PDA

View Full Version : Setting the Record Straight: Stem Cell Research



Jolie Rouge
08-14-2004, 09:29 PM
Kerry's Claim: "Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research, shutting down some of the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, AIDS and so many other life-threatening diseases." (Sen. John Kerry, Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address, 8/7/04)


The Truth: Kerry's misleading claim is designed to obscure the truth from the public. President Bush did not ban stem cell research, but is actually the first president to fund stem cell research. Federal funding of stem cell research prior to the President's decision was $0. The President's 2003 budget included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from 2002 and $190 million in funding for adult stem cells. There is no ban on private research of stem cells at all.

The President balanced this decision with the position that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by using federal funds to encourage or support the destruction of a human embryo. This principle receives broad support internationally, with many European countries--including France, Germany, Austria, Spain and Ireland--banning altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines.

Charles Krauthammer said of Kerry's claim, "Look, I personally support expansion of some of the federal funding of stem cell research. But you're absolutely right, the ban that they speak about is simply a lie. It is legal in the country of course; it always has been. Private universities are working hard on it. Secondly, there was a ban on the federal funding right through the Clinton years. They never spent a penny on stem cells. The person who lifted the ban was President Bush when he made his speech in August of 2001. So, the federal, right now the federal government is spending $25 million on stem cell research. So, to talk about a ban I think is simply to mislead Americans deliberately." (Fox News' "Fox News Live," 8/9/04)

kvmj
08-15-2004, 05:03 AM
At the time Bush made his announcement about stem cell research, there were 70 some lines being studied. He decided that no new lines could be added. Of the original lines, only 20 some are viable.

Stem cell research shows great potential for many diseases including Parkinson's and cancer.

His objections are religious in nature and not based on scientific fact.

JillPole
08-15-2004, 06:26 AM
The reason only 20 are available (if that, even now), is due to political pressure from the right-wing conservatives. They decided to drag abortion rights into this, saying the majority of stem cells would come from aborted fetuses.

Result? Bush ran scared, backed off, bowed down to any type of scientific idea that would DARE bring up Roe v. Wade, never mind that these are NOT stem cells from aborted fetuses!!!

I'm sorry... I just want to puke. My stepfather just received a new liver today because a 23 yr. old male died. I have been posting to keep myself from crying my eyes out. Not just for my stepfather to pull through, but for the family of the person who died. One of my brothers is 23.

It is a tough position to be put in... to think that someone you love is alive because someone died. It is killing me right now.

But that is NOT what stem cell research is about!!!

If the posts look like articles from another source, then STOP! Ask yourselves where the article is from and who originally wrote it. If you question something, go beyond BBS and dig for more info. Make up your own minds!!!

Jolie Rouge
08-17-2004, 12:47 PM
Bush, Kerry Spar on Stem Cell Research Ban

Presidential candidate John Kerry used the third anniversary of President George W. Bush's ban of new stem cell research to denounce the ban and pledge that he would rescind it, if elected. Opponents of such research say it destroys human life, while its supporters say it holds out hope for treating many presently incurable conditions. How do you think this is likely to affect voters in November?

On the campaign trail, Senator Kerry pledged that "we're going to create a new anniversary, one that will be a cause for celebration. We're going to lift the ban on stem cell research."

Attacking President Bush's policy on stem cell research, Senator Kerry said that, "Here in America, we don't sacrifice science for ideology."

If elected, the junior Senator from Massachusetts pledged that, "We're going to listen to our scientists and stand up for science. We're going to say 'yes' to knowledge, 'yes' to discovery, and 'yes' to a new era of hope for all Americans."

Three years ago, on August 9th, 2001, President Bush used his first prime-time nationwide television address to announced his decision to ban the use of federal funds in most embryonic stem cell research. Exempted from the ban were those few cell lines which already existed at that time.

At that time, President Bush told his viewing audience that embryonic stem cell research carried the prospect of both "great promise and great peril."

Stem cells are among the earliest, least differentiated cells found in embryos, and from which the wide range of cell types making up fully-formed human beings are derived. Advocates of such research point to the possibility of future cures for cancer and degenerative diseases, or even the ageing process itself. Opponents assert that such stem cells constitute human life, and that much research involving them is morally impermissible.

How do you think this is likely to affect voters in November?

Jolie Rouge
08-17-2004, 12:51 PM
If the posts look like articles from another source, then STOP! Ask yourselves where the article is from and who originally wrote it. If you question something, go beyond BBS and dig for more info. Make up your own minds!!!


ITA


Anyone care to discuss why all this debate only concerns embryonic stem cell research ??

Stem cells can also be "harvested" from the cord blood after child birth, no ethical or moral crisis involved ...

kvmj
08-17-2004, 03:17 PM
Embryonic stem cells are the most malleable. I can't think of a better word.

Do question in vitro fertilization where excess embryos are routinely discarded.

I agree with Kerry.

You cannot mix science and religion.

Jolie Rouge
09-12-2004, 09:41 PM
One of the flogged-to-death Democratic campaign horses is stem cell research--a topic that, according to the latest Zogby poll, could endear swing voters enough to support Kerry's cause. If Kerry were to announce a major initiative in stem cell research to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, states an article in American Demographics, he would gain 11% of Bush voters. Another 9% of Bush voters would switch to a third party, not vote, or be undecided.

Bob Beckel, former political strategist for the Dems, calls stem cell research the "'sleeper issue' of this campaign." Correspondingly, Kerry doesn't miss an opportunity to bring it up. MSN's Slate magazine reported that stem cells "were mentioned 20 times at the Democratic National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion combined."

"Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research," said Kerry in a radio address on August 7, promising twice that, if elected U.S. President, he'd "lift the ban."

Problem is, there is no such ban.

All George W. Bush did was restrict federal funding to research on embryos created before August 2001; but he didn't ban stem-cell research itself. In fact, Bush is the first president ever to give federal funds to embryonic stem cell research. Plus, the private sector, state and local governments are still free to pursue this potentially ground-breaking science as they wish.

Another half-truth the Democrats fervently promote is that stem cell research is a sure-fire way to help cure Alzheimer's Disease. So far, that hasn't been scientifically proven. A June article in the Washington Post stated that, "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit." Even though scientists agree that stem cell research will be somewhat beneficial to understanding Alzheimer's better, a "cure" is by no means waiting on the sidelines.

But the "big A" is another catchword that could draw voters on Kerry's side. A poll by "Results for America", a group that endorses stem cell research, showed that only 17% of Americans have--or come in contact with through family, friends, etc.--the diseases that are most susceptible to stem cell therapy. With Alzheimer's in the mix, that number shoots up to 28%. And 72% of voters say they would support stem cell research if experts thought it would cure Alzheimer's.

"People need a fairy tale," Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told the Washington Post. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." And for all those people, John Kerry makes it easy to believe.

Gilding the lily on stem cell research isn't the only example of Democratic dirty tricks. For example. one of the battlegrounds between the GOP and Democrats is offbeat candidate Ralph Nader, the man that only a small, but potentially pivotal, block of voters take seriously. While Republicans busily gathered signatures for Nader to get on the ballots, hoping to take away votes from Kerry, the left allegedly kept busy, too.

According to the website www.votenader.org, the law firm Smith, Diamond, and Olney that works for the Democrats "threatened circulators of Nader petitions [in Oregon] saying they were investigating 'whether fraudulent signature-gathering techniques were used... saying their involvement 'may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years.'"

The pro-Nader team also complained that Democrats were sabotaging one of his recent nominating conventions, "swelling the number of attendees and then refusing to sign ballot petitions." Since the doors were closed by the government after over 1,000 attendees had been let in, the "intruders" prevented others from entering and Nader wound up with less than the 1,000 signatures he needed.

So much for moral superiority.

The bottom line, as we see it: there is a reason that there are only two major political parties... both know the game inside out, and will do whatever it takes to gain control, and keep it. Politics is not a game for the weak of heart.

Jolie Rouge
10-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Embryonic Stem Cell Misinformation

John Kerry has made a repeated effort to mislead the press and the public on the reality of the new federal funding for stem cell research that the President announced in August 2001. Both Kerry and Edwards have repeatedly referred to the President's policy as a "ban" on stem cell research.

Numerous media outlets have adopted their language, referring to the President's new funding as a ban, or saying that the President took steps to limit federal funding without mentioning that the President announced the first ever federal funding of stem cell research. These characterizations are inaccurate or incomplete, and misinform the public on the reality of the policy.

The Facts Are:

** President Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. Prior to the President's announcement of new funding, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was $0.


** The President's announcement did not ban, limit or restrict stem cell research.


** It is inaccurate to say the President "limited federal funding" of stem cell research, as such funding did not exist to limit. This language misleads voters to believe that the President put restrictions on existing federal funding.


** The President did announce the first ever federal funding of stem cell research with ethical requirements on which stem cell lines are funded.
The new federal funding that the President announced did not include funds to research stem cell lines from embryos that had not already been destroyed.


John Kerry's Effort To Mislead On Stem Cell Research:

Kerry: "Three Years Ago, The President Enacted A Far-Reaching Ban On Stem Cell Research." KERRY: "Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research, shutting down some of the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, AIDS and so many other life-threatening diseases." (Sen. John Kerry, Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address, 8/7/04)

Jolie Rouge
10-04-2004, 12:22 PM
THEN AND NOW >>>



2001 Coverage Of Stem Cell Decision:

The Boston Globe: Bush Administration Announced “First Federal Grants For Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” “The Bush administration announced yesterday that the first federal grants for embryonic stem cell research could be issued next January, breathing life into a sluggish but highly promising field of medicine now dominated by a few private companies.” (Raja Mishra And Anthony Shadid, “Stem Cell Grants Could Begin In Jan.,” The Boston Globe, 8/11/01)

USA Today: President Bush Announced “He Will Allow Federal Funding” For Research On Embryonic Stem Cells. “President Bush announced Thursday that he will allow federal funding for a limited amount of research on embryonic stem cells, in a compromise decision he said does not cross ‘a fundamental moral line.’” (Mimi Hall, “Bush OKs Limited Stem-Cell Funding,” USA Today, 8/10/01)

Los Angeles Times: President Bush Announces He Will “Allow The Federal Government To Fund Medical Research That Uses Stem Cells.” “President Bush, seeking a compromise in the most politically charged issue of his administration, announced Thursday that he would allow the federal government to fund medical research that uses stem cells taken from a limited number of human embryos.” (Aaron Zitner and Edwin Chen, “Bush OKs Limited Stem Cell Funding,” Los Angeles Times, 8/10/01)

The Associated Press: “President Bush Announced Thursday That He Will Allow Federal Funding” For Research On Stem Cells. “‘Stem cell research is something I deeply believe in for myself and the millions of other people who could benefit,’ Moore said before President Bush announced Thursday that he will allow federal funding for limited medical research on stem cells extracted from human embryos.” (Anthony Breznican, “Support Of Outspoken Celebrities Makes Stem Cell Research Hollywood's Latest Social Cause,” The Associated Press, 8/10/01)


2004 Inaccurate Stem Cell Media Reports:

ABC: "It Was Exactly Three Years Ago Today That President Bush Restricted Research Using Embryonic Cells." VARGAS: "Turning to the campaign trail today. Many believe such research could hold a cure for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. It was exactly three years ago today that President Bush restricted research using embryonic cells. The Democrats are hitting him hard on that all this week. Here's ABC's John Cochran." (ABC's "World News Tonight," 8/9/04)

NBC: "Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Which The President Opposes." BROKAW: "The White House says there was no discussion of their disagreement over embryonic stem cell research, which the President opposes and Mrs. Reagan very publicly supports. The White House says Mrs. Reagan did express her full support of the President's campaign for reelection as President." (NBC's "Nightly News," 8/12/04)

The Associated Press: "What The President Has Done Is Limit The Research." “With polls showing overwhelming support for stem cell research, Kerry has promised to give scientists more freedom. He has used the word ban to describe Bush's actions when what the president has done is limit the research.” (Ron Fournier, “First Lady Bashes Kerry Stem Cell Stance,” The Associated Press, 8/9/04)

The Washington Post: "President Bush's Decision To Limit Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Research." "Seizing an issue with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Kerry campaign is marking the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal embryonic stem cell research with a series of high-profile events this week that call into question the administration's commitment to science and breakthrough medicine." (Ceci Connolly, "Kerry Takes On Issue Of Embryo Research," The Washington Post, 8/8/04)

The New York Times: Laura Bush Defends "The Limits Her Husband Had Imposed On Embryonic Stem Cell Research." "Venturing forcefully into one of the more contentious issues of the campaign, Laura Bush on Monday defended the limits her husband had imposed on embryonic stem cell research and criticized those who suggested that the research could lead quickly to cures for Alzheimer's and other diseases. …Mrs. Bush spoke on the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal financing for embryonic stem cell research to the 78 stem cell lines in existence at the time and as the issue moved to the forefront of the campaign." (Randy Kennedy, "First Lady Defends Limits On Stem Cell Research," The New York Times, 8/10/04)

Los Angeles Times: "President Bush's Ban On Embryonic Stem Cell Research." "Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry vowed Saturday that he would lift President Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research, declaring that 'here in America, we don't sacrifice science for ideology.'" (Lisa Getter, "Kerry Decries Stem Cell Limits, Promises Funding," Los Angeles Times, 8/8/04)

USA Today: Ron Reagan Will "Make The Case For Embryonic Stem-Cell Research That President Bush Has Limited." "He was the most unlikely speaker of the night at the Democratic National Convention: Ron Reagan. The son of the president who has become a Republican icon was given a prized prime-time speaking slot to make the case for embryonic stem-cell research that President Bush has limited." (Susan Page, "Reagan: 'Cast A Vote' For Stem-Cell Research," USA Today, 7/28/04)

Boston Globe Editorial: "The Ban On Federal Funding Of Stem Cell Research." "On Monday night, Hillary Clinton received one of her loudest cheers at the Democratic National Convention when she called for an end to the ban on federal funding of stem cell research." ("Ron Reagan's Question," Editorial, The Boston Globe, 7/28/04)

CNN: "And Finally, Today Marks The Three-Year Anniversary Of President Bush's Ban On Some Federally-Funded Stem Cell Research." (Carol Costello, CNN's "American Morning," 8/9/04)

BBC Correspondent Labeled Bush Administration Stem Cell Policy A "Ban On Stem Cell Research." KAY: "I think this is much harder for President Bush. And you've had three dozen Republican congressmen, 48 Nobel laureates in science coming out and saying that the ban on stem cell research has to be overturned as well. Ron Reagan is not by himself. There's a broad body..." (NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show," 7/18/04)

CNN: Bush Administration's Policy Is To "Limit Federal Funding Of Stem Cell Research." WALLACE: "A senior Kerry adviser says Ron Reagan's decision to speak at the Democratic Convention will have, quote, 'big appeal to independents.' Reagan has been an outspoken critic of President Bush on many issues including his decision to limit federal funding of stem cell research." (CNNFN's "Market Call," 7/12/04)

Los Angeles Times: "Limited Federal Support For Stem Cell Research." "The president did not mention another major cause for religious conservatives: limiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The issue has proven complicated for Republicans in the wake of the death of former President Reagan, who suffered from Alzheimer's, and his son's appearance at the Democratic convention attacking the limited federal support for stem cell research." (Peter Wallsten, "Bush Touches Base With His Core Supporters," Los Angeles Times, 8/4/04)

United Press International: "President Bush's Partial Ban On Embryonic-Stem-Cell Research." "The hot-button political issue of life and its origins came to the fore Monday as the Kerry-Edwards campaign commemorated the 'sad anniversary' of President Bush's partial ban on embryonic-stem-cell research, a decision Democrats charge was inappropriately based on the president's personal moral imperatives." (Marie Horrigan, "GOP: Dems 'Dishonest' On Stem-Cell Issue," United Press International, 8/9/04)

St. Petersburg Times: "President Bush's Ban On Stem Cell Research." "The three Democrats delivered their standard stump speeches about education, the economy and health care. And for the most part, they agreed. They oppose a constitutional ban on gay marriages. They oppose President Bush's ban on stem cell research. They oppose tax breaks for the rich." (Anita Kumar, "Unified Front Belies Rancor," St. Petersburg Times, 8/4/04)

San Antonio Express Editorial: "The Misguided Ban On Federal Funding Of Stem Cell Research." "Reagan's moving appeal to the nation may help put an end to the misguided ban on federal funding of stem cell research, which Reagan correctly said may be 'the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime.'" (Editorial, "Regan Makes His Point," San Antonio Express-News, 7/29/04)

The Plain Dealer (Cleveland): "The Bush Ban On Embryonic Stem Cell Research." "Ron Reagan, the outspoken son of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, made a case for ending the Bush ban on embryonic stem cell research that might cure Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses." (Stephen Koff, "For Party Faithful, Visions Of Hope," The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/28/04)

Orlando Sentinel: "President Bush's Ban On New Embryonic Stem-Cell Research." "He also called for increasing research into cures for debilitating diseases and for overturning President Bush's ban on new embryonic stem-cell research." (Robyn Shelton, "Kerry Vows To Overhaul Health Care," Orlando Sentinel, 7/27/04)

Kansas City Star: "Third Anniversary Of President Bush's Decision To Limit Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Research."[/i] "The Kerry campaign is marking the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal embryonic stem cell research by questioning the administration's commitment to science." ("Democrats Criticize Stem Cell Restrictions," The Kansas City Star, 8/8/04)

Jolie Rouge
10-04-2004, 12:30 PM
Kerry Promotes Expanded Stem Cell Research]
By MARY DALRYMPLE

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041004%2F1301053441.htm&sc=1131

HAMPTON, N.H. (AP) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry said Monday that President Bush has sacrificed hopes for disease cures offered by stem cell research to ``extreme right-wing ideology.''

The Democratic presidential candidate, with actor and activist Michael J. Fox, promised to fund more embryonic stem cell research with federal money if elected. A new campaign ad says it's time to ``lift the political barriers'' blocking the exploration of stem cell therapies.

``The hard truth is that when it comes to stem cell research, this president is making the wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology,'' Kerry said.

Kerry criticized Bush's decision to prohibit federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after Aug. 9, 2001. Some religious and conservative organizations oppose such research because days-old embryos are destroyed in the process.


Kerry called it ``a far-reaching ban on federal funding for stem cell research, tying the hands of our scientists, driving some of them away from America.''


Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, told voters gathered in a high school gym that Bush had ``so restricted the stem cell lines available to us that it was kind of like he gave us a car and no gas and congratulated himself for giving us the car.''


The Bush-Cheney campaign said the president's decision represents a federal commitment to using the promise of stem cell research in an ethical way.


``John Kerry's attacks on stem cell research are trying to mislead the American people by implying a ban that doesn't exist,'' said spokesman Steve Schmidt.


Bush limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the 78 stem cell lines in existence on Aug. 9, 2001. Only a fraction of those initial 78 stem cell lines - 21 at last count - are yet available to researchers because of problems with the lines' growth or their ownership. In March, a National Institutes of Health count cast doubt on how many ultimately would be usable.


Kerry promises $100 million a year flowing into the research and strict ethical oversight.


The Massachusetts senator gets some of his biggest cheers at campaign rallies when he promises to fund more stem cell research, one aspect of a pledge to increase federal support of science.


Ticking off a list of scientific and environmental issues - water quality, air quality, global warming, high-tech jobs - Kerry said the president repeatedly ignores science and fact in favor of politics.


``This underscores, in my judgment, the perils of having the president who turns his back on science in favor of ideology and as a result abandons millions of Americans' hopes,'' he said.


Kerry also gave an abbreviated version of his typical stump speech to the high school students in an assembly decorated with campaign banners.


Stem cell research got national political attention this summer when President Reagan died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and his wife and son Ron urged the administration to lift the funding restrictions. Kerry was among 58 senators who asked Bush to relax his policy.


Voters in California will be asked whether they support a proposition to borrow $3 billion and fund human embryonic stem cell research and cloning projects designed solely for therapeutic purposes. Fox has been active in efforts to pass the proposition along with other research initiatives.


Stem cells are master cells that can turn into all the cells, tissues and organs in the human body. Scientists believe they hold promise for treating many diseases.


On the Net:


Kerry campaign: www.johnkerry.com


Bush campaign: www.georgewbush.com



10/04/04 13:00

Jolie Rouge
10-07-2004, 08:29 AM
Beyond the mirage of cell science
By Gregory M. Lamb

Microscopic embryonic stem cells might hold the answer to afflictions from baldness, wrinkles, and age spots to the most intractable diseases.
Or they might be a medical mirage, a tempting oasis of healing on a horizon that never grows closer.

This fall, as entities ranging from California to the United Nations prepare to make major decisions about the future of stem-cell research, American public opinion has swung strongly in favor of the technology. But just as medical research has created breakthroughs in physical treatments, it has also led doctors - and the public - down blind alleys.

It's not yet clear which path stem-cell research will follow. It is, however, certain that it will spark more political fireworks than any medical technology in at least a quarter century.

"Americans love medical technology," says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and management at Harvard University who tracks public attitudes toward medicine. But embryonic stem cells have become linked to the abortion debate - "the single biggest, most contentious issue in American society," he adds. That alone makes the issue unique.

To be sure, those in the field are pretty sure they're onto something exciting. "There's absolutely nothing we've seen so far to suggest that this cannot be done," Dr. Douglas Melton, a leading stem-cell researcher at Harvard University, said at an international conference on stem-cell research in Boston in June.

But others remember a cautionary tale from the mid-1990s: "gene therapy" aimed at replacing, manipulating, or supplementing human genes that were not working with healthy genes.

"When it [gene therapy] was first proposed, it was going to be the way to fix everything," says Josephine Johnston, a bioethicist at the Hastings Center, a nonprofit bioethics research institute in Garrison, N.Y. Advocates announced that treatments based on genetic manipulation would be available no later than the turn of the millennium. But by 2004, not one had reached the market, while many human test subjects had suffered adverse effects. Several died.

For the moment, US public opinion is moving in favor of stem-cell research, especially after pleas from the wife and son of former President Reagan, whose battle with Alzheimer's disease raised the question whether the nascent technology might have provided a cure.

The swing in the polls is a boon for proponents, because major decisions about the technology's future loom. In October, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote whether to adopt a ban on all human cloning, backed by the Bush administration. Or it might ban only reproductive cloning and allow so-called therapeutic cloning, which creates stem cells.

On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on a ballot initiative to provide $3 billion in state funds for stem-cell research. Proponents, including billionaire Bill Gates, have contributed more than $10 million to push its passage, suggesting that it will be a boon to the state and lead to breakthroughs that the federal government has refused to underwrite.

Supported by antiabortion advocates, the Bush administration has restricted federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research to a series of stem-cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001. (Scientists are also studying stem cells from adults and the blood from the umbilical cords of newborns. While showing promise, these may have limited therapeutic abilities.) Fewer than 20 of the original 78 embryonic stem-cell lines have proven useful to scientists, who argue they need access to many, many more to conduct meaningful research.

Opponents of therapeutic cloning, which uses cells from human embryos, say it amounts to murder because the embryos are destroyed in the process.

These embryonic stem cells can grow into all types of cells and tissues found in the body. Scientists say if they learn how to direct their growth, stem cells could be used to combat a host of intractable diseases.

Those who see a bright future for stem cells don't look to gene therapy but to in vitro fertilization (IVF) as a possible model. On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown became the first baby born using the then-controversial technique, in which conception takes place outside the womb. Critics called IVF unnatural, dangerous, and a threat to family life. But in the following quarter century, IVF has become widely used and accepted and now is considered a relatively safe medical procedure.

Ironically, IVF produces excess human embryos that clinics routinely destroy. Yet there has been little public outcry "because that technology is so popular that it would be political suicide to try to close in vitro fertilization clinics," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. There may be some 400,000 such embryos in clinics around the world.

The IVF experience suggests that religious and moral opposition to embryonic stem-cell research might fade only after it produces a useful therapy.

However hard it is to gauge the probability of success, many people are already weighing the costs of research against potential benefits. Besides California voters deciding whether to invest in stem cells, venture capitalists are backing a number of biotech firms. The lure of finding a miraculous healing agent makes the investment attractive.

"I can find no example where over the long term we have not moved ahead for research for cures of major diseases," says Dr. Blendon at Harvard. When people are polled about stem cells, he says, if the question mentions that the research might produce cures for well-known diseases, the number of people who say they support it zooms to a strong majority.

The potential for stem cells "is enormous," but there are countless twists and turns left on the path to harnessing them, adds Ann Parson, author of the new book "The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine." "The amount of biology that we have to learn to turn that embryonic stem cell into a cell of one's choosing is huge. I personally wonder if it's not going to take one or two life times to see."

"There's a sort of idea in science that if you search long enough and hard enough, you'll find a solution to everything, especially in medicine," bioethicist Johnston says. "But that doesn't always pan out." She sees some parallels between the promise of stem cells and the search for an AIDS vaccine that after two decades remains undiscovered.

Furor over stem cells

• Embryonic stem cells form in the first days after conception and eventually turn into all the cells, tissues, and organs in the human body. Scientists hope to use these in the treatment of a wide range of ailments.

• Adult stem cells - donated by humans - are extracted from bone marrow or umbilical blood and have been used to fight disease for many years.

• By one count, 24 countries have flexible or permissive laws on embryonic stem cells, including China, Russia, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom.

• In November, voters in Switzerland and California will vote on measures to regulate or support such research.

Source: William Hoffman

Sci/Tech > Computers & Technology
from the September 16, 2004 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/p13s02-stct.html

Jolie Rouge
10-07-2004, 08:31 AM
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/

Stem Cell Basics

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

This document covers basic information about stem cells. For a more detailed discussion, see Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions. Or you can check our Frequently Asked Questions page for quick answers to specific queries.

Throughout Stem Cell Basics, the first reference to a Glossary term on a page appears in bold, underlined maroon type. Clicking on the term will open its definition from the Glossary page in a new window.



----------



AAAS/ICS REPORT ON STEM CELL RESEARCH


In the face of extraordinary advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases, devastating illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and diseases of the nervous system, such as Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease, continue to deprive people of health, independence, and well-being. Research in human developmental biology has led to the discovery of human stem cells (precursor cells that can give rise to multiple tissue types), including embryonic stem (ES) cells, embryonic germ (EG) cells, fetal stem cells, and adult stem cells. Recently, techniques have been developed for the in vitro culture of stem cells, providing unprecedented opportunities for studying and understanding human embryology. As a result, scientists can now carry out experiments aimed at determining the mechanisms underlying the conversion of a single, undifferentiated cell, the fertilized egg, into the different cells comprising the organs and tissues of the human body. Although it is impossible to predict the outcomes, scientists and the public will gain immense new knowledge in the biology of human development that will likely hold remarkable potential for therapies and cures.

Derivation of ES cells from early human embryos, and EG and fetal stem cells from aborted, fetal tissues raise ethical, legal, religious, and policy questions. Further, the potential uses of stem cells for generating human tissues and, perhaps, organs, is a subject of ongoing public debate.

Taking all the above matters into account, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute for Civil Society decided to undertake a study in order to propose recommendations for conducting stem cell research. To do so, we assembled a working group with broad expertise and diverse views to advise us and to assist with preparing a report. This study and the recommendations flowing from it were informed by the values of the members of this advisory group, as well as reports and recommendations of other groups in the United States and elsewhere that have reflected on the issues involved. These values include belief in the promotion of patient welfare and the social good, scientific freedom and responsibility, self-determination, encouragement of civic discourse, public accountability of scientists and research institutions, and respect for diverse religious, philosophical, and secular belief systems.

AAAS and ICS recognize that there are varied social, political, ethical, and religious viewpoints to be considered in discussions about the scientific use of tissue from human embryos and fetuses. Scientists do not presume to know all the answers and ramifications of basic research in human stem cells. Therefore, it is important to promote continued dialogue among all segments of society concerning the implications of stem cell research.

AAAS and ICS are committed to fostering an ongoing educational process that informs such public dialogue. As part of this effort, we convened a public meeting in Washington, DC on August 25, 1999, at which time a summary of our findings was publicly presented and discussed.

The complete report of the AAAS/ICS study is available here in PDF format.

www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/main.htm

{{ Stem Cell Main Page
AAAS/ICS Stem Cell Report
Findings and Recommendations of the AAAS/ICS Report
AAAS/ICS Public Forum Agenda
NBAC Report
Program in Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Main Page
Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion Program
For additional information on Stem Cells, please check the AAAS Center for Science, Technology&Congress site.
}}

Jolie Rouge
10-07-2004, 08:34 AM
Stem-cell debate complicated
Science, ethics color opposing views on research for cures.
Gannett News Service

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0409/17/a06-276704.htm

Question: Why is there objection to embryonic stem-cell research if it could possibly benefit victims of debilitating diseases?

Answer: Ethics, morals, religious thought and international law complicate the issue.

Unlike adult stem cells, which are safely extracted from living people, embryonic stem-cell research relies on the destruction of a dot-sized mass of human cells. If implanted in a woman and allowed to grow, these cells could develop into a fetus' liver, kidneys, eyes, muscles and all other organs and tissue that comprise the body.

Opponents of the research say it violates existing international law, such as the 1949 Nuremberg Code, which prohibits experimental research on subjects without their informed consent; and the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, which says considerations related to the well-being of the human subject take precedence over the interests of science and society.

"There are many scientific questions we may never know the answers to simply because the research that is necessary is amoral," said Cindy Province, associate director of the nonprofit St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Ruth R. Faden, a professor of biomedical ethics at Johns Hopkins University, said international law applies only to established world citizens.

"If you believe a five-day old embryo warrants full membership and rights and the full respect that humans are entitled to, then not only do Helsinki and Nuremberg apply, but the (U.S.) Constitution applies," said Faden, director of Hopkins' Berman Bioethics Institute. "Others of us don't believe that."

Q: Why not just use adult stem cells for research?

A: Scientists consider embryonic stem cells the gold standard for stem-cell research because the budding cells are unformed and can differentiate into any type of human cell or tissue. As stem cells mature, they multiply and divide into cells specialized for bones, blood or kidneys and such. Embryonic cells are valued for their flexibility.

According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent," meaning they are able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells. Adult stem cells are considered "multipotent," meaning they are restricted in what they become.

Q: What is an embryonic stem-cell line?

A: It's the family of cells dissected and isolated from an embryo, then cultured to divide continuously and differentiate into various types of cells.

Q: How are embryonic stem cells administered?

A: No human tests have been done. In lab tests, these cells have been injected into mice or rats that have acute spinal cord injuries. Doses of these cells can be frozen and shipped.

Q: Can state governments fund embryonic stem-cell research with no restrictions?

A: Yes. Various state governments are considering bills that condone, endorse or even fund embryonic stem-cell research.

Jolie Rouge
10-07-2004, 08:38 AM
Bush did NOT "BAN" Stem Cell Research -- he cut federal funding to all but existing lines.

If we were to apply the Democratic standard used here, we could say that Kerry "banned" battle armour for our troops by voting against funding to supply our soldiers in Iraq.

:eek:

Jolie Rouge
11-07-2004, 10:15 AM
Bumping ...

Jolie Rouge
11-24-2004, 09:24 PM
Studies: Cord Blood Works Vs. Leukemia
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY

Umbilical-cord blood, now used mostly to treat children with leukemia, could save thousands of adults with the disease each year who cannot find bone marrow donors, two big studies indicate.

A European study found that those who got cord blood were just as likely to be free of leukemia two years later as those who got marrow. A U.S. study looking at three-year survival yielded results almost as promising.

To Dr. Mary Horowitz of the Medical College of Wisconsin, senior author of the U.S. study, the message is clear: Umbilical cord blood can save adults.

Leukemia patients often undergo radiation or chemotherapy to kill their cancerous white blood cells - a treatment that wipes out their immune systems, too. To restore their immune systems, doctors give these patients an infusion of bone marrow or umbilical cord blood, both of which contain stem cells capable of developing into every kind of blood cell.


Cord blood offers an important advantage over marrow that makes it particularly valuable for use in transplants: Its stem cells are less likely to attack the recipient's body. That allows a wider margin of error in matching up donors and recipients.


But up to now, cord blood has been considered suitable only for children, because each donation has only about one-tenth the number of stem cells in a marrow donation.


The two new studies, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, suggest that is not a serious impediment.


In the European study, involving 682 patients, about one-third of both those who got matched marrow and those who got cord blood that did not quite match their own tissues were alive after two years. In the U.S. study of 601 patients, about one-third of those who got matched marrow were leukemia-free after two years, compared with about one-fifth of those who got cord blood or unmatched marrow.


Both studies were based on records from transplants in the late 1990s and early 2000s.


Using cord blood could improve the odds of getting a transplant for the 16,000 U.S. adult leukemia patients each year who cannot find a compatible marrow donor, said the U.S. study's leader, Dr. Mary J. Laughlin of Case Comprehensive Cancer Center in Cleveland.


Still, Dr. Nancy Kernan, assistant chief of marrow transplantation at Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said cord blood transplants in adults should be done only as part of studies to look at and improve their effectiveness.


Public cord blood banks - where blood drawn from umbilical cords and placentas at birth is kept frozen - need to quadruple their supply to find a match for every leukemia patient who needs one. With 4 million births a year in this country, and most cord blood thrown away, that should not be a problem once more public money comes into play, doctors said.


A federal Institute of Medicine committee is already looking into the best way to set up a national cord blood supply, and is scheduled to complete its report in March. ``I know our committee will consume this study avidly,'' said Kristine Gebbie, chairman of the group.


The first bone marrow transplants were done in the 1960s; cord blood transplants started in the 1990s. Stem-cell transplants save only 20 percent to 30 percent of the patients who hope to grow new immune systems. But without the treatment, virtually all of them would die.


Some researchers said techniques they have developed in the past two years, since the study ended, already have boosted their success.


Most doctors consider cord blood more appropriate for smaller people, because it contains fewer stem cells than marrow. In the two studies, cord blood recipients tended to weigh less than those who got marrow - an average of 22 pounds less in the U.S. research, about 18 in the European study.


There are two competing U.S. public cord bank systems, one holding about 38,000 vials, the other 27,000. Together, they do not add up to the supply kept by just one of the 20 or so private banks kept for paying families.


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041124%2F2045729724.htm&sc=1500



On the Net:


http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com


http://www.marrow.org


http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org


http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org


http://www.cancer.org



11/24/04 20:45

keen9801
11-25-2004, 12:02 PM
well I just wanted to add my son had a stem cell transplant at age 5 years. They just havested his own cells and froze them then when he was ready to go through with the transplant they gave him his own cells back so they don't come from someone else that has died or not all come from embryonic cells.

Jolie Rouge
11-28-2004, 08:40 PM
Swiss Voters OK Stem Cell Research Law
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS

GENEVA (AP) - Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a law allowing stem cell research Sunday, rejecting a hard-line campaign that compared researchers to the Nazis' ``angel of death,'' Dr. Josef Mengele.

Some 66.4 percent of those polled - or 1.1 million voters - approved the law passed by the government last December. The law will take effect in March.


Opponents had called the referendum to try to overturn the legislation, even though it sets stricter limitations on research than exist elsewhere in Europe. The Swiss bill only allows the use of embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization.

Embryonic stem cells form in the days after fertilization and can turn into any tissue of the body. Many researchers believe stem cells harvested from embryos could be used to regenerate nerve tissue or cure diseases, including Alzheimer's. But extracting stem cells from an embryo kills the embryo, which opponents say is tantamount to taking a life.

In the United States, President Bush has approved federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for only the 78 stem cell lines in existence on Aug. 9, 2001. At last count, less than two dozen of those lines are still available.

The government said the law will permit Switzerland - which has major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies - to take part in vital research. The opposition alliance, which included Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as left-wing and green groups, said the defeat was a setback for scientific ethics. ``In a few years, we will be voting on therapeutic cloning,'' said Pascale Steck of the referendum committee.

One opponent organization, Familiaplus, distributed a petition titled ``No to Dr. Nazi Mengele,'' a reference to the doctor who conducted infamous human experiments at the Auschwitz death camp during World War II.

The government said the law strictly prohibits human cloning or the creation of embryos for stem-cell research and stressed the restrictions on the research, which include a requirement for the written consent of the parents, the approval of an ethics committee and the Swiss Health Ministry for each research project.

European nations that permit stem cell research include Sweden, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands. Britain allows the creation of human embryos for stem cell procurement.


11/28/04 21:19

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041128%2F2119000303.htm&sc=1500

cavemtmomma
12-02-2004, 12:25 PM
Successes from non-embryonic stem cell research mount
Dec 1, 2004
By Tom Strode

C. Ben Mitchell


WASHINGTON (BP)--A report from South Korea of a paraplegic woman walking six weeks after undergoing a transplant with stem cells from umbilical cord blood is only part of a mounting list of successful therapies that are not dependent on destroying embryos.

On the same day Hwang Mi-Soon, 37, took steps for reporters in Seoul with the aid of a walker, American and European studies were published that showed umbilical cord blood –- and the stem cells it includes -– could save the lives of many adults with leukemia who cannot find bone marrow donors, The New York Times reported.

Meanwhile, recent reports have provided evidence in human trials of a cure for urinary incontinence using a patient’s own stem cells, as well as results in experimental research with lab animals that gave hope adult stem cells might treat heart damage, cancer and eye disease.

Stem cells are the body's master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues, building hope of treatments for numerous afflictions. They may be found in such non-embryonic sources as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat and placentas. The procurement of stem cells from such sources does not harm the donor.

Extracting stem cells from a human embryo is a different matter. It results in the destruction of the embryo, which is normally about a week old.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim that this line of study has the most potential for creating cures, but that is not evident in the priorities of the multi-billion-dollar biotechnology industry, which has invested many times more in adult stem cell research. Also, embryonic stem cell research has experienced multiple failures, including the worsening of Parkinson's symptoms in one human test group and a tendency to produce tumors in laboratory animals.

Research on stem cells from non-embryonic sources, meanwhile, has produced more than 40 treatments -– and the positive results keep coming in.

“These successes point to the promise of adult stem cells for therapeutic ends,” said C. Ben Mitchell, bioethics consultant for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Congress should superfund adult stem cell research, making embryonic stem cell research unattractive to scientists.”

Increases in funding for such research should occur not just because the results are more promising but because of its “ethically superior” nature, Mitchell said.

“Every effort should be made to exploit these sources of stem cells,” he said. “They are uncontroversial morally, but killing embryos for their stem cells cannot be justified ethically.

“We favor the advancement of science and the development of therapies, but subjecting human embryos to vivisection is not an advance, but a digression of science into biotechnological cannibalism,” said Mitchell, associate professor of bioethics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in suburban Chicago.

The federal government provided more than $190 million in funding for non-embryonic stem cell research in 2003, according to the White House. Meanwhile, $24.8 million was set aside the same year for embryonic stem cell research under President Bush’s policy, which permits funds only for stem cell lines in existence before he instituted the restriction in 2001.

While the federal government withholds funds for research that destroys embryos, some states are in a race to fund the practice. California’s voters approved in November a proposition that legalizes and underwrites embryonic stem cell research, as well as therapeutic cloning, with up to $3 billion in state bonds over 10 years. Advocates for embryo-destructive research in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois are promoting funding plans to keep their states from falling too far behind California.

They have no one to exhibit as a benefactor of research using embryonic stem cells, however. Advocates of non-destructive research have no such handicap. Lupus, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, Crohn’s disease and diabetes are among the ailments that have been successfully treated with non-embryonic stem cells.

Hwang Mi-Soon is one of the most recent witnesses to the power of stem cells that do no require the demise of another human being. South Korean researchers introduced her and the remarkable results Nov. 25, describing hers as the first published case of a person with a spinal cord injury to be successfully treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency reported.

“We have glimpsed at a silver lining over the horizon,” said Song Chang-Hoon, a professor at Chosun University’s medical school and a member of the research team, AFP reported. “We were all surprised at the fast improvements in the patient.”

The researchers transplanted stem cells from umbilical cord blood into the damaged part of Hwang’s spinal cord Oct. 12, according to The Korea Times. Within three weeks, she began to take steps with the aid of a walker, Song told reporters. Hwang had not walked since her legs were paralyzed in an accident 19 years before.

At the news conference, she got up from her wheelchair and shuffled a few paces with tears in her eyes, AFP reported. “This is already a miracle for me,” she said, according to AFP. “I never dreamed of getting to my feet again.”

The researchers acknowledged more research and verification is needed.

The results were similar, however, to those revealed in July in Washington, D.C., for two young American women. Susan Fajt, from Austin, Texas, and Laura Dominguez, from San Antonio, began walking with braces after receiving transplants with their own stem cells from pioneering Portuguese surgeon Carlos Lima. He transplanted stem cells from the olfactory tissue between the nose and brain to the location of the injuries to their spinal cords. Fajt was paralyzed in her lower body and Dominguez from the neck down from separate car wrecks in 2001.

In another account of a cure for paralysis, Brazilian doctors reported they used stem cells from a paralyzed woman’s bone marrow to restore quickly her ability to walk and talk, according to a Nov. 19 AFP article.

Maria da Graca Pomeceno, 54, suffered a brain hemorrhage that left her paralyzed on one side of her body, but doctors in Rio De Janeiro transplanted the stem cells five days afterward. While Han Fernando Dohmann warned tests were needed on other patients, the director of Rio De Janeiro’s Pro-Cardiaco Hospital said, according to AFP, “I would say that we have entered a new era in treating this condition.”
--30--

Jolie Rouge
12-02-2004, 10:21 PM
School Bus Driver Fired for Stem Cell Talk

GRAND ISLAND, N.Y. (AP) - An elementary school bus driver was fired after sharing a statistic she had read about embryonic stem cell research with students, then encouraging them to tell their parents about it.

Julianne Thompson, 42, told students in November that actor Mel Gibson had said in an article that embryonic stem cell research had not produced a single human cure in 23 years.

Some parents complained and school officials in the Buffalo suburb fired the driver. Superintendent Thomas Ramming said employees are generally told that political and religious discussions should be confined to a classroom setting where different viewpoints can be presented.


But Thompson said there is nothing in her contract that prohibits her from expressing facts or opinions. She is considering legal action, saying officials have yet to explain why her comments were inappropriate. ``I learned that free speech is definitely not free,'' Thompson said.


12/02/04 23:21

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041202%2F2321429581.htm&sc=1110

Jolie Rouge
01-04-2005, 01:19 PM
Calif. firm hopes to test brain stem cells at Stanford

CHICAGO (Reuters) — Shares of StemCells Inc. (STEM) rose 11% Tuesday as the company announced plans to start an early-stage clinical trial involving the use of brain stem cells to treat Batten disease, a rare but fatal genetic disease that attacks the central nervous systems of children.
The company said it has filed an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to start the small safety study. If approved, it would be the first trial to explore the use of human neural stem cells as a potential treatment, the company said.

The trial would study two dose levels involving three subjects in each of two groups. The primary goal would be safety, but it will also evaluate the treatment's impact on disease progression, the company said.

StemCells, based in Palo Alto, California, said the trial would take place at Stanford University Medical Center. The company said the trial would lend insight into how neural stem cells react when they are transplanted into a human recipient.

Shares of the biotechnology company rose 44 cents, or 10.7%, to $4.55 on Tuesday morning on the Nasdaq, after touching a high of $4.75 in the session.


www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2005-01-04-brain-stem-cell-trial_x.htm?csp=27&RM_Exclude=Juno

Jolie Rouge
01-06-2005, 10:58 PM
Stem Cell Panel Expects to Award Grants
By PAUL ELIAS

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine doesn't have a home, any money, or even a single employee, but the head of the new state agency expects to be awarding its first grants for stem cell research by May. ``We have a responsibility to move as quickly as possible,'' Robert Klein said Thursday. ``I admit that I am an optimist.''

The institute was created by California voters in November when they approved a $3 billion bond to fund stem cell research over the next decade. The 29-member committee appointed to manage the institute met Thursday and began to rectify the mind-numbing bureaucratic problems that need to be solved before the agency can be launched in full.


The Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee sorted through issues ranging from mundane personnel matters to grappling with the appropriateness of patenting genes and other life forms. Its only business in one earlier meeting was to appoint Klein as chairman and biotech company founder Edward Penhoet as vice chairman.


The committee members began the process of getting a $3 million loan from the state treasurer so the agency can hire staff and begin operating. They also appointed a seven-member committee to locate a headquarters and find office space.


Many of the board members, who were appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other elected officials, represent research universities and the biotechnology industry, both of which are expected to win millions of dollars worth of grants.


The committee members discussed creating conflict of interest rules, one of several hurdles the agency needs to overcome before it can send off its first check. The committee also must design intellectual property guidelines to ensure the state shares in any profits made from drugs created by California's stem cell grants.


Subcommittees were created Thursday to find outside scientists and others to serve on powerful ``working groups'' that will vet grant applications, deal with laboratory construction and establish standards for awarding grants.


Critics complained the committee was violating the state's open meeting law Thursday because little information about the agenda was provided before the meeting began. California Deputy Attorney General Ted Prim, who advised the committee on open meetings laws Thursday, said he was satisfied the meeting was legal.


Other critics, such as Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, complained that the so-called working groups are explicitly exempt from the state's open meeting laws and can conduct all business behind closed doors. ``I think that is particularly dangerous and ill-advised,'' Darnovsky said.


Klein acknowledged that detailed information could have been made available sooner, but said that the delay was because the agency had no staff. ``It is in the birth stage,'' Klein said. ``We appreciate the patience and understanding of this process.''


Klein said the agency would begin posting its agenda and related information on its newly launched Web site, http://www.cirm.ca.gov.



01/06/05 23:27


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050106%2F2327640803.htm&sc=1501

Jolie Rouge
01-08-2005, 11:02 PM
Non-human cloning
Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- Since the Dec. 3 meeting of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, the struggle over embryonic stem cell research has been altered. Dr. Bill Hurlbut, a physician and Stanford biology professor, proposed a cloning-like procedure to harvest stem cells that would prevent even beginning the creation of a human organism or anything with human characteristics.

Hurlbut made the presentation to his colleagues on the council as a "third option" in the "current conflict over the procurement of embryonic stem cells." He suggested it as "a technological solution to our moral impasse." Robbie George, the eminent Catholic layman and Princeton law professor, supports this line of inquiry. Only one council member opposed Hurlbut's proposal.

The impact of this new development on anti-cloning legislation cannot be determined. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Senate sponsor of the bill to ban cloning, has not taken a position on Hurlbut's initiative while lauding use of adult stem cells for medical research. The Dec. 3 discussion at the President's Council only begins exploration of the moral considerations as the scientific inquiry proceeds.

Opponents of President Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research say they are against human cloning. But if stem cells prove the medical boon that proponents claim, they will need to be produced by something like cloning. That is why Senate liberals in the last Congress used the filibuster to stop the anti-cloning bill passed by an 86-vote margin in the House on Feb. 27, 2003. The 2004 elections produced an apparent net gain of five anti-cloning senators, still 10 short of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

Prior to the Dec. 3 meeting of the President's Council, Hurlbut shopped his proposal around Capitol Hill with mixed reaction. Critics contended the process simultaneously creates and destroys human clones in collecting stem cells and thus fails on ethical grounds.

In his presentation to the council, Hurlbut asserted the controversy over embryo destruction for the purpose of fighting disease "is unlikely to be resolved through deliberation or debate." He added: "A purely political solution will leave our country bitterly divided, eroding the social support and sense of noble purpose that is essential for the public funding of biomedical science."

To resolve "this apparently irresolvable impasse," Hurlbut continued, "we believe there may be morally uncontroversial ways to obtain embryonic stem cells." He then said entities "that lack the qualities and characteristics of an organism appear to be capable of generating embryonic stem cells or their functional equivalent."

The only clear criticism on the council came from Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatry department chairman at Johns Hopkins University. He warned that Hurlbut could be making a "hybrid which would be super-human in some kind of way." Hurlbut responded: "You create an entity that never rises to the evel of what can properly be called a living being." McHugh suggested Hurlbut was making "a doomed hybrid" that would not be permitted to become a human being. "Not doomed," responded Hurlbut, "Only doomed if it's alive first."

Hurlbut, a conservative himself, was supported at the meeting by conservative Catholic George's questions. He asked: "So you, yourself, would not want to see the proposal go forward unless it could be shown that in the human case, we would not be creating an embryo?"

"Yeah," Hurlbut replied, "that would violate the very principle we're trying to defend." They agreed animal experimentation would come first.

When I asked Sen. Brownback about Hurlbut's inquiry, he took a wait-and-see approach on grounds that nobody yet knows enough about it. Brownback then cited progress being made in using non-embryonic stem cells. He pointed to the recent report by Prof. Song Chang-hun of South Korea's Chosun University about a 37-year-old spinal cord patient, in a wheelchair for 19 years, standing up and walking with help of a walker 40 days after being treated with umbilical cord stem cells.

Bill Hurlbut, however, believes embryonic research is inevitable and does not see sufficient lines of stem cells available to make progress. Before his initiative can achieve its purpose of ending the impasse, substantial scientific progress is necessary. The larger task may be making ethical and moral decisions about non-human cloning.

Jolie Rouge
02-10-2005, 09:45 PM
Mass. Governor Weighs in on Stem Cell Bill
By STEVE LeBLANC

BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney, who has voiced past support for stem cell research, told Massachusetts legislative leaders Thursday he believes some embryonic stem cell science ``crosses the boundary of ethics.''

Romney detailed his concerns for the first time publicly in a letter to the state Senate president, who introduced a bill this week to eliminate ambiguities in state law that discourage such research.

Romney said state law should prohibit the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research. Sen. Robert Travaglini's bill would not. ``Respect for human life is a fundamental element of a civilized society,'' Romney wrote. ``Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation or destruction.''


The first-term Republican, whose wife has multiple sclerosis, has previously said that he supports stem cell research and would try to attract biotech companies to the state. He also expressed his concerns in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday. ``My wife has M.S., and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others,'' he told the newspaper. ``But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.''

Ann Romney, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, has said she favors stem cell research if it is done ``morally and ethically.''


For supporters, embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of cures for debilitating diseases. Foes say the potential benefits aren't worth sacrificing human embryos.

Language dating to the 1970s in a law that prohibited fetal experimentation has left some confusion over the legal footing for researchers using embryonic stem cells, which generally are gathered from donated embryos created at fertility clinics.


State Sen. Cindy Creem, one of sponsors of the bill introduced Wednesday, said legal ambiguities have forced stem cell researchers at Harvard University to spend extra money to prove to prosecutors that their work was not illegal.


Romney told the Times that some research practices at Harvard and other institutions in Massachusetts probably go too far ethically. Romney said he would support research on stem cells taken from surplus embryos created as part of an in vitro fertilization process if they would be otherwise discarded and if there is no compensation and clear parental rights are established.


Travaglini's bill would ban human reproductive cloning and create an advisory committee to address ethical issues and establish safeguards for those donating stem cells. ``Our research community stands on the threshold of great advances in the fight against disabling childhood and degenerative diseases, but has been held back by cloudy legal policy on stem cell research,'' Travaglini said Wednesday. He did not immediately return a call for comment Thursday.

The Boston Democrat has previously said Massachusetts is in danger of losing biotechnology research to states like California, where voters last year approved a $3 billion bond to fund stem cell research over the next decade.


02/10/05 11:59


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l8&flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050210%2F1159598991.htm&sc=1501

Jolie Rouge
02-15-2005, 10:12 PM
2/15/2005 10:04 PM

Stem cells' promise pits jobs vs. values
By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO — States have long worried about how far to go in attracting jobs, with the debate focused mainly on tax incentives and other corporate giveaways.

Now, as states gamble billions on controversial stem cell research to attract coveted biotech jobs, they're confronting an issue rare in job development: moral values.

The battle for supremacy over the emerging biotech industry will help define ambitious politicians, especially Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

Romney, with an eye on the White House, last week surprised the state's biotech industry, No. 2 in the nation, by saying he would not support expanding research that destroys human embryos. "Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction," he said.


More fights pitting jobs against values are expected to spread. Biotech, while small, looms as a big source of growth. Started 30 years ago, the U.S. industry has just 200,000 workers at 1,500 mostly money-losing companies. But advances in stem cell research since 1998 spur hopes biotech is closer to cures for cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other maladies. That could transform the sector into a profit dynamo, a big reason biotech executives and financiers push stem cell research so hard. Opponents push back just as hard, equating stem cell research with abortion and injecting moral values into what would otherwise be a business debate.

In the past five years, most states have put biotech near the top of economic-development lists. That means governors and lawmakers ideologically opposed to embryonic stem cell research face a dilemma: They can support research to boost biotech — and risk alienating voters — or oppose it and risk losing biotech jobs and investors. "It really pushes that choice hard between ethics or economics," says David Schultz, a management professor at Hamline University in St. Paul.


Indeed, the jobs-vs.-values clash seems most pitched in Florida. Bush faces a dicey choice between biotech, which he's courting aggressively, and loyalty to President Bush, who is leading conservatives against stem cell research that destroys human embryos. "Will Bush follow his brother and pander to the right?" asks Scott Maddox, head of the Florida Democratic Party. "Floridians believe we should give science a chance."

Gov. Bush is not talking. His office did not return six USA TODAY requests for comment during the past three weeks.


California bets $3 billion

The stem cell research race has mushroomed during the past three months, after California voters agreed to borrow $3 billion over 10 years for embryonic stem cell work. The money is to lure scientists studying cures that could create biotech start-ups. California already commands 29% of U.S. biotech companies, including powerhouses Amgen and Genentech. And it got more than a third of private investments last year in biotech start-ups.

Meanwhile, foreign nations with less-restrictive policies for government research are racing ahead. British authorities last week gave the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep a license to clone human embryos for research. South Korea last year became the first to clone a human embryo for stem cells.

Fearing they'll be steamrolled by California and foreign competitors, lawmakers are scrambling to protect fledgling biotechs in:

•Massachusetts. Romney's remarks came as a Senate bill was introduced clarifying the legality of embryonic stem cell research. Romney supports the bill. And he supports research on human embryos created in fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded. But he says he wants to outlaw the creation of human embryos solely for research.

•Maryland. State Sen. Paula Hollinger, a Democrat from Baltimore County, last week filed a bill seeking $25 million in annual spending on stem cell research.

•Washington. Newly elected Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, last month proposed $1 billion in state and other funds during 10 years for biotech research, including stem cell study.

•Texas. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, breaking with social conservatives, asked Gov. Perry to end his ban on stem cell funding so Texas won't get "left in the dust by California." Both are Republicans.


Lawmakers in more than a dozen other cash-strapped states are expected to introduce bills this year supporting stem cell research, the Biotechnology Industry Organization says. "That's an unprecedented escalation over previous years," says Patrick Kelly, a vice president at the trade group.

Ethicists: Going too far?

In California, venture-capital executives investing in start-ups were big boosters of November's $3 billion bond. It will pump $300 million annually into research at public and private labs. That is 12 times what the federal government spends under restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2001.

There is no guarantee that stem cell research will produce promised breakthroughs or jobs. Supporters concede there have been none so far. They say the work is just getting off the ground now that states are spending more. But the research is certain to provoke more controversy. That is because human embryonic stem cells often come from eggs fertilized in labs. Cells are removed from embryos between 3 and 8 days old. That destroys the embryo and, opponents say, snuffs out human life.

To be sure, the USA has faced moral and religious opposition to growth industries before, from the 19th century rise of railroads to the more recent spread of casino gambling. But business ethicists say the climate now is more charged than ever because Americans are wary of business after decades of scandal. Chemical makers in the 1970s profited while polluting communities such as Love Canal in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Corporate raiders in the 1980s got rich firing thousands of workers. Shady accounting in the 1990s cost investors billions.

Now comes stem cell research and the specter of Frankenstein-like human cloning, says David Sicilia, an associate professor of business and tech history at the University of Maryland.

The biotech industry rejects human cloning. But Sicilia says the public still fears stem cell research "will somehow spiral out of control — that humans, by coming up with a great technological breakthrough, may have overreached."

Further complicating stem cell research: Voters are now more focused on abortion and other moral values, the top issue in November election exit polls.

Yet voters' No. 2 issue was the economy and jobs. That highlights the jobs-vs.-values dilemma in conservative "red" states and liberal "blue" states, says Schultz, the Hamline professor.

States favoring stem cell research tend to be blue states already strong in biotech, such as California and Massachusetts. In Boston, lawmakers are expected to seek state funding for research this year, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council trade group says.

States moving more cautiously — or in the opposite direction — are red states such as Georgia and Missouri, which have fewer biotechs. Missouri state Sen. Matt Bartle, a Republican, last month introduced a bill banning one popular form of embryonic stem cell research.

Missouri is among more than a dozen states expected to debate bills this year limiting or banning stem cell research, the Biotechnology Industry Organization says.

In Florida, Gov. Bush is big on biotech. He persuaded lawmakers in 2003 to spend $310 million for a Scripps Research Institute near Palm Beach. Bush, trying to diversify the tourism-dependent economy, hopes research into disease will spur biotech start-up jobs. That happened in San Diego, where Scripps is based. The Palm Beach center could create more than 3,000 jobs in the next 15 years, state officials say.

But Bush apparently is drawing the line at embryonic stem cell research. The BioFlorida trade group says there's no effort underway at the state capitol to support it. Scripps says it's not pursuing the work. And Bush's office isn't talking.

There are risks for states that don't ante up. "Will it be the blue states that have the biotech, and the red states that don't?" Schultz asks. "That could set up a situation where the blue states are poised for future economic growth ... leaving the red areas behind."

That may have already happened. Industry experts say biotech won't create many jobs beyond states that already have big biotech clusters. "This is not a big job spinner," says Joe Cortright, who has studied biotech economic development at consultant Impresa in Portland, Ore.

For now, politicians such as Sen. Hutchison of Texas forge ahead. Her support for more embryonic stem cell research distances her from President Bush.

In his State of the Union speech, the president reiterated his policy limiting federal research funding to embryonic stem cell "lines" that existed when he first announced his position in August 2001.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-02-15-stem-cell-usat_x.htm?csp=N007&RM_Exclude=Juno

Jolie Rouge
02-15-2005, 10:14 PM
(( the rest of the article .... ))


'Business wins'

Hutchison is a possible Perry rival in next year's Republican gubernatorial primary. If she runs, Perry likely will attack her stem cell support "because he's going to have to polarize that primary as a conservative vs. a liberal," says Stuart Rothenberg of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

Perry proposes $300 million for biotech and other emerging industries. But he opposes embryonic stem cell research. At an anti-abortion rally last month in Austin, he reaffirmed opposition to "any taxpayer dollars being used and spent on research that ends a human life."

Perry believes research on stem cells from adults and from umbilical cords — which doesn't destroy embryos — is equally promising. "Those are certainly the areas he wants to focus on," says Robert Black, a Perry spokesman.

Whether that will satisfy the biotech industry and its powerful venture-capital investors is unclear. History may be a guide. The railroads got their way, spreading across the USA. Gambling now flourishes everywhere.

In the end, Sicilia says, "Business wins."


http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus...RM_Exclude=Juno

Jolie Rouge
03-30-2005, 08:53 PM
Massachusetts Senate OKs Stem Cell Bill
By STEVE LeBLANC

BOSTON (AP) - Despite a veto threat from the governor, the state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to give scientists more freedom to conduct embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts.

The 35-2 vote came after less than two hours of debate, on the same day Gov. Mitt Romney launched a statewide radio campaign to urge the bill's defeat.

Senate passage was widely expected; the Senate approved similar legislation in past years, only to see it stall in the House.

House Democratic leaders said they believe they have the votes this time to approve the bill, but are unsure if they have the two-thirds majority needed to override a certain veto.


The measure would allow scientists to create cloned embryos and extract their stem cells for research into the treatment and cure of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. Removing the stem cells destroys the embryos.

Under state law, scientists interested in conducting stem cell research first need the approval of the local district attorney. The bill would remove that requirement, give the state Health Department some regulatory controls and ban cloning for reproductive purposes. Reproductive cloning is already banned under federal law. ``Cloning would mean creating new human life, new embryos, just for experimentation,'' Romney said in the 60-second radio ad paid for by his political committee. ``If, like me, you support stem cell research but you oppose cloning human embryos, please tell your legislator. Help me oppose the radical cloning bill now on Beacon Hill.''

Romney's opposition to the bill puts him at odds with some of the top university and research facilities in Massachusetts, including the newly formed Harvard Stem Cell Institute, created specifically to study the possibilities of stem cells. ``That Gov. Romney would actually lock up those scientists whose life's work is to cure diabetes or Parkinson's disease is amazing,'' said Sen. Cynthia Creem, a Democrat.


Romney and some opponents of embryonic stem cell research say they support research using adult stem cells or leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics, but oppose the creation of new embryos.


Embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos that are typically no more than a few days old. Some researchers see almost unlimited potential in those cells, which go on to develop into every kind of cell in the body, including liver cells and muscle.


With approval in the Senate, all eyes were on the House. The departure of former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an opponent of stem cell research, had supporters optimistic about getting the measure through that chamber.



03/30/05 15:51


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l8&flok=FF-APO-1501&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050330%2F1551455227.htm&sc=1501

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 07:47 AM
additional information .....

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:11 AM
I would like to add to this post...

The reason the lines were there in the first place was because of Clinton.

George bush said NO EMBRYONIC stem cells will be used. Period.

I want to speak to the 20 "viable" lines. Most of them have been corrupted in some way and are not completely usable. It is also important to know that it isn't necessary for women to have abortions to obtain these vital stem cells. Scientists are now able to clone these stem cells.

Please go to: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/miracle/stemcells.html in order to learn more about it.

Linda



At the time Bush made his announcement about stem cell research, there were 70 some lines being studied. He decided that no new lines could be added. Of the original lines, only 20 some are viable.

Stem cell research shows great potential for many diseases including Parkinson's and cancer.

His objections are religious in nature and not based on scientific fact.

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:15 AM
Jill, I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. I'm thrilled your stepfather got the liver, and like you, I'm so sorry about the young man who died to give it.

As to the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more. In an earlier post, I added where to go to get real scientific information about stem cells. For all who think it has to do with abortion, you're wrong.

Linda



The reason only 20 are available (if that, even now), is due to political pressure from the right-wing conservatives. They decided to drag abortion rights into this, saying the majority of stem cells would come from aborted fetuses.

Result? Bush ran scared, backed off, bowed down to any type of scientific idea that would DARE bring up Roe v. Wade, never mind that these are NOT stem cells from aborted fetuses!!!

I'm sorry... I just want to puke. My stepfather just received a new liver today because a 23 yr. old male died. I have been posting to keep myself from crying my eyes out. Not just for my stepfather to pull through, but for the family of the person who died. One of my brothers is 23.

It is a tough position to be put in... to think that someone you love is alive because someone died. It is killing me right now.

But that is NOT what stem cell research is about!!!

If the posts look like articles from another source, then STOP! Ask yourselves where the article is from and who originally wrote it. If you question something, go beyond BBS and dig for more info. Make up your own minds!!!

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:20 AM
Actually, Jolie, cord cells are not the same. Embryonic stem cells come from an egg that has been fertilized and allowed to age up to 7 days. Adult stem cells are different as well.

The debate only concerns stem cells because of the erroneous belief of the Religious Right who believes you have to abort fetuses to get them.

Linda



ITA


Anyone care to discuss why all this debate only concerns embryonic stem cell research ??

Stem cells can also be "harvested" from the cord blood after child birth, no ethical or moral crisis involved ...

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:23 AM
Do you realize that you're posting stuff from years ago?

Stem cell research has grown by leaps and bounds since then.

Linda



One of the flogged-to-death Democratic campaign horses is stem cell research--a topic that, according to the latest Zogby poll, could endear swing voters enough to support Kerry's cause. If Kerry were to announce a major initiative in stem cell research to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, states an article in American Demographics, he would gain 11% of Bush voters. Another 9% of Bush voters would switch to a third party, not vote, or be undecided.

Bob Beckel, former political strategist for the Dems, calls stem cell research the "'sleeper issue' of this campaign." Correspondingly, Kerry doesn't miss an opportunity to bring it up. MSN's Slate magazine reported that stem cells "were mentioned 20 times at the Democratic National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion combined."

"Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research," said Kerry in a radio address on August 7, promising twice that, if elected U.S. President, he'd "lift the ban."

Problem is, there is no such ban.

All George W. Bush did was restrict federal funding to research on embryos created before August 2001; but he didn't ban stem-cell research itself. In fact, Bush is the first president ever to give federal funds to embryonic stem cell research. Plus, the private sector, state and local governments are still free to pursue this potentially ground-breaking science as they wish.

Another half-truth the Democrats fervently promote is that stem cell research is a sure-fire way to help cure Alzheimer's Disease. So far, that hasn't been scientifically proven. A June article in the Washington Post stated that, "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit." Even though scientists agree that stem cell research will be somewhat beneficial to understanding Alzheimer's better, a "cure" is by no means waiting on the sidelines.

But the "big A" is another catchword that could draw voters on Kerry's side. A poll by "Results for America", a group that endorses stem cell research, showed that only 17% of Americans have--or come in contact with through family, friends, etc.--the diseases that are most susceptible to stem cell therapy. With Alzheimer's in the mix, that number shoots up to 28%. And 72% of voters say they would support stem cell research if experts thought it would cure Alzheimer's.

"People need a fairy tale," Ronald McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told the Washington Post. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." And for all those people, John Kerry makes it easy to believe.

Gilding the lily on stem cell research isn't the only example of Democratic dirty tricks. For example. one of the battlegrounds between the GOP and Democrats is offbeat candidate Ralph Nader, the man that only a small, but potentially pivotal, block of voters take seriously. While Republicans busily gathered signatures for Nader to get on the ballots, hoping to take away votes from Kerry, the left allegedly kept busy, too.

According to the website www.votenader.org, the law firm Smith, Diamond, and Olney that works for the Democrats "threatened circulators of Nader petitions [in Oregon] saying they were investigating 'whether fraudulent signature-gathering techniques were used... saying their involvement 'may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 or prison for up to five years.'"

The pro-Nader team also complained that Democrats were sabotaging one of his recent nominating conventions, "swelling the number of attendees and then refusing to sign ballot petitions." Since the doors were closed by the government after over 1,000 attendees had been let in, the "intruders" prevented others from entering and Nader wound up with less than the 1,000 signatures he needed.

So much for moral superiority.

The bottom line, as we see it: there is a reason that there are only two major political parties... both know the game inside out, and will do whatever it takes to gain control, and keep it. Politics is not a game for the weak of heart.

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:28 AM
The facts are:

*Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. A pretty new science at that point. The cells he approved funding for were there thanks to Clinton.

*Bush DID ban did restrict research. He bowed down to the Religious Right and put a limit on the already existing lines from the Clinton Administration.

*It is accurate to say that Bush limited not only the monetary resources for this science, but the actual stem cells themselves.

*Bush approved what he did, with none being approved before, because it is a NEW SCIENCE.

John Kerry was right.

Linda


Embryonic Stem Cell Misinformation

John Kerry has made a repeated effort to mislead the press and the public on the reality of the new federal funding for stem cell research that the President announced in August 2001. Both Kerry and Edwards have repeatedly referred to the President's policy as a "ban" on stem cell research.

Numerous media outlets have adopted their language, referring to the President's new funding as a ban, or saying that the President took steps to limit federal funding without mentioning that the President announced the first ever federal funding of stem cell research. These characterizations are inaccurate or incomplete, and misinform the public on the reality of the policy.

The Facts Are:

** President Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. Prior to the President's announcement of new funding, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was $0.


** The President's announcement did not ban, limit or restrict stem cell research.


** It is inaccurate to say the President "limited federal funding" of stem cell research, as such funding did not exist to limit. This language misleads voters to believe that the President put restrictions on existing federal funding.


** The President did announce the first ever federal funding of stem cell research with ethical requirements on which stem cell lines are funded.
The new federal funding that the President announced did not include funds to research stem cell lines from embryos that had not already been destroyed.


John Kerry's Effort To Mislead On Stem Cell Research:

Kerry: "Three Years Ago, The President Enacted A Far-Reaching Ban On Stem Cell Research." KERRY: "Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research, shutting down some of the most promising work to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, AIDS and so many other life-threatening diseases." (Sen. John Kerry, Democratic Response To The President's Weekly Radio Address, 8/7/04)

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 08:29 AM
One of the flogged-to-death Democratic campaign horses is stem cell research .... Bob Beckel, former political strategist for the Dems, calls stem cell research the "'sleeper issue' of this campaign." Correspondingly, Kerry doesn't miss an opportunity to bring it up. MSN's Slate magazine reported that stem cells "were mentioned 20 times at the Democratic National Convention, more than unemployment and abortion combined."

"Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research," said Kerry in a radio address on August 7, promising twice that, if elected U.S. President, he'd "lift the ban."

Problem is, there is no such ban.

All George W. Bush did was restrict federal funding to research on embryos created before August 2001; but he didn't ban stem-cell research itself. In fact, Bush is the first president ever to give federal funds to embryonic stem cell research. Plus, the private sector, state and local governments are still free to pursue this potentially ground-breaking science as they wish.



Another half-truth the Democrats fervently promote is that stem cell research is a sure-fire way to help cure Alzheimer's Disease. So far, that hasn't been scientifically proven. A June article in the Washington Post stated that, "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit." Even though scientists agree that stem cell research will be somewhat beneficial to understanding Alzheimer's better, a "cure" is by no means waiting on the sidelines.



Do you realize that you're posting stuff from years ago?

Do you realize thatthe thread was started sometime last year ... and science moves on everyday, which is why I have kept it updated.

Note that I do include links to my sources - cnn, usa today, as well as links to various organizations on BOTH sides of the issue.

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:30 AM
Hey Jolie, why don't you cut and past some more? I never get enough of that.

Linda



Swiss Voters OK Stem Cell Research Law
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS

GENEVA (AP) - Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a law allowing stem cell research Sunday, rejecting a hard-line campaign that compared researchers to the Nazis' ``angel of death,'' Dr. Josef Mengele.

Some 66.4 percent of those polled - or 1.1 million voters - approved the law passed by the government last December. The law will take effect in March.


Opponents had called the referendum to try to overturn the legislation, even though it sets stricter limitations on research than exist elsewhere in Europe. The Swiss bill only allows the use of embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization.

Embryonic stem cells form in the days after fertilization and can turn into any tissue of the body. Many researchers believe stem cells harvested from embryos could be used to regenerate nerve tissue or cure diseases, including Alzheimer's. But extracting stem cells from an embryo kills the embryo, which opponents say is tantamount to taking a life.

In the United States, President Bush has approved federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for only the 78 stem cell lines in existence on Aug. 9, 2001. At last count, less than two dozen of those lines are still available.

The government said the law will permit Switzerland - which has major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies - to take part in vital research. The opposition alliance, which included Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as left-wing and green groups, said the defeat was a setback for scientific ethics. ``In a few years, we will be voting on therapeutic cloning,'' said Pascale Steck of the referendum committee.

One opponent organization, Familiaplus, distributed a petition titled ``No to Dr. Nazi Mengele,'' a reference to the doctor who conducted infamous human experiments at the Auschwitz death camp during World War II.

The government said the law strictly prohibits human cloning or the creation of embryos for stem-cell research and stressed the restrictions on the research, which include a requirement for the written consent of the parents, the approval of an ethics committee and the Swiss Health Ministry for each research project.

European nations that permit stem cell research include Sweden, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands. Britain allows the creation of human embryos for stem cell procurement.


11/28/04 21:19

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041128%2F2119000303.htm&sc=1500

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 08:32 AM
Bush delivered the first funding ever for embryonic stem cell research. A pretty new science at that point. The cells he approved funding for were there thanks to Clinton.


REALLY ???

I did not realise Clinton was a scientific reseearcher in his spare time ....

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:34 AM
He's just as much a scientist as Bush is. Bush lets the Religious Right dictate what he does. He doesn't put much stock in science.

Linda



REALLY ???

I did not realise Clinton was a scientific reseearcher in his spare time ....

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 08:34 AM
Hey Jolie, why don't you cut and past some more? I never get enough of that.

Linda

You seem to have joined the League of Cut and Paste Researchers yourself ;)

llbriteyes
04-25-2005, 08:35 AM
You're pitiful. I don't feel like arguing with you. I have better uses for my time.



You seem to have joined the League of Cut and Paste Researchers yourself ;)

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 08:37 AM
yet you follow along posting behind me....

Jolie Rouge
04-25-2005, 08:48 AM
You're pitiful. I don't feel like arguing with you. I have better uses for my time.


seems like I had heard some good advice on this topic ....


You know... debate isn't supposed to be nasty. You haven't proven anything that is a definite fact either. That's why its called debate. One person chooses one position, for whatever reason, and...

hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

llbriteyes
04-26-2005, 07:17 AM
I'm done with these debates. People take things personally, and don't know the rules of debate so they get nasty, and I'm not about to sit around wasting my time on them.

I'm taking the high road on this one.

Jolie Rouge
04-28-2005, 05:31 AM
I'm done with these debates. People take things personally, and don't know the rules of debate so they get nasty, and I'm not about to sit around wasting my time on them.


I am not sure where you studied debate - I was taught that person remarks and name calling ( ie : "You're pitiful." or pithy quips like "Hey Jolie, why don't you cut and past some more? I never get enough of that." ) were considered appropriate.


I enjoy a GOOD debate - ask Crick, Mesue, or Jaidness.

llbriteyes
04-28-2005, 05:32 AM
Debating with cut and past is not debating. It is editorializing.

Linda



I am not sure where you studied debate - I was taught that person remarks and name calling ( ie : "You're pitiful." or pithy quips like "Hey Jolie, why don't you cut and past some more? I never get enough of that." ) were considered appropriate.


I enjoy a GOOD debate - ask Crick, Mesue, or Jaidness.

Jolie Rouge
05-19-2005, 11:17 AM
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/story.jsp?floc=ne-main-9-l9&flok=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050519%2F1433523157.htm&sc=1500



On the Net:


Science: http://www.sciencemag.org



05/19/05 14:32

YNKYH8R
05-20-2005, 07:04 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. :mad:

Jolie Rouge
05-21-2005, 06:26 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/2005-05-21-skorea-stem-cell_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Jolie Rouge
05-23-2005, 06:56 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/ap_on_go_co/congress_stem_cells

Jolie Rouge
05-31-2005, 06:28 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
03-11-2006, 09:20 PM
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/cloning/donoharm_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, 06:15 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, 06:30 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, 06:35 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, 02:28 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/2006-10-09-transplant-lawsuit_x.htm

Jolie Rouge
11-29-2006, 02:43 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/ap_on_sc/science_fraud

Jolie Rouge
12-27-2006, 10:12 PM
Missouri's stem-cell mistake
By David Prentice
Wed Dec 27, 3:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Few issues dominated news in Missouri this year like stem-cell research. In November, Amendment 2, a pro-embryonic-stem-cell measure, passed with less than 51 percent of the vote. Media nationwide cheered the result.

Today, the cheap slogans are gone. But the destructive impact of the law's fine print is not. At the time, supporters called it the "anti-cloning" amendment. Actually, it writes legal protection for human cloning into Missouri's constitution. The ethical and moral implications are significant and disturbing.

Bankrolled by biotech

Here's a warning to other states looking to follow suit: Don't get hooked by the lure of stem-cell research riches. You'll just end up corrupting science, the law, and the sanctity of human life.

The pro-Amendment 2 forces, girded by a $30 million campaign bankrolled by biotech special interests, might have expected a greater margin of victory, considering opponents had a tenth of that to spend. It seems $30 million is the price tag for mass deception.

Hidden provision for human cloning

The first page of Amendment 2 claims to ban human cloning. A couple pages later, buried in the proverbial fine print, the amendment pledges protection for "somatic cell nuclear transfer."

This scientifically sexy phrase is little more than intentional misdirection. Nuclear transfer is cloning - a fact that the National Academies of Science and the American Medical Association recognize.

Quite simply, nuclear transfer entails fusing a woman's egg with the DNA of another cell, creating a living human embryo. The embryo is then allowed to grow several days until it is ripped apart to harvest its stem cells like a cash crop.

Thus, biotech special interests surreptitiously achieved constitutional protection of human cloning under the guise of a ban. Yet, sadly, only 49 percent of Missourians were able to wade through the swamps of disinformation.

Human eggs put up for bid

Now that the cloning license is constitutionally protected in Missouri, there is a new demand for millions of fresh human eggs. But this is no problem for the cloners. Amendment 2 specifically allows fertility clinics to purchase women's eggs for any amount of money. Thus, women's fertility is put up for bid in the marketplace, and women's bodies are commodified and sold to the highest bidder.

Amendment 2 supporters may claim that such an assessment of Missouri's future is scaremongering. They may say that the future in Missouri is bright, that "Amendment 2 will usher in new investment and cures."

In truth, private investors have found it difficult to find funds for embryonic stem-cell research. This is the very reason big biotech needs Missourian taxpayer dollars to fund its morally offensive research.

Embryonic stem cells don't deliver

The implication that embryonic stem cells will provide "life-saving cures" - the same implication made by Michael J. Fox in his highly publicized television ads - is patently false.

Such an assessment not only disingenuously portrays opponents as heartless bio-Luddites, but it inaccurately portrays the science.

To date, research scientists have failed to provide even one treatment for human patients with embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, trials in mice have repeatedly shown that the treatment will be problematic.

At its best, embryonic stem-cell research is unnecessary; at its worst, it's deeply unethical. Peddling this false hope to desperate people is shameful. Adult stem cells, meanwhile, are producing treatments and hope for people right now.

Other possible ballot initiatives

Perhaps an honest assessment of these facts will effect a change of heart among Missourians and a collective reassessment of Amendment 2, possibly in 2008, but it's not likely. And Amendment 2 forbids anyone from discouraging "stem cell-related activity," and makes it a punishable offense. So much for free speech.

More and more officials say they want to bring embryonic stem-cell research to their state. In the next election cycle, it's likely that several states will have measures such as Amendment 2 on the ballot.

But government should never be able to veto the inviolable dignity of human life.

When citizens give the state the power to dispose of society's most defenseless members, democracy devolves into tyranny.

* Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for Life Sciences at the Family Research Council and affiliated scholar at the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, worked on the Amendment 2 project in Missouri.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061227/cm_csm/yprentice

MIKAER
12-30-2006, 12:09 AM
Are we not currently cloning cattle to eat?

Jolie Rouge
01-08-2007, 10:03 PM
Human stem cells found in amniotic fluid
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
Sun Jan 7, 2:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cells nearly as powerful as embryonic stem cells can be found in the amniotic fluid that protects babies in the womb, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

They used them to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory and said they believe the placenta and amniotic fluid can provide one more source of the valued cells, which scientists hope will someday transform medicine.

They would also provide a non-controversial source of the cells, which are found with difficulty throughout the body and in days-old embryos. Embryonic cells are considered the most malleable of the various types of stem cells, but these amniotic fluid-derived cells are a close second, said Dr. Anthony Atala, of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," Atala said in a statement. "I feel these cells are pluripotent like human embryonic stem cells."

Pluripotent means the cells can give rise to any type of tissue in the body -- blood, nerve, muscle, and so on. Adult stem cells, found in the tissues and blood of fetuses, babies and adults, are already partly differentiated and are less adaptable.

The use of human embryonic stem cells is controversial in some countries, including the United States. President Bush has restricted federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, although researchers using private money can do as they please and Congress, even before the Democrats took over, was planning ways to encourage more research.

PROVEN PROPERTIES

Writing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, Atala and colleagues described how they have spent seven years proving the properties of these cells. "It has been known for decades that both the placenta and amniotic fluid contain multiple progenitor cell types from the developing embryo, including fat, bone, and muscle," Atala said. "We asked the question, 'Is there a possibility that within this cell population we can capture true stem cells?' The answer is yes."

They used discarded samples from amniocentesis, a test used to check fetuses for birth defects. The cells come from the fetus, which breathes and sucks in, then excretes, the amniotic fluid throughout pregnancy, Atala told reporters in a telephone conference.

Tests in mice showed the stem cells could be used to replace damaged brain cells, and could be "printed" onto structures using technology similar to that seen in inkjet printers to make bone tissue.

Like embryonic stem cells, they appear to thrive in lab dishes for years, while normal cells, called somatic cells, die after a time. "They are easier to grow than human embryonic stem cells," Atala added in a telephone interview. And, unlike embryonic stem cells, they do not form a type of benign tumor called a teratoma, he said.

Atala said a bank with 100,000 specimens of the amniotic stem cells theoretically could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with perfect genetic matches for transplants.

They are not found in cord blood, a source of a different type of stem cell used mostly to treat leukemia. But they could be banked in much the same way cord blood is now banked, Atala said. "This is early work," Atala cautioned. "It is still several years away before we try this in a patient."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070107/sc_nm/stemcells_fluid_dc


Amniotic fluid yields stem cells
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
1 hour, 26 minutes ago

Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb and produced a variety of tissue types from these cells — sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone. "Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest's regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project.

It took Atala's team some seven years of research to determine the cells they found were truly stem cells that "can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy."

However, the scientists noted they still don't know exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away.

Still, Atala said the research reported in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology expands far beyond similar work discussed at a heart research conference in November. There, Swiss researcher Simon Hoerstrup said he managed to turn amniotic fluid stem cells into heart cells that could be grown into replacement valves. Hoerstrup has yet to publish his work in a scientific journal.

Atala said the new research has found even more promising stem cells with the potential to turn into many more medically useful replacement parts. "We have other cell lines cooking," Atala said.

The hallmark of human embryonic stem cells, which are created in the first days after conception, is the ability to turn into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Researchers are hopeful they can train these primordial cells to repair damaged organs in need of healthy cells.

The cells from amniotic fluid "can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology. "Either way, I think this work represents a giant step forward for stem cell research."

It's the latest advance in the so-called regenerative medicine field that has sprung from Atala's lab in Winston-Salem, N.C. In April, Atala and his colleagues rebuilt bladders for seven young patients using live tissue grown in the lab.

In the latest work, Atala's team extracted a small number of stem cells swimming among the many other cell types in the amniotic fluid. One of the more promising aspects of the research is that some of the DNA of the amnio stem cells contained Y chromosomes, which means the cells came from the babies rather than the pregnant moms.

Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said that finding raises the possibility that someday expectant parents can freeze amnio stem cells for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection.

Nonetheless, Daley said the discovery shouldn't be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research. "While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development," said Daley, who began work last year to clone human embryos to produce stem cells.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_he_me/stem_cells_6
___

On the Net:

Wake Forest regenerative medicine institute: http://www.wfirm.org/

Nature Biotechnology: http://www.nature.com/nbt/index.html

Jolie Rouge
01-08-2007, 10:07 PM
Congress to open 2nd stem cell showdown
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Mon Jan 8, 5:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Congress opens a second showdown with President Bush over embryonic stem cells this week, with Democrats now in charge and hoping to push through an expansion of taxpayer-funded research into the controversial cells.

At stake is whether cells that scientists consider the most promising will be the ones most used in the race to develop cures for dozens of diseases.

Complicating that question: There are different types of stem cells. Fetal stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid are the latest to make headlines, a finding cited by foes of the embryonic stem cell legislation that is certain to pass the House Thursday. "We don't have to split the nation on this if we've got an alternative," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., an obstetrician who opposes embryonic stem cell research because culling the cells from 5-day-old embryos destroys them.

"What we hope is that scientists will find ways to unlock the promise of stem cells without having to force people into the choice of claiming a human life in so doing," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday, making clear the president hasn't changed his stand since vetoing an identical bill to expand embryonic stem cell research just six months ago.

So why try again, when even supporters doubt they can override another veto? Polls show a majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the public demanded action by casting ballots for stem cell supporters in the November election.

Focusing on preliminary "alternatives" like the amniotic stem cells won't fool that public, added Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "If we truly want to cure and treat diseases that afflict so many people in this country, our nation's top scientists should be allowed to pursue stem cell research of all kinds, be it embryonic, adult or amniotic," he said.

The scientific community stands firm that research, not ideology, must determine stem cells' true promise — and that embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury. "Let's let the laboratories worldwide figure out which ones are the best for the task at hand, and that's discovering treatments and cures for people who need them," adds bioethicist Christopher Scott, who heads the Stanford Program on Stem Cells and Society.

He is tracking how batches of embryonic stem cells created by U.S. researchers are being shipped abroad, and worries that other countries more aggressively pursuing the field may be first to turn the master cells into cures unavailable to Americans. "Will patients have to travel to Australia to get the therapies?" he asks.

Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. But because the culling kills the embryos, Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

The problem: There are only about 21 of those lines available for study, most created in ways that preclude use in humans. At least 300 more lines now are available that many scientists insist are better suited for implantation into sick people.

The new legislation wouldn't fund the creation of stem cell lines and hence any embryo destruction, but it would allow the National Institutes of Health to fund research using those already existing newer stem cell lines.

The federal stalemate hasn't halted the work: Scientists are using private money to research newer cell lines, and five states are pouring millions into it. Indeed, when the NIH listed eight top advancements in the field for 2006, five of the projects involved privately funded cell lines. What about other approaches? Embryonic stem cells mature into adult stem cells that make only a certain type of tissue. Scientists one day hope to turn back the clock, turning, say, blood-producing stem cells found in bone marrow into the type that could grow a liver.

A study in Oregon is transplanting stem cells from aborted fetuses into the brains of children with a killer neurologic disease, to see if they might stop the damage.

Fetuses also shed stem cells into the amniotic fluid cushioning them, allowing scientists to cull those cells harmlessly when pregnant women undergo birth-defect tests. Those cells can turn into several different tissue types, but don't yet seem as flexible as embryonic ones.

And scientists are working on ways to cull stem cells from embryos without killing them.

All this work is years away from fruition, caution specialists — and studying one at the expense of another could mean missing breakthroughs. For example, the pancreas doesn't seem to harbor adult stem cells, explains Dr. Leonard Zon, stem cell chief at Children's Hospital of Boston. "If you want to try to make cells that produce insulin, you have to use embryonic stem cells," he says. "New ways of making cells that have embryonic stem cell characteristics are very important to pursue, but they shouldn't inhibit ... the progress already moving forward."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_sc/healthbeat_stem_cells

Jolie Rouge
01-11-2007, 02:15 PM
House passes bill for stem cell research
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.

But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.

The White House said the bill — the third bill of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda to pass the House — "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."

At stake was whether research on cells taken from human embryos — considered by scientists to be the most promising approach to developing potential treatments or cures for dozens of diseases — should be underwritten with taxpayer funds.

The debate raises passions because the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization. It draws fierce opposition from anti-abortion lawmakers and like-minded constituents who believe their taxes should not fund such research. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway.

"I support stem cell research with only one exception — research that requires killing human life," said Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community."

Democrats countered with Rep. James Langevin (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager. The research, Langevin said, offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."

Dr. Robert Lanza, a top stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., said that stem cell-based treatments could be just a few years away for eye and spinal cord injuries, but that a decade or more of research is needed before treatments might become available for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.

Polls show most Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the issue played a big role in the Nov. 7 elections that returned their party to the majority in the House and Senate.

But in the House, Democratic gains of 30 seats don't translate into anywhere near that number of new votes for the embryonic stem cell research bill, sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette (news, bio, voting record), D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del.

For starters, many Democratic freshmen defeated more moderate Republicans who voted for the bill when it originally passed in 2005 and on an unsuccessful veto override attempt last year. And some Republicans who supported the bill have been replaced with opponents of the measure.

As a result, House embryonic stem cell research proponents have gained only 15 votes over the high-water mark of 238 in the prior GOP-controlled House.

If every House member votes, it takes 290 votes to override a veto, and both the House and Senate must override a veto for a bill to become law without a president's signature.

Scientists still say, however, that embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

The legislation would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. Bush's veto of the bill last year was the first veto of his presidency.

Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

But those 21 stem cell lines have many problems, and researchers say 300 newer lines, culled from fertility clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away, are considered better suited for implantation into sick Americans.

Scientists take those cells from a 5-day-old embryo, when it's bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

___

The bill is H.R. 3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_go_co/stem_cells
___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Jolie Rouge
01-31-2007, 09:27 PM
Florida OKs some stem cell research
By DAVID ROYSE
Wed Jan 31, 10:25 AM ET

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Gov. Charlie Crist said Wednesday he planned to recommend that lawmakers spend state money for stem cell research, but only the kind that doesn't require the destruction of embryos.

Crist said he would recommend spending $20 million for a grant program to pay for studies that use cells culled from adults, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women. But he won't recommend paying for the most controversial — and many say most promising — type of research on embryonic stem cells. Crist said he opposed that because too many people — including state lawmakers — oppose destroying embryos, which is required to do the studies.

Crist didn't say exactly whether he approves of embryonic stem cell research himself. "I know it gives angst for some. I think we can do it in a way that doesn't cause that kind of angst," Crist said at The Associated Press Florida Legislative Planning Session, a meeting of newspaper editors.

"I'm pragmatic ... I want to be respectful of concerns that they might have," said Crist, a Republican. "I also want to make progress."

Two competing bills will be considered by lawmakers this year. One to be filed by Rep. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, will mirror Crist's proposal.

Another, filed by Rep. Franklin Sands, D-Weston, calls for spending $20 million on research that would include embryonic stem cell studies.

Researchers say the embryonic stem cells are promising in medical research because they have the ability to become any type of cell in the body. Crist on Wednesday noted new studies that show promise in amniotic stem cells.

Researchers reported earlier this year that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. But they also cautioned that the research was early and that the use of embryonic cells in studies should continue.

Using embryonic stem cells in research is legal — they typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.

But there is little money available for the studies because the federal government has refused to pay for research using new lines of stem cells from embryos since 2001. Cells that were harvested before then can still be used, although many researchers say they are decreasingly useful.

Crist said his plan would allow for spending state money on those lines of stem cells that were in existence before the federal ban.

Crist planned to formally announce the proposal later Wednesday in Tampa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_sc/florida_stem_cells;_ylt=Ap3kYvOHC34WXeCoKdkrx3Ss0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

Jolie Rouge
02-16-2007, 09:51 PM
Calif. awards $45M in stem cell grants
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
Fri Feb 16, 7:37 PM ET

BURLINGAME, Calif. - California's stem cell agency on Friday doled out nearly $45 million in research grants to about 20 state universities and nonprofit research laboratories, far exceeding the federal government's spending on the controversial work.

In issuing the first significant research grants in its two-year history, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine became the nation's biggest financial backer of human embryonic stem cell research. "Today, we are making history," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made a brief appearance at the agency's oversight board meeting.

Stanford University researchers were the biggest winners when they landed 12 grants worth a combined $8 million, including the first publicly financed human embryo cloning project.

The Republican governor's support of the research puts him at odds with the Bush administration, which has limited federal funding to about $25 million annually. California voters in 2004 passed Proposition 71 to create the institute and give it authority to borrow and spend $3 billion for the research.

Two lawsuits challenging the state agency's constitutionality have prevented it from borrowing the funds from Wall Street bond markets. The first research grants came from a $150 million loan from the state and another $31 million in loans from philanthropic organizations.

Schwarzenegger authorized the state loan last year, and said he would approve more state loans if the agency runs out of money before the lawsuits are resolved.

The research aims to use stem cells — created in the first days after conception and giving rise to all the organs and tissues — to replace diseased tissue.

But many social conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the work because embryos are destroyed in the process. The microscopic embryos are usually donated by fertility clinics.

The agency last year awarded $14 million in training grants for novice researchers, but the grants Friday were intended to fund more ambitious projects that aim to push the research out of the lab and into patients.

Thirty scientists who are new to the field and 27 more with stem cell research experience all received grants. "Our intent was to bring new ideas and new talent to human embryonic stem cell research," said agency president and chief scientist Zach Hall.

Next month, another round of 25 grants worth about $80 million will go to established stem cell scientists.

Four other states have also skirted federal restrictions with stem cell research funding schemes of their own: Connecticut has a 10-year, $100 million initiative; Illinois spent $10 million last year; Maryland has approved a $15 million budget; and New Jersey has spent about $25 million in two years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_sc/stem_cell_grants;_ylt=Arn7qbbn8n0T.mAJ64NtfMWs0NUE



I study changes in stem cells
AMANDA KRAMER

Name: Lorraine Faxon Meisner

Occupation: Chief scientific officer of Cell Line Genetics; UW-Madison professor emerita

I started out not knowing what my interests were in life. I studied English literature and realized it just wasn't for me. I eventually switched into sociology and got a degree in anthropology at the University of Chicago.

But toward my last year, I was wondering about some of the unusual behavior I saw (like reactions to pain) while studying different cultures, and I started wondering how many of these cultural differences were due to environment or to heredity.

So, I started taking genetics and animal-behavior classes, and it was like the bells went off. I was so enchanted by these subjects. This would have been in the late 1950s.

I eventually went on to get a master's degree. My husband and I moved to Boston and I had a new baby (my second). I had originally arranged to work with a famous professor at Harvard, but when I got there, he had hired someone else, and I started looking hard for a job.

I became a technician at a lab at Harvard for a time and then got a call from a famous pathologist and began to work for him - and that's how I got into cytogenetics.

A few years passed and I eventually got my doctorate - and one more baby. I worked at the University of Virginia for a few years, and then had a post at Stanford, and now I've been at the UW for 38 years.

What I do now is I'm a professor emerita at UW and I recently started Cell Line Genetics with three colleagues.

I got interested in studying stem-cell lines and decided there was a great need for this kind of work. What we do is receive cell lines (usually growing in a little flask with a medium) from researchers, pharmaceutical companies or universities.

The lines can be taken from mice, humans or monkeys. If it's growing, we take it. By studying the changes that occur in the lines, it can provide a kind of window into normal development and how cancer starts, so we try to make sure those lines are normal to start with.

When we get the sample, we take it out and process it to get dividing cells. We put those cells on a slide to look at the chromosomes through a large microscope.

Then we tell the researchers (who sent us the sample) whether the cells are normal and we can make recommendations.

It's so exciting. It's a service I feel good about and we're finding out all sorts of wonderful things and working with motivated people. I'm here in University Research Park. It's a great place to work. There are all these young companies up and down the hall and everyone's always working on a project. Sometimes we get to share ideas or equipment. It's like borrowing a cup of sugar - only better.

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/biz/whatido/index.php?ntid=115881&ntpid=2

Jolie Rouge
02-23-2007, 08:32 PM
Adult stem cell study flawed, panel says
By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 45 minutes ago

MINNEAPOLIS - A scientific panel says a 2002 study that suggested adult stem cells might be as useful as embryonic ones was flawed and its conclusions may be wrong, a finding that raises questions about the promise of a less controversial source for stem cells.

The research by Catherine Verfaillie at the University of Minnesota concluded that adult stem cells taken from the bone marrow of mice could grow into an array of biological tissues, including brain, heart, lung and liver.

So far only embryonic stem cells, which are commonly retrieved by destroying embryos at an early stage of development, are known to hold such regenerative promise. Many scientists believe they might one day be used to treat certain diseases and other conditions.

Opponents of stem cell research seized on the 2002 findings as evidence that stem cell science could move forward without destroying embryos. But Verfaillie has acknowledged flaws in parts of the study after inquiries from the British magazine New Scientist, which first publicized the questions last week.

A panel of experts commissioned by the university concluded that the process used to identify tissue derived from the adult stem cells was "significantly flawed, and that the interpretations based on these data, expressed in the manuscript, are potentially incorrect," according to a portion of the panel's findings released by the university.

The panel concluded that it wasn't clear whether the flaws mean Verfaillie's conclusions were wrong. It also determined that the flaws were mistakes, not falsifications.

Tim Mulcahy, vice president of research at the university, said it would be up to the scientific community to decide whether Verfaillie's study still stands up. "From her perspective, the findings stand. I think the scientific community will have to make their own opinion," he said.

Other researchers have been unable to duplicate Verfaillie's results since the 2002 publications, increasing their skepticism about her claims. But that may only be an indication of how difficult the cells are to work with, said Amy Wagers, a Harvard University stem cell researcher who was not involved in the investigation.

Verfaillie did not respond to a phone message left with her current employer, the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. She told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis in a story published Friday that the problem was "an honest mistake" that did not affect the study's conclusions about the potential of adult stem cells.

Her research was scrutinized after a writer for New Scientist noticed that some data from the original 2002 article in the journal Nature duplicated data in a second paper by Verfaillie around the same time in a different journal, even though they supposedly referred to different cells. Verfaillie told the Star Tribune that the duplication was an oversight and said she notified the University of Minnesota, which convened the panel to take a closer look at the research.

The editor of the London-based scientific journal Nature said in a statement, "We are in touch with the author and investigating the problems that have been mentioned. We have no further comment."

Dr. Diane Krause of Yale University, who (like Verfaillie) has studied using bone marrow as an alternative to embryonic stem cells, said she believes Verfaillie's research will hold up, despite being hard to repeat. "When it comes to Catherine, she's impeccable. She's one of the most careful scientists I know," Krause said.

Nigel Cameron, who runs the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future and is a bioethics professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law in the Illinois Institute of Technology, said scientists who have been trying to find a middle way on stem cells have seen their work seized by one side or the other for their own advantages. "This is a fascinating example of the way in which science is becoming politicized, on both sides of this debate," said Cameron, who supported President Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. "It's no longer scientists in white coats coming up with facts. There are uses being made of the facts on all sides, and I think it's quite problematic."

___

National writer Matt Crenson in New York contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_sc/stem_cells;_ylt=Al_2bImy5NvceBG2AWNU1aKs0NUE

Jolie Rouge
02-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Illinois senate OKs stem cell research
Fri Feb 23, 12:38 PM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The Illinois Senate voted Friday to spend state tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research, despite objections from those who argue the research destroys human life.

The measure passed 35-23 and now goes to the Illinois House.

Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich has already used his executive powers to fund stem cell research. He created the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute, which has awarded $15 million in grants.

The Senate legislation would make the institute and its grants a part of state law.

Supporters say embryonic stem cells could yield treatments for a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes and Alzheimer's. They argue the cells are taken only from embryos created for in vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded. "They go into the public sewer system. I really believe my maker would want me to use these embryos to sustain and improve human life," said one supporter, Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale.

But opponents condemn the research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. "Obviously we all want cures to diseases. The question is, what are willing to sacrifice to get them?" said Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora. "The unique identity of an individual human being disappears for eternity."

Some senators also questioned the idea of spending money on the research when the state is already in trouble financially.

___

The bill is SB4.

On the Net: http://www.ilga.gov

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_he_me/illinois_stem_cells;_ylt=An3agtVvDWZKyJNiS_mJ9pus0 NUE

Jolie Rouge
02-18-2009, 09:01 AM
Report: Fetal stem cells trigger tumors in ill boy
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:01 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells — injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday.

Scientists are furiously trying to harness different types of stem cells — the building blocks for other cells in the body — to regrow damaged tissues and thus treat devastating diseases. But for all the promise, researchers have long warned that they must learn to control newly injected stem cells so they don't grow where they shouldn't, and small studies in people are only just beginning.

Tuesday's report in the journal PLoS Medicine is the first documented case of a human brain tumor — albeit a benign, slow-growing one — after fetal stem cell therapy, and hammers home the need for careful research. The journal is published by the Public Library of Science.

"Patients, please beware," said Dr. John Gearhart, a stem cell scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who wasn't involved in the Israeli boy's care but who sees similarly desperate U.S. patients head abroad to clinics that offer unproven stem cell injections.

"Cells are not drugs. They can misbehave in so many different ways, it just is going to take a good deal of time" to prove how best to pursue the potential therapy, Gearhart said.

The unidentified Israeli boy has a rare, fatal genetic disease with a tongue-twisting name — ataxia telangiectasia, or A-T. Degeneration of a certain brain region gradually robs these children of movement. Plus, a faulty immune system leads to frequent infections and cancers. Most die in their teens or early 20s.

Israeli doctors pieced together the child's history: When he was 9, the family traveled to Russia, to a Moscow clinic that provided injections of neural stem cells from fetuses — immature cells destined to grow into a main type of brain cells. The cells were injected into his brain and spinal cord twice more, at ages 10 and 12.

Back home in Israel at age 13, the boy's A-T was severe enough to require that he use a wheelchair when he also began complaining of headaches. Tests at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv uncovered a growth pushing on his brain stem and a second on his spinal cord. Surgeons removed the spinal cord mass when the boy was 14, in 2006 and they say his general condition has remained stable since then.

But was the boy prone to tumors anyway or were the fetal stem cells to blame? A Tel Aviv University team extensively tested the tumor tissue and concluded it was the fetal cells. Among other evidence, some of the cells were female and had two normal copies of the gene that causes A-T — although that boy's underlying poor immune function could have allowed the growths to take hold.

Using stem cells from multiple fetuses that also were mixed with growth-spurring compounds "may have created a high-risk situation where abnormal growth of more than one cell occurred," wrote lead researcher Dr. Ninette Amariglio of Sheba Medical. She urged better research to "maximize the potential benefits of regenerative medicine while minimizing the risks."

This brain disease wasn't conducive to stem cell therapy in the first place, said stem cell specialist Dr. Marius Wernig of Stanford University, who said it's unclear exactly what was implanted.

"Stem cell transplantations have a humongous potential," Wernig said. But "if people rush out there without really knowing what they're doing ... that really backfires and can bring this whole field to a halt."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_he_me/med_stem_cells_tumor

See also : http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/473171-stem-cell-research.html

Jolie Rouge
03-09-2009, 10:23 AM
[b]Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer
15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

He said his memorandum is meant to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making." He called it the beginning of a process of ensuring his administration bases its decision on sound science; appoints scientific advisers based on their credentials, not their politics; and is honest about the science behind its decisions.

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Obama signed the order that on stem cell research that supporters believe could uncover cures for serious ailments from diabetes to paralysis. Proponents from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve had pushed for ending the restrictions on research.

Obama paid tribute to Reeve, calling him a tireless advocate who was dedicated to raising awareness to the promise of research.

Obama's action reverses Bush's stem cell policy by undoing his 2001 directive that banned federal funding for research into stem lines created after Aug. 9, 2001.

The president said his administration would work aggressively to make up for the ground he said was lost due to Bush's decision, though it can't be known how much more federal money will be spent on the research until grants are applied for and issued.

"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama declared.

Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized Obama, saying in a statement that the president had "rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us."

Bush limited the use of taxpayer money to only the 21 stem cell lines that had been produced before his decision. He argued he was defending human life because days-old embryos — although typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction — are destroyed to create the stem cell lines.

The Obama order reverses that without addressing a separate legislative ban, which precludes any federal money for the development of stem cell lines. The legislation, however, does not prevent funds for research on those lines created without federal funding.

Researchers say the newer lines created with private money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases.

Obama called his decision a "difficult and delicate balance," an understatement of the intense emotions generated on both sides of the long, contentious debate. He said he came down on the side of the majority of Americans who support increased federal funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the great and lifesaving potential it holds. "Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

Obama warned against overstating the eventual benefits of the research, but he said his administration "will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," taking another slap at Bush in the process. "I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground," he said.

It's a matter of competitive advantage globally as well, the president argued. "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored," Obama said.

But the president was insistent that his order would not open the door to human cloning. "We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse," Obama said. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells


Researchers say the newer lines created with private money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases.

Because they care about results ... not just maintaining their goverment funding ...

Jolie Rouge
03-16-2009, 08:56 AM
Analysis: Stem cell payoff wait's decades not days
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Mon Mar 16, 4:28 am ET

WASHINGTON – For all the past week's headlines about embryonic stem cells' medical promise there is a sobering reality: The science to prove that promise will take years, probably too long for many of today's seriously ill.

On his desk at Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard stem cell researcher Dr. George Daley keeps a file about 3 inches thick of e-mails and letters from patients and families who hope his work could help them. They are both inspiration and caution.

"It took much of the 20th century to figure out how to deliver chemicals as drugs," noted Daley. "We should be humble and appreciate it may take us the better part of this century to truly harness the power of cells as medicines."

Nor is there any way to know which kinds of cells ultimately will work — embryo-derived ones that elicit heated moral debate, or some of the many other types of stem cells that scientists are studying furiously.

President Barack Obama last week lifted restrictions on taxpayer funding of research using human embryonic stem cells, widening the field. The Bush administration had limited taxpayer money for that research to a small number of stem cell "lines," or groups that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had drawbacks that limited their potential use.

Make no mistake: Federal law forbids taxpayer money from being used to create or destroy embryos, and only Congress could change that, considered unlikely.

The National Institutes of Health now is developing guidelines on what kinds of stem cell studies will be allowed. The rules are due in July.

It's a young science to be so contentious. University of Wisconsin scientists culled the first human embryonic stem cells — from an embryo no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence — a mere decade ago. They're prized because they can turn into any cell of the body. If scientists could control that metamorphosis, they might create replacement tissue to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, from diabetes to Parkinson's to the paralysis of spinal cord injury.

But that initial culling of the cells does kill the days-old embryo. So critics say using the resulting stem cells — which can propagate in lab dishes indefinitely — makes taxpayers who are morally opposed to embryo research complicit in it.

There are various alternatives. Different types of stem cells can come from fetuses and placenta, blood and bone marrow. So-called "adult" stem cells that already have matured to create a given tissue-type aren't considered as flexible as embryonic ones, although some recently discovered in men's testicles seem close.

Then there are recently developed "reprogrammed" stem cells where scientists take, say, an ordinary skin cell and slip genes inside it to turn back the clock and make it embryonic-like again. If those so-called iPS cells truly prove to be as flexible as they appear, they could remove the moral debate — and even leading embryonic stem cell scientists hope that happens.

Meanwhile, critics argue that adult stem cells already can cure people. Indeed, what people once called "bone-marrow transplants" are injections of stem cells destined to grow blood and immune-system cells, and they do treat various blood and immune disorders.

But taking a stem cell destined to produce blood and making it grow heart muscle or nerves instead is very different, stressed Dr. John Gearhart of the University of Pennsylvania.

Adult stem cell injections temporarily helped heart-failure patients a few years ago. The new cells didn't grow but for a few months secreted substances that helped what was left of the old scarred heart tissue work a little better, he said. New attempts using different stem cells are under way now.

Spinal cord injury may be more amenable to stem cell therapy than diseases that could overtake and damage newly implanted cells. Stem cells have helped paralyzed rodents move again by repairing insulation lost around damaged nerves. In the first attempt at an embryonic stem cell therapy this summer, Geron Corp. will test if a few recently paralyzed people react similarly.

Last week another California company, DaVinci Biosciences, reported injecting a few paralyzed patients in Ecuador with stem cells from their own bone marrow. The researchers reported no side effects and recorded some signs of improvement in movement and bladder function two years later, although there was no way to know if that was due to the stem cells.

Scientists long thought Type 1 diabetes might be the easiest disease for stem cells to tackle. After all, some patients today do well with transplants of donated insulin-producing cells. But Gearhart said it's proving hard to grow pancreatic cells from any sort of stem cell. They seem to be missing compounds essential for their survival.

"It's the whole neighborhood" that may have to be recreated, he said.

Desperate patients don't always recognize those hurdles, laments Gearhart — who has tried to dissuade some heading overseas to clinics advertising stem cell "cures." Just last month, Israeli doctors reported the sad case of a 9-year-old with a fatal brain-disease whose parents carried him to Russia for injections of purported fetal stem cells. Not only did the injections not help, they apparently triggered a brain tumor discovered four years later.

"You try to give the message there of caution, caution, caution," Gearhart said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_he_me/med_stem_cells_analysis

Jolie Rouge
04-26-2013, 08:15 PM
http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/638051-stem-cell-research.html


New England Journal of Medicine Calls for Made to Order Embryos
by Wesley J. Smith | Washington, DC 4/26/13 11:05 AM

Remember when they said “only” excess embryos would be used in research? It was always bunk, and now an article in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for allowing embryos to be made to order and sold like a corn crop.

What would justify this form of nascent human trafficking? From, ”Made to Order Embryos for Sale–A Brave New World?”, by I. Glenn Cohen, J.D., and Eli Y. Adashi, M.D: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1215894


It is not clear how the sale of made-to-order embryos differs from the sale of oocytes for the manufacture of embryos by somatic-cell nuclear transfer for stem-cell derivation, as is presently sanctioned by New York State. Indeed, one might think that this practice–creating embryos for the purpose of destroying them to derive stem cells–is more ethically challenging than the notion of creating embryos for the purpose of alleviating infertility.

Well, for one thing, an embryo is an organism, a nascent human being. A gamete (sperm or egg) is just a cell.

And note how the game is played: NY unethically permits egg buying for use in biotechnology – and that wrong then becomes the justification for the further objectification of human life and the manufacture and selling of embryos. Talk about rank bootstrapping!

The proper answer is to repeal the NY law, not create an embryo commodities market. Such sophistry has always been the anything goes in biotech crowd’s primary tool.

Here’s the the conclusion:


It is readily apparent why the prospect of made-to-order embryos for sale may give rise to apprehension. However, viewed through a legal and ethical lens, the concerns raised by this potentiality appear to be similar to those associated with widely accepted and more common reproductive technologies, such as the sale of gametes. What is new and unique here is the lack of clear legal guidance as to the parentage of the embryos in question. Joint efforts by state legislatures and professional organizations will be required to forge appropriate legislation if made-to-order embryos for sale are to become a practicable reality.



Make no mistake: This means human cloning is coming closer, as selling embryos for use in IVF is just the front for selling cloned embryos for use in research. I’ll be getting into a more detailed analysis of all this when time allows.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/26/new-england-journal-of-medicine-calls-for-made-to-order-embryos/

Jolie Rouge
04-28-2013, 07:00 PM
Obama Admin Allows Company to Use Aborted Baby Cells for Research
LifeNews.com | 4/21/13 5:34 PM

Michigan is in the national news because of a disturbing development in human fetal stem cell experimentation.

Neuralstem, Inc. announced that it has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to expand an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease) Phase II study to the University of Michigan.

The stem cells used in the study come from spinal cord tissue taken from a healthy, 8-week-old aborted baby. Phase I of the trial tested whether human fetal stem cells can safely be injected into the spinal cord. According to Neuralstem, the aim of Phase II is to obtain the maximum tolerated dose.

Right to Life of Michigan President Barbara Listing said, “Experimentation which relies on the stem cells from a healthy, voluntarily aborted child is unethical. Using the remains of aborted babies in the hopes of helping others lacks an acceptance of human dignity — for all members of the human family.”

Right to Life of Michigan Legislative Director Ed Rivet questioned a “bait and switch” reality regarding stem cell research.

Rivet said, “In 2008, Michigan faced a ballot proposal where so-called ‘left over embryos’ would be eligible for destructive stem cell research. But the first human trial to come to Michigan after five years uses spinal cord cells from an aborted baby. How did we cross all these ethical lines? How has the ‘right to abortion’ evolved into using healthy developing babies as fodder for scientific research?”

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/21/obama-admin-allows-company-to-use-aborted-baby-cells-for-research/

Jolie Rouge
08-21-2014, 12:20 PM
See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/638051-stem-cell-research.html

Why I Can’t Accept the ALS Challenge
Aug. 19 2014
By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog


I’ve received several ALS “ice bucket challenges” in recent days, Save Jerseyans, and I don’t fault a single one of my friends out there in the social media digital ether for it. Thank you for trying to include me. Sincerely.

Please don’t think I’m unappreciative of what my fellow humans are trying to accomplish out there. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), more popularly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is an insidious neurodegenerative disease affecting everything from speech and swallowing to basic mobility. Experts estimate that 30,000 Americans suffer from the disease. It’s as fine a focus of #hashtagactivism as any.

But I can’t accept the challenge. I hope you’ll understand why.

It’s not because I’m afraid of cold water.

My concern is where the money might go. Hint: what KIND of research would be financed by my hypothetical promotional activity, either directly with my cash or through other donations made possible through my advocacy.

You need to understand where I’m coming from outside of the context of this viral phenomenon. Many of you are coming from the exact same place. At the core of my personal belief system is the notion that no life is intrinsically worth more than another life. We’re not born “equal” in the sense that we’re all able to run equally fast, or complete math problems equally well, or even love one another with same level of selfless intensity. We are born with an equal share of God’s perfect love and, on a related and highly-relevant note for this instant discussion, equal entitlement to natural rights. Life, liberty, and property… the building blocks of our American constitutionally-enshrined experiment.

So when I found this nugget on the ALS.org website, I had to seriously rethink my initial inclination to grab an ice bucket and dump it on my head for charity: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ARkFwAfy9bEJ:www.alsa.org/research/about-als-research/primer-on-stem-cells.html&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1


“Adult stem cell research is important and should be done alongside embryonic stem cell research as both will provide valuable insights. Only through exploration of all types of stem cell research will scientists find the most efficient and effective ways to treat diseases.”
[Emphasis added.]

Yikes. How disappointing is that?

While 30,000 souls battle the cruel symptoms of ALS in this country at any given time, our nation also plays host to approximately 17 abortions for every 1,000 U.S. women on an annual basis.

My conscience is feeling more than a little strained at this point. How can I donate money, or ask YOU out there in Save Jersey Land to donate your hard-earned money during these tough economic times when plenty of cash-starved worthy charities are vying for our limited resources, when this particular organization thinks infanticide is a legitimate way to save other human beings?

I can’t. I won’t. That’d be sending the wrong message no matter how noble our intentions might be.

Yet given the challenges facing so many dealing with ALS, and my understandable desire not to be rude to the folks who mentioned me in their YouTube ice bucket videos, I might’ve still been able to look past this one particular organization’s regrettable ethics IF I hadn’t seen evidence that it was redirecting donated dollars towards ghoulish embryonic projects. Then I found a LifeNews.com article relaying how ALS.org gave big money http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/15/attention-pro-lifers-be-careful-where-you-send-your-als-ice-bucket-challenge-donation/ - reportedly $500,000 http://www.alsa.org/news/archive/neals-consortium-award.html – to an organization that has run a clinical trial with embryonic stem cells. http://www.alsconsortium.org/trial.php?id=12

Sorry, ALS.org: Soylent Green is people.

Now, I don’t believe in throwing my hands up and checking out either. Heck no. ALS-afflicted citizens deserve our support. Other pro-life bloggers are researching ALS research alternatives to ALS.org and I encourage each of you to do so. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frmichaelduffy/2014/08/the-moral-problem-with-the-als-ice-bucket-challenge/

This is also an opportune time to do a gut check of sorts. We should all put the buckets down for 5 minutes and consider the effect that social media activism is having on our culture – and ourselves as actors in it. As a political blogger with plenty to say, I very much believe in this medium’s capacity for acting as a vehicle for good, yet I also recognize how instant-connectivity is a double-edged sword, making it much easier for a “herd mentality” to develop. Which is all fine and good when the herd is headed in the correct direction, right?

But peer pressure blows perspective out of the water as we race to belong without first stepping back and considering each and every dimension before clicking “like” or share. How many of you stopped and investigated HOW your money would be spent before emptying the ice cube trays? Exactly. You shouldn’t feel bad about it! That’s not my point. You should feel a little weird and more than a little prone towards caution in the future.

So don’t look at this as a call for inaction, Save Jerseyans. I’m asking you to be as active as ever and creative, too; what we’re looking for is a higher level of self-awareness the next time a Facebook buddy tags you with the best of intentions.

http://savejersey.com/2014/08/ice-bucket-als-challenge-pro-life/#sthash.jZRsYdNG.dpuf

comments

I was challenged by 3 people. I’m making a donation and matching that donation to an org that provides clean/safe drinking water rather than dumping a bucket of water on my head. Posting about it later. You can make a donation to another charity that supports ALS in other ways.

...

My friend Highlands Mayor Frank Nolan accepted my challenge and gave money directly to an ALS patient. There are lots of ways to participate.

..

An extremely well-thought out position; presented humbly and articulately without a hint of malice or condemnation. Very well done, Matt.

..

The challenge was to raise awareness for ALS. Last year they raised 32,000. So far since the challenge started they have raised over ten million dollars. I say it worked and the people complaining about it should be ashamed of themselves. It’s a horrible disease that not many even knew existed until recently.