Stem Cell Research Must Be Considered A National Security Issue

[FayeforCure]

OK, so as an economist it is clear that if we could cure chronic conditions which make up more than 70% of our national healthcare expenditures, we could save the vast majority of healthcare costs. Stem Cell research of course promises to find those cures.

But here is another moral perspective related to our national security needs:

Viewpoints: Stem cell research can save lives on battlefield â€" if work is funded
Share

By Paul Knoepfler
Special to The Bee
Published: Saturday, Mar. 5, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 11A
Recent advances in stem cell research promise to revolutionize health care for everyday Americans in the coming decade. This technology will also be critical for our wounded soldiers, representing the biggest revolution for treating battlefield injuries since penicillin. Some of this research is going on in Sacramento at UC Davis School of Medicine, where I am a stem cell researcher.

Unfortunately, stem cell research is hampered by antiquated federal laws and by the political whims of yearly budget fights, unnecessarily tying the hands of American doctors and scientists who never know how much, if any, funding they will receive each year.

As Congress debates the budget, Republicans are proposing a large cut to the National Institutes of Health, which funds stem cell research across America. At the same time, Republicans want increases for defense spending in the name of national security. Stem cells hold such promise for treating not only our civilians, but also our troops, that federal funding of stem cell research must be considered a national security issue as well.

To illustrate the potential of stem cells, imagine an U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan that has come under attack. Along a remote road a bomb explodes, seriously damaging two up-armored Humvees. The entire convoy comes under enemy fire. Hypothetically, two soldiers are killed and five wounded.

What will be the fate of the five injured troops?

Today in 2011, all five would die or be permanently disabled.

In the future, using stem cell-based therapies, all five might survive and be free of disability.

Two of the wounded are bleeding so heavily that they will die in minutes without transfusions. One of the leading causes of death of soldiers on the battlefield is bleeding, and often the needed blood type is not available. Stem cell-based technology is poised to be a game-changer here.

Just in the last year, researchers have made a tremendous breakthrough when they used embryonic stem cells to produce almost all the different types of blood cell types. Large-scale production of synthetic blood made from stem cells will provide an essentially limitless, affordable supply of blood of any given type. Unlike blood from donors, synthetic blood will also be free from hepatitis or HIV.

While it is certain that stem cell-derived blood will be a lifesaver in the future, the question is when. Budget cuts for federal funding of stem cell research will mean research delays and in turn, more avoidable troop casualties.

Also among the soldiers in this scenario is one who sustained serious third-degree burns. Acute burn injuries of this severity are often life-threatening to troops. With current medical technology the odds are against this soldier surviving, but new stem cell treatments are being developed that will change this reality. Recent technological advances suggest that transplants of skin stem cells could be given to burned soldiers right on the battlefield.

Another soldier has bones so severely broken that she may never walk again. Injured veterans are often confined to wheelchairs the rest of their lives. However, there is hope for soldiers with these injuries in the future as stem cells can be used to generate synthetic bone and cartilage to repair serious orthopedic injuries. Also potentially facing life in a wheelchair is a soldier who was hit just above his body armor, sustaining a C7 spinal cord injury that today would make him a paraplegic. Here again, embryonic stem cell-based therapies offer great promise, and one clinical trial approved by the FDA in 2010 is under way.

Stem cell technology holds enormous promise for treating our wounded soldiers. The key fuel pushing these amazing biomedical advances is research funding, but that funding is jeopardized by budget politics and spurious federal court cases. We have a moral obligation to set aside politicking and do what is best for our troops: Fully legalize and stably fund stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are made from microscopic, frozen clumps of only a few dozen cells left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. The troops who could be saved by such stem cells are not only fully grown people, but also patriotic Americans.

Right now America is the leader in cutting-edge stem cell research, but the way things are going with research funding, that may not always be true. Politics is trumping patriotism on the stem cell front. Our enemies will surely develop stem cell-based therapies for their combatants, so we must remain the leader in this area. For this reason, federal stem cell research funding is a national security issue and should be protected from budget cuts.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/05/3450854/stem-cell-research-can-save-lives.html

[wsansewjs]

Basically,

Screw the patriotism right now. There will always be time for patriotism. We need to focus on the well-being of our own health, so we can ACTUALLY show off our patriotism when we can actually breathe, eat, move, and enjoy life in order to do that.

Playing with patriotism without the insight of other much important issues is like smacking yourself on the head with a rock.

I swear with these people! It is really sad after all... like that 15 years old Chinese boy sold his kidney to buy a frakking piece of rubbish, iPad2, just to be at the same level in the higher social class in China.

-Josh

[FayeforCure]

Basically,

Screw the patriotism right now. There will always be time for patriotism. We need to focus on the well-being of our own health, so we can ACTUALLY show off our patriotism when we can actually breathe, eat, move, and enjoy life in order to do that.

Playing with patriotism without the insight of other much important issues is like smacking yourself on the head with a rock.


-Josh

The role of government both to protect our national interests as well as to facilitate the well-being of its citizens by providing an adequate infra-structure for businesses to thrive cannot be overstated.

Too often government is seen as an intrusion, an obstacle, even though we have seen what happens in countries that have absolutely no government to speak of..............they also have no infrastructure and thus no thriving businesses other than mining of their natural resources.

Government's role as an enabler of businesses not just through over-played tax-cuts and disfunctional dysregulation, is underestimated.

How many times have you heard it said that "if it were profitable, private industry would be doing it." That "we don't need government to invest in stem cell research because private industry is already doing it."

Basic research by definition is never profitable but a very necessary stem towards profitable end products. We may never had MRI aiding us in medical diagnoses if it weren't for government aided NASA research.

Many life-saving products currently end up in the "valley of death," the abyss between basic discovery and translation to the clinic.

Chronic (incurable) disease is a gigantic drain not only on the economy of Earth. I don't have planetary statistics, but I know about my country -- and I suspect sick people are the same the world over. In the United States:

• We spend more on chronic disease than on all federal income taxes. In 2009, chronic disease cost America $1.65 trillion compared to $1.2 trillion for all federal income taxes.

• Half of all bankruptcies and foreclosures are caused by inability to pay medical costs -- and 75% of medical costs are due to chronic disease.

• Chronic illness now costs more than the national debt. (In 2009 the deficit was $1.60 trillion, less than the $1.65 trillion cost of chronic disease for that same time.)

No medical program on earth can handle such costs; only cures can bring down the expense.

HOW WASHINGTON (AND ONE CANCER SURVIVOR) MAY ANSWER

We need a federal program to help bridge the Valley of Death.

Fortunately, there is such a program -- if we can get it funded.

It is called the Cures Acceleration Network, proposed by Senator Arlen Specter, a cancer survivor and a beloved friend of research for cure.

The Cures Acceleration Network is specifically designed to help cures survive the Valley of Death. It is an amendment to President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A panel of experts would pick the most promising clinical trials for new cures or treatments, and recommend them for funding.

The Cures Acceleration Network was originally proposed as a $2 billion dollar program, then it was chopped to $500 million, then $100 million -- then suddenly the money for it was removed.

We must not let it disappear.

Here is Amy Comstock Rick, CEO, Parkinson's Action Network (PAN):

"PAN supports the goal of the Cures Acceleration Network and is hopeful that the President's request of up to $100 million for FY 2012 is approved. We are working to secure funding for CAN in the FY 2012 budget because we believe the government must do more to build a bridge across the scientific "Valley of Death".... Creating a funding source dedicated to accelerating the development of such cures and treatments will maximize the impact of both private and public funding, and will foster a flexible, expedited review process that will fund promising research as quickly as possible."
But for now, there was only the California stem cell program, and this moment, this decision.

If the Geron tests failed through lack of funding, other corporations would be discouraged. They would say, "Geron did everything right. They spent ten years cooperating with the FDA -- and then they ran out of money in the clinical trials -- why should we try the same thing?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed/california-versus-the-val_b_870989.html