Welcome to The Pro Life Campaign Blogspot

Thank you for visiting our blog. We want this to be a rich and informative discussion forum and look forward to your participation. You can visit our website at www.prolifecampaign.ie or email us on info@prolifecampaign.ie







Showing posts with label Minister Mary Harney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minister Mary Harney. Show all posts

Friday, October 8, 2010

"this is a game-changer" Scientists hail giant leap forward in adult stem cell research


An article by researchers at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, published at the end of last month in Cell Stem Cell, presents a series of ground-breaking advances used to take skin cells, de-specialise them into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), and re-programme them into muscle cells, overcoming drawbacks in earlier methods such as inefficiency and genetic interference that led to fears they might cause cancer. 

The pro-life community has welcomed the breakthroughs as showing yet again how the advances in science are made without deliberate destruction of human embryos.  It is to be hoped that Minister Harney and her officials will take this on boards as they prepare the legislation due out, we are told, before Christmas.

Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Worcester, Massachusetts, who was not involved in this study, commented, “All I can say is ‘wow’ – this is a game-changer. It would solve some of the most important problems in the field.’


Marius Wernig, from Stanford University, another stem cell researcher not involved in this study, if other researchers confirm their methods of generating iPS cells without any genetic modification, ‘then it would be a big advance’ and ‘would be the first practical method for generating iPS cells that could be used for transplant therapies.’


Kathrin Plath of UCLA, said the research was ‘very impressive’, and seemed to be the best way yet developed for generating iPS cells for transplant tissue. She said they would be trying out these techniques at UCLA.


Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, Japan, one of the original researchers who first produced iPS cells said the same, adding that the processes described in the article if validated could become the standard method for generating iPS cells.


You can watch Dr Derrick J. Rossi, lead researcher, explaining the breakthrough here


You can read the breakthrough article here

Monday, February 15, 2010

Minister Harney should learn from California's experience - Money spent on embryonic stem cell research is money wasted

There are three billion reasons not to allow the Supreme Court ruling in R v. R to be used as a cover to legalise research here involving human embryo destruction.

In 2004, Californian taxpayers agreed to fund embryo stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion in the hope of finding cures for chronic diseases and disabilities. But since then, not a single breakthrough has taken place.

Now the Los Angeles-based Investor’s Business Daily magazine is reporting that the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine set up to administer the $3b has started diverting the funds earmarked for embryo research into the ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research.

Minster for Health Mary Harney may well try to rush through a regulatory framework allowing embryo destruction to meet the interests of the IVF and embryo research industries. She is on record as saying she has asked her officials to prepare heads of legislation and it is expected the proposed legislation will follow the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction’s 2005 Report. The membership of this Commission was outrageously biased in favour of allowing embryo destruction – they voted 24 to 1 for it, only Professor Gerard Whyte of TCD dissenting, click here to see his closely reasoned dissent.


Clearly the recommendations of such a biased body are not a fitting basis for legislation in a democracy, all the more so when such run contrary to the balance of opinion among the general public, measured time and again in professionally carried out opinion polls every year since the biased Report was issued, which have found a majority of around 70% support the Dáil passing legislation protecting embryos against destruction in clinics and laboratories.

But Minister Mary Harney may also defend legislation allowing the destruction of human embryos in vitro on the grounds that embryo destruction is needed to provide embryonic stem cells for research to produce new medical treatments.

This argument, however, has turned out to be as flawed as an appeal to the biased Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction Report. For years we have been bombarded by propaganda saying killing human embryos has to be allowed so research using stem cells got by that way may lead to new medical treatments. But now we are finding out this simply ain’t so. It’s been all promise, but no product.

In 2004 California approved Proposition 71, a ballot measure allowing the State to borrow US $3 billion to fund stem cell research using stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos. The money was to be used, its proponents said, to develop new treatments based on embryonic stem cell research. The State agency set up to manage this was the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

On 12th January this year, the Los Angeles-based Investor’s Business Daily magazine reported that because the research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos has not produced any breakthroughs in medical treatments, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine ‘is diverting funds’ to the research approach that ‘has produced actual therapies and treatments : adult stem cell research.’

Adult stem cell research, the Investor’s Business Daily comments, ‘not only has treated real people with real results it also does not come with the moral baggage embryonic stem cell research does.

It goes on to comment that advocates of embryonic stem cell research have engaged in a sort of three card trick:

To us this is a classic bait and switch, an attempt to snatch success from the jaws of failure and take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research (which) Proposition 71 supporters once cavalierly dismissed. We have noted how over the years that when funding was needed, the phrase “embryonic stem cells” was used. When actual progress was discussed, the word “embryonic” was dropped because embryonic stem cell research never got out of the lab. You can read the Investor’s Business Daily magazine article in full here

So if Minister Mary Harney or the voices of the IVF and embryo research industries in Ireland start arguing that we need a regulatory framework allowing embryo destruction in order to open the door for research promising breakthroughs in medical treatment, the answer is we already know what lies down that path. California three US $ 3 billion at it and there were no results and now the agency set up to get results is diverting the money into adult stem cell research so it will have some results to show.

The real message of the Californian experience, then is that Ireland has a golden opportunity to put substantial resources into adult stem cell research to make Ireland an international centre of excellence in this field of research which is actually producing the goods.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Ireland stripping Constitutional protection from human embryos in vitro, the latest developments from California take on a significant added meaning.

With her experience in other ministries, Minister Harney is in a position to appreciate the economic as well as the medical knock-on effects of making Ireland an international centre of excellence for the ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Why Minister Harney shouldn't follow unbalanced CAHR recommendations.

Minister Mary Harney is expected to publish proposals allowing destruction of human embryos in vitro following the Supreme Court decision (R -v- R) before Christmas that they are not protected under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. She will consider the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR), set up by the Government. It issued its report in 2005. The Commission had 25 members. The recommendations included proposals involving the deliberate destruction of human embryos in vivo.

The question may be asked 'Why not just implement the recommendations of the CAHR Report? Here's the answer.

It would be undemocratic for four reasons:

(i) The make-up of the Commission was unbalanced. Only one out of 25 members opposed the deliberate destruction of human embryos. The composition of the Commission decided on by the government guaranteed a majority proposal supporting embryo destruction.

(ii) Professional opinion polls carried out for the Pro-Life Campaign show a majority year after year favouring legislation protecting embryos. So the recommendations of the stacked Commission do not reflect the balance of opinion in the general public. Already some of its arguments claiming deliberate embryo destruction was needed are being overtaken by scientific developments.

(iii) The Commission advertised in 2001 for submissions from the public and received 'over 1700 responses' (p.38) but the Report didn't reveal how many opposed embryo destruction and how many supported it. Why not?

(iv) Only one member of the Commission disagreed with its recommendations, Professor Gerry Whyte, Associate Law Professor in the Law School, Trinity College Dublin. To read his carefully thought out case rejecting the proposals allowing for the deliberate destruction of human embryos, click here