From USA TODAY/ DOUG

[Guest guest]

Scroll down for article from USA TODAY

Barb

07/11/2001 - Updated 04:02 PM ET

Group creates embryos specifically for research

By Tim Friend, USA TODAY

A group of fertility specialists in Norfolk, Va., announced Tuesday they

have

created human embryos specifically as a source of cells that could be used

for

research into treatments of diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and

cancer.

The announcement is sure to accelerate a growing national debate on the

use

of human embryos for medical research, and it comes as President Bush is

expected to make a decision on whether to publicly fund such controversial

studies.

Many scientists believe that human embryonic stem cells, which are removed

from microscopic size pre embryos containing about 140 cells, offer the

best

hope for developing treatments for many devastating illnesses. The embryonic

stem cells are unique in that they possess the ability to become any type

of cell

in the human body. Scientists want to learn whether these cells can be

coaxed

into different types of cells that can replace diseased cells in the body

and

restore normal function.

Creating human embryos for research purposes is the most controversial

approach of all to be considered in the debate on human embryonic stem

cell

research, which has festered over the past three years. Embryos are

destroyed in the process of generating cells for research.

Under the Clinton Administration, the National Institutes of Health proposed

allowing public funding for human embryonic stem cell research, but only

by

using frozen embryos that were left over from in vitro fertilization procedures

and were destined to be discarded. The Bush Administration blocked that

decision and is considering a number of alternatives, including banning

all

embryonic stem cell research, or allowing research to be funded only on

existing colonies of cells that were generated from embryos created by

Geron

or other labs.

Using leftover embryos was considered by the federal National Bioethics

Advisory Committee and the NIH to be the most ethically suitable for stem

cell research, says Murray, director of the Hastings Center for

Bioethics, a biomedical ethical think tank in Garrison, N.Y. Murray was

a

member of the presidential advisory committee under Clinton.

But, scientists led by E. Gibbons at the Institute of

Reproductive Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that

a

more "ethically pure" approach is to obtain informed consent from sperm

and

egg donors in advance and then create embryos specifically for research.

To

use frozen embryos, scientists must go back to couples who provided

embryos in the hopes of generating a child and seek permission to use the

spare embryos for research.

A report of the research was published Tuesday in Fertility and Sterility,

the

journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. That report

is the

first to reveal how the embryos were made and how many attempts it

required to establish colonies of cells that could be used for developing

new

treatments for disease.

"We felt that for better or worse this information should be part of the

public

domain," says Gibbons.

Gibbons says the research was approved by a panel of ethicists and scientists

and by an internal review board. The sperm and egg donors were paid and

informed that the embryos would not be used to make a baby. They were

informed that the embryos would be destroyed in the process of obtaining

human embryonic stem cells toward the goal of establishing colonies of

cells

that could be used for research on developing treatment for disease.

Results of the study, which was led by Lanzendorf, also of the

Institute of Reproductive Medicine:

162 eggs were collected from 12 egg donors. Insemination resulted in

the creation of 40 early stage human embryos, called blastocysts.

These consist of a microscopic ball of about 140 cells.

From the 40 blastocysts, the scientists were able to establish three

colonies of cells that provide a source of human embryonic stem cells

for research.

Soules, president of the American Society of Reproductive

Medicine, says that generating human embryos for research is probably the

best approach from a scientific and ethical perspective. Donors of sperm

and

eggs know in advance that the embryos created are to be used for research.

He says the cells obtained from the embryos are also theoretically superior

because they have not been frozen.

Front Page News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Shop

Terms of service Privacy Policy How to advertise About us

¿ Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

--

"Worrying does not empty tomorrow of it's troubles. It empties today

of it's strength." Engelbreit

[Guest guest]

Thanks Barb,

The USA Today article was one of the fairest articles I have seen on

the whole stem cell debate. Just an accurate description of the work.

Take care, Bill and Charlotte

------------------------------------------------------

Barb wrote:

Scroll down for article from USA TODAY

Barb

07/11/2001 - Updated 04:02 PM ET

Group creates embryos specifically for research

By Tim Friend, USA TODAY

A group of fertility specialists in Norfolk, Va., announced Tuesday they

have

created human embryos specifically as a source of cells that could be used

for

research into treatments of diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and

cancer.

The announcement is sure to accelerate a growing national debate on the

use

of human embryos for medical research, and it comes as President Bush is

expected to make a decision on whether to publicly fund such controversial

studies.

Many scientists believe that human embryonic stem cells, which are removed

from microscopic size pre embryos containing about 140 cells, offer the

best

hope for developing treatments for many devastating illnesses. The embryonic

stem cells are unique in that they possess the ability to become any type

of cell

in the human body. Scientists want to learn whether these cells can be

coaxed

into different types of cells that can replace diseased cells in the body

and

restore normal function.

Creating human embryos for research purposes is the most controversial

approach of all to be considered in the debate on human embryonic stem

cell

research, which has festered over the past three years. Embryos are

destroyed in the process of generating cells for research.

Under the Clinton Administration, the National Institutes of Health proposed

allowing public funding for human embryonic stem cell research, but only

by

using frozen embryos that were left over from in vitro fertilization procedures

and were destined to be discarded. The Bush Administration blocked that

decision and is considering a number of alternatives, including banning

all

embryonic stem cell research, or allowing research to be funded only on

existing colonies of cells that were generated from embryos created by

Geron

or other labs.

Using leftover embryos was considered by the federal National Bioethics

Advisory Committee and the NIH to be the most ethically suitable for stem

cell research, says Murray, director of the Hastings Center for

Bioethics, a biomedical ethical think tank in Garrison, N.Y. Murray was

a

member of the presidential advisory committee under Clinton.

But, scientists led by E. Gibbons at the Institute of

Reproductive Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that

a

more "ethically pure" approach is to obtain informed consent from sperm

and

egg donors in advance and then create embryos specifically for research.

To

use frozen embryos, scientists must go back to couples who provided

embryos in the hopes of generating a child and seek permission to use the

spare embryos for research.

A report of the research was published Tuesday in Fertility and Sterility,

the

journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. That report

is the

first to reveal how the embryos were made and how many attempts it

required to establish colonies of cells that could be used for developing

new

treatments for disease.

"We felt that for better or worse this information should be part of the

public

domain," says Gibbons.

Gibbons says the research was approved by a panel of ethicists and scientists

and by an internal review board. The sperm and egg donors were paid and

informed that the embryos would not be used to make a baby. They were

informed that the embryos would be destroyed in the process of obtaining

human embryonic stem cells toward the goal of establishing colonies of

cells

that could be used for research on developing treatment for disease.

Results of the study, which was led by Lanzendorf, also of the

Institute of Reproductive Medicine:

162 eggs were collected from 12 egg donors. Insemination resulted in

the creation of 40 early stage human embryos, called blastocysts.

These consist of a microscopic ball of about 140 cells.

>From the 40 blastocysts, the scientists were able to establish three

colonies of cells that provide a source of human embryonic stem cells

for research.

Soules, president of the American Society of Reproductive

Medicine, says that generating human embryos for research is probably the

best approach from a scientific and ethical perspective. Donors of sperm

and

eggs know in advance that the embryos created are to be used for research.

He says the cells obtained from the embryos are also theoretically superior

because they have not been frozen.

Front Page News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Shop

Terms of service Privacy Policy How to advertise About us

© Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

--

"Worrying does not empty tomorrow of it's troubles. It empties today

of it's strength." Engelbreit

[Guest guest]

This work was does without Federal funding and so it will continue

or not independently of Bush's decision. In vitro fetilization for

any purpose has never been illegal, not even beofor the technology

existed to do it with human cells. Bush cannot ban it, not even the

Congress can ban it. That would require amending the Constitution

or a complete reversal by the Supreme Court, allowing the Congress

to criminalize something that was never illegal before.

Let's be clear here, the issue before the Bush administration is how

Federal Funds may be used, or who would be disqualified from

receiving them due to other work they do .

If you believe that interfering with the reproductive process at

any stage is wrong, or believe that any intervention other than to

improve the chances of producing a healthy infant is wrong then

the decsision of where to stand on the stem cell issue is clear.

For example, the Catholic Church opposes in vitro fertilization

so further oppposition to any use of the fruits of that endeavor

is consistant. I was surprised when the American Catholic

Archbishops came out in favor of stem cell work and not surprised

when the Pope came out against it.

But if you take a pragmatic view that you cannot stop in vitro

fertilization, you cannot stop the production of 'surplus'

blastocysts, then you can sensibly look at a process that

preserves the life in those blastocysts as mitigation even

if you oppose the creation of those excess blastocysts in the

first place.

I can respect either viewpoint. But people loose my respect

when they argue that culturing living tissue from those blastocysts

is destroying them but flushing them down the drain is not.

Some people don't like to refer to a preembryonic fertilized

ovum as a blastocyst. That's OK with me too. They can just

call it a baby and not worry about milestones in prenatal

development. But if you are willing to use terms like embryo

and fetus for those stages in development, it is inconsistent

to not accept the newer term now that the significance of a

particular milestone is understood.

--

Doug

[Guest guest]

Greetings Doug!

I noticed your email and *really* appreciate your use of logic:

> I can respect either viewpoint. But people loose my

> respect when they argue that culturing living tissue

> from those blastocysts is destroying them but flushing

> them down the drain is not.

Exactly! As you noted, when the Roman Catholic church came out against the

research, I not only expected, but respected the Pope's stance. I

personally disagree with that stance, but can respect it due to the internal

consistency of the reasoning.

Thanks for your well reasoned observations.

Regards,

=jbf=

B. Fisher