Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Stem-Cell Debate Ignores Women

By Marcy Darnovsky, TomPaine.com. Posted October 30, 2006.


Stem-cell research is dependent on women who are willing to donate their eggs for research. But nobody's talking about the donors.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Marcy Darnovsky

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As the midterm elections draw near, stem cell politics may be taking a new turn. For years, the debate about stem cell and cloning research has focused almost completely on the moral status of embryos. The need for young women to provide fresh eggs for cloning research, and the risks that poses, have been all but overshadowed.

In several senatorial and gubernatorial races, stem cell research is still being played as an extension of embryo and abortion politics. Political candidates are still using it as an opportunity to drive wedges or shore up bases.

But some women's health advocates and policy makers are beginning to grapple seriously with the issue of egg procurement for research and the tricky ethical challenges it poses. They are asking hard questions about how women can meaningfully consent to egg retrieval when there is so little data about the safety of the procedure. And they are proposing bottom-line criteria about oversight and regulation that will reduce the risks to women who agree to provide their eggs to researchers.

California, where stem cell research is being funded with state money, has just enacted a law that will put some of the needed policy in place. The Reproductive Health and Research bill, known as Senate Bill 1260, was signed into law last month by Gov. Schwarzenegger after having been approved nearly unanimously by both houses of the California legislature.

Most embryonic stem cell research does not require women's eggs. To date, all existing embryonic stem cell lines have been derived from embryos that were created but not used for fertility purposes. Because the embryos are already there, no additional women need undergo the grueling egg retrieval process.

But some researchers are trying to develop another derivation method, which relies on the technique known as research cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Those efforts do require additional eggs, in large numbers.

To some, SCNT has acquired a status something like the Holy Grail. Scientists are jockeying to perfect the technique. Advocates are promising lifesaving cures and gigantic savings in health care costs. One politician went so far as to say that SCNT will provide each of us with a "personal biological repair kit waiting at the hospital."

But an increasing number of scientists and other observers believe that these scenarios are far-fetched. If it is ever perfected, they believe, SCNT will be useful as an indirect research tool, not as the basis of cell-based medical treatments.

Nonetheless, the lure of prizes and profits for the first SCNT success remains. In the wake of last winter's Korean cloning scandal, one U.S. researcher announced that the "cloning race" was back on. Researchers who join this fray will want a large and steady supply of women's eggs.

What does this mean for women? Egg retrieval involves giving a woman hormones to first "shut down" and then "over-stimulate" her ovaries, followed by surgical extraction of multiple eggs under general anesthesia. Though the procedure is widely used in fertility clinics, data about both its short-term and long-term risks are grossly inadequate. Serious adverse reactions, even several deaths, have been reported.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: science, research, stem cells

Marcy Darnovsky is the associate executive director at the Center for Genetics and Society.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
pain
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 30, 2006 1:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is clear that women will feel the most pain in improving human survival through stem cell research. But this most pain factor for women has always been the case in improving human survival as Mother Nature clearly knows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pain Posted by: fork
» RE: pain Posted by: psyopswatcher
» RE: pain Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: pain Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: pain Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: pain Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: pain Posted by: fork
oh yes, poor people CANNOT be allowed to make money!!!!
Posted by: SekhmetsatRa on Oct 30, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ermmm, WHY not pay these women MORE if it is so freaking risky? that is just wrong. why give an egg for research when you can sell it to infertile people for $30,000?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» throw it back into the economy Posted by: psyopswatcher
fear of getting a backbone
Posted by: psyopswatcher on Oct 30, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been clear to me throughout the SCR debate that a misogynist may just be a tad worried that the cures that could be discovered from this research come from DNA material from the bodies of the female sex.

That much is certain.

It's my opinion that some of the people who oppose SCR are closet misogynists, and likely racists to boot. The fear being that cells from a WOMAN'S BODY may one day be cloned to their backbone scares the begeezus outta them. Imagine a cure for blindness that would have them see the world thru "women's eyes".

MJF brought their fears right at them, front and center in their living rooms.

Could this be why Shrub stopped the federal funding on it? He knows what HIS constituents don't want their tax dollars contributing towards?

The worst among them are racists too. How could they live if it was a NON-WHITE cell implant that saved their life??? Or their grandchild's? Their nearest and dearest? Mixing into their pure white gene pools? They'd never know if the cells came from asians, blacks, latinos or a plain vanilla white girl.

Now that's a scary thought--to the exclusive White Boy's Club. Unless they've already figured out how to make money off of it? Wait to see controls mandated for very strict classification proceedures, and further proof of the nazification of Americans.

?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fear of getting a backbone Posted by: psyopswatcher
» RE: fear of getting a backbone Posted by: psyopswatcher
» RE: fear of getting a backbone Posted by: ABetterFuture
another good article
Posted by: psyopswatcher on Oct 30, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Marcy's:

Sex Selection Goes Mainstream
"A Virginia-based fertility clinic is aggressively marketing a new technique that allows Americans to choose the gender of their child. They call it 'family balancing.'"
- Posted on Sep 25, 2003



The 100 million missing baby girls in India is disturbing.

Egg selection's been going on since 1995 in this country. I'm not so sure I'm against 'family balancing' (if it makes the 'rents happy), but for me one was enough. Happy parents make happy kids.

I still say take what you get and love them to pieces while you have them. Cause 18 years go fast but watch out for those early teen years... Boys AND Girls!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A NEW WAY TO MAKE BABIES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 30, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's this way of thinking that derails the whole idea of stem cell research. Women should not agree to a procedure that they find distasteful in any way. Money shouldn't change her mind. Distorting science that has great promise serves no purpose. No one is forced to participate. Those who believe that this is the way of the future should be left to their research. Women are in no way forced to be a part of it.
Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

see clearly, speak plainly and WAKE UP!
Posted by: wawa on Oct 30, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All over America embryos are being flushed down a drain because the couples whom they belong to no longer want any more children and do not want to donate their left over embryos to infertile couples.


These embryos which are being flushed contain Stem cells which are "blank" cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body -- nerve cells, heart cells, kidney cells. This gives scientists hope that stem cells could one day treat diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, and heart disease.

Being pro-life means one honors ALL life and NOT waste the potential of any life form.

The New England Journal of Medicine published the national Academies’ Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research:
absolutely no research at reproductive cloning of a human should be conducted.

Medicine seeks to heal and I imagine God/The Divine Physician wants us to learn all we can so that we may heal and not just treat symptoms.

God speaks to us in many ways; in science, medicine, technology, ethics and thru agitators of church and state.


read more "Stem Cell Research and Sex at 68" -
Keep Hope Alive-chapter 3 available FREE on
wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro Woman = Pro Life = Pro Republican (get it?)
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Oct 30, 2006 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buy the premise: buy the agenda.

Protect women ... pass laws limiting their choices.

It's better for everyone.

AlterNet: Tone deaf on women's issues as usual

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait and see
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Oct 30, 2006 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one knows at this point which way research will turn and what will prove to be successful.

Embryonic stem cells from a non-self donor may prove less desirable than one's own stem cells somehow coaxed to de-differentiate.

Trying to call in your markers at this point is extremely premature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pseudo concern for women
Posted by: Nancye on Oct 30, 2006 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What total crap.
Women have been "donating" their eggs for in vitro fertilization for about 30 years with no negative effects.
This reich wing pseudo concern for women's pain would be far, far better aimed at preventing domestic violence, workplace exploitation, poverty and the many other issues faced by women who were not born with silver sticking out of their mouths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Stem Cell Con
Posted by: gellero on Oct 30, 2006 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO prohibition on any stem cell research. Private money would be there in a heartbeat if it showed promise. The issue is BS. It's about looting the Treasury to finance acedemics and private corporations. The media and most people are totally ignorant of this fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Stem Cell Con Posted by: Logic's Edge
Stem cell CON
Posted by: gellero on Oct 30, 2006 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who cares about the ethical issues? The government should not be financing it in ther first place. It is the worst sort of Academic/Corporate welfare. Pres Bush should veto ALL funding, not just embryonic cell lines. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties con their constituencies. And both will loot your wallet to pay off their support groups. Get it???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Logic's' response to my comment above
Posted by: gellero on Nov 1, 2006 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Logic" claims in a response to my comment that very little research would be done at the basic level if not 'seeded' by the government. You'll have to prove that to me and other taxpayers. That's exactly the claim of the moochers in Academia who want your money to get another secretary, research assistant, piece of lab equipment, or trip to a meeting/convention in a fun place like Las Vegas. FYI I am in the medical field, have done research, and know how this game works. Get the money, publish a paper, prove you published, get more money. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Once you're 'in the loop', and have made the contacts with colleagues in government who control the money spigot.........you're in. Bigger office, assistants, prestige, power. Is that so difficult to see??

As for the benefits of this research.......marginal at best. Certainly not anything that justifies this 'crisis' atmosphere. But it makes good 'copy' for politicians who prey on the ignorance of the media and the voters. And who is there cheering them in the 'Amen Corner' - the researchers and academics who benefit from their control of the money spigot. Wise up folks - it's your money. All I ever see on this board is how difficult life is for you because of your finances. Your biggest oppressor is the Federal Government. Democrats usually loot more than Republicans. That's the fact, Jack !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Propheties, positivism and ever advancing science
Posted by: medbear on Nov 3, 2006 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easy to get lost on these issues, and more often than not one see polarization with the NO-WAY crowd in one corner and the "MIRACLE CURE" lot in the other.

When the automobile was invented, concerned scientists feared that the velocity would harm humans, and that they would start to bleed profusely from their noses at speeds beyond that obtained by horse. The Great Western railway company in the UK was met with critizism by engineers that the gradient and speed in parts of their network would choke the passengers. On the other hand, as late as in the 1950's it was a common medical advice for overweight people to start smoking, and in the realms of psychiatry poisonous and otherwise harmful metals ranging from mercury to gold have been administered to individuals with uncontrollable minds and imaginations. That is if they didn't opt to enter the brain through the eye socket to cut nerves (lobotomy). Today we know better on all these accounts.

Science will always be on the frontier of knowledge, trying to look beyond. That is the essence of science. In the quest for support and funding, advocates - unfortunately - often tend to look at the future with more confidence than science warrants. The fact that the unknown is, yes exactly, unknown, makes it very hard to make predictions. Meteorology is a highly evolved science under constant development, and with huge funds - and as a service centered around predictions it serves as a great example of the limitation of prediction.

One can make qualified guesses. One can see possible advantages and possibilities with tomorrows knowledge derived from todays facts. But these are nothing but predictions, and must be recognized as such. Yes, stem cell research CAN find a cure for Parkinsons' Disease and Altzheimers - in some form or other, in the near or distant future. It is truly a worthy cause to do this research, as are inumerous other causes. But the pill won't be at the counter next week.

In seeking new knowledge, ethics are always an issue, as they should and must be. New knowledge can be used and misused. Research can have unwanted and disastrous effects. The scientists are humans, with the inherent qualities and faults you expect to find in everyone around you. But that does not make it right to stop science. Man will always seek ways to gather new knowledge, sometimes driven by greed, sometimes fear and desperation, but - luckily - mostly driven by pure curiosity.

The Californian laws seems to be a constructive way to take ethics seriously without "going medieval". They will surely have loopholes and unintended effects, as does any law, but they display intentions that should be applauded and supported. For science, and maybe for mankind. We just don't really know yet - but the possibilities alone, however vague, could make it worthwhile.

"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." -Sir Isaac Newton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MedBear's above comment
Posted by: gellero on Nov 3, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well said, Medbear. But the statement that scientisis said speed was a danger in automobiles deserves a footnote, otherwise I have to take it as BS. That being said, let me make the point again. This CRISIS ATMOSPHERE, the MIchael Fox thing etc. plays right into the hands of those who would LOOT your wallet. The embryonic cell thing did just that in California, where voters were asked to have the state support it. I wonder if the referendum stated 'are you willing to pay more taxes to finance some academics at our Universities and scientisis at private corporations to research this subject, even if they can find private sources of funding?' , whether it would have passed. Viagra is probably the greatest suicide/neurosis preventative (unpublished opinion!) , but did Pfizer ever get a dime in government money to research it? Maybe there was a small academic grant somewhere along the line. But not the TENS of MILLIONS that has the academic community salivating, and the politicians more than willing to give YOUR money away for VOTES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]