Growing New Fingers From "Pig Matrix?"
The Wall Street Journal (no link available) reports that scientists are treating wounded Iraqi War veterans with a substance from pigs that seems to resurrect the ability to regenerate organs and other body parts--an ability possessed by fetuses but lost after birth. In this case, the scientists hope to regenerate parts of fingers the soldiers lost. From the story: "Doctors plan to treat them with a fine powder called extracellular matrix, harvested from pig bladders. The material, found in all animals, is the scaffolding that cells latch onto as they divide and grow into tissue and body parts. In the human body, it was long thought to be inert. But scientists have discovered that it appears to activate latent biological processes that spur healing and regenerate tissue."
This procedure is finding growing application throughout the world: "More than 500,000 people world-wide have had matrix-based treatments since 1999, according to Johnson & Johnson and Cook. Other potential uses are in development. No significant side effects have been linked to the treatment, Dr. Badylak says.
That a single substance can be used to treat such different conditions reflects matrix's capacity to adapt to its environment. In the shoulder, for example, it promotes the formation of tendon tissue, in the lower urinary tract, the formation of bladder or urine-channel tissue, and in a diabetic ulcer, of normal skin."
Gee. And not a destroyed embryo in sight. I think that the ideologues of biotechnology have made a terrible mistake putting so much emphasis and vitriol into overcoming President Bush's moderate funding restrictions for ESCR. Most of biotechnology, such as this area of research, is completely uncontroversial. By placing so much emphasis on trying to bulldozer its way into overcoming ethical objections to funding the destruction of embryos, the biotechnology industry divides the country and misses the chance to unite us behind wonderful research in which we can all row in the same direction.
Labels: Regenerative Medicine Alternatives to embryonic stem cell research
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:33 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
I think it is also fair to ask, conversely, why doesn't the christian right stop dividing this country by continuing to push the issue? Scientists with research institutions need to continually seek funding and the christian right has given them an easy way to get funding. If the christian right had stayed out of the way, these scientists would have already moved on to more promising therapies.
The christian right brought this on themselves, and the Republican party lost out as a result.
Jen: It is fair to say that because of the moderate funding restrictions Bush imposed, Big Biotech launched a huge propaganda campaign over the issue of funding of ESCR. And in many regards, they have swept the field using hype, obfuscation, and prevarication. But, it has been effective. However, when and if the "cures" do not come through, I predict a huge backlash. If so, science will be sorry it ceased being science.
I think it is also fair to say, however, that had Bush given "the scientists" the ethical and financial blank check they wanted for ESCR using leftover IVF embryos, they would now be demanding federal funding for human cloning research--as we have seen in CA and MO--and for the creation of embryos through fertilization for use in ESCR. They might even have already moved beyond the current "14-day" limit--as they have in New Jersey.
The anything goes crowd will never be satisifed.
As for the political impact, some disagree but I think it is very minor. At least, so far. However, it has redounded against the Republicans, as you say, which some will cheer and others bemoan. Thanks for writing.
I find it amusing that the moment someone feels threatened the "Christian Right" is accused of "dividing the country" or other nonsense.
The pro-life Christian Right doesn't care if women die -- Not true: We don't believe that women ought to be put into positions (either by themselves or others) where such a decision is necessary, since such situations result in a woman being treated like an object (rape, one-night-stands, etc); we DO care if women die, which is why we don't like abortions of any stripe - they all have inherent risks toward the woman's life.
The Christian Right divides the country by pushing the issue of ESCR -- Not true. We made our case and encouraged, instead, research that doesn't bother our morality or anybody else's for that matter, and instead of hearing us out, we're villanized. Nevermind that equally as many Christians have disabled family members who would benefit from ethical SCR (I know one woman who adopted a son with Down's Syndrom, a daughter with Autism, and a newborn with AIDS, and she's a devout Catholic) - we're treated like we live in a bubble outside the "real world" of disabled living.
The Christian Right is full of homicidal evil-doers who like to hurt people in the name of their religion, like abortion clinic bombers and such -- I'd like to see any one of you suggest that your average Muslim conservative is equal to the suicide bombers in the Middle East, or that your averge Indian (person from India here) is as much a murderer as some of the extremists blowing up or torturing innocent Pakastani citizens.
You are going to get people of all religions and all cultures who have different opinions about how things should be done. We're in a country that's supposed to respect those differences. We have factories that make sure food never comes into contact with pork products and that meat and milk are never mixed so that a large segment of society doesn't have its morals compromised by having to eat non-Kosher food. We have delis where no beef is served and no meat is cut with beef so that people of the Hindu faith are not forced to do something they feel is unethical.
And we SHOULD do those things.
So now we're talking bioethics and the majority of people in America feel that some fetters should be put on biotechnology to keep us from turning into a bad sci-fi movie. A segment of the US (the "religious right") have spoken up loudly, representing ourselves and those who don't believe what we do but agree with our general feelings on the matter.
And we're the bad guys for this?
I'm sorry. You can't make us a separate factory to churn out non-ESCR related cures. You can't give us separate buildings where we can go for vaccines that weren't made from lines that once long ago used embryos. You just can't. And yet we're expected to bend knee to the wants of others because "it's for the sake of science."
Science can't replace religion, morality, ethics, or any of the things that matter. Religion, morality, ethics, those should be guiding science.
And a Secondhand Smoke preemptive warning flag is on the field: I believe Jen Saunder's comments that the religious right's political advocacy helped lead to the current situation involving state-funded stem cell research and political ramifications that have followed from Bush's funding decision, was in bounds--based on my comment that there were no embryos used in the research I referenced. I believe Tab's comments were a legitimate reaction to Jen's assertion. So far, so good.
But I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about the pros and cons of the religious right, per se. Let's keep it at the level of biotechnology and bioethics, and not expand it to issues of contention in other areas of public discourse.
Thank you for your attention. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Wesley, you can say if this is out of bounds: I think there's a major problem with any implication that people who seek to cut off government funding for research they regard as unethical are somehow "responsible" for subsequent hysterical exaggerations of the value and importance of said research by its proponents. If the people doing ESCR or wanting to do it are scientists, they should be big boys and girls and not propagate hype under any circumstances, whether it gets them state funding or PR or whatever. Two-year-olds and charlatans act that way. Good scientists don't.
Very much in bounds, Lydia, and a point with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home