Empire State will pay for human eggs for research use

According to The Scientist, the Empire State Stem Cell Board determined last week that it's ethical to pay women to obtain eggs for use in stem-cell research.

The ESSCB points to the practice of paying women who donate eggs for reproductive purposes, which is not prohibited under New York law, and argues that donation for research purposes is not meaningfully different from that practice. You can read the ethics board's statement here.

An interesting difference in this case, however, compared with the reproductive instance, is that ESSCB will be using taxpayer funds to buy eggs. (Yeah, yeah, they're careful to say they're not buying eggs ... they're paying donors. Anybody buy that distinction?)

Week in Review

Whatever it is you may celebrate at this time of year, we at the Women’s Bioethics Project wish you a happy and healthy holiday! Here is our week in review:

~ Rat embryonic stem cells created; genetically engineered rats should follow soon, providing new models of human disease.

~ AAAS workshop report recommends how to address education for scientists about biosecurity and the dual use dilemma for federal government, research institutions, and scientific organizations (co-authored by Mark Frankel).

~ An analysis of biosecurity policy in the context of gene synthesis. How much is too much regulation?

~ Biodefense Research: A Win-Win Challenge. An editorial proposing the optimal level of oversight of life-sciences research—coauthored by a number of National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) members, including Susan Ehrlich.

~Pfizer must pay $38.7M for stealing data from research center. Hope it was worth it, guys.

~Top 10 hospital hazards linked to medical devices. This one’s a delight. They’ve even got a special name for articles left behind in you during surgery. Retained medical devices and “unretrieved fragments.”

~ Oregon Health & Science University study shows that a nurse-managed, computerized system extends the lives of elderly patients.

~ Stopping ovarian cancer by blocking proteins coded by notorious gene.

~ FDA verdict could determine future of personalized medicine.

~ Mice that inhaled cigarette smoke 5 hours daily avoided lung damage by ingesting a drug. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em? No ~ Still not a good idea.

~ Genes affect tissues differently—and this could affect how likely a person is to get a disease.

~ Bowel cancer link to stem cells.

~ Even with additional education, the public may not trust and accept that nanotech is safe. No small task ahead of nanotech to gain acceptance and support.

~ AstraZeneca considering move into “biosimilars.” Could be part of a trend—Merck and Lilly have revealed similar plans.

~ State cord blood bank nearing reality in Indiana.

~ Rep. Pete Stark (D - Calif) says no health reform vote is likely in ’09. Just too many other things to get to.

~ Budget cuts threaten disaster plans for pandemics, natural disasters, and bioterrorism. The sad irony is progress had been made in the quality of plans.

~ Speaking of pandemics, HHS says health, emergency staff should get drugs first in the event of a such public health challenge.

~ Next steps for progressive stem cell politics.

~ Obama’s stimulus plan to include healthcare IT.

~ Leaflets accompanying new prescriptions inconsistently provide consumers with key safety data and other information. Apparently, the quality of these things is all over the map, and not regulated.

~ Some toddler deaths from cold drugs due to nontherapeutic use. In other words, the drugs were deliberately given to sedate or kill (as opposed to accidental overdoses).

~ Wine may boost omega-3 levels, despite fish intake or lack thereof. Well, cheers to you this holiday season!

~ Strange sleep disorders. Yes, folks, nightmares can kill. And REM sleep disorders could be an early sign of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.

~ Incest may not be best, but marriage bans should be rolled back, scientists say. (Any Biblical prohibitions notwithstanding.)

[Thank you to Lisa von Biela, JD candidate, 2009, UMN, Editor of the BioBlurb, from which this content is partially taken and edited. BioBlurb is a weekly electronic publication of the American Bar Association's Committee on Biotechnology, Section of Science & Technology Law. Archived issues of the BioBlurb, as well as further information about the Committee on Biotechnology, are available here.]

Obama election signals change in stem cell fight

A commentary by friend and colleague Art Caplan in his MSNBC column:

'Change' was the horse that Barack Obama's presidential campaign rode to victory. Indeed the 2008 election will be remembered not only for Obama becoming the first African-American president, but also for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics.

Divisive issues such as abortion bans failed to gain traction on state ballot initiatives, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, emerged.

The past eight years of the Bush White House have seen stem cell research and the status of embryos at the center of the moral values debate. Obama's election has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. to an end.

Loosening stem cell research
The state of Michigan passed Proposal 2, loosening restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This means that in Michigan - whose universities such as Michigan State in East Lansing are major biomedical research powerhouses - scientists will be able to use the excess embryos created at in-vitro fertility clinics as a source of stem cells for research, as long as they have the written consent of the parents who sought treatment.

There are now 10 states that have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines.

One of the main arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that all embryos are persons from the moment of conception. The voters of Colorado were given the chance to put that view into law with the proposed Amendment 48. The so-called "Personhood Amendment" sought to define fertilized eggs as human beings, extending them constitutional rights. Coloradoans defeated this amendment by a margin of three to one.

Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate. But efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, either. California voters rejected a proposition that would have required doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The initiative also would have required a two-day waiting period before minors could get abortions.

In South Dakota a measure that would have banned abortions - except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother - also lost. An even tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, was defeated two years ago. The 2008 initiative went down to a resounding defeat of 55 percent to 45 percent.

Taken all together this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America. Like it or not - and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues - the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion. Stem cell research in all forms is proceeding. Embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons. Further restrictions on abortion are unlikely.

There will still be plenty to fight over! The most important topic to emerge from this election is how Americans die and treat painful medical conditions.

Michigan became the 13th state to enact an amendment legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. Proposal 1 passed by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent. It allows patients with "debilitating medical conditions" to register with the state and, with the permission of a physician, legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea and appetite loss, among other symptoms. Massachusetts decriminalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, shifting the penalty to a $100 fine.

Help for terminally ill
Americans are clearly telling Washington that they want dying people to have access to whatever helps make that process less burdensome. It will be interesting to see how the new administration grapples with that message. If no one listens, then a much more controversial option may emerge - physician-assisted suicide.

Perhaps the most startling measure to pass at the state level was in Washington's Initiative 1000, offering terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide. Washington voters decided that adults who are deemed competent and have been given less than six months to live by a physician can legally request and self-administer lethal prescription medicine. The measure passed by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent.

This surely will not be the last state-level effort to legalize physician-assisted suicide if other policies aimed at minimizing the suffering of the dying are not enacted. While I have my doubts about the wisdom of offering help in ending one's life before offering them health insurance, I suspect it will become a political hot potato in a number of states in the next few years.
An aging population, the increasing cost of medical care and a lack of high-quality palliative and nursing-home care almost guarantee it.

The pundits will spend the next few months analyzing the election, pontificating on what led to the Obama victory and the Democrats taking greater control of Congress. They won't find the answers if they do not pay attention to the clear messages Americans sent concerning critical bioethical questions.

Original article here.