Matthew Engel

President Obama repeals ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells - March 9, 2009

On March 9, 2009 President Barack Obama removed the ban prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Specifically, on Monday a memorandum was signed allowing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to begin designing a strategy for carrying out this research. The earlier ban, enacted by former President Bush prevented all federal government funding for the use and development of embryonic stem cells. During this time individual states were vying to raise capital for this work on their own via private/state joint institutes. California was the leader in this, creating a $3 billion bond to support the state universities. Unfortunately, these funds were generally witheld following the ensuing political turmoil. Developments at the local level actually point towards the probability that individual states would eventually have begun financing this research, whether or not the federal government supported it.

Bush’s federal ban on embryonic stem cell funding resulted in the use of private monies for these experiments, and drastically cut down the number of academic labs studying the system. At least 6-7 years of more rapid progress was probably lost during this time. However, it did stimulate a large body of research on the use of adult derived stem cells and new technologies for generating ES cells without destroying the embryo. Without this ban, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology may never have speant so much time attempting to isolate ES cells from living embryos using biopsies, which is does not harm the embryo and is commonly performed during preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a nutshell, PGD allows one to geneticly test embryos for disease markers before they are implanted. This is especially useful during in vitro fertilization, in which many embryos are fertilized, screened, and then transplanted into the uterus. Those embryos which carry the disease marker are not implanted.

Many new findings were made during this time period from 2001-2009, including the discovery of stem cells in the brain and other tissues. Also, the ‘reprogramming’ of adult and menenchymal stem cells into nerves or other specialized cells will have definite long term implications for disease therapy. Will it be possible to use adult derived stem cells for regenerative medicine and treating patients? Probaby not. Was it necessary to increase the research support of ES cells if we ever hope to treat Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes with this technology? Definitely. With the removal of this ban, universities may once again begin receiving grants and carrying out work on these totipotent cells. Importantly, it opens the door for more clinical trials and human testing in the United States. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, have all been reporting on this issue. Yet very few articles have actually addressed the true ethical or scientific implications of the memorandum.

Truthfully, this decision opens up a massive can of worms regarding the ethical use of embryos and ES cells during our time. Part of the root cause of this is the fault of previous administrations which neglected to address the technological advancements and fully dissect their moral implications. Instead, what amounted to an academic moratorium on ES cell research was put into effect, while other issues such as national security, defense, and wartime tactics took precedence. Some of the critical moral and scientific questions that need to be addressed are: (1) Can ES cells be generated without destroying embryos, and of so, is this as benefical in the clinic and is it efficient? (2) Is the destruction of an embryo universally considered to be an ethical objection? For instance, one may create a cloned embryo of an existing human patient using donated eggs and a cell from that patient. The embryo can be grown in vitro and potentially used to treat his/her disease. If the embryo is killed during this process, is this objectionable? The embryo came into life purely for the purpose of saving that of another. That is more useful, and productive than what is currently allowed under existing abortion law. Abortion is considered legal (but perhaps unethical) in many cases. In some cases it is ethical, for example to save the mother’s life. Therefore, is the destruction of an embryo for saving one’s life always ethical?

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley published 1932

In reality, I do not believe we are so far away from the ‘Brave New World’ scenario. Current technologies allow one to clone thyself and simply implant said embryo into the womb. Gestation of these embryos can give rise to cloned human beings, which is currently an unethical endeavor. This is due to the unknown side effects of cloning on human beings. It is expected that cloned humans, as with other mammals such as cows, pigs, and sheep would develop age related diseases more rapidly and die prematurely. In the future, it may be possible to overcome these obstacles by using DNA from the umbilical cord, but what would be the point? In my eyes, it is imperative to set ground rules and regulations preventing these types of experiments from ever happening during our era, which may or may not have much to do with embryonic stem cell therapy. However, it must be considered as the difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is simply the implantation of an embryo.

XOHM is a new mobile internet technology which was officially released this week on Monday, September 29, 2008. I found about about it on Friday, 5 days later as I was shopping for a new highspeed internet provider for my home. As a current Cablevision customer, I am unsatisfied with the cost of my service, which has recently increased from $29.99/mo to $49.99/mo.

This led me to search for a new service, and I called just for comparison’s sake a T1 provider, who was extremely knowledgable. Apparently, a T1 line at the minimum costs $300 a month providing stable IP addresses and at least 1.5 mps (megabytes per second) for both up and downloadong files. I definitely, don’t need this service, however it would be appropiate for a corporate account. The sales person recommended I check out WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) which is being provided by XOHM using the 802.16e protocol. XOHM is currently running its platform off Sprint cell phone towers, and is partially financed by Sprint and Google, Inc among other equity stake holders. What is XOHM? For $25/mo XOHM provides ‘broadband’ like speeds to a mobile device such as a laptop or tablet PC that is within range of the XOHM network. The currently claimed speeds are between 2-4 mps for downloads and 0.5-1.5 mps for uploads. The $30 price package lasts 6 months, at which point the cost becomes $45/mo with NO CONTRACT!! This is a huge deal! (For all you newbies, uploading refers to the act of putting files up on the internet, usually on some sort of server. For example, sharing files with your friends via FTP or giving away files on BitTorrent are examples of uploading. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, then don’t worry you probably don’t do it anyway, but understand it is the opposite of downloading. Out current  infrastructure is optimized for downloading files from the internet, i.e. viewing webpages and is therefore much faster in this direction).

Accoding to Wikipedia “Sprint Nextel announced in mid-2006 that it would invest about US$ 5 billion in a WiMAX technology buildout over the next few years.^[6] Since that time Sprint has been dealt setbacks in defections of (Nextel) iDEN and 3G subscribers that have resulted in steep quarterly losses and led to a management shake up with Dan Hesse as its new CEO. On May 7, 2008, Sprint, Clearwire, Google, Intel, Comcast, and Time Warner announced a pooling of 2.5 GHz spectrum and formation of a new company which will take the name Clearwire.” Apparently, Sprint has been losing their profit margin as Nextel subscribers fade. They are investing in mobile internet technologies, properly so. However, forming larger private comglomerates may not be optimal for the customer if it leads to price fixing monopolies, but hopefully will come with a wave of new technological developments.

Currently, XOHM allows you to choose a PCI card, USB adaptor or laptop with built in WiMAX technology. The WiMAX PCI card could be switched from one machine to the next, giving internet access to any computer you choose that has the installed software package. Essentially, internet service, is tied to the card. It should also be noted that a less expensive home service is offered which requires a specific XOHM modem (80$) instead of the PCI card, for only $25/mo which becomes $35/mo after 6 months. You can cancel your service at any time. These speeds are roughly equivalent to High Speed internet access provided by Verizon which travels through existing phone lines. These are not fiberoptic cables, but rather copper wiring which can provide 3/1.5 mps (3 down/1.5 up). It should be noted, that for more cost, Verizon also offers Fios at 3 speeds: 10/2 ($42.99/mo), 20/5 ($52.99/mo), and 20/20 ($64.99/mo). The last package would only be appropiate for individuals uploading massive quantities of data. According to the Verizon rep I spoke with the most popular service in my area is 20/5 which hits the ~$50/mo price point. However, note that all these services require a CONTRACT!! How many times have I wished I could change cell phone providers effortlessly without violating my one or two-year agreement. It is impossible to get a cell phone plan now without these types of ridiculously cumbersome contracts. It prevents customers from jumping on the newest technology or nabbing deals offered by competitors. I hate it!

The picture above is of a Nokia N810 Internet Tablet, WiMAX Edition roughly $449. I think this is incredibly overpriced. Note that for a relatively cheap (~$100) PCI card you can turn your exiting laptop into a highspeed internet powerhouse! This is definitely the way to go, as I have often wanted internet access in my car to access emails or directions while on the road.

In summary, I think this could be a great service for people who need the internet on while traveling. It is a great technology and you should keep your eye on and your ears open for WiMAX this coming year. But you should know, as of right now it is only available in Baltimore, MD. XOHM is planning on moving into the Chicago and Washington DC markets throughout the next year. I asked if NY was on the horizon, but got no commitment from the consultant I spoke to.

Today marked a significant milestone in the course of American history. The single largest non-military expenditure ever in US taxpayer dollars was approved by Congress and the President allocating $700 billion for funds aimed at refinancing the banking and lending industries. On Monday, a bill proposed by the Senate failed in the House by a margin of 228-205, with the majority of Republicans voting against. I must commend the Congress for not flashing a green light on first blush, as they wisely held out for key incentives which were included in today’s revision, passing 263-171 in the House. The initial legislation was denied by a majority of Republicans who could not acknowledge such a massive government intervention in the financial industry. This would go against their core beliefs in free markets and probably upset most of their constituents just a month before elections. In it’s essence, the bill will give taxpayers equity stake in potentially risky ventures.

However, on the bright side, the final allocations included several sweeteners which will give new life to the wind and solar energy industries, at least for the near future. Wind power subsidies, in the form of tax credits, are extended for one year. I found this slightly unhelpful, as wind energy producers will have to lobby again during the next budget hearing and redouble their efforts annually. For a government who is supposed to show strong leadership in the energy sector, this is a feeble accomplishment, compared to all the hoorah surrounding offshore oil drilling. But more positively, solar energy subsidies were extended for eight years, pledging support to homeowners who install these electricity generating systems.

As the dust clears between Senators and Congressional leaders in the House, it is fairly obvious that improvements in alternative energy have garnered enough support to make or break critical decisions on the floor. It is also obvious that the House is far more supportive of alterantive energies. This is clearly evidenced by their original counter bill proposed on Sept. 26 which included most of the approved incentives. According to the Wall Street Journal, a modern $40,000 solar power system, which is sufficient to completely power most homes, is only eligible for $2,000 in federal credits. The new bill would give homeowners as much as $12,000 federal dollars on new installations. This is a significant milestone for personal solar energy use, and I hope to see this rise to its full potential during my lifetime as a mianstream fuel source.