Update: New York Times, March 10, 2009

“With soaring oratory, President Obama on Monday removed a substantial practical nuisance that has long made life difficult for stem cell researchers. He freed biomedical researchers using federal money (a vast majority) to work on more than the small number of human embryonic stem cell lines that were established before Aug. 9, 2001.

“In practical terms, federally financed researchers will now find it easier to do a particular category of stem cell experiments that, though still important, has been somewhat eclipsed by new advances.

“Until now, to study unapproved stem cell lines, researchers had to set up separate, privately financed labs and follow laborious accounting procedures to make sure not a cent of federal grant money was used on that research. No longer. The lifting of such requirements “is just a major boon for the research here and elsewhere,” said Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.”

Update: U.S. News and World Report, March 10, Media Comments about Obama Stem Cell Decision

“The President’s unveiling of new Federal stem cell research guidelines is receiving glowing media coverage, with most reports including lead stories on two out of three network broadcasts casting the move as a significant step away from former President Bush’s science policies. Typical of much of the coverage is an AP story that reports, “Researchers said the new president’s message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.” (Emphasis added)

Update: U.S.News and World Report, March 10. Gallup Poll Results on Public Opinion on Stem Cell Research. Majority in Favor.

• 14: Percentage of Americans who favor no restrictions on government funding for research on human embryos
• 38: Percentage who favor easing “current restrictions to allow more research”
• 22: Percentage who favor keeping current restrictions
• 19: Percentage who think the government should not fund embryonic research at all

---

When an issue attracts supporters ranging from former first lady Nancy Reagan, a physician’s daughter and the primary care-giver for her late husband as Alzheimer’s claimed first his memory and then his life, to senators from both sides of the aisle to non-profits dedicated to the eradication of specific diseases—-and that is before you even get to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the international research community and other scientists—-obviously there is reason to think this kind of research has merit.

Who thinks not? Anti-abortion or “right to life” advocates because this research involves the use of frozen embryos. As of now, the embryos used in stem cell research are frozen by couples in fertility treatment. These would be disposed of in any case, whether there is stem cell research or not. The NIH has been tasked with  coming up with guidelines for proper use of stem cells in research now.

There is a lot of hope riding on this method and any variations which are found to work. Skin cells have produced the needed material to generate stem cells in some experiments. It is early, early, early for that method although the promise is great. No one should count on that working out until and unless it does.

There is no way to know how, what or when stem cell research will produce results. There is reason to be optimistic, in fact, very optimistic.

In research, though, there are no guarantees. No one should ever tell you that there are.

In research, what looked like an ideal solution to a clinical problem can be upended overnight with a new study, which takes scientists in new directions. That is a good thing. That is how good science works.

However, stem cell research remains one of our best pathways to try to deal with diseases or injuries of many kinds, including genetic ones. The late actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed in a riding accident, lobbied hard for stem cells because it is hoped that these can help patients like Reeve.

Of course, if stem cell research produces treatment for any diagnosis which affects a large number of people, eventually those treatments would change the way a patient is affected over a life-time.

These treatments should save money, too. Initially, they will not. New treatments cost more money while clinicians figure out how to do them properly and how they can be delivered just as well in less costly ways. Cost-savings will happen. No one should tell you that they will be fast. If they are, consider that a windfall. Windfall savings are not unlikely if stem cells deliver as hoped but we cannot count on that nor should we play budget games, pretending that we know that they will when we don’t.

Just as importantly, Obama’s lifting this ban puts American scientists back on an equal footing with their international peers. As has been noted by many, falling behind in the sciences is bad for any nation.

America has fallen behind, and badly, for the last 10 years, in the sciences, measurable in a number of ways. The simplest is kids don’t want to choose science as a career these days, a warning bell if ever there were one.

This is only one of many steps the nation needs to bring the sciences back to a level the American people already thought they had—-and once did.

This is an emotionally-charged issue.

• The anti-abortion constituency objects to stem cell research because the decision involves an embryo.
• Stem cell research brings out advocates for patients with diseases which ruin lives and for whom a cure is desperately sought. Alzheimer’s is a simple example.
• The debate over the issue of the place of science in our society also brings out the same people who object to stem cell research. The same anti-abortion constituency distrusts science to the point that science was neglected yet politicized for the last eight years. Eight years in research is a long, long time.
• Reasonable people can disagree over many issues about life and end-of-life issues. These are such complex issues that one newspaper described the lifting of the stem cell ban the “full employment act” for lawyers who deal with these issues. There are reasons for discussion and debate among people who are willing to listen to one another.
• People tend to be more reasonable and practical about these issues than is generally believed, when there is time for doctors to explain the pros and cons of any one decision to them, including what cannot be known. It may take a patient, friend or family member a little while to sort out the information, but, in general, given enough time and clear explanations, the public can surprise cynics. Overall, the public has been able to balance its religious beliefs and complex care decisions reasonably well, as a number of public opinion polls would suggest—-although not always on the first round. On an individual basis, these can be excruciating questions for the patient’s own decision-makers. Many people wish they were not the ones who had to decide and, indeed, most family members are not prepared for the complexity or gravity of the moment in which decisions must be made, ready or not.

NPR

…”Embryonic stem cell research is believed to hold the key for better treatments and possible cures for diseases, including diabetes and paralysis. The cells have the potential to turn into any cell in the human body, which is what makes them so promising to researchers. Proponents, from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve, have long called for ending the limits on federal spending.

“But the research is highly controversial because embryonic cells are derived from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

“And while the new order will allow researchers to use federal funds to work with new cell lines, a legislative ban on the use of federal dollars to create new stem cell lines remains in place.

“The president said that he could not guarantee more research would lead to new treatments and cures, but that opening up new research was worth the gamble to “make up for lost ground.”

“The National Institute of Health now has 120 days to come up with new guidelines for the use of stem cells, which Obama said will include prohibiting the use of cloning for human reproduction.

“Most research institutes are likely to wait to allow researchers to use federal funds for new stem cells until the federal guidelines are announced. Researchers will also still be subject to state regulations and the guidelines of their individual research institutions, which may be stricter than the federal requirements.”

Source: New York Times, March 10, 2009

Source: U.S. News and World Report, Gallup Poll, March 10, 2009

Source: NPR, March 9, 2009