Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Blumenthal Definitely Supports Stem Cell Research

by Paul Bass | Aug 27, 2010 7:50 am

(7) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Politics, Campaign 2010

Paul Bass Photo Nobody present could have any any doubt: Dick Blumenthal supports stem cell research.

Blumenthal made that clear Thursday afternoon to two dozen Yale scientists, research advocates, diabetes activists, and seniors hauled in to fill out a room at the Yale Stem Cell Center on the first floor of the Amistad Building.

Standing upstairs from the lab where Yale graduate student Annie Le was murdered last September, Blumenthal vowed to fight to reverse a judge’s Monday decision that puts a temporary halt to $54 million in federally funded research on embryonic stem cells. (Read about that decision here.)

Blumenthal promised, as Connecticut attorney general, to file an amicus brief in support of an appeal planned by the Obama administration Department of Justice, which seeks to overturn Monday’s ruling by D.C. Chief Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

And he promised that if elected Connecticut’s next U.S. senator, he would vote to overturn the “Dickey-Wicker amendment,” a Congressional appropriations rider which prevents federal money from supporting research that involves destroying human embryos. The judge’s Monday decision was based on that amendment. (Until now the federal government had relied on an interpretation of the amendment that permitted federally funded research using stem cell colonies, or “lines,” that were created with other sources of money.)

“I disagree with the judge’s decision,” Blumenthal told the group, which appreciated the sentiment.

He said the decision not only was based on faulty legal reasoning, but would “cripple and paralyze” research that can save lives by finding cures for diseases like diabetes and Parkinson’s, and that can create jobs in a recession.

He said the Dickey-Wicker Amendment “needlessly ... injected politics into science.”

No one could leave the room with the slightest confusion about Blumenthal’s position on stem cells.

Blumenthal has come under criticism for not always taking such clear positions in this campaign for retiring U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s seat. For instance, when his Republican opponent Linda McMahon came out against the proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near the site of the 9/11 attacks in Manhattan, Democrat Blumenthal’s campaign released this statement about his position:

“This issue is highly sensitive and deeply personal for many people in Connecticut, New York and around the country. While Dick believes this issue should be decided at the local level, he hopes that local leaders will make the decision after reviewing all factors, and that they will give serious consideration to the wishes of those who were directly affected by the 9-11 tragedy.”

Not everyone was sure after reading that statement is Blumenthal was, say, in favor of the center being built. Or opposed to it.

Unlike the Manhattan Islamic center, stem cell research is not a controversial issue in Connecticut. The state created a $100 million stem cell research program with strong support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

It does divide Democrats and some Republicans elsewhere in the country; some anti-abortion forces consider it a destruction of human life. But others don’t. Support for medical research with embryonic stem cells reaches as high as 70 percent in some national polls.

Even Linda McMahon agrees with Blumenthal on this issue.

“She supports stem cell research,” her spokesman, Ed Patru, said Thursday afternoon. “She supports federal funding. She believes it is research that provides hope for millions of Americans who have MS, ALS, Parkinson’s heart disease.”

Whether Connecticut’s next senator helps overturn Dickey-Wicker will have real consequences for researcher Laurel Grabel (pictured), who participated in Blumenthal’s event Thursday.

Grabel is immersed in state-funded stem cell research, which is unaffected by the judge’s ruling.

But she has been working on submitting an application this November for a $500,000 innovating grant from the National Institutes of Health to conduct research on early differentiation of embryonic stem cells. If the judge’s injunction isn’t overturned, she’s out of luck.

“She spoke of how embryonic stem cells either get used in research like hers, seeking cures to disease; or spend years in reserve at infertility clinics.

“An embryo can lead a better existence [helping to] save lives,” Grabel argued, than “sitting indefinitely in a freezer.”

Among the supporters filling out the room were former New Haven city purchasing department employee Joe Hull (at right in photo) and fellow retirees from the Bella Vista housing complex. “They called me and said he was giving a talk on stem cell,” Hull said, referring to the Blumenthal campaign. “I’ve always been pro-stem cell.”

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: Bill on August 27, 2010  7:32am

I support stem cell research as well, just not the destruction of human embryos. Besides all this talk about what it MIGHT do is just speculation.

posted by: really? on August 27, 2010  10:26am

If they cannot guarantee medical applications than it is just “speculation”?  From that use of the word, all research is speculation.  The researchers seem to be reasonable here by saying that it “can” or “might”...

posted by: Bill on August 27, 2010  10:39am

Really,
Not all research destroys a human embryo, so that should have a higher standard. Really!

posted by: blue dog dem on August 30, 2010  4:31pm

I’m definitely for stem cell research.  But can anyone cite one example of success from embryonic stem cell research?  No. It’s just more gov’t waste of tax dollars since all research success has come from NON-embryonic research.  Embryonic stem cell researchers have had almost a decade to show ONE success and haven’t and the more recent research with other genetic material has already had multiple successes.  That’s why all outside investment dollars are going into this end of the research and they have to keep wasting our money to support the embryonic side.  It’s no longer an ethical issue, but one of progress versus waste of our tax dollars.

posted by: Idiots on August 31, 2010  10:15am

As one who suffers daily from a neurological disease that can be helped tremendously through stem cells I…
Blumenthal is my hero!!!!

posted by: Bob's Mum on September 1, 2010  11:25am

@Blue Dog Dem - This summer, the FDA approved the first authorized test in humans of an embryonic stem cell therapy, where the cells will be injected into the injury sites of spinal cord patients in hopes of restoring sensation and possibly allowing movement of paralyzed limbs.  Of course, to get to this phase, the therapy had to be discovered, tested, retested, tried in animal models, tried again in animal models and then approved by various oversight boards and federal agencies before it could be approved for human subjects.  This all takes time, and nine years is not a long time in the field of medicine.  If researchers gave up each time they failed to see success the first, second or even 100th time, we wouldn’t have any of the medical procedures, ranging from face transplants to artificial hearts, that so many of us now take for granted. 

Also consider that the major funder of biomedical research in the US allowed only very limited embryonic stem cell research while adult stem cell research has continued without similar restriction.

posted by: blue dog dem on September 1, 2010  2:13pm

@Bob’s Mum - couple of points.

1.  The major funder of Rx is not the gov’t but private investors and the actual companies themselves.  That’s why pharmaceutical stock traditionally has been a good investment - for the one home run a company hits to the 50 that fail.  The gov’t only funds grants on a limited basis and the majority (over 90%) comes from outside investors.

2.  Your statement “in hopes of restoring sensation” is just that - hope, whereas the non-embryonic research has proven results and that’s why it receives 99% of all private investors’ money.

3.  Based on your statement, it seems that non-embryonic research doesn’t have to go through all those trials and tribulations and that whatever a researcher throws against a wall, sticks.  Rather, they have had to go through all the trials, and tests, and re-tests and have come away with success in a much shorter time span, rather than the failure of the embryonic over a longer term. 

If someone wants to invest in embryonic, let them.  My point is that I prefer that the gov’t waste my tax dollars on something else since we are seeing success in the private sector from non-embryonic research and there is no need to throw good money after bad, and that if a candidate is stating he or she is for such waste, they either really don’t know the facts or are pandering to the voting public.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

no right on red traffic sign to turn right on to to Brewery ST.
May 24, 2012 9:04 pm
Address: Intersection Of Brewery St And Sargent Drive New Haven, CT
Rating: 1

There is a no turn on red sigh=n. for the right hand turn on to...

more »
Burnt out or shorting bulb
May 24, 2012 7:33 pm
Address: 158 Porter St. New Haven, CT
Rating: 2

Street lamp doesn't come on at night.

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design