Maryland Stem Cell Bill Passes

The website for the proceedings of the Maryland General Assembly reports that Senate Bill 144, the Stem Cells bills, passed the House on the Third reading today by a vote of 90-48. I don't have any further details yet. It's still unknown if the governor will sign. The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun will probably report shortly, but I won't likely get to them until tomorrow.

Stem Cells Help Paralyzed Rats

Stem Cells Help Paralyzed Rats
Don’t get excited yet, this is only rodents. But a hot story today is that researchers at Toronto Western Research Institute and the University of Toronto transplanted stem cells from the brains of adult mice into the crushed spinal cords of rats. Up to one third of the cells survived, formed new spinal tissue, and produced myelin. Myelin sheathing is what transmits the signals from the brain. The rats who had new myelin regained some mobility. This is all according to the press release on EurekAlert, but the story has also been covered by media.
An AP story that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, among many other newspapers, reports that the study used 97 rats. Some of them were treated at two weeks after injury, and some at eight weeks. Only those treated at two weeks had improvement. They were not able to walk normally, but they had improved coordination and could bear weight on their hind legs. The Toronto Star reports that success of this experiment—which was aimed at getting one type of cell to be replaced—is due in part to the use of the drug minocycline, which both acted as an anti-inflammatory, thus reducing damage, and apparently helped the stem cells to survive. A Reuters story addresses follow-up issues; the lead researcher said it might be possible to do research in human five to ten years after the animal trials. It might be possible to use a biopsy needle to extract cells from a person’s brain and inject them at the site of the injury.

The stem cells that were used were neural precursor cells—already “programmed” to differentiate into nervous system cells. One of the significant issues is the lack of effectiveness at eight weeks; this might eventually develop into a treatment to be given at the time of or shortly after injury but not be effective for persons who have been paralyzed for a long time. It’s promising, however, in that it shows that myelin can regrow.

The successfulness of the drugs is also important. Other studies have shown that reducing inflammation can help healing—there are even suggestions that stem cells’ therapeutic effects may be because they act as anti-inflammatory agents. I don’t know the current medical protocol for treating spinal injury, but it seems that anti-inflammatories should be a component.

Missouri Ballot Language Upheld

Missouri Ballot Language Upheld

This is one of two prominent stories today. A brief AP story in the Columbia Missourian reports that a state appeals court ruled yesterday in favor of the defendants, allowing the language of a proposed ballot initiative protecting stem cell research to stand. Cole County Senior Judge Byron had previously ruled (see Blog Post of 1-20-06) that the ballot “was sufficient and fair and the language neutral.” His ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs, opponents of the measure. The Kansas City Star gives substantially more details:

The appeals court ruled 2-1 that the ballot measure would prohibit human reproductive cloning and that the summary language was adequate. I’m going to quote a bit here from the article so as not to misrepresent things.

The court ruling, written by Judge Victor Howard of Kansas City, rejected that analysis. The law allows the sponsors of the initiative to set definitions, Howard wrote. The initiative clearly defines cloning as attempts to bring a cloned human to birth, and it bans such attempts, the court said.

“Appellants’ real dispute seems not so much with the summary statement as it is with the initiative’s definition of human cloning,” the decision said, adding that the definition was supported by evidence introduced at trial.

“Ultimately, appellants ask us to choose their definition of human cloning over that set out in the initiative. We decline."

Judge James Smart Jr. agreed that the initiative’s summary was adequate to gather signatures. But he dissented over the wording of the summary that will appear on ballots. The problem, Smart wrote, is that the phrase “human cloning” has become a shibboleth –– a phrase used to identify which side of the stem-cell debate a person is on.

Some voters might define a laboratory technique used to copy cells as human cloning. Therefore, to allow the ballot to say that the initiative bans human cloning would be misleading to voters who are philosophically opposed to all such laboratory techniques, Smart wrote.

Without reading the whole decision, I do find myself in agreement with Smart that the phrase “human cloning” is a contentious one. It’s a situation where the vernacular is less precise than the scientific. However, since cloning is defined by the measure, and not left up to the vernacular, there’s no reason the initiative should be seen as ambiguous. Voters have a responsibility to educate themselves about what they are voting on, especially if it is an issue that matters to them a lot on philosophical or ethical grounds. If a ban on therapeutic cloning is important to you, read the whole initiative, not just the summary.

The whole debates would be helped along substantially if the media would use the phrases “embryonic stem cell” or “non-embryonic stem cells” in their headlines, and similarly with “reproductive cloning” and “therapeutic cloning,” instead of just “cloning.” Things get mushed together.

Of course opponents would say that the techniques for therapeutic cloning and for reproductive cloning are the same, and so should be banned. But I think it’s important to make intent transparent when possible.

And what is wrong with reproductive cloning? Is it because it’s not natural? Lots of things we do aren’t “natural,” whatever natural means. Is it because the cloned person would probably have significant health problems and it would be immoral to bring such a person into the world? (In that case, isn’t it immoral not to have an abortion when the fetus has significant birth defects/genetic disorders?) Is it because it’s an evolutionary bad idea not to mingle DNA and we respond to this on a preconscious, instinctual level by thinking “yuck” about passing on identical DNA the same way we feel about incest? Is it because there have been so many science fiction stories and movies that presented cloning as evil throughout the last century that it is now permeated into our culture? Yes, I am setting up straw men here, but I think it’s important to consider where our prejudices, abhorrences, and oppositions come from instead of living in them unquestioningly.

I will say clearly here that I am not in favor of reproductive cloning, largely because it seems to me an act of unbridled egoism, to try to reproduce oneself. I also think it’s wasteful—of time, of money, of energy. Frankly, I also have an issue with spending lots of money on in-vitro fertility procedures to have a genetically related child when there are so many children living in poverty and need who could be adopted (or helped by that same money—how many vaccinations against common childhood diseases could save lives in underdeveloped nations with the cost of one in-vitro?). We need to stop thinking about the propagation of our own genes, which is what drives animals, and think about the quality of life of all persons.

Wow, this turned into a sermon. Sorry about that, folks….

P.S. I edited this slightly the day after the original post.