, not moral thinking. The moral logic pertaining to any pre-born human life can be stated simply. It's wrong to kill innocent human beings. Both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings. Therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-lifers, presumably, affirm this moral equation. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because of the second premise. To them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed, just a "clump of cells."

The full argument can be followed on the following web link

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6691

Other Comments by devolved

2. Comment #38898 by epeeist on May 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm

 avatarThe arguments you put forward are dubious in that they concatenate several different things.

The cells that would be harvested would be from those embryos not used as part of an IVF treatment. These embryos would be destroyed anyway. Abortion is in no way involved.

The second paragraph you extract is derisory. Trying to compare property especially "intellectual property" with this kind of ethical dilemma is loathsome.

I resent the "pro life" tag too, it immediately characterises those not in this camp as being implicitly "anti life". I don't know how things operate in the States, but here in the UK there is a strong ethical requirement which is far more nuanced than that presented by the simplistic view point presented in the link you gave.

Just as a total aside - do you support the death penalty? If you do then how to you accommodate both this and your pro life stand?

Other Comments by epeeist

3. Comment #38902 by Phaderus on May 9, 2007 at 12:38 pm

 avatarAnother extract from the article linked by devolved:

"By any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an individual. The zygote is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her own unique genetic fingerprint. "

A bit of an overstatement I think, I have read very solid objective scientific standards that state that an embryo is NOT a member of the human race. Another example of the oversimplification made by the article.

I do agree, though, that if one is pro-choice, there should be no moral objection to ESCR. But I am honestly unaware of any one seriously arguing pro-choice and anti-ESCR.

The real problem, IMHO, is that Pres. Bush made a decision based on his religious views regarding ESCR, not on scientific debate or study. And his views are not even the same as the majority of Americans on this issue. I think that it is a violation of separation between church and state.

Other Comments by Phaderus

4. Comment #38906 by Toivo on May 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Perhaps slightly tangential:

Why do people have or want to have moral principles? What's wrong with just living as you please... and if people want to use embryos for scientific research, and that activity doesn't cause harm to us, let them!

My point is that all kinds of moral principles are unnecessary. If we like or accept activities A, B and C and don't like/don't accept activities D, E and F, then it's not necessary for us to have some overarching "general rule" or principle to "justify" these preferences: the fact that we have those preferences "justifies" them. We need no "permission from our parents". :-)

In relation to using embryos or even humans in scientific research: Even if we generally don't accept killing or mistreating individuals, we might still accept the scientific use of embryos (or even humans) (and perhaps killing them or mistreating them) as a special case, an exception, which is justified merely by the fact that we like/accept this exception. There's no need to be "morally consistent" or have "greater" moral principles, which "bind" us. Of course, we can have those, if we really want to, but there's no requirement for us to do so. We may live and do as we please.

Generally, we don't accept killing for obvious reasons (it would cause massive unhappiness to us, directly or indirectly), but once we're past the embryo stage, we no longer have the risk of being killed or suffering indirectly (or perhaps only very little because of some natural empathy), so there's no harm to us if embryos were destroyed or used in scientific experiments. Depending of course on the magnitude of that indirect suffering via empathy, we might in some cases accept even very "cruel" scientific experiments on embryos.

Other Comments by Toivo

5. Comment #38907 by epeeist on May 9, 2007 at 1:00 pm

 avatarComment #38902 by Phaderus

I do agree, though, that if one is pro-choice, there should be no moral objection to ESCR.

The way the article in the link provided by devolved states things you would think that people involved are little different from Victor Frankenstein, the special pleading and equivocation used are appalling.

Again, I am not sure what the situation is in the States but medical ethics committees in the UK have considered this in great detail and been very tentative in what they have allowed.

Other Comments by epeeist

6. Comment #38915 by Phaderus on May 9, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarepeeist,

Unfortunately, in the U.S., most scientists wouldn't touch the subject of abortion with a 20 foot pole for fear that it will hurt their funding from private or public organization due to bad press either way.

Now that ESCR has become more of an issue some are starting to speak out, but most of the public debate is being conducted by politicians and extremists, with little deference to our medical ethical committees.

Other Comments by Phaderus

7. Comment #38920 by firemancarl on May 9, 2007 at 1:45 pm

 avatarI am often left in bewilderment at the fundies/rightwingers/"prolifers" on this subject. Why is it that they never understand that the cells to be used are ones that were going to be destroyed? They are not "killing" life. These cells would wind up in the garbage if not used for scientific gain.

Sometimes I swear the fundies operate on a "2 + 2 = fish" principal.

Other Comments by firemancarl

8. Comment #38950 by Wilfred C. Lyon on May 9, 2007 at 3:58 pm

I'm curious about several things the "pro-lifers" posit and their implications. Apparently an individual human life starts at conception. After that single cell with all of its humanity intact divides and replicates. Presumably these cells still imbody the single human life.

What happens with identical twins? The single cell somehow becomes multiple, but in a division the "lump" becomes two, and each continues to become two individuals. Is only one a human being now because it started as one, or is each twin only a half a human being?

Suppose we took one of those two lumps and declared the other to be the whole human, then the lump that we took could be declared not human and those could be used for stem cell research.

Then, suppose that we did not wait for the natural division to happen, but simply sneaked out a few cells. Apparently the blastula or early zygote can, at least in the case of identical twins, become a full baby. If we did this then the full baby could be the whole human, and our few stolen cells could be our stem cells.

Well, now suppose that we are confronted with the position that some how both are declared a full human beings. I guess then we should be prevented from any such approach as above. But, then it would be a case where all of these cells are human beings. In a tonsilectomy, we are killing a human being? Would these same people object to their child having an appendectomy if it meant saving the child's life?

What about "waste" genetic material? We cut hair, we lose hair, we cut our finger nails, we slough off millions of old skin cells. All of these contain our genetic material. Are these dead humans?

It seems clear that when "belief" is questioned on a rational basis, it seems to become "unbelievable."

Other Comments by Wilfred C. Lyon
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com