This video is a trailer for the documentary, "Demographic Winter" which highlights the worlds disregard for the family and for new babies which throughout the world means devastating effects.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Welcome back!
Its been a while since I last published a post. But I hope my lastest post on the March gets me back into it. If you at any time have something you would like posted on the blog, personal work or article please e-mail it to muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com
-Andrew
March for Life 2009
Recently 18 members of Muscatine Right to Life bussed out to Washington D.C. for the 36th Annual March for Life. They were joined with approximately 300,000 fellow pro-lifers. The March, which is held every year on the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, aims at being a visible sign to the Congress and the president that Americans want CHANGE for the right to life.
This year there was added intesnsity as the March fell just a couple of days after the inauguration of President Obama. The president has vowed his support of aborion although many Americans still believe he is open for debate or undecided on the issue.
We began the trip with mass at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the basilica in D.C. Justin Cardinal Regali, archbishop of Philidelphia was the main celebrant and homilist. Prayer is the most powerful weapon against abortion, and this was made present through the mass of several thousand.
Every year you hope that there doesn't have to be another March, but with the new legislature and president it looks glim, but never lose hope. Write and call your legislators, ecspecially about FOCA, and also keep them in your prayers.
If you are interested in attending the March next year it is never too early to contact muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com or Joe Flanders to show your interest.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Setting Up and Painting Crosses
We will touch up and dip new crosses this Saturday at 1:30 at the Irwin's house. Also, we will set the crosses up on Saunday September 30 at 1:30. Meet at the Knight's of Columbus.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
MRL Paints Crosses 8/25
Members of Right to Life painted over 90 crosses for the Cemetery of the Innocent at Ken and Lois Irwin's house.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Adoption: A Choice All Can Agree On
When a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly and thinks she can’t raise the child for various reasons she has to make a choice. In this time of agony, regret and sadness she has a lot of decisions to make.She looks at having an abortion to end the pregnancy because it is fast and seems easy. On the other hand she knows she has the opportunity to carry the child for nine months and raise it on her own. This is a daunting and enormous decision the mother is faced with. She may not want to have an abortion because she has heard of post-abortion syndrome and doesn’t want to regret it later but she also doesn’t think she can raise a child due to her age, education, or financial situation.What other choice does she have? Adoption, and it is a choice that everyone can agree on. She can choose to carry her baby and bring it to the world and then let someone that she can trust will raise her baby will adopt it.
Adoption is key to fewer abortions. After abortion was legalized in 1973 abortion rates went up and adoptions went down. Politicians that are not for the ban on abortion also see the importance of having more adoptions and fewer abortions. Looking at adoption as a choice is very important because it is a choice that both sides, whether you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life, can find common ground on. When you are dealing with a topic such as abortion you need to be able to find an idea that both sides see as a solution. This is where adoption comes into play in a big way. Women that are going through the decision making process need to understand that abortion or raising the child aren’t her only two choices. When they explore the possibility of adoption they can find some peace in knowing that they are bringing new life into the world and making sure their child is raised the best way possible. I know it must be hard for them to go through 9 months of pregnancy in order to put their child up for adoption but at least that way they don’t have to think about what could have been, the life that could have been lived. And in that life many things could have happened. What if some of the greatest people this world has ever known had been aborted? Where would our world be now? Even those who aren’t in the spotlight have a purpose and a contribution to their communities that only they can do or give. We might be aborting the future finder of the cure for cancer or the doctor who finds out how to stop the spreading of AIDS.I hope that our generation is the one that says no to abortion. Not everyone at a given time can raise a child but every one can choose adoption. I hope that during my life span I can at least see abortions decrease. If for one day in the United States every woman who was going to have an abortion decided to have an adoption instead, 4,000 lives would be saved. I know that everyone has their own opinion on this topic but I think that if we can find common ground we can begin to truly change the world in a positive way.
There are adoption agencies out there who’s goals are to help a woman through the pregnancy process and finding a family to adopt. One agency is the Adoption Network Law Center, adoptionnetwork.com. They help women through unexpected pregnancies with lining up a family to adopt as well as financial assistance.With all of this in mind I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a new movie coming out this Fall. It is called Bella and has won many film festivals including the Toronto Film Festival which is one of the most prestigious in the world. I had the opportunity to see a showing of it in June.. Bella puts everything I talked about earlier in this column into a real life scenario. It shows the trouble of a young woman trying to decide what to do after getting pregnant. She says that it is taken care of, that she will just go in and have an abortion until a friend from work asks her one question: “Have you thought about adoption?” The movie goes through their relationship through the ordeal and shows the power of friendship and family. This movie is not political and is not preachy.. All ticket sales from the first weekend in the theatres will go to crisis pregnancy centers. I hope a lot of people go to see Bella even if it means driving out of town to see it.Lets all work together on helping promote adoptions in America because as the banner in Muscatine Right to Life’s 4th of July float said, “The future is in out hands.“Andrew Rauenbuehler is a member of the Muscatine Right to Life
Adoption is key to fewer abortions. After abortion was legalized in 1973 abortion rates went up and adoptions went down. Politicians that are not for the ban on abortion also see the importance of having more adoptions and fewer abortions. Looking at adoption as a choice is very important because it is a choice that both sides, whether you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life, can find common ground on. When you are dealing with a topic such as abortion you need to be able to find an idea that both sides see as a solution. This is where adoption comes into play in a big way. Women that are going through the decision making process need to understand that abortion or raising the child aren’t her only two choices. When they explore the possibility of adoption they can find some peace in knowing that they are bringing new life into the world and making sure their child is raised the best way possible. I know it must be hard for them to go through 9 months of pregnancy in order to put their child up for adoption but at least that way they don’t have to think about what could have been, the life that could have been lived. And in that life many things could have happened. What if some of the greatest people this world has ever known had been aborted? Where would our world be now? Even those who aren’t in the spotlight have a purpose and a contribution to their communities that only they can do or give. We might be aborting the future finder of the cure for cancer or the doctor who finds out how to stop the spreading of AIDS.I hope that our generation is the one that says no to abortion. Not everyone at a given time can raise a child but every one can choose adoption. I hope that during my life span I can at least see abortions decrease. If for one day in the United States every woman who was going to have an abortion decided to have an adoption instead, 4,000 lives would be saved. I know that everyone has their own opinion on this topic but I think that if we can find common ground we can begin to truly change the world in a positive way.
There are adoption agencies out there who’s goals are to help a woman through the pregnancy process and finding a family to adopt. One agency is the Adoption Network Law Center, adoptionnetwork.com. They help women through unexpected pregnancies with lining up a family to adopt as well as financial assistance.With all of this in mind I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a new movie coming out this Fall. It is called Bella and has won many film festivals including the Toronto Film Festival which is one of the most prestigious in the world. I had the opportunity to see a showing of it in June.. Bella puts everything I talked about earlier in this column into a real life scenario. It shows the trouble of a young woman trying to decide what to do after getting pregnant. She says that it is taken care of, that she will just go in and have an abortion until a friend from work asks her one question: “Have you thought about adoption?” The movie goes through their relationship through the ordeal and shows the power of friendship and family. This movie is not political and is not preachy.. All ticket sales from the first weekend in the theatres will go to crisis pregnancy centers. I hope a lot of people go to see Bella even if it means driving out of town to see it.Lets all work together on helping promote adoptions in America because as the banner in Muscatine Right to Life’s 4th of July float said, “The future is in out hands.“Andrew Rauenbuehler is a member of the Muscatine Right to Life
Thursday, July 12, 2007
4th of July Parade
MRL's parade float had many member's come out to walk and pass out candy and pro-life wristbands and bookmarks.
Embryonic stem cell research cases yield no success
Embryonic stem cell research cases yield no success
By Hannah Flanders
This letter is written in response to the June 28 letter to the editor claiming that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise.First of all, there are no signs of embryonic stem cell research yielding any success cases. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College, said, “Embryo stem cells entered the world in 1981 ... [with] cells isolated from early mouse embryos .. Even in the mouse system itself, where both authentic ES cells and virtually unlimited genetically compatible subjects had been available since 1981, there had been essentially no progress in curing or even palliating disabling conditions for which mouse ‘models’ existed, such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s and so forth.” (“Averting the Clone Age: Prospects and Perils of Human Developmental Manipulation”- Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol. 19:2003, pp. 446-447).
Scientists in favor of embryonic stem cell research are promoting the potential of embryonic stem cells because there is a lot of money involved with the embryonic stem cell movement. They do not favor adult stem cell research because when a patient uses their own adult stem cells for treatments science labs cannot patent them. However, they would be able to do so with embryonic stem cells and these have the potential of becoming VERY expensive, therefore ESCR scientists will make a lot of money for the embryonic stem cell research industries — which are not even working!
Adult stem cell research on the other hand has treated 73 medical cases which have generated success. Coincidently, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and stroke damages as well as type J juvenile diabetes are listed among these successful treatments.It is true that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells; however because of this flexibility, there also comes a consequence; since the embryonic stem cells are so flexible they are prone to grow cancerous tumors because of the instability caused from the flexibility of the embryonic stem cells.I applaud President Bush for vetoing the bill which would allow federal funding for a system of embryonic stem cell research.Embryonic stem cell research is not only unethical, but also ineffective. By all means, the U.S. is not falling behind in the stem cell research movement, despite America’s so-called “restrictive” policies; it still remains the world’s leader in the field of stem cell research.The Scientist recently reported: that the U.S. is by far the world’s leader in the total number of stem cell articles published, alone accounting for 42% of all stem cell articles published world wide between 2000 and 2004 — even with its supposedly restrictive approach to stem cell research.That is four times the articles published by the second leading nation, Germany, which accounted for 10.2 percent of all stem cell articles published worldwide.Germany, by the way, has the most restrictive policies governing hESCR [human Embryonic Stem Cell Research] in all Europe, and led other European nations in the number of articles published.I would not be so passionate about this particular research if it were not for the fact that human lives are at stake for the sake of embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a human being in his or her most innocent and vulnerable form of life.Why should society promote an ineffective research that requires destroying these human beings when there are already better alternatives that are actually working?
By Hannah Flanders
This letter is written in response to the June 28 letter to the editor claiming that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise.First of all, there are no signs of embryonic stem cell research yielding any success cases. Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College, said, “Embryo stem cells entered the world in 1981 ... [with] cells isolated from early mouse embryos .. Even in the mouse system itself, where both authentic ES cells and virtually unlimited genetically compatible subjects had been available since 1981, there had been essentially no progress in curing or even palliating disabling conditions for which mouse ‘models’ existed, such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s and so forth.” (“Averting the Clone Age: Prospects and Perils of Human Developmental Manipulation”- Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Vol. 19:2003, pp. 446-447).
Scientists in favor of embryonic stem cell research are promoting the potential of embryonic stem cells because there is a lot of money involved with the embryonic stem cell movement. They do not favor adult stem cell research because when a patient uses their own adult stem cells for treatments science labs cannot patent them. However, they would be able to do so with embryonic stem cells and these have the potential of becoming VERY expensive, therefore ESCR scientists will make a lot of money for the embryonic stem cell research industries — which are not even working!
Adult stem cell research on the other hand has treated 73 medical cases which have generated success. Coincidently, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and stroke damages as well as type J juvenile diabetes are listed among these successful treatments.It is true that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells; however because of this flexibility, there also comes a consequence; since the embryonic stem cells are so flexible they are prone to grow cancerous tumors because of the instability caused from the flexibility of the embryonic stem cells.I applaud President Bush for vetoing the bill which would allow federal funding for a system of embryonic stem cell research.Embryonic stem cell research is not only unethical, but also ineffective. By all means, the U.S. is not falling behind in the stem cell research movement, despite America’s so-called “restrictive” policies; it still remains the world’s leader in the field of stem cell research.The Scientist recently reported: that the U.S. is by far the world’s leader in the total number of stem cell articles published, alone accounting for 42% of all stem cell articles published world wide between 2000 and 2004 — even with its supposedly restrictive approach to stem cell research.That is four times the articles published by the second leading nation, Germany, which accounted for 10.2 percent of all stem cell articles published worldwide.Germany, by the way, has the most restrictive policies governing hESCR [human Embryonic Stem Cell Research] in all Europe, and led other European nations in the number of articles published.I would not be so passionate about this particular research if it were not for the fact that human lives are at stake for the sake of embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a human being in his or her most innocent and vulnerable form of life.Why should society promote an ineffective research that requires destroying these human beings when there are already better alternatives that are actually working?
Embryonic stem cell research should not be funded with tax dollars
Embryonic stem-cell research should not be funded with tax dollars
By Andrew Rauenbuehler, Muscatine Right to Life
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research should not be funded with tax dollarsThis letter is in response to a letter published on June 28 by Alan T. Light of Iowa City. He states that embryonic stem cells are the key to cure many diseases. Once again he is overlooking the research of adult stem cells which are donated and have already cured many diseases, many by helping parts of the immune system.Last week on EWTN many patients that were cured with adult stem-cells called into a show to share their story. Mr. Light thinks that federal funding of the research is important so that cures can be found.
I would urge Mr. Light to send a donation of his own money to a laboratory doing research on embryonic stem-cells instead of making tax dollars of citizens who know that the process is inmoral and unethical pay for the funding. He also thinks that a Democratic president and congress needs to be elected for the funding to go through. Not that all democrats support this research, but really he is saying that a president and congress that doesn’t respect life needs to be put into office. When will people begin to realize the importance of life in this country?
By Andrew Rauenbuehler, Muscatine Right to Life
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research should not be funded with tax dollarsThis letter is in response to a letter published on June 28 by Alan T. Light of Iowa City. He states that embryonic stem cells are the key to cure many diseases. Once again he is overlooking the research of adult stem cells which are donated and have already cured many diseases, many by helping parts of the immune system.Last week on EWTN many patients that were cured with adult stem-cells called into a show to share their story. Mr. Light thinks that federal funding of the research is important so that cures can be found.
I would urge Mr. Light to send a donation of his own money to a laboratory doing research on embryonic stem-cells instead of making tax dollars of citizens who know that the process is inmoral and unethical pay for the funding. He also thinks that a Democratic president and congress needs to be elected for the funding to go through. Not that all democrats support this research, but really he is saying that a president and congress that doesn’t respect life needs to be put into office. When will people begin to realize the importance of life in this country?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
What's Wrong with Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?
Rich Deem
Embryonic stem cell research is a hot topic that seems to pit anti-abortion conservatives against pro-abortion liberals. The conservatives claim that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cells, while the liberals claim that conservatives are blocking research that will provide cures to many tragic diseases. Much of the rhetoric is designed to muddy the waters to invoke emotional responses of those within each camp. This paper is designed to break through sound-bites and go the heart of the matter - what are the scientific issues that impact the question of stem cell research.
What is stem cell research
Much of what is promoted as being news is actually an oversimplification of the issues. Many news articles about stem cell research never distinguish between the kind of stem cell research that is being promoted. For example, the media often reports of breakthrough treatment for patients without mentioning that, in all cases, the source of stem cells is adult tissues. We know this to be true, because embryonic stem cells have never been used in human patients, and won't likely be used in the near future (see reasons, below).
Where do stem cells come from?
Stem cells are classified as being pluripotent or multipotent. Stem cells that are pluripotent are capable of forming virtually all of the possible tissue types found in human beings. These stem cells can only be found in a certain stage (a blastocyst) in human embryos. Multipotent stem cells are partially differentiated, so that they can form a limited number of tissue types. Multipotent stem cells can be found in the fetus, in umbilical cord blood, and numerous adult tissues.
History of stem cell research
Although the controversy of stem cell research is only recent, research first began in the 1960's. The primary source of early human stem cells was adult bone marrow, the tissue that makes red and white blood cells. Since scientists realized that bone marrow was a good source of stem cells, early transplants were initiated in the early 1970's to treat diseases that involved the immune system (genetic immunodeficiencies and cancers of the immune system). Bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy has been extremely successful, with dozens of diseases being treated and cured through the use of these adult stem cells. However, because the donor tissue type must be closely matched to the patient, finding a compatible donor can be problematic. If you haven't already done so, you should become part of the Bone Marrow Registry.
Failures of therapeutic cloning
With the advent of animal cloning, scientists had thought that patient-specific human cloning might provide cures without the tissue incompatibility problems usually associated with transplants. Specific stem cells, developed using clones genetically identical to the patient, would integrate optimally into the patient's body. Although ideal in theory, problems associated with human cloning have been quite formidable. After many years of trying to produce human clones, a South Korean group claimed to have done so in 2004,2 followed by a claim that they had produced patient-specific clones. However, subsequent questions revealed that all the research was fraudulent. Contrary to the original claims, the researchers failed to produce even one clone after over 2,000 attempts. Although a number of labs are working on producing human clones, none have succeeded - even after several years of additional attempts. At a cost of $1,000-$2,000 just to produce each human egg,3 therapeutic cloning would easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for each patient. Therefore, these kinds of therapies would only be available to the wealthy, assuming the technical difficulties will eventually be eliminated.
Embryonic stem cell research no longer necessary?
Three separate groups of researchers showed recently that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.4 It is very likely that the technique can be used with human cells. The fact that these cells were pluripotent was proved by producing fetuses derived entirely from these transformed skin cells.
What diseases might be cured by stem cell research?
Stem cells have been promoted as a cure for numerous diseases in the popular press, although the reality of the science suggests otherwise. For example, claims that stem cells might cure Alzheimer’s disease are certainly untrue. According to Michael Shelanski, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain (Columbia University Medical Center), “I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small.” Ronald D.G. McKay, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says, “To start with, people need a fairy tale.”5 Stem cell research is widely promoted as a possible cure for type I and type II diabetes. However, these diseases involve the destruction of islet pancreatic cells by the patient's immune system. Even if tissue-compatible islet cells can be produced, transplanting them into a patient will be a very temporary cure, since the patient's immune system will attack the transplant in short order. So, a total cure for diabetes might have to involve a total immune compartment replacement (with its risks), in addition to an islet cell transplant. Parkinson’s disease is another disease that is often mentioned as potentially curable through stem cell research. Proponents of ESCR cite studies in which embryonic stem cells produce dopamine in the brain of rats. However, only 50% of the rats had improvement of function and 25% developed brain tumors and died!6 A main problem for ESCR is that these stem cells spontaneously form tumors in virtually all studies that have been conducted to date. In addition, it seems that the number of dopamine-producing neurons declined over time, suggesting that the cure might be just temporary.7
Problems in stem cell research
According to many stem cell researchers, embryonic stem cells are the preferred stem cells for cell-based therapies. Although they tend be be more versatile than adult stem cells, other sources (including umbilical cord stem cells) have proven to be just as versatile.1 The same properties that make embryonic stem cells so versatile are also the properties that make them unusable for therapy. Unless completely differentiated prior to use in patients, these cells will migrate throughout the body to produce tumors. Experiments performed in mice and rats have shown that spontaneous tumor formation is a persistent problem.6-8 Maintaining and growing embryonic stem cell lines has also been problematic. Some of these lines have mutated, making them unusable in patients.9 The main problem with embryonic stem cell research is the problem is tissue incompatibility.10 Millions of lines must be established in order to serve a significant percentage of potential patients. The use of autologous adult stem cells (cells from the patient) eliminates the problems with tumorogenesis, mutation, and tissue incompatibility. However, since such individualized therapies could not be patented, the pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentives to pursue such therapies. In contrast, embryonic stem cell lines could be patented. Since millions of lines would be required to serve all the different tissue types of patients, pharmaceutical companies could charge a fortune for each patented line they produced. Scientists and research facilities that produced such lines would also reap large financial benefits. The highly favorable financial aspect of embryonic stem cell research is one of the main driving forces behind the push to fund this research.
The problems involved with embryonic stem cell therapies are so formidable that renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Keith Black remarked in 2004 (during California's Proposition 71 stem cell campaign) that his lab would pursue only adult stem cell research. In fact, his group (the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai) recently announced that they had converted adult stem cells into neural stem cells.11
Conclusion
Human embryonic stem cell research has been promoted as being the best way to pursue cell-based therapies for a number of diseases. Although embryonic stem cells are the most versatile type of stem cells, they are unacceptable for therapy because they spontaneously form tumors when transplanted into a compatible host. Embryonic stem cells also suffer from the usual tissue compatibility problems associated with donor transplants. The proposed solution to tissue compatibility problems, therapeutic cloning, is technically challenging (i.e., it hasn't been accomplished yet) and fiscally prohibitive (costs on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient). In contrast to embryonic stem cell technologies, adult stem cells have been used to treat dozens of diseases, with the list growing every year. Pursuing this technology would eliminate the tissue rejection problems associated with embryonic stem cells, and the high cost associated with therapeutic cloning. However, because individualized adult stem cell therapies cannot be patented, this research does not appeal to biotech companies and scientists and research centers seeking royalty payments for patents.
Embryonic stem cell research is a hot topic that seems to pit anti-abortion conservatives against pro-abortion liberals. The conservatives claim that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cells, while the liberals claim that conservatives are blocking research that will provide cures to many tragic diseases. Much of the rhetoric is designed to muddy the waters to invoke emotional responses of those within each camp. This paper is designed to break through sound-bites and go the heart of the matter - what are the scientific issues that impact the question of stem cell research.
What is stem cell research
Much of what is promoted as being news is actually an oversimplification of the issues. Many news articles about stem cell research never distinguish between the kind of stem cell research that is being promoted. For example, the media often reports of breakthrough treatment for patients without mentioning that, in all cases, the source of stem cells is adult tissues. We know this to be true, because embryonic stem cells have never been used in human patients, and won't likely be used in the near future (see reasons, below).
Where do stem cells come from?
Stem cells are classified as being pluripotent or multipotent. Stem cells that are pluripotent are capable of forming virtually all of the possible tissue types found in human beings. These stem cells can only be found in a certain stage (a blastocyst) in human embryos. Multipotent stem cells are partially differentiated, so that they can form a limited number of tissue types. Multipotent stem cells can be found in the fetus, in umbilical cord blood, and numerous adult tissues.
History of stem cell research
Although the controversy of stem cell research is only recent, research first began in the 1960's. The primary source of early human stem cells was adult bone marrow, the tissue that makes red and white blood cells. Since scientists realized that bone marrow was a good source of stem cells, early transplants were initiated in the early 1970's to treat diseases that involved the immune system (genetic immunodeficiencies and cancers of the immune system). Bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy has been extremely successful, with dozens of diseases being treated and cured through the use of these adult stem cells. However, because the donor tissue type must be closely matched to the patient, finding a compatible donor can be problematic. If you haven't already done so, you should become part of the Bone Marrow Registry.
Failures of therapeutic cloning
With the advent of animal cloning, scientists had thought that patient-specific human cloning might provide cures without the tissue incompatibility problems usually associated with transplants. Specific stem cells, developed using clones genetically identical to the patient, would integrate optimally into the patient's body. Although ideal in theory, problems associated with human cloning have been quite formidable. After many years of trying to produce human clones, a South Korean group claimed to have done so in 2004,2 followed by a claim that they had produced patient-specific clones. However, subsequent questions revealed that all the research was fraudulent. Contrary to the original claims, the researchers failed to produce even one clone after over 2,000 attempts. Although a number of labs are working on producing human clones, none have succeeded - even after several years of additional attempts. At a cost of $1,000-$2,000 just to produce each human egg,3 therapeutic cloning would easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, for each patient. Therefore, these kinds of therapies would only be available to the wealthy, assuming the technical difficulties will eventually be eliminated.
Embryonic stem cell research no longer necessary?
Three separate groups of researchers showed recently that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.4 It is very likely that the technique can be used with human cells. The fact that these cells were pluripotent was proved by producing fetuses derived entirely from these transformed skin cells.
What diseases might be cured by stem cell research?
Stem cells have been promoted as a cure for numerous diseases in the popular press, although the reality of the science suggests otherwise. For example, claims that stem cells might cure Alzheimer’s disease are certainly untrue. According to Michael Shelanski, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain (Columbia University Medical Center), “I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small.” Ronald D.G. McKay, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says, “To start with, people need a fairy tale.”5 Stem cell research is widely promoted as a possible cure for type I and type II diabetes. However, these diseases involve the destruction of islet pancreatic cells by the patient's immune system. Even if tissue-compatible islet cells can be produced, transplanting them into a patient will be a very temporary cure, since the patient's immune system will attack the transplant in short order. So, a total cure for diabetes might have to involve a total immune compartment replacement (with its risks), in addition to an islet cell transplant. Parkinson’s disease is another disease that is often mentioned as potentially curable through stem cell research. Proponents of ESCR cite studies in which embryonic stem cells produce dopamine in the brain of rats. However, only 50% of the rats had improvement of function and 25% developed brain tumors and died!6 A main problem for ESCR is that these stem cells spontaneously form tumors in virtually all studies that have been conducted to date. In addition, it seems that the number of dopamine-producing neurons declined over time, suggesting that the cure might be just temporary.7
Problems in stem cell research
According to many stem cell researchers, embryonic stem cells are the preferred stem cells for cell-based therapies. Although they tend be be more versatile than adult stem cells, other sources (including umbilical cord stem cells) have proven to be just as versatile.1 The same properties that make embryonic stem cells so versatile are also the properties that make them unusable for therapy. Unless completely differentiated prior to use in patients, these cells will migrate throughout the body to produce tumors. Experiments performed in mice and rats have shown that spontaneous tumor formation is a persistent problem.6-8 Maintaining and growing embryonic stem cell lines has also been problematic. Some of these lines have mutated, making them unusable in patients.9 The main problem with embryonic stem cell research is the problem is tissue incompatibility.10 Millions of lines must be established in order to serve a significant percentage of potential patients. The use of autologous adult stem cells (cells from the patient) eliminates the problems with tumorogenesis, mutation, and tissue incompatibility. However, since such individualized therapies could not be patented, the pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentives to pursue such therapies. In contrast, embryonic stem cell lines could be patented. Since millions of lines would be required to serve all the different tissue types of patients, pharmaceutical companies could charge a fortune for each patented line they produced. Scientists and research facilities that produced such lines would also reap large financial benefits. The highly favorable financial aspect of embryonic stem cell research is one of the main driving forces behind the push to fund this research.
The problems involved with embryonic stem cell therapies are so formidable that renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Keith Black remarked in 2004 (during California's Proposition 71 stem cell campaign) that his lab would pursue only adult stem cell research. In fact, his group (the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai) recently announced that they had converted adult stem cells into neural stem cells.11
Conclusion
Human embryonic stem cell research has been promoted as being the best way to pursue cell-based therapies for a number of diseases. Although embryonic stem cells are the most versatile type of stem cells, they are unacceptable for therapy because they spontaneously form tumors when transplanted into a compatible host. Embryonic stem cells also suffer from the usual tissue compatibility problems associated with donor transplants. The proposed solution to tissue compatibility problems, therapeutic cloning, is technically challenging (i.e., it hasn't been accomplished yet) and fiscally prohibitive (costs on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient). In contrast to embryonic stem cell technologies, adult stem cells have been used to treat dozens of diseases, with the list growing every year. Pursuing this technology would eliminate the tissue rejection problems associated with embryonic stem cells, and the high cost associated with therapeutic cloning. However, because individualized adult stem cell therapies cannot be patented, this research does not appeal to biotech companies and scientists and research centers seeking royalty payments for patents.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
MRL Recital Benefit and Dessert Reception
Muscatine Right to Life will sponser a musical recital on Friday June 22, 7pm at St. Mathias Catholic Church, Muscatine. There will be a ton of local talent performing! Following the recital there will be a dessert and beverage reception in Gannon Hall, connected to the Church.
This will be MRL's first fundraiser.!
If you would like some flyers to hand around contact MRL at muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com
This will be MRL's first fundraiser.!
If you would like some flyers to hand around contact MRL at muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com
Saturday, March 24, 2007
MRL's First Guest Editorial
Iowans misled about stem cell bill
By Hannah Flanders
Readers: Muscatine Right to Life hopes that a series of guest editorials, beginning today and running about once a month, will help residents of the Muscatine area be better aware of pro-life issues and what is going on in the Legislature or even in our own community.
—Andrew Rauenbuehler
Muscatine Right to Life
Were Iowa citizens deceived and even lied to when the governor pushed to repeal the Iowa human cloning ban by calling it a so-called stem cell research initiative?Without a doubt, the citizens of Iowa have been craftily misinformed on the issues and facts concerning the so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill.
The most frustrating part about this bill is that there has NEVER been a ban on any kind of stem cell research in Iowa. Before this bill was ever brought up, all scientists in Iowa had the legal ability to perform any form of stem cell research! We Iowans were led to believe the fallacy that the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill would allow stem cell research to begin in Iowa, which is most obviously unnecessary since there never was a ban on stem cell research in the first place.Although any kind of stem cell research was permitted in the state of Iowa, what was not allowed was any form of human cloning. Before the passing of this human cloning bill, it was a Class C felony for anyone to attempt cloning a human being. The penalty of this action would result in a 15-year prison term.We Iowans were told that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning through this bill. We were also told that House File 287 and Senate File 162, so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bills, merely entered the human cloning code section to add language allowing “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to be legal according to the bill, and we were then assured that having taken the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” language out, the Iowa human cloning ban (initiated in 2002) would be reaffirmed.What we were not told was that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos can be formed without a male sperm involved.The process works in this system: Scientists take the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and put it into an egg cell (ovum) that has had its nucleus removed. Regardless of any arguments, the result of this process is a cloned embryo. In fact, somatic cell nuclear transfer was the exact method used to clone “Dolly” the sheep.The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply the act of creating a human embryo without a male sperm.The cloned human embryos formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer could either be implanted within a woman’s womb (which is known as reproductive cloning) or could be used for scientific research in which the clone would be harvested for its stem cells and therefore destroyed. Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (therapeutic cloning) and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, the only difference between these two cloning methods is that in one case the clone would be implanted in a woman’s womb and in the other it would be destroyed.Reproductive cloning is still illegal in the state of Iowa.As fellow citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, we deserve the right to be informed on the plans and happenings in the Iowa Legislature. Those in favor of the human cloning bill did not properly inform the Iowa citizens that somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning are the same thing. They merely told us that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning and that our human cloning ban would be reaffirmed.If no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning, then why was the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill concerning somatic cell nuclear transfer passed? Human cloning and somatic nuclear cell transfer are the same thing, whether stated simply or scientifically. How is it possible that the Iowa Legislature can take language from the cloning code section (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and then reaffirm the ban on cloning if, somatic nuclear cell transfer is cloning?Wouldn’t you agree that this would be making something both legal and illegal at the same time?The bottom line is human cloning is no longer banned in the state of Iowa.
Hannah Flanders, age 15, is a member of the recently formed Muscatine Right to Life chapter, part of a national organization whose stated goal is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.”
By Hannah Flanders
Readers: Muscatine Right to Life hopes that a series of guest editorials, beginning today and running about once a month, will help residents of the Muscatine area be better aware of pro-life issues and what is going on in the Legislature or even in our own community.
—Andrew Rauenbuehler
Muscatine Right to Life
Were Iowa citizens deceived and even lied to when the governor pushed to repeal the Iowa human cloning ban by calling it a so-called stem cell research initiative?Without a doubt, the citizens of Iowa have been craftily misinformed on the issues and facts concerning the so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill.
The most frustrating part about this bill is that there has NEVER been a ban on any kind of stem cell research in Iowa. Before this bill was ever brought up, all scientists in Iowa had the legal ability to perform any form of stem cell research! We Iowans were led to believe the fallacy that the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill would allow stem cell research to begin in Iowa, which is most obviously unnecessary since there never was a ban on stem cell research in the first place.Although any kind of stem cell research was permitted in the state of Iowa, what was not allowed was any form of human cloning. Before the passing of this human cloning bill, it was a Class C felony for anyone to attempt cloning a human being. The penalty of this action would result in a 15-year prison term.We Iowans were told that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning through this bill. We were also told that House File 287 and Senate File 162, so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bills, merely entered the human cloning code section to add language allowing “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to be legal according to the bill, and we were then assured that having taken the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” language out, the Iowa human cloning ban (initiated in 2002) would be reaffirmed.What we were not told was that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos can be formed without a male sperm involved.The process works in this system: Scientists take the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and put it into an egg cell (ovum) that has had its nucleus removed. Regardless of any arguments, the result of this process is a cloned embryo. In fact, somatic cell nuclear transfer was the exact method used to clone “Dolly” the sheep.The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply the act of creating a human embryo without a male sperm.The cloned human embryos formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer could either be implanted within a woman’s womb (which is known as reproductive cloning) or could be used for scientific research in which the clone would be harvested for its stem cells and therefore destroyed. Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (therapeutic cloning) and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, the only difference between these two cloning methods is that in one case the clone would be implanted in a woman’s womb and in the other it would be destroyed.Reproductive cloning is still illegal in the state of Iowa.As fellow citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, we deserve the right to be informed on the plans and happenings in the Iowa Legislature. Those in favor of the human cloning bill did not properly inform the Iowa citizens that somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning are the same thing. They merely told us that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning and that our human cloning ban would be reaffirmed.If no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning, then why was the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill concerning somatic cell nuclear transfer passed? Human cloning and somatic nuclear cell transfer are the same thing, whether stated simply or scientifically. How is it possible that the Iowa Legislature can take language from the cloning code section (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and then reaffirm the ban on cloning if, somatic nuclear cell transfer is cloning?Wouldn’t you agree that this would be making something both legal and illegal at the same time?The bottom line is human cloning is no longer banned in the state of Iowa.
Hannah Flanders, age 15, is a member of the recently formed Muscatine Right to Life chapter, part of a national organization whose stated goal is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
