Setting the Record Straight: Stem Cell Research - Page 5 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 05-19-2005, 03:17 PM

Scientists Create Customized Stem Cells
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - South Korean scientists have created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that are customized to injured or sick patients, a major step in the quest to grow patients' own replacement tissue to treat diseases.

These same scientists last year became the first to clone a human embryo, sparking international clamor. But those cloned stem cells - the building blocks that give rise to every tissue in the body- were a genetic match to a healthy woman, not a sick person. And it wasn't easy: It took 242 donated human eggs to grow just one batch.

Now the Seoul scientists have cloned patient-specific stem cells, important if doctors are to develop cell-based therapies that won't be rejected by the body's immune system. The technique worked with males and females, as young as 2 and as old as 56 - all suffering either spinal cord injuries, diabetes or a genetic immune disease, the researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

And the Korean lab found faster and safer ways to cull stem cells, using far fewer donated eggs - about 20 per try. They also eliminated use of mouse ``feeder cells'' that have been used to nourish most human stem-cell lines, thus easing concerns about contamination.

Any therapy is still years away from being tested in people.

``Therapeutic cloning has tremendous, tremendous healing potential, but we have to open so many doors before human trials,'' lead researcher Hwang Woo-suk of Seoul National University said in a telephone interview. ``Our work reveals the possibility that this technology could be applied in the patient himself in the future.''

Stem-cell specialists called the research remarkable.

``This is a very important advance,'' said Dr. Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, a genetics specialist who helped co-author recent ethics guidelines on stem-cell research from the Institute of Medicine. ``It's surprising to me the amount of progress they've made in basically a year's time.''

``This paper will be of major impact,'' said stem-cell researcher Dr. Rudolph Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass. ``The argument that it will not work in humans will not be tenable after this.''

The work marks ``a gigantic advance'' for another reason, said neuroscientist Fred Gage of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. By cloning stem cells from sick patients, scientists can watch, in a test tube, the very earliest origins of diseases like Alzheimer's, insight that could point to other ways to prevent and treat illness, explained Gage, who plans to do some of that work.

The Korean research ``will be a tremendous boon to the investigation of the nature and biology of human disease,'' he said.

It's also sure to revive international controversy over whether to ban all forms of human cloning, as the Bush administration wants - or to allow cloning for medical research, so-called therapeutic cloning that South Korea has committed by law to pursue.

Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether that embryo was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic. Because opponents argue that is the same as destroying life, President Bush has banned federally funded research on all but a handful of old embryonic stem-cell lines - and the South Korean work spotlights the frustration many U.S. scientists felt at being left behind.

``It's just going to highlight the tragedy of our current situation in America where there are technologies that are promising that are not being pursued by talented American scientists because of ideologic constraints,'' Rowley said.

The Seoul researchers collected eggs donated by 18 unpaid volunteers and removed the gene-containing nucleus from them. They inserted into those eggs DNA from skin cells of 11 people who had spinal cord injuries, Type 1 diabetes or a congenital immune disease.

Chemicals jump-started cellular division, and 31 blastocysts - early-stage embryos - successfully grew. From those, the scientists were able to harvest 11 colonies, or ``lines,'' of stem cells, each one a genetic match to the patient who had donated a skin snippet.

The scientists were careful to explain to the research participants that getting medicine made from their stem cells is a long shot. They don't yet know how to control which types of tissues - brain cells, bones, muscles, etc. - the stem cells form, something the Korean lab is studying next.

``I didn't think they would be at this stage for decades, let alone within a year,'' said Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, who acted as an adviser to the Korean lab in analyzing its data for U.S. publication. ``All of us in the biomedical communities owe our colleagues in Korea a tremendous debt of gratitude.''

The work raises ethical concerns, cautioned Stanford University bioethicists David Magnus and Mildred Cho. Scientists must ensure that women understand they get no benefit and can be put at some risk when they agree to donate eggs for medical research - and that patients who volunteer also understand that it's unlikely they'll benefit from any stem cells they help to clone because so many years of research are yet required, they wrote.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...57.htm&sc=1500

On the Net:

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

05/19/05 14:32

YNKYH8R · 05-20-2005, 11:04 AM

Bush 'very concerned about cloning'
Says will veto legislation to ease restrictions on stem cell research

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:58 a.m. ET May 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Friday said he would veto legislation that would loose restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and expressed concern about human cloning research in South Korea.

“I’m very concerned about cloning,” the president said. “I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted.”

White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said the work in South Korea amounted to human cloning for the sole purpose of scientific research. “The president is opposed to that,” Duffy said. “That represents exactly what we’re opposed to.”

A measure by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would lift Bush’s 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using any new embryonic stem cell lines. Bush said he would veto such a measure if it reached his desk.

“I made very clear to Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayer’s money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life — I’m against that,” Bush said. “Therefore, if the bill does that, I would veto it.”

Public reaffirmation
Bush, in his fifth year in office, has not yet exercised his first veto. The White House also promised a veto this week of a highway bill if it exceeded the administration’s spending limits.

Bush began the day at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast where he was cheered for urging people to “pray that America uses the gift of freedom to build a culture of life.”

The remark was a public reaffirmation of his position on sensitive issues such as abortion and stem cell research.

Bush recalled the legacy of the late Pope John Paul II and said, “The best way to honor this great champion of human freedom is to continue to build a culture of life where the strong protect the weak.”

Bush won 52 percent of the Roman Catholic vote in last year’s election and got the support of 56 percent of white Catholics, defeating the first Catholic presidential candidate from a major party since John F. Kennedy. In 2000, Bush narrowly lost the Catholic vote.
Bush has a way contradicting himself so well. It must be an art form.

If using cells to save thousands then that is the cost. One cannot save the people with out a little sacrifce. Life (human life) is repleat with instances where this is true.

He talks about a culture of life yet expects people to die for freedom? WTF?!?

It is a good thing that he doesn't run the world, some day when other countries solve the organ donor problems and other things such as disease, and severe spinal and head trauma then he'll be the President that sat on the side lines.

Jolie Rouge · 05-21-2005, 10:26 PM

Stem-cell scientist: Be patient about results
05-21-05

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A leading stem cell researcher said it could be decades before scientific breakthroughs by his team will benefit humans, but he expressed hope that they will eventually aid people with incurable illnesses.

Hwang Woo-suk, the South Korean scientist who cloned a human embryo last year, announced this week that he had created the first embryonic stem cells that genetically match injured or sick patients.

The match means the stem cells, the building blocks of all bodily tissues, are unlikely to be rejected by the body's immune system. Researchers hope the cells eventually can be used to repair damage from disease.

Still, the South Korean team was cautious about giving a time frame. "Some foreign researchers have said three to five decades, some have said in just several years," said Ahn Curie, a doctor of transplantation medicine at Seoul National University Hospital, and a member of Hwang's team. "We will work hard, but we don't want to raise false expectations."

Other scientists have lauded the advances made by Hwang's team — and their speed. But Hwang, a professor at Seoul National University, said the researchers were working methodically, especially due to ethical concerns. "We already had the technological know-how last year, at the time of the human embryo cloning," Hwang told reporters late Friday at Incheon International Airport near Seoul. "But our team imposed a moratorium on our own, because there were ethical issues."

President Bush expressed concern about the South Korean research and a spokesman said the South Korean work amounted to human cloning for the sole purpose of research.

A top Vatican official on Saturday condemned the creation of cloned embryos, describing it as a crime. "It must be underlined that here ... human rights is being violated," Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Vatican Radio.

Last year, Hwang's team cloned stem cells from one healthy woman. This year, they created 11 batches of stem cells that genetically match men or women with either spinal cord injuries, diabetes or a genetic immune disease.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...tm?POE=NEWISVA

Jolie Rouge · 05-23-2005, 10:56 PM

Stem Cell Issue Heats Up Ahead of Debate
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A new round of debate on stem cell research opened Monday with emotional appeals by people who have survived diseases. They praised one House measure that is due for a vote and hailed lawmakers who are pushing a farther-reaching bill certain to draw a presidential veto.

"As you consider the funding options for stem cell research, please remember me," Keone Penn, 18, said at a Capitol Hill news conference. He said he had been stricken with childhood sickle cell anemia and cured after a transplant from umbilical cord blood.

The action centered on the two bills up for House debate Tuesday, with many lawmakers planning on supporting them both.

One sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Artur Davis, D-Ala., had wide bipartisan support and backing from

President Bush. It would provide $79 million in federal money to increase the amount of umbilical cord blood for research and treatment and establish a national database for patients looking for matches.

The other, sponsored by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., also has bipartisan support but is staunchly opposed by the White House.

That bill would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal funding for new research on embryonic stem cells, a controversial process that requires the destruction of an embryo.

Decrying science that destroys life to prolong it, Bush last week promised to veto the Castle-DeGette bill, and some lawmakers were following suit. "This is not an easy vote for many Republicans ... and some Democrats, too, because you have pro-life and other arguments," Castle said. "There's a lot of tide against them voting for it."

The sponsors, who have been counting votes for weeks, predicted the bill would garner the 218 votes needed for passage but fall short of the 290 votes needed to sustain a veto.

The votes of about 20 members of both parties still were up for grabs, Castle said.

Driving the pressure is deep emotion behind the promise — disputed in some camps — that stem cell research could provide treatment and perhaps cures for diseases as diverse as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and childhood diabetes.

Adding fuel to the House debate was the announcement last week by South Korean researchers who, funded by their government, produced human embryos through cloning and then extracted their stem cells — a major advancement in the quest to grow patients' own replacement tissue to treat diseases.

House GOP leaders planned to offer the Smith-Davis bill first on the House floor Tuesday as an alternative to the Castle-DeGette bill, which was scheduled for a vote later in the day.

Sponsors of both bills said the two were compatible. "There will be a number of members who will vote for both of these bills," Davis said.

A day ahead of the floor action, supporters and opponents of the legislation gathered people with personal experience with stem cell research to tell their stories.

Penn, of Atlanta, said sickle cell anemia caused a stroke when he was 5. Treatment for the disease was so painful that he said he contemplated suicide four years later. Doctors predicted he would not live to adulthood, but because of the transplant, he turns 19 in two weeks. "If it wasn't for cord blood, I'd probably be dead by now," he said.

On Tuesday, dozens of parents of babies they adopted as embryos are expected to appear on Capitol Hill and in the Rose Garden with Bush to oppose the Castle-DeGette bill. They particularly object to its premise that embryonic stem cell research makes use of fertilized eggs that would otherwise be discarded. "We believe frozen embryos are pre-born children who deserve a chance to be born," say one couple expected Tuesday, J.J. and Tracy Jones of Houston, who "adopted" their month-old son Trey as an embryo.

Castle and DeGette said they expect their bill to soon be considered by the Senate. If it passes both houses, they said, perhaps the White House would reconsider its opposition. Either way, Castle said, the discussion has inspired "a lot more interest in this issue."

"And that's not going to go away," added Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., another co-sponsor.

Blood saved from newborns' umbilical cords is rich in a type of stem cells that produce blood, the same kind that make up bone-marrow transplants. The

Institute of Medicine recently estimated that cord blood could help treat about 11,700 Americans a year with leukemia and other devastating diseases, yet most is routinely discarded.

In contrast, the second bill deals with embryonic stem cells, which are the building blocks for every tissue in the body. Attempting to harness those stem cells' regenerative powers is in very early research stages, but many scientists believe it has the potential to one day create breakthrough treatments.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bills, H.R. 810 and H.R. 2520, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov or at www.house.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/...ess_stem_cells

Jolie Rouge · 05-31-2005, 10:28 PM

Stem Cell Reasoning
Mona Charen

The Kansas City Star, editorializing about the president's threat to veto the stem cell bill passed by the House, described human embryos as the "excess products of fertility procedures." The Los Angeles Times, contemptuous of the president's ethical misgivings, declared: "It's not a choice between a human life and an embryo's life. It's a choice between real human lives and a symbolic statement about the value of an embryo."

The New York Times and others object that majorities in public opinion polls support this research. Is that how we should evaluate moral claims? Majorities also support the judges Bush has nominated, and yet the Times has gone gooey for the "rights" of minority senators and the sanctity of the filibuster.

Critics of the president's position frequently charge that Bush is influenced by religious belief and that, therefore, his objections to stem cell research are illegitimate. The New York Times is the master of this argument. In an editorial titled "The President's Stem Cell Theology," the paper asserts that "his actions are based on strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself. Such convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation."

Let's have a show of hands: Who thinks the New York Times would object to a president who, say, endorsed unrestricted immigration on moral grounds? Would the Times chide such a president for imposing his private religious sentiments on "this pluralistic nation"? Hardly.

It isn't moral reasoning the Times and other liberal organs dislike, it is moral reasoning that threatens to pinch. Advocates of unlimited stem cell research believe or hope that this science will bring early cures to diseases like diabetes and Parkinson's. Everyone hopes for such breakthroughs -- though level-headed scientists caution against overly optimistic expectations from this line of inquiry. Yet morally serious people cannot focus only on the imagined cures and ignore the hard facts about destroying or cloning human embryos.

The suggestion, repeated so often in the press, that only conservative Christians oppose stem cell research, is simply false. One influential voice against the practice belongs to William Kristol. As editor of The Weekly Standard, he has offered moral objections to stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion and other assaults on the sanctity of life. Kristol is Jewish, but his arguments are couched in non-sectarian -- indeed, in non-religious -- terms.

Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, dispensed with the sectarian argument in his title: "You don't have to be a believer to think there is something wrong with destroying human life, however immature."

By pigeonholing the president's position as that of a "conservative Christian," cheerleaders for stem cell research hope to avoid grappling with the moral question altogether. The New York Times objects, "The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence ..."

Yes, it's difficult to think of human embryos ("entities") as members of the human family. But those tiny dots, no larger than the period at the end of this sentence, if implanted in a woman's womb, will not grow up to be paragraphs or essays, but full-term infant boys and girls.

An embryo does not look like a baby, but that is part of the miracle of creation (or reproduction, if you're looking at it clinically). Surely the stem cell enthusiasts can recognize, if they reflect on it, that denying the humanity of others is at the root of countless atrocities in human history.

And yes, many of these potential human beings are being destroyed at fertility clinics around the nation. That is wrong. But using them for medical research does not mitigate that wrong, it compounds it. Even if destroying embryos were certain to bring a cure for grave diseases (and it is far from certain), it is never justified to use one human being -- or even potential human being -- as a source of spare parts for another.

Jolie Rouge · 03-12-2006, 12:20 AM

The Real Lesson of the Korean Cloning Scandal
by Do No Harm
March 10, 2006

While details of the Korean cloning scandal involving disgraced scientist Hwang Woo-suk continue to unfold, there is no doubt regarding the central fraud he perpetrated—surely to be ranked among the great scandals in the annals of scientific research.

With the fraud now undeniable, proponents of human cloning research have been everywhere—in print, online, on cable and via the airwaves—to teach us all what lessons we are to draw from the cloning scandal. However, the real lessons to be drawn from this scandal are precisely the opposite of those offered by cloning advocates.

Recall that up to the time the scandal broke in November, 2005, human cloning advocates had for years been promising any number of miraculous cures for any number of diseases. In their view, the only thing preventing researchers from reaching this promised land of medical miracles was the opposition offered by a benighted but vocal minority—mostly composed of religious zealots—who oppose human cloning and the destruction of any human life in the name of research. The miracle cures were in sight, just around the corner, waiting to be discovered—if only these people would get out of the way and allow cloning researchers to do their work, ideally with taxpayers footing the bill.

For a long time, however, there was little hard empirical evidence to support the hype used to promote human cloning for research.

That all seemed to change in early 2004, when Seoul National University researcher Hwang Woo-suk announced—in the pages of Science, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals—that he had succeeded in creating a human embryo by cloning and extracting a viable embryonic stem cell line from it. While the number of human eggs he required to achieve this breakthrough remained a real obstacle, here at last was real evidence (it seemed) that so-called “therapeutic” cloning might be feasible.

Even more dramatic was Hwang’s announcement just over a year later, in May 2005 (again in Science), that he had created eleven stem cell lines from embryos cloned from different patients with different diseases. Hwang reported a vastly improved efficiency rate in creating these eleven lines, meaning far fewer eggs were required to make each clone.

Immediately, in the field of cloning and regenerative medicine, Hwang was at the center of world attention. He was lionized at home and in the West, by the media and by fellow scientists.

But things began to unravel in November 2005, with charges by U.S. scientist and collaborator Gerald Schatten that Hwang may have unethically obtained the eggs used in the research. These initial charges of ethical violations were soon overtaken by evidence of outright fraud, and by year’s end the scientific community had to conclude that Hwang had lied—he could provide no stem cell lines from cloning, and he fabricated data to cover up his failure. Most disturbing, Hwang’s team had paid many women for their eggs, and even induced junior researchers on the team to provide eggs to advance their careers. Many of the women thus exploited suffered serious side effects from the drugs used on them to achieve hyperovulation. And the numbers of eggs obtained were many hundreds more than Hwang initially claimed.

Now cloning advocates are back to where they were before Hwang perpetrated his hoax—they still have a lot of hype, but very little hard evidence that human cloning is the future of regenerative medicine.

Having come full circle, what lessons are we to draw from this whole sorry business? Perhaps that we should slow down and be more cautious in rushing to pursue such an ethically controversial line of research? After all, Hwang’s team labored for several years, obtained thousands of eggs at the expense of serious heath risks to the women “donors” —and failed to develop even one stem cell line. Perhaps advocates should tone down the hype, and be a bit more skeptical about human cloning ushering in a new age of medicine?

Of course not! The lesson to be learned from this debacle, cloning enthusiasts insist, is that now more than ever the debate over cloning should end, and the government should start funding this research as much and as soon as it can. Only in this way, they argue, can the research be regulated so a scandal like this never happens again. We should not let one instance of misbehavior discredit the whole field of human cloning for research.

This argument assumes, however, that Hwang was a rogue scientist, working totally unregulated on the fringes of his field.

In fact, Hwang was at the very center of his field. He was not one bad apple threatening to spoil the whole bunch—his now-discredited findings were the whole bunch, the only hard evidence of a future for human “therapeutic” cloning. That’s why he was lionized by fellow scientists at home and abroad.

Hwang had the full backing, both rhetorical and financial, of his government and the Korean public. An institutional review board at Seoul National University was charged with guaranteeing the scientific and ethical integrity of his work. Long-established international guidelines clearly rejected the behavior that Hwang engaged in when collecting the eggs necessary to his research. His research was subject to the (supposed) strict scrutiny of other scientists during the peer review process at Science. In January 2005, a Korean law went into effect outlawing coercion and financial incentives to obtain women’s eggs. The environment Hwang worked in bears more than a passing resemblance to the one cloning advocates want adopted here in the wake of the scandal: government funding, peer review, and outside regulation.

It didn’t work.

While Hwang’s behavior is shocking, it was not totally unforeseen. Skeptics of research cloning and embryonic stem cell research consistently warned that the sheer number of eggs needed to pursue this research would invite ethical lapses, by fueling the temptation to exploit women for their eggs. Those fears have been borne out and the skeptics proved right. Press reports suggest that even after the law banning payments and coercion to obtain eggs took effect, Hwang’s team simply ignored it in their increasingly desperate effort to obtain eggs for their experiments.

While cloning advocates now profess shock at Hwang’s ethical violations, claiming to see in them a clear case for government regulation—meaning, of course, government funding—of cloning, many seemed oddly indifferent when allegations of those violations first surfaced.

New Scientist reporter Peter Aldhous says that many scientists he contacted at the time—prior to the separate revelations of data fraud—agreed that Hwang’s ethical violations in collecting eggs would not prevent them from working with him in the future, provided “they could be satisfied that acceptable standards would be met.” The ethical violations involving exploitation of women don’t “sound like a hanging offense,” said University of Chicago law professor Richard Bernstein. Hwang “didn't fudge any scientific research.”

Likewise, when it later revoked its choice of Hwang as “research leader of the year,” Scientific American wrote that “even when [the ethical] charges were borne out, we respected that the ethics of accepted practice in this area of science were still somewhat murky, and we declined to judge him too quickly. However, scientific fraud is an unforgivable offense against the enterprise of research, and . . . completely invalidates the selection of Dr Hwang.”

All this is very revealing of a certain mindset distressingly prevalent among advocates of research cloning. It was not for lack of government funding that Hwang was able to cross clear ethical boundaries, but rather a willingness to turn a semi-blind eye on ethical lapses, provided the desired results are produced. As long as his results were deemed true and helpful, the ethically unsavory means needed to achieve them—the exploitation of women, including female members of his own team—were deemed tolerable. Wrong, perhaps, but tolerable nonetheless. Certainly not sufficient to disqualify Hwang and others from continuing such research and producing such results.

Against this mindset, no amount of regulation could be enough. Peer review becomes meaningless when the peers all agree to look the other way if ethical lapses are required for “progress.” Hwang’s case was not so much an aberration as the culmination of the methods used to promote this research generally. His fraudulent claims were different only in degree, not in kind, from the hype, exaggerations and distortions used to sell human research cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

The real lesson to be drawn from the Hwang scandal is that this avenue of research cloning, whose biggest “success” is now seen as a sham built on exploitation of women, should be abandoned for more realistically promising and ethically non-controversial research avenues such as adult and cord blood stem cells. No amount of guidelines and regulation can make an inherently unethical procedure such as human cloning into an ethical one. And no amount of good money thrown after bad will make false promises true.

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/clonin...2006-03-10.htm

Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, a partnership of researchers, bioethicists, academics, and others that serves as an information clearinghouse on the ethics and science of stem cell research. The centerpiece of the Coalition’s efforts is the Do No Harm website, www.stemcellresearch.org, which CBHD maintains.

Jolie Rouge · 07-20-2006, 10:15 PM

Thought I would bump this back up due to the renewed interest

Some interesting info available : http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients
Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells
Peer-Reviewed References (not a complete listing, sample references)

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Embryonic Stem Cells
NONE[/i]

Adult Stem Cells

Cancers:
Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Testicular Cancer
Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Ewing’s Sarcoma
Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
POEMS syndrome
Myelofibrosis
Auto-Immune Diseases

Systemic Lupus
Sjogren’s Syndrome
Myasthenia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
Scleromyxedema
Scleroderma
Crohn’s Disease
Behcet’s Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Alopecia Universalis
Buerger’s Disease
Cardiovascular

Acute Heart Damage
Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
Ocular

Corneal regeneration
Immunodeficiencies

Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries

Parkinson’s Disease
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Damage
Anemias and Other Blood Conditions

Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Aplastic Anemia
Red Cell Aplasia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Thalassemia
Primary Amyloidosis
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Fanconi’s Anemia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
Wounds and Injuries

Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Jawbone Replacement
Skull Bone Repair
Other Metabolic Disorders

Hurler’s Syndrome
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Krabbe Leukodystrophy
Osteopetrosis
Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy
Liver Disease

Chronic Liver Failure
Liver Cirrhosis
Bladder Disease

End-Stage Bladder Disease

tngirl · 07-20-2006, 10:30 PM

Amazing isn't it? But of course we have to have something to do with all those aborted potential babies, don't we?

Starlady01 · 08-15-2006, 10:35 PM

I know of a couple who can't have kids and got turned down so many times for adoption they gave up. The didn't want to do the embryonic thing because they didn't think it was right for them.

Many of these eggs are frozen and they don't know what to do with them, there is a lot of controversy on this subject. I went to a sight once and saw some of the results of babies being made this way sad. Most are aborted before birth. I wouldn't do that to a child on purpose.

Alot of times they also have multiple eggs implanted and with the technology today they abort many of them to keep from having a large amount of kids at one time,

Jolie Rouge · 10-11-2006, 06:28 PM

Stem cell transplant program sued
Updated 10/9/2006

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A lawsuit against a stem cell transplant program alleges that it failed to ensure its stem cells were in good condition and concealed problems from patients, the Kansas City Star reported Sunday.

The program treated 40 adult patients in 1998 and 1999 whose stem cells were processed using a method intended to save time and increase efficiency, the newspaper reported.

About one-fourth of those patients died within 100 days of their transplants from complications such as hemorrhages, infections or the return of their cancer, the program's internal documents show. Within two years, half of the patients were dead.

Transplant programs typically see far lower death rates, the Star reported.

The suits were filed by former patients and deceased patients' survivors in Jackson County Circuit Court against St. Luke's Hospital, the Community Blood Center, the Kansas City Cancer Center and other institutions.

Many of the patients who sued learned of the problems only years later, after a St. Luke's lab technician who also was a patient found out about an outside expert's confidential report and spread the word, the Star reported.

Jay Menitove, director of the Community Blood Center, declined to comment on the lawsuits. The blood center is no longer associated with the transplant program.

St. Luke's spokeswoman Corrine Everson said: "We believe we're a leading program in the volume and the quality of the care we deliver."

Mark Myron, president of the Kansas City Cancer Center, said that even during the period when the stem-cell processing was brought into question, "the patients generally had very good results."

Since that time, the transplant program has twice passed a rigorous accreditation, Myron said. "It's a very excellent program that provides a very important community service," he said.

Eighteen lawsuits were filed, and one has been settled for an undisclosed amount. The court has combined many of the lawsuits into one case, which is scheduled for trial in March.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...-lawsuit_x.htm

Jolie Rouge · 11-29-2006, 05:43 PM

Journal: Stem cell safeguards needed
Tue Nov 28, 6:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A top scientific journal plans to adopt some stricter safeguards against fraud, in wake of a headline-grabbing South Korean cloning sham exposed a year ago.

The journal Science did subject the now-discredited studies to extra scrutiny before publishing them in 2004 and 2005, and correctly followed standard checks for signs of problems, concluded an independent review released Tuesday.

There is no way to completely prevent deliberate fraud, the reviewers cautioned.

But increasingly fierce scientific competition plus "the cachet of publishing in Science" create incentives for dishonesty that will require new steps to try to catch and deter, the report found.

"We're concerned that science continued to be viewed by the public as an enterprise in which truth is paramount," said Dr. John Brauman, a Stanford University chemist who headed the review requested by the journal.

Topping the recommendations, to Science and other high-profile journals: Identify "high-risk" papers — such as studies of intense public interest or that may affect political policies — for special scrutiny. That might include demanding original data to back up a paper's conclusions, or interviewing co-authors about their role in the research.

Journal editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy welcomed what he called "some tough advice," and said staffers were figuring out how to implement it.

He estimated that only about 10 studies a year would be important enough for the extra vigilance. Science received roughly 12,000 submissions in 2005 and published about 8 percent that passed an expert review.

Still, Kennedy acknowledged the stricter measures probably wouldn't have caught what a Seoul National University probe eventually concluded was an elaborate fraud.

South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk claimed to have extracted stem cells from a cloned human embryo, and to have created stem cells genetically matched to specific patients. Science retracted the articles last winter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/.../science_fraud