Stem Cell Research

U.S. Pulls Out All The Stops Over Stem Cell Study

New administrations bring new priorities, and this seems to be the case with government-funded stem cell research. Previously banned during the Bush administration, research and funding has the full support of President Obama.

Rolling in cash from a $10 billion gift from the American Taxpayers, also known as the Obama Stimulus Plan, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) wasted no time doling out money to researchers chomping at the bit to make up for lost research time denied them by Mr. Bush.

Already 13 lines of cells have been approved for research, and 20 more are expected to be approved in the coming days. NIH Director Francis S. Collins says that this is just the beginning. There are 76 additional stem cells in the approval pipeline already, and researchers are expected to request approval on at least 254 more.

NIH: Spending our money on their favorite things

With more than U.S. $21 million disbursed already, researchers are standing in line for a slice of that juicy $10 billion pie.

But with unemployment at record-breaking levels, home foreclosures going through the roof, and food banks feeding more formerly middle class people than ever before, I wouldn’t blame you for wondering whether or not the government has its priorities straight.

Science vs. Morality

Opponents are quick to point out that scientific research requiring the destruction of human embryos is not something that taxpayer money should be spent on. Not to mention the fact that destroying embryos for the sake of scientific research crosses some moral boundaries.


But NIH Director Collins, both a geneticist as well as a practicing evangelical Christian, says he has no moral issues with it. So far he hasn’t been denied communion, like the youngest of the Kennedy politicians recently was.

Guidelines soften the blow (or so they would say)

President Obama’s lifting of stem cell research barriers was accompanied by a requirement for the NIH to develop “strict guidelines” dictating which stem cell lines are “ethically acceptable.” This includes limiting the harvesting of human embryos to lines resulting from excess fertility clinic embryos, prohibiting donors from getting paid to contribute their unborn, and requiring “excess” embryos be offered first to couples seeking fertility treatment. I hope this whole process isn’t being overseen by Acorn!

Stem cell research supporters cry “Foul”

Besides the ethical concerns, many opponents of stem cell research say that there is no clear medical evidence that research will result in any significant medical breakthroughs.

But an army of researches say stem cell research will provide insight into the root causes of the most serious human diseases. After that happens, they think it could be possible to discover cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, paralysis and others.

Somebody’s trying to fool somebody, but it’s too soon to tell.

In the meanwhile, researchers are aware that another presidential election is not too far away, which explains the push to get this deal done before the rules are changed again.

My question for you is: When is the line between science and morality crossed? And does stem cell research cross that line?

Copenhagen Climate Change Summit

Taking Steps Towards a Healthier and Greener Future

Can you imagine a world where people are healthier and the planet greener? That’s the picture researchers involved in one of the most interesting studies to emerge in a long time attempted to paint. And if you ask me, it sure sounds nice.

Convincing 192 countries is no easy task

But getting governments and the people to make the changes needed to bring this image to life will take a lot of work. That’s why backers of this study plan to get to work right away. They’ll be presenting their suggestions to attendees from 192 countries at the international negotiations on climate change being held in Copenhagen this week. President Obama plans to attend the COP15 conference.

What’s particularly interesting about the study is its approach. Previous studies on greenhouse gasses mainly focused on the health-related problems that global warming will cause. But rather than focusing on the problems, this study focused on the benefits that could be achieved if countries around the world would begin taking steps to address the problem.

Less pollution, heart disease and lung disease

It’s a newer, more positive approach that attempts to help others understand more about the environmental and health problems that could be avoided if pollution levels could in fact be reduced. Topping the list is reducing lung damage and disease. Other potential benefits include lowering the number of premature deaths, increasing the number of years people live, and reducing heart disease.


All of this, plus cleaner air, is all possible say researchers and those funding the study. And they say it all starts with cutting carbon dioxide emission levels. How?
The study did offer ideas on changes people all over the world could make, especially those living in cities where air pollution is a very real and very big problem. Instead of driving, more people could use their feet, walking or biking to their destinations.

Something else that could make a huge difference is getting rid of dung-burning ovens, and stoves that burn charcoal and other types of fuel that pollute. There’s widespread use of these ovens in places like India and other emerging nations.
Another change that could significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions involves the type of vehicles people drive. A simple switch to vehicles that don’t pollute as much could be an important first step in lowering dangerous greenhouse gas emission levels.

The study is part of a series on health and climate change appearing in the independent British medical journal The Lancet. It’s backed by some impressive sources of funding including the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Wellcome Trust.

But are the benefits really attainable?

Naturally, heads of state and government will be skeptical. And I’m skeptical too. I am definitely interested in a cleaner, healthier planet. But I can’t see myself running errands on my bike or my feet. And I’d like a more earth-friendly car, but the costs are still too high. However, I can keep the amount of driving I do to a minimum.

What can you do to help?

Health Care Reform Bill

Landmark Health Care Bill Narrowly Passes House

Saturday night was a late night on Capitol Hill. But lawmakers were not there to welcome some head of states while feasting on an extravagant 5-course meal.
The only thing these lawmakers were nibbling on were their fingernails as they anxiously awaited the excruciatingly slow vote on health care reform.

Prior to the vote, the president took advantage of an opportunity to appear in person and urge passage of a bill that he reminded legislators will have historical significance. Apparently, many were swayed by the president’s last-minute cheering because, much to everyone’s surprise, the bill passed, although just barely. 220 votes were in favor of the bill, and 215 votes, including 39 votes cast by Democrats, opposed the bill.

That slim victory was enough for most democrats, as well as President Obama himself, to do a quick little happy dance to celebrate the hard-won victory.

And quick that little dance was. Moments after House approval of the bill was announced, Senate Republicans vowed to mount an even bigger battle against the House version while pushing their own version of health care reform.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi, center, is joined by (L-R) Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol, Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009 in Washington after the passage in the house of the health care reform bill. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Highlights of the 1,990 page House bill:

• Provides affordable access to health care
• Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance
• Large companies would be required to offer employees health insurance
• Penalties would be imposed for failure to carry/offer health insurance
• No more denials based on pre-existing medical conditions
• The practice of charging higher premiums based on gender and health history would end
• Coverage for abortions significantly restricted
• Establishment of federally overseen insurance co-ops or exchanges (public option) offering health insurance plans for consumers
• Total cost estimated at $1.2 trillion over 10 years
• A 5.4% tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million, combined with a decade of cuts to Medicaid, is the proposed method of paying for expanded health coverage.

Even with the Senate promising fierce opposition, the president is confidently predicting passage of health care reform legislation. The president and democrats want to keep the momentum going and pass some form of health care reform before the end of this year.

A short-lived victory?

“Dead on arrival” is the way one republican Senator characterized the House version of health reform legislation. Senators are opposed to much of what is included in the House version. The public option may be a deal killer. In addition, the cost of reform, while still greatly unknown, is believed to be too great for Americans to bear, especially with the economy still in flux. Also causing much controversy is the last minute inclusion of tighter restrictions on abortion. Including the wording helped gain the necessary House votes, but it also enraged pro-choice advocates.

No doubt the battle over health care reform will rage on. If nothing else, the coming months are sure to be some of the most exciting Capitol Hill has experienced in a very long time!

U.S. and Canadian Drug Markets

As the United States government struggles to devise a better way to provide health care coverage to its citizens, comparisons to the Canadian-run system are common. What’s also common is the wide range of opinions offered by patients and physicians alike.

Depending on whom you believe, the Canadian government-run plan is either far superior to or far more limiting than the privately run U.S. system.

How can this be? And who should you believe? As the heated arguments rage on, both sides seem willing to agree on this: Neither system is perfect.

Today, we’ll take a closer look at one of the biggest dilemmas both U.S. and Canadian citizens face: Access to affordable prescription drugs.

Price regulation

The United States and Canada are two of the biggest pharmaceutical drug markets in the world. Unlike in the U.S., the Canadian government determines the price Canadians pay by regulating drug prices. While this helps “cap” drug prices, Canada’s numerous provincial drug benefits plans creates inconsistencies in drug benefits, drug prices, and drug coverage.

In the U.S., insurance companies and other large drug purchasers negotiate prices with drug manufacturers directly. Since the U.S. government does not regulate prescription drug pricing (except in certain government-run programs like Medicaid), the free market reigns, making drugs a very lucrative market. The driving force behind U.S. pricing strategy is maximizing profitability, which is why drugs in the U.S. cost so much more than they do in other industrialized countries like Canada.

In exchange for the higher price they pay though, U.S. citizens don’t get superior drugs. Aside from the occasional name change, the ingredients in same drugs purchased in the U.S. and in Canada are usually identical. Most often they’re manufactured at the same facilities in an effort to control manufacturing costs then distributed around the world.

It doesn’t take long for anyone searching the Internet to realize that purchasing drugs from non-U.S. dispensaries can save a considerable amount of money. Naturally, attempts to stop this practice are frequent, but so far, unsuccessful.


A Closer Look at the U.S. and Canadian Drug Markets
Use of generic brands

Another notable feature of the Canadian drug market is use of generic brands. Just over 50% of 2008 total drug sales in Canada were for generic drugs. Generic drugs come to market much more quickly than they do in the U.S. so Canadians have greater access to them.

Drug manufacturers aren’t allowed to saturate Canadian television advertising like they do in the U.S. so there isn’t the same demand for name-brand drugs. However, today’s tough economic climate is changing this, as U.S. citizens already struggling with higher costs for health care and basic necessities are switching to generics as a way to save money.

One similarity

Interestingly, there is one similarity in both drug markets that affects millions: Newer drugs and specialty drugs are still out of reach for many of the people that need them either because they lack insurance or because their insurance plans doesn’t cover 100% of the costs.

And that is a problem both governments need to fix.

President’s Obama's Proposed Health Reform

Why All the Opposition to the President’s Proposed Health Reform?

You’d think health reform that provided affordable coverage for everyone would be a good thing. But if it’s so good, why is there so much controversy surrounding Obama’s plan to reform health care?

I could make this a short post and say that the controversy stems from society’s fear of change. Rather than take a chance on the unknown, people would rather live with (and complain about!) what they already know. It’s easier that way. However, people want change, and they need change. So there has to be something more behind all the controversy. Let’s take a closer look at some of the issues.

The price tag

One of the biggest problems with the proposed plan is the price tag. Here, fear of the unknown is fueling the controversy. People already know the cost of their current health insurance plan. But most don’t know how much the plan being proposed will cost.

Government-subsidized health care sounds like a terrific bargain for American citizens. However, the people Obama says will benefit from it most are the very same people that will be paying for it in the form of huge tax increases. Whether the total cost of the plan is $8 billion or $28 billion a year for the next two decades, both are mind-boggling numbers. Until everyone sees a final and realistic price tag, controversy will continue.



Who’s covered, who’s not, and at what cost

Another very real problem is the prospect that non-taxpaying individuals may be able to take advantage of the new plan. No doubt you’ve heard about the recent outburst by one senator regarding the current plan’s failure to require proof of citizenship in order to receive subsidized health care. It’s the belief of many hard-working middle class Americans that if you’re going to benefit from the system, you should be paying into the system. Until it’s clear who’s entitled to receive benefits, controversy will continue.

A requirement that all customers be offered the same rate regardless of the risk they pose is not sitting well with people either. This means that someone that’s been a 2-pack-a-day smoker for the last 20 years pays the same amount as a young active adult with no underlying health issues. Evening out the rate scales by lowering one person’s cost and raising another’s gives an advantage to some while penalizing others. Until this matter is resolved, controversy will continue.

Public options

Inclusion of a public option plan all by itself is creating quite a bit of controversy. Public option plans will compete with privately offered insurance plans, and many experts believe, will eventually drive most private insurers out of business. Not only that, government subsidized public option plans may lead to rationing of services since more people will take advantage of services they previously were unable to afford and/or that they may not need. Until the public option mess is cleared up, controversy will continue.

Plenty of other provisions in the 700+ page proposal are generating heated controversy. And until the all the details are clearly laid out, controversy will continue.

What do you think about the president’s health care reform plan, is it good or bad?