Switzerland endorses stem cell research.

swiss · 29-11-2004 1:24am #1

Voters in Switzerland have strongly backed a new law permitting research on the stem cells of human embryos.

Two-thirds of voters said "yes" to the government's proposals, opposed by religious and left-wing groups.

Nationwide referendums are common in Switzerland, but this vote makes it the first country in the world to put the controversial issue to a popular vote.

Scientists believe stem cells may hold the key to treatments for illnesses including Parkinson's and diabetes.

Switzerland, which is a world leader in medical and pharmaceutical research, has so far not permitted research on human embryos.

Personally, I think this could be the impetus to prompt other European states to legalise stem cell research. The US is unlikely to follow suit due to their highly conservative administration (so sad, so sad). Stem cell research has undoubtedly created a great deal of controversy between pro-life and research groups, but it looks like there has been an opinion shift towards research in Switzerland. I hope this is replicated across Europe.

OfflerCrocGod · 29-11-2004 2:28am

I fail to see the problem in this research. I really can't see why it's such a big deal. If a doctor wants to mess around with aborted fetuses "go ahead!" I say, of course I will admit a certain lack of knowledge on the subject because of a certain lack of interest on my part but that's mainly because - like the GM food debate - I really am not seeing the horror of this research. Does anyone know why this should not go ahead?

Mercury_Tilt · 29-11-2004 2:36am

This post has been deleted.

TomF · 29-11-2004 3:36pm

There is a story in the news today about stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood or tissue being successfully used to treat a woman who had been paralysed by spinal injury. The story comes out of South Korea, and I am not going to get too excited until I read more detail and see medical reaction. However, if true, this is an indication that stem-cells other than embryonic can be used to do great things.

I personally think that much of the clamor for allowing embryonic stem-cell research is based on two agendas: one that supports in-vitro fertilisation and the creation of "perfect babies" or selected-sex babies or embryos made to supply stem-cells; and the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy and also as a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World.

If this South Korean story turns out to be correct in its details, there is going to be a very bright spotlight turned on these agendas.

Sparks · 29-11-2004 3:59pm

I personally think that much of the clamor for allowing embryonic stem-cell research is based on two agendas: one that supports in-vitro fertilisation and the creation of "perfect babies" or selected-sex babies or embryos made to supply stem-cells; and the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy and also as a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World.

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

bonkey · 29-11-2004 4:36pm

BBC Article wrote:

The proposals are strict. Research would be permitted only on cells from embryos less than seven days old which were left over from fertilisation treatment and due for destruction anyway.

From what my girlfriend was reading out to me when she was filling in her own vote, the proposals are far stricter than even this makes them out to be. One additional condition is, I believe, that the "parents" (if this is technically the correct term) of the embryo must also grant permission in writing for it to be used.

jc

TomF · 29-11-2004 4:42pm

Sparks wrote:

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

What in the world do you mean by that?

Gurgle · 29-11-2004 4:45pm

Sparks wrote:

Then perhaps you need to do some actual research so that your personal opinion isn't either science fiction the likes of which we're about a century away from or a fantasy that would give psychologists researching persecution complexes a lot of material to work with.

So which of the below, in your thoroughly informed personal opinion is a century away from possible ?
- in-vitro fertilisation
- the creation of "perfect babies"
- selected-sex babies
- embryos made to supply stem-cells

Or was your objection aimed at this bit:

TomF wrote:

the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy

, which IMHO is an excellent point and well stated.

Sparks · 29-11-2004 5:03pm

I was referring to the concept that we could "create perfect babies" Tom - we can't do that yet. We barely know how to add features from one species to another (a technique which has had very positive benefits for humanity, thank you very much - frostproof tomatoes for an example, which mean we can grow more food); the very concept of fine-tuning things like morphological features of an individual or their intelligence level or those kind of changes are light-years past where we are right now. For example, the Human Genome Project has managed to transcribe the entire human genome - but that doesn't mean we've translated it, just that we've copied it down onto paper. There aren't enough genes in the genome for our previous theories of how genes control development to be correct - now geneticists are thinking it's a far more complex picture with genes interacting to bring about features in the individual. All of which means that while you might be able to increase the odds of producing a baby with blue eyes, you can't deliberately do so for an individual child. It's beyond our level of understanding at present. And not by a small amount - we're like pre-einstein physicists looking at the discrepencies in Mercury's orbit and suddenly finding out that they aren't the result of observational error or another unknown planet.

As to "the other agenda which supports anything, and I mean anything, that keeps abortion as a tool for avoiding the responsibilities attached to pregnancy", that's not only a moral judgement on a group of wholly unrelated people who have abortions for as many reasons as there are people in that group, it's also an attempt to smear all their names simultaenously.

And "a tool aimed at reducing births among the "lower orders of humanity" in the slums of a country, or in the Third World" is a phrase that's best reserved for some late-night rerun of the X-files than a discussion about the most promising avenue of medical research this century, if not ever.

SkepticOne · 29-11-2004 5:34pm

So was there much media debate in Switzerland over this? What were the pros and cons of the issues that were highlighted? (addressing this to anyone posting from that country).

bonkey · 29-11-2004 6:01pm

SkepticOne wrote:

So was there much media debate in Switzerland over this?

Not an exceptional amount that I recall....but I don't really listen to many current affairs programs over here - my comprehension of Schweezer-Dootsch (pronounciation-oriented spelling) isn't up to that.

What were the pros and cons of the issues that were highlighted? (addressing this to anyone posting from that country).

Pro: medical research potential.
Con: its against the catholic church's teachings, and is another step along the path of further devaluing human life.

That more or less sums it up from what I heard.

jc

TomF · 29-11-2004 6:23pm

Well, when it comes to urging any and all kinds of stem-cell research, as did "Superman" Christopher Reeves and Mrs. Ronald Reagan, I think those people assume that biological research coupled with super computers is on the verge of producing a cure for every disease and disorder. I am also pretty sure that plenty of people think that in-vitro fertilisation coupled with stem-cell research and super computers can produce the perfect baby having: dark skin that won't sunburn, blue eyes more resistant to cataracts, an immunity to alcoholism, the ablility to digest gluten, curly or kinky hair resistant to getting cowlicks and so-on.

I think people who live with biochemical science students (I fall into that fortunate class), and have nightly lectures on the ins and outs of the subject, are not so likely to assume that stem-cells are the be-all and end-all.

However, opinion-makers who dominate the news media seem (to me, at least) to be found in the former class - those who think Science (note the capital letter) has found the blueprint and directions to perfecting humanity, and that anyone who counsels a moral, cautious approach to harvesting stem-cells is anti-intellectual and anti-Science. Many who swallow everything these opinion-makers say and write probably believe way too much of what the adventure and science-fiction movie scriptwriters and directors put on the silver screen.

Sparks · 29-11-2004 7:08pm

Well, when it comes to urging any and all kinds of stem-cell research, as did "Superman" Christopher Reeves

Who ironically dies only a few weeks before the announcement that started this thread off, that of a treatment for paralysis victims...

Which to me, at least, points out that he was correct in what he was calling for - which was not fully unregulated research, by the way TomF. If you do live with a biochem student, ask him/her about Ethics Committees and discover that they do not, in fact, get to play at being minor deities in the lab. It's not a case of "Hey Jimbob, I know what we'll do this week - let's grow an ear on the back of a mouse! It'll be cool!".

Oddly enough, the very people that are being assumed to be those who want to plough ahead with unrestricted research are the ones who thought through this issue a long time ago and in great detail and as a result set up the restraints everyone is now saying should be in place...

Magnolia_Fan · 29-11-2004 8:28pm

swiss wrote:

From BBC news.

Personally, I think this could be the impetus to prompt other European states to legalise stem cell research. The US is unlikely to follow suit due to their highly conservative administration (so sad, so sad). Stem cell research has undoubtedly created a great deal of controversy between pro-life and research groups, but it looks like there has been an opinion shift towards research in Switzerland. I hope this is replicated across Europe.

Didn't the U.S rule that stem cells can be used for science but only in certain events..I forget now but something to do with Embryo lol

OfflerCrocGod · 29-11-2004 11:33pm

TomF wrote:

If this South Korean story turns out to be correct in its details, there is going to be a very bright spotlight turned on these agendas.

As far as I'm aware not all stem-cells are created equally, by that I mean adult and cordal stem-cells are useful and can be used for developing new medicines but embryo stem-cells are far more versatile and powerful in that they are capable of a lot more then other type of stem-cells. Also I think embryo research has had something like a decade less research put into it then adult stem-cell research, so to compare the fruits of the two branches of stem-cell research is unfair - more time is needed.

TomF · 30-11-2004 6:37am

Well, I seem to have missed our youngest's last evening lecture on biomedical science, but this morning I caught a glimpse of a very interesting article on stem-cell research. Here's a starting quote:

"When the [U.S. federal government's research] funding restriction breaks down, as I predict it will, reports of stem-cell miracles will rapidly fade. 'Breakthroughs' will be reported on schedule, as always, but actual cures are unlikely to ensue. That's what happened with the Human Genome Project. (Remember that?) It was wholly hyped, fully funded, and given its own employment center at the National Institutes of Health. Once that was accomplished, little more was heard of the disease-curing potential of the genome sequence. The reason is clear enough. That potential has turned out to be little more than zero. A similar scenario will probably unfold with embryonic stem cells."

"Mengele Medicine", by Tom Bethell
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7443

swiss · 30-11-2004 1:12pm

That article merely points out that stem cell research is not guaranteed to produce tangible benefits, which is hardly surprising. I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't say with any authority whether stem cell research is beneficial or not. However, I imagine medical experts currently involved in stem cell research are better positioned to debate whether or not their work has potential as opposed to a partisan article making broad, flawed assessments.

bonkey · 30-11-2004 1:47pm

TomF wrote:

but this morning I caught a glimpse of a very interesting article on stem-cell research.

I'm not sure "interesting" is the word I'd use. "Misleading" might be more appropriate.

The author of this article would seem to be like someone proclaiming that 6 months after the Wright Brothers flew, the lack of transcontinental mass-transit aircraft proved that this whole flight lark was just an elaborate scam.

IF you want to discuss media distortion of a situation, I'd say he's an excellent study case, rather than a good source to show how others have been doing the same.

A similar scenario will probably unfold with embryonic stem cells.

A similar scenario?

So they'll be carefully studied, after which the information gained will be carefully studied so that we can understand what it is we're messing with, and responsible scientists will treat it as responsible science taken at a responsible pace, with plenty of ethics comittees etc overseeing everything to make sure that nothing "Frankensteinian" gets done???

That sounds excellent.

jc

sliabh · 30-11-2004 2:57pm

Sparks wrote:

I was referring to the concept that we could "create perfect babies" Tom - we can't do that yet. We barely know how to add features from one species to another (a technique which has had very positive benefits for humanity, thank you very much - frostproof tomatoes for an example, which mean we can grow more food);

Frost proof humans would be nice too!

And can I have the gene from bears that prevends their muscles from atrophying even when they get no exercise while hibernating. That one would be pretty cool for staying fit after doing the work once

Gurgle · 30-11-2004 4:26pm

sliabh wrote:

And can I have the gene from bears that prevends their muscles from atrophying even when they get no exercise while hibernating. That one would be pretty cool for staying fit after doing the work once

Oh, I want the hibernating gene, please please please.

I don't care about the atrophied muscles and stuff, I just want to sleep through this miserable cold dark wet season.

Wake me up on the 1st of march.

TomF · 30-11-2004 5:10pm

swiss wrote:

That article...[is] a partisan article making broad, flawed assessments.

Please, how is the article partisan, and which are the flawed assessments, and what are their flaws?

bonkey · 30-11-2004 5:58pm

Considering that the first hit google produced against his name was from beliefnet, and that many of his articles linked to from there have a very, very clear and strong Christian slant........I think its safe to say that the author (if not the article) is partisan.

Flaws? Where to start...

That's what happened with the Human Genome Project. (Remember that?)

As I've already pointed out, this is not what happened with the HGP.

Going a bit further down...after telling us how we get misled by biotech, this, that and the other....he says :

We get miracles in the headlines, but the fine print tells a different story.

So which is it then Mr. Bethell? We're misled, or we choose to read sensationalist copy-selling headlines and then forget about reading the rest of the information thats offered to us, thinking that a soundbite is sufficient education?

In fact, they don't even know where in the embryo to look for a plausible candidate cell.

Err...hold on Mr. Bethell. You've just spent several paragraphs telling us how all of the claims are overhyped, but now you tell us that the people making these claims also admit that they don't actually know enough about how to acheive their goals to be able to say when they'll get there?

Genetic engineering is turning out to be as hard to achieve in our day as social engineering was in the Communist era.

Here's more of it. Apparently Mr. Bethell can conclude this from what the geneticists are telling us and still claim that they're telling us something else entirely!!!

Indeed, I note there isn't a single anecdote of where we were misled. There's lots of appeals to "remember the hype", which conveniently gets blamed on the scientists....but not a single reference to any instances of it. Nope...the instancing is saved for the stuff that only partially seems to back up his assertions...which is that scientists are saying "its a long, long road, and we're realistically at the beginning of it, not the end".

Bethell's anecdotes show that research takes time. They show that research is often undertaken to fill gaps is knowledge. He shows that sometimes, when we fill those gaps, we discover we still have too many gaps remaining to sow everything up.

From this, and his anecdotally-and-evidentially-lacking pleas to "remember the hype" he concludes that we were misled on the last big new issue that pitted Christians against sience, and are being misled again.

So I would say that Swiss' assessment is bang on. Broad, Flawed, and partisan....although the last of those three more stems than the others, then being evident in and of itself I guess.

Sparks · 30-11-2004 5:59pm

how is the article partisan

Are you kidding me? It's title is partisan for crying out loud, it's invoking the most damned name in medical history since Jack the Ripper!

TomF · 30-11-2004 11:07pm

"Tom Bethell is the Washington correspondent of The American Spectator. He was born and raised in England, attended Downside School, a Benedictine foundation, and graduated from Oxford University in 1962."

That's his brief biography, and I suppose what it contains may be enough to make some dismiss whatever he writes as partisan. If he is a Catholic, he seems to be the G.K. Chesterton/Hilaire Belloc/Ronald Knox type of English Catholic who can write a rousing critique when he wants to.

I don't think Bethell has any gripe against a partisan for presenting the argument for unrestrained harvesting of stem-cells obtained from wherever, but I think he properly criticises the tactic of courting public opinion by sensationalist or misleading news releases, or at least the failure of administrators and researchers not to disassociate themselves and their institutions from such tactics.

He also does not fall for the argument that embryo stem-cells might be the answer to cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, all genetic disorders and aging with its accompanying wrinkles and receding hairlines, and that it is therefore right to harvest those cells, and in fact is is positively wrong not to harvest them. I think he is a very clear thinker about a very murky subject.

I recognise that the media get a lot of copy out of the claim of potential miracle cures from embryonic stem-cells, and that a public roused by the overheated stories are not going to want to hear researchers and their administrators saying that things aren't at all certain to turn-out rosy if such cells are free to be created and then used. (Not that career researchers are likely to spoil the fun and the funding by being outspokenly skeptical about the future of embryonic stem-cell research!)

Sparks · 30-11-2004 11:32pm

TomF wrote:

That's his brief biography, and I suppose what it contains may be enough to make some dismiss whatever he writes as partisan.

It contains insufficent data to make any rational judgement on what he writes; and so saying that it does can only be a disingenous attempt to discredit whomever you're saying have made judgements based on it. Pretty amateur in the dirty tricks handbook Tom.

I don't think Bethell has any gripe against a partisan for presenting the argument for unrestrained harvesting of stem-cells obtained from wherever

Exactly whom has advocated unrestrained harvesting of anything from anywhere? These claims you keep insinuating are the Iraqi WMD of the field of genetics research, Tom.

I think he properly criticises the tactic of courting public opinion by sensationalist or misleading news releases

By using titles that invoke the infamous name of Mengele, who orchestrated unethical medical experiments on jewish concentration camp victims in WW2? Does that not strike you as being somewhat... daft?

He also does not fall for the argument that embryo stem-cells might be the answer to cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, all genetic disorders and aging with its accompanying wrinkles and receding hairlines, and that it is therefore right to harvest those cells, and in fact is is positively wrong not to harvest them. I think he is a very clear thinker about a very murky subject.

Again, who's making the argument for unrestrained harvesting?
You're making as much sense as those people who protested at the launch of the Cassini space probe, Tom.

I recognise that the media get a lot of copy out of the claim of potential miracle cures from embryonic stem-cells, and that a public roused by the overheated stories are not going to want to hear researchers and their administrators saying that things aren't at all certain to turn-out rosy if such cells are free to be created and then used. (Not that career researchers are likely to spoil the fun and the funding by being outspokenly skeptical about the future of embryonic stem-cell research!)

So basicly, you're slandering the media, slandering the reputations of honest professional scientists (for engaging in the scientific process of peer review and critical analysis of hypotheses), and slandering the public by saying they are willingly choosing to remain ignorant.
Well, that's just about everyone covered then, isn't it?

TomF · 01-12-2004 9:32am

This is beginning to resemble a game of Ping-Pong.

Yes, there are people and organisations out there who think embryonic stem-cells are going to be The Answer. I Googled "stem cell research funding" and what came up first but something called CAMR:

"The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is comprised of nationally-recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific societies, foundations, and individuals with life-threatening illnesses and disorders, advocating for the advancement of breakthrough research and technologies in regenerative medicine - including stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer - in order to cure disease and alleviate suffering."

"CAMR has focused its advocacy in three related areas:

1. Protecting and preserving continued federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research

Why? Embryonic stem cells show tremendous promise, federal funding of the research protects the public interest, and the majority of Americans support stem cell research."

To which I respond, maybe a majority of people support stem cell research, but let's be very careful that we don't try to leap across the void and say that it is not debatable where those cells come from. Next, why do a majority of people support stem cell research? Well, it is because of the publicity (hype, really) coming from the media and the flacks of research organisations who want funding and from special interest groups.

Who are these special interests? I think people who are dealing with presently-incurable conditions are one group, and I can certainly sympathise with them. However you don't seek those cures by allying with another group who have an entirely different agenda of making a radical change in the thinking of the public about the human embryo so that one kind of human life can be henceforth thought of as a factory for cells for the improvement of other human lives. This other group are the ones who Bethell is correctly identifying as advocating "Mengele Medicine".

I don't see Bethell as smearing anyone, he is just lifting a few attractive rocks and exposing what is under them.

sliabh · 01-12-2004 9:49am

TomF wrote:

This is beginning to resemble a game of Ping-Pong.

Yeah, but you have yet to put up something other than heresay for your claims.

TomF wrote:

However you don't seek those cures by allying with another group who have an entirely different agenda

What rubbish! Are you saying that you shouldn't push for something you think is good just because someone else with distasteful opinions happens to agree with you on this subject?

Well then I should not support environmental issues because the Greens have policies I disagree with on Europe. Or to take this to it's logical conclusion the Allies should not have fought in WWII against the Nazis because Stalin's equally distasteful regime thought that was a good idea as well?

TomF wrote:

making a radical change in the thinking of the public about the human embryo so that one kind human life can be henceforth thought of as a factory for cells for the improvement of other human lives.

Again rubbish. For two reasons, the first being that you have yet to identify a "Mengele Medicine" group that is suggesting this. And secondly because, bringing this argument back to facts where it should be, the stem cell collection is to occur from embryos that are:
a) little more than a group of barely distinguished cells
b) going to be destroyed anyway as part of other IVF processes

What is being regulated is the secondary use of these cells, and not the creation of embryos with the sole intent of harvesting stem cells prior to their destruction. Which seems to be what you are suggesting is going to happen.

TomF · 01-12-2004 10:08am

There are groups out there who support abortion at any and all stages of life for any and all reasons. That is certainly beyond challenge today.

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

How much farther can it go? Suppose we say that the human fetus is the next to be ceded, and said groups will next ask that they be allowed to harvest fetuses in any stage of life, say for the purpose of removing eyes, livers, kidneys, hearts and any other parts that can be used by some poor person who is blind or suffering from organ failure. Most certainly that is going to be the next stage. It is the classic slippery-slope.

sliabh · 01-12-2004 10:22am

TomF wrote:

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

These are embryos that have been created anyway as part of standard IVF treatments. And they are all to be destroyed anyway. If anything it is a good idea that a further benefical use can be found for them.

The concept of making embryos purely for stem cells is a different argument. And if/when someone starts looking for permission for that then a new argument will start. You will find many people that support stem cell research based on surplus IVF embryos would not support "manufactured" embryos.

To suggest an agreement to one therefore leads to the other is a fallacy. It's no more true than suggesting that legalising alcohol is going to make everyone an alcoholic.

bonkey · 01-12-2004 10:48am

TomF wrote:

There are groups out there who support abortion at any and all stages of life for any and all reasons. That is certainly beyond challenge today.

Agreed.

If it is ceded to those groups that human embryos can be destroyed ("harvested") for the purpose of medical treatment of other human beings, then why not go into mass production of human embryos just for that purpose?

Because that is - again - a complete misrepresentation of the state of affairs - both current and proposed. What is being suggested (and has been accepted in Switzerland) is that embryos stored for a very specific purpose, but which are no longer suitable for that purpose and will be destroyed anyway may be used under strict supervision, in tightly-controlled areas. And - in the case of Switzerland - this can only happen with the permission of the donors.

Now...I fail to see how this is opening the floodgates for anything. There is no suggestion that people be able to use anything else for research. At best, all I can see is an arguable need (if its not already been covered) to ensure that you can't have "arranged donations" for IVF who's purpose is purely and solely to sit on ice for however many years it takes to become non-viable, and then to be transferred to embryonic research labs.

How much farther can it go?

Well, if you started from where it is before asking that question, rather than posing some Frankensteinian picture of where it might be....it would be easier to take the question seriously.

Suppose we say that the human fetus is the next to be ceded,

Then we'd be talking about something entirely different, wouldn't we. We wouldn't be discussing what we're discussing now, but rather an entirely different scenario.

The only connection between the two is that allowing stem-cell-research would be a pre-cursor to the ensuing scenarios.

Then again, breeding (and indeed breathing) is a pre-cursor to those scenarios as well. Should we outlaw procreation and inhalation to ensure that we don't end up at your terrifying destination as well????

It is the classic slippery-slope.

Its the classic slippery-slope fallacy, you mean.

jc

Sparks · 01-12-2004 2:38pm

bonkey wrote:

Agreed.

Indeed - if you happen to include the completely extremist tinfoil-hat brigade as a legitimate group...
If, however, you're speaking of legitimate medical practitioners or rational people, then most definitely not. Third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare, and despite the crap that TomF is probably going to sling in our direction regarding "partial birth abortions", those simply don't count, because they're done (in the third trimester) in cases where not to do them would kill the mother and where the fetus is already dead or not viable anyway. Heck, even the Catholic Church supports abortion in those circumstances!

TomF wrote:

why do a majority of people support stem cell research? Well, it is because of the publicity (hype, really) coming from the media and the flacks of research organisations who want funding and from special interest groups.

Slander again? Are you really saying that there's no legitimate reason in pursuing a line of medical research? Pfft. This is rapidly approaching the level of debate you'd expect between a concentration camp survivor and a holocaust denier. And you're not the one with the numerical tattoo, Tom.

This other group are the ones who Bethell is correctly identifying as advocating "Mengele Medicine".

Who are "they", Tom?

Switzerland endorses stem cell research.

Comments