Local alliance for stem cell research proposed
UCSD, Salk, Burnham, Scripps may partner up

By Terri Somers
San Diego Union-Tribune

March 9, 2006

In an effort to vault San Diego to worldwide leadership in stem cell research, four La Jolla research institutes plan to join forces and seek state funding to build a facility for human embryonic stem cell research.

The University of California San Diego is offering to make a site on its campus available for the facility, people involved with the project confirmed last night. It is the first of its kind to be proposed in California.

In addition to UCSD, the consortium would include the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, The Scripps Research Institute and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. All are within a stone's throw of one another on Torrey Pines Mesa.

For years, research institutes in San Diego have collaborated on projects and shared research fellows. However, the $3 billion in grants that would be available under Proposition 71, the state stem cell initiative, gave the four institutes an incentive to build a more formal collaboration.

An agreement expected to be signed by all four participants would establish the San Diego Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, a nonprofit entity that would expand collaboration among the four in human embryonic stem cell research. The consortium would plan, finance, build and operate the embryonic stem cell facility.

As part of the agreement, the four institutes pledge not to individually seek grants from California's stem cell initiative.

As a united front, the three private research institutes and UCSD hope to have a better chance of receiving a portion of the $350 million that is available for facility construction and leasing under the initiative, according to leaders from the consortium institutes.

“Individually all of the consortium institutes are stellar, but together we will be a tour de force and become the epicenter of stem cell research in the United States, and therefore the world,” said Dr. Edward Holmes, UCSD vice chancellor of health sciences.

Under one roof, scientists could share resources and strengths while sidestepping federal regulations that have severely curtailed embryonic stem cell research in the United States, Burnham Institute President John Reed said.

A new building is important because federal limitations on stem cell research make it impossible to do much of the work in labs that receive federal funding.

In August 2001, President Bush signed a law that allowed crucial federal funding to be used only on the 22 stem cell lines that existed at that time. Creating a new stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo, which many people believe is a human being whose life should be protected.

Scientists have discovered that most of the lines available for federally funded research have problems, such as contamination with mouse cells, which means they aren't viable for some of the research.

Under Proposition 71, which voters approved in November 2004, $3 billion is to be made available for stem cell research. Preference is supposed to be given to embryonic stem cell research.

Holmes, Reed and Salk President Richard Murphy are members of the 29-member committee overseeing the implementation of Proposition 71. In that role, they vote on who they think should receive research grants; however, the three would not be allowed to vote on grant requests from the consortium.

The news of the consortium was met with enthusiasm at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in San Francisco, which was established to distribute and oversee the stem cell grants.

“I'm delighted to see this,” said Zach Hall, the institute's president. “This is just the kind of thing we want to encourage – institutes working together on stem cell research and pooling their resources.”

In his position, Hall can't vote on who receives funding from the initiative. However, he is responsible for drafting the stem cell institute's scientific strategy and is the institute's lead scientist.

Hall commended the consortium members for overcoming intricacies, personalities and other worries that might prevent four independent facilities from working together.

Hall, a former vice chancellor at UC San Francisco, helped draft a plan for creating four distinct research institutes within the University of California.

“They were all within the University of California and it was still difficult because each has different cultures, different personalities and different rules,” Hall said. “The fact that these four institutions have put this together I think is a wonderful signal. I'm tremendously impressed with the effort that must have gone into this.”

The four institutes have been discussing the possibility of a consortium for more than a year. Several institute leaders credited Padres owner John Moores, who is a UC regent and on the board of the Scripps Research Institute, with pushing the collaboration forward.

“Sometimes you need influential community leaders to act as a catalyst to get it all moving forward,” Reed said. “John Moores encouraged us to get it nailed down.”

Officials at Burnham and Salk said last night that their organizations had approved the consortium agreement. UCSD's possible approval is on the regents' agenda for discussion Wednesday.

A spokesman for the Scripps Research Institute could not be reached for comment last night.

Consortium members had time to address their concerns because legal challenges have prevented the state from selling the bonds to fund the stem cell initiative.

“This is going to allow us to get into a very exciting field at a very early stage, and I think we'll benefit tremendously from that,” said Murphy of the Salk Institute.

He said sharing expertise means that scientists from Salk would have access to advanced tools and capabilities the other institutes have developed, such as chemistry expertise from Scripps and access to UCSD's medical school. There also would be access to types of facilities and equipment that Salk might not set up on its own, he said.

“What we will contribute,” Murphy said, “is the strength of our stem cell scientists and other strong scientists who are not presently involved in stem cell research but want to get involved in the field without making a major commitment in their own laboratories.”

Stem cell initiative dividing dominant Republicans in Missouri
Research, treatment would be assured

By David A. Lieb
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 11, 2006

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A ballot proposal promoting embryonic stem cell research is turning conservatives against each other and threatening to tear apart Missouri's Republican Party at the very height of its modern-day influence.

Partly by pulling together business interests with religious conservatives opposed to abortion and gay marriage, Missouri's Republicans have surged in the past five years, winning the governor's office and control of both houses of the Legislature for the first time since the 1920s. The GOP also holds both Senate seats.

But the debate over embryonic stem cell research is breaking up the partnership. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the ballot measure, for example, while Missouri Right to Life vehemently opposes it.

Republicans such as Gov. Matt Blunt and John Danforth, a former senator, U.N. ambassador and Episcopal priest, are backing the measure. In response, Missouri Right to Life has declared that Blunt, who is not on the ballot until 2008, is no longer “pro-life.”

“This referendum has the potential to rip our party apart,” Rep. Kenny Hulshof warned fellow Republicans at a recent statewide convention.

Because embryonic stem cells can develop into a variety of tissues, some scientists believe they can be used someday to treat spinal cord injuries and diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

The political furor focuses on a form of research in which embryos are cloned and the stem cells removed. Because the embryos are destroyed in the process, some religious conservatives say the practice amounts to the destruction of human life.

Missouri lawmakers backed by anti-abortion and church groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists, have tried unsuccessfully for several years to make the cloning procedure a criminal offense.

The ballot measure – guaranteeing that any federally allowed stem cell research or treatments can occur in Missouri – is a direct response to that. The measure is sponsored by a coalition of medical groups, researchers, businesses and patient advocates.

Its chief financiers are the founders of Kansas City's Stowers Institute for Medical Research and supporters of Washington University in St. Louis, which conducts stem cell research.

Despite continuing court challenges over the wording of the Missouri measure, the proposal appears certain to get enough petition signatures to get onto the ballot in November.

A January poll by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch found that about two-thirds of people supported the measure. But since then, opponents have formed their own group, Missourians Against Human Cloning. Both sides plan to spend millions to persuade voters.

Among those caught in the middle is Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who faces a tough re-election challenge in November from Democratic State Auditor Claire McCaskill. Talent recently dropped his support of a federal bill to criminalize the cloning of human embryos but has not taken a position on the ballot measure. McCaskill supports it.

It does seem that the promise outweighs the deliverables to date .... Perhaps stem cells are the Brooklyn Bridge of available real estate of the twenty-first century. I would hope that this is not the case ... the benefit to humanity would be incalculable.

---

The expansion of the universe is driven by a need to get away from it all ...

Stem cell patents limiting, article says

ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 25, 2006

MADISON, Wis. – Stem cell patents held by a University of Wisconsin organization are so restrictive that they create an impediment to research, according to a science journal published yesterday.

The authors, California stem cell researcher Jeanne Loring and patent attorney Cathryn Campbell, said the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation patented stem cells so broadly that other researchers can do little without infringing on the foundation's patents.

The article appears in yesterday's issue of the journal Science.

Researchers value human embryonic stem cells because the generic cells hold promise for curing ailments such as diabetes, and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

The University of Wisconsin has owned patents on the cells ever since UW Madison researcher James Thomson figured out how to grow them in his lab in 1998.

The patents cover not only the cells but also the technique that Thomson used to derive and grow them. That means most stem cell research across the country falls under the foundation's restrictions.

Carl Gulbrandsen, the foundation's executive director, said other universities also would have protected its rights to such a breakthrough.

“I'm not embarrassed at all to say that I hope the University of Wisconsin will make a whole lot of money from these patents,” he said.

Initially, the foundation charged universities $5,000 to use the cells. Later, an agreement with the National Institutes of Health brought the price down to $500.

The foundation charges private labs up to $125,000 for the cells, plus an annual maintenance fee of up to $40,000. The fees vary depending on the size of the firms.

The fees also cover training to teach licensees how to maintain the finicky cells, Gulbrandsen said.

The reason whystem cell research hasn't yielded the results predicted is ridiculously, almost Darwin Award Nominee simple.

When you have the religious right trying to prevent destroying for research that which would be destroyed (hence in vain) anyhow, it leaves me with a D.A.N. attitude of most of my so-called fellow human beings.

Until the research is done and we can confirm or deny through careful research what stem cell treatments could bring us, we'll never know will we?

Seems so eloquently simple that it defies the understanding..ofthe world's D.A.N.s anyhow.

---

Charities to fund stem cell research
2 groups in S.D. among 6 buying bond notes

By Bill Ainsworth
Union-Tribune

April 5, 2006

SACRAMENTO – The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine announced yesterday that six charities, including two based in San Diego, would provide $14 million in bond anticipation notes to fund stem cell research in California.

The funding is intended to allow stem cell research to go forward while state officials fight litigation challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 71, the ballot measure approved by voters in 2004 that provides $3 billion in bonds for stem cell research.

The litigation has prevented the state from selling the bonds to support the initiative. Without the sale of the notes, the stem cell initiative would have run out of money during spring without a dime having gone to research.

“This is a historic step for the state of California in moving forward with the funding requirements of Proposition 71 and getting funds out to researchers,” said Robert Klein, chairman of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, the board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

The Jacobs Family Trust, founded by Qualcomm Chairman Irwin Jacobs and his wife, Joan, has agreed to buy $5 million in bond anticipation notes. The Moores Foundation, founded by San Diego Padres owner John Moores, has agreed to buy $2 million.

Other investors include Blum Capital Partners, headed by Richard Blum, husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein; the Beneficus Foundation; the William K. Bowes Foundation; and the Broad Foundation. Beneficus was founded by John Doerr, a partner at the large Bay Area venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has invested heavily in biotechnology. William Bowes, whose foundation bears his name, is also a Bay Area venture capitalist.

The six philanthropic organizations are buying innovative bond anticipation notes. If the state wins the lawsuit, the groups will be paid back with interest of up to 5 percent. If the state loses the lawsuit, the notes become a donation to the state.

The announcement was made at the same time that the stem cell research finance committee authorized the sale of the $14 million in bond anticipation notes.

Treasurer Phil Angelides, chairman of the finance committee, praised the philanthropic foundations for agreeing to buy the notes.

“I thank the philanthropic foundations who have stepped forward to allow this important scientific research to move forward expeditiously,” Angelides, who is seeking the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, said in a statement.

Klein, the institute board's chairman, said that under strict new rules issued by the finance committee, the organizations buying the notes would not be able to influence the direction of research or apply for grants themselves.

Those safeguards won approval from John Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, who has criticized the stem cell organization for secrecy in the past.

Simpson said the rules appeared to guard against conflicts of interest.

Klein said the $14 million approved yesterday would cover 170 fellowships already awarded by the stem cell agency and the next research program the board approves.

He also said that he has an additional commitment from other investors to buy $31 million in bond anticipation notes, but he hasn't finished the deals yet and said he could not announce the buyers.

In all, Klein said there are plans to sell up to $50 million in bond anticipation notes, enough to fund the stem cell institute for about two years. That's how long it is expected to take the lawsuits challenging the initiative to work their way through the courts.

Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation, which is buying $2 million of bond anticipation notes, said California seeks to be a leader in stem cell research.

Such leadership, he said in a written statement, “will not only benefit the tremendous need of people suffering from debilitating diseases, but will also help the California economy immeasurably.”

Stem cell institute maps out strategy
Plan will determine how $3 billion spent

By Terri Somers
Union Tribune

April 7, 2006

How to spend $3 billion for stem cell research is proving to be a monumental and sometimes divisive task for California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

What's the low hanging fruit in stem cell research that could move the science forward? Should funding priority be given to research that could help the largest number of people, or should it be directed to orphan diseases that affect a small segment of society and aren't of interest to big pharmaceutical companies?

How much money should be spent inventing tools that could help scientists involved in stem cell research?

As the stem cell institute develops its strategic plan – its road map for spending $300 million a year in taxpayer money – many people want their opinions heard on these weighty issues.

Deciding who should develop the plan has already created rifts between scientists and patient advocates on the board overseeing the institute.

However, one point everyone seems to agree upon is that this will be the institute's most important policy.

“Ten years from now, people won't look at California and say, 'Wow, they have the best medical and ethical standards in the world,' or 'Their intellectual property policy cut new ground,'” said Zach Hall, president of the institute.

“What people will really care about is whether we spent our money well. Did it yield something to improve the quality of life, not just for Californians, but for everyone?”

Yesterday, at a meeting of the institute's oversight board in Los Angeles, Hall explained how he intends to develop the strategic plan. He has been charged with writing its first draft, and his plan for doing it has evolved during the past two months as he received input from myriad sources. The 29-member board will revise Hall's draft and approve a final version.

Hall envisions the process will take at least six months, involving public meetings, opinion gathering from scientists and brainstorming sessions with philanthropic groups that have experience spending other people's money.

The public, which is to pay what ultimately will be a $6 billion bill, will have several opportunities to weigh in, at hearings in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

While much about the strategic plan remains amorphous, this much is certain: It won't be a laundry list of diseases to be cured. It will be a plan that allows the best and latest scientific discoveries to influence where the taxpayer money is invested, Hall said.

And it will be fluid, because in the 10 years California intends to provide funding, scientists will likely make discoveries that catapult some research ahead of others, Hall said.

Hall likened planning the state's stem cell initiative to planning the Human Genome Project, a 13-year international effort to map the pool of 20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA.

“In the Human Genome Project, we at least knew what the endpoint would be. It was just a technology question of how to get there,” Hall said. “In our case, we are asking questions that no one knows the answer to because stem cell research is so new.”

Although the strategic plan is still in its infancy, the process is showing how different factions, such as patient advocates, feel strongly and emotionally about prioritizing the work to be done.

For weeks, the institute's oversight board was split over whether Hall should be charged with developing the plan.

Hall, a renowned scientist, spent three years managing 700 scientists and a $630 million budget as head of one of the National Institutes of Health. He was also a top administrator at the University of Southern California and UC San Francisco.

“Zach is an extremely intelligent individual with a huge amount of experience at going about something like this,” said board member Dr. Edward Holmes, dean of the UCSD Medical School.

But patient advocates on the board weren't ready to give Hall the task. Board member Jeff Sheehy, who represents people with HIV/AIDS, said his concern was about one individual being entrusted with such a momentous task.

Taxpayer advocates agreed.

“This is the most important thing they are doing right now and since the public is paying the bill, it should be hammered out in public,” said John Simpson, of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

At the board's February meeting, before a vote could be taken allowing Hall to move forward with the strategic plan, Sheehy said he had to leave. His departure deprived the board of a quorum, preventing a vote.

Since then, Hall has spoken with Sheehy, other patient advocates and with Simpson to assure them that development of the strategic plan would embrace all voices and viewpoints.

“And in the end, what I think we'll have is a product of compromise on everyone's behalf,” Hall said.

Simpson said that after hearing what Hall intends to do, he is “very encouraged.”

From the beginning, Sheehy and other patient advocates, including activists for people with Parkinson's disease, autism and multiple sclerosis, have been adamant that they have a hand in drafting the plan.

“We (patient advocates) bring the sense of urgency to this research,” Sheehy said. “Our motivation is really geared around advancing science and finding better treatments. It's not about winning the Nobel Prize, and it's not about getting rich.”

Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that directed $3 billion toward stem cell research in California and created the stem cell institute, included patient advocates, biotechnology industry insiders and academics whose institutions would benefit for the funding.

While that has brought skepticism about conflicts of interest, it was meant to put together a group that understood the need for new therapies from many perspectives.

Sheehy was adamant that his push to be involved in devising the strategic plan was not about promoting the agenda of the specific patient population he represents.

“We tend to think of disease advocates as being tied to a specific disease when, really, it is just a mode of operating and thinking,” Sheehy said.

“My father has Alzheimer's, my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and I have HIV and my greatest risk factor right now is cardiovascular. If I had to chart today what I want to cure first, this morning, it would be ovarian cancer. My point is that everyone in California is impacted by chronic life-threatening disease. And I don't so much want to cure my disease as I want to cure something.”

Yesterday, the oversight board gave Hall approval to begin negotiating a contract with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which will help the plan's development by setting up public hearings and meetings that would bring together experts in finance, philanthropy, science and academia to share ideas on how the institute should spend its money. That process is not to exceed $500,000, including the cost of public meetings and advertising them, which Hall said he thought could be up to $100,000.

The institute does not have the staff or the experience to handle the meetings for the strategic plan, prepare materials necessary for its participants and gather the information collected in public testimony, Hall said.

Also yesterday, the institute accepted $500,000 in donations to fund its scientific activities. Ed Penhoet, a former biotechnology executive and vice chairman of the institute's board, donated $50,000. Additional $50,000 donations were made by E. Hugh Taylor and Richard K. Robbins. The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation donated $350,000.

Meanwhile, Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight board, has been soliciting bridge funding from philanthropic groups. Klein said he has received commitments for $50 million in funding. On Tuesday, the state finance committee approved the acceptance of $14 million.

The funding is intended to allow stem cell research to go forward while state officials fight litigation challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 71. The litigation has prevented the state from selling bonds to support the initiative.

Stem cell funding proves elusive
Venture capitalists wary of uncertainty

By Terri Somers
Union-Tribune

April 16, 2006

CHICAGO – Despite the hype and debate about stem cell research, there are very few stem cell-based therapies and therefore very few companies based on the science.

When that is going to change, and how, was on the minds of hundreds of biotechnology executives from around the globe as they gathered last week for the industry's largest gathering, the annual BIO convention.

While interest in the promise of stem cell research has fueled government funding initiatives such as California's $3 billion Proposition 71, venture capital firms remain largely uninterested in investing.

In 2005, venture capital invested about $5.9 billion in biotechnology and medical devices, said Fred Schwartzer, managing director of the venture capital firm Charter Life Sciences in Palo Alto. Only $120 million went to stem cell research.

The reasons for this are many, he said, including scientific uncertainties, intellectual property issues and the lack of any clear path to make a return on investments in stem cell-based companies.

“That's a lot of uncertainty, and venture capital hates uncertainty,” Schwartzer said.

Scientists, biotech executives, lawyers and other investors speaking on several panels during the four-day biotech conference supported Schwartzer's view and spent hours discussing the myriad hurdles to the commercialization of stem cell science.

Stem cells grow into every cell in the body, creating blood, bone, nerves and tissue. It is that ability to differentiate and create new cells that has fueled hope that they may one day be used to replace cells damaged by disease.

But much remains unknown about the science, and there are many obstacles to overcome.

One obvious use of stem cell is for transplantation, for example, to replace cells damaged by disease, said Mahendra Rao, a former National Institutes of Health stem cell section chief now working for the Carlsbad company Invitrogen. But numerous studies have shown there is a problem with these transplanted cells causing tumors, Rao said.

There are also questions regarding the response of the immune system to these cells, said Peter Mountford, chief executive of Stem Cell Sciences, a British company.

For instance, should these cells be transplanted into a patient whose neurons are destroyed by Parkinson's disease, or someone with diabetes whose insulin-producing islet cells are being killed by the immune system? How do you keep the immune system from attacking the transplanted cells?

There are also huge technology demands in producing stem cells, whether for research or commercial products, Mountford said. And then there are the legal and ethical concerns, particularly surrounding embryonic stem cells, he said.

Use of the cells is controversial because it requires the destruction of an embryo, which many people believe is a life that should be protected. Those concerns led President Bush to limit federal funding for the research, which is one reason California is funding the research through Proposition 71.

But now lawsuits challenging the constitutionality have stifled Proposition 71 funding, and enthusiasm has waned, Schwartzer said.

“I think most VC have looked at this research and said, 'Yeah, it'll probably happen someday, but I can't count on it. So when it does happen, call me and I'll adapt,' ” he said.

And that could be quite some time from now, according to scientists.

It is still going to be another five to 10 years before there are good clinical trial results using embryonic stem cells in humans, Mountford predicted.

Once scientists discover how stem cells work and what they can be used to treat, there will remain questions about how they will be delivered to the patient, Schwartzer said.

And therein lie some of the problems with the business model of a company based on stem cell therapy, he said.

“What are you selling? It's certainly not a pill or antibody in a bottle. Basically you are selling a cell that provides a process,” he said.

When a venture capital firm looks at a company and decides whether it will invest, the members ask themselves: “Who will buy this and how will I get out of this with a profit?” Schwartzer said.

If the company in question has an initial public offering, who will be interested in investing? And what will the public market need to give the company good valuation?

Once there are some “big IPOs and big acquisitions” of companies based on stem cell research, he believes the private investment climate will change.

“VC are like cloned sheep . . . they will follow,” he said.

But Mountford, who founded Stem Cell Sciences in 1994, said venture capital firms need to start thinking about changing their idea of a good stem cell-based business model. Currently they think it is a business that provides cell therapies, he said.

But his company makes its revenue selling cells to researchers, he said.

In Japan, private investment has already started to move into stem cell-based industry, he said.

Elsewhere in North America, however, the investment climate is much like it is the United States.

“In Alberta, Canada, there's no money,” said Craig Sherbourne, corporate counsel at Stem Cell Therapeutics there. “There's been a vacuum for years.”

Stem Cell Therapeutics is working on therapies for stroke. To raise funding, the company went public in a January 2005 initial public offering that raised $8.5 million.

As a result, the company has learned to be very frugal. And it is looking for partnering possibilities with drug development companies, he said.

Trying to help scientists look for the silver lining, Schwartzer reminded those at his panel that there are venture capital firms, such as his company, that invest in early stage companies and contributed to the $120 million stem cell investment last year.

“We very much believe stem cells are going to be important in the future,” he said. “At our Monday meetings, we look very closely at every stem cell company that comes through the door.”

Stem cell agency constitutionality upheld

By Terri Somers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

April 21, 2006

An Alameda County Superior Court Judge today upheld the constitutionality of California's $3 billion stem cell initiative, known as Proposition 71.

Judge Bonnie Sabraw ruled that the People's Advocate and the California Family Bioethics Council, who challenged the initiative, failed to show that it is “clearly, positively and unmistakably unconstitutional.”

Lawyers for both of the challengers said they intend to appeal the decision, and intend to eventually have the matter decided by the California Supreme Court.

The legal challenges, filed in April 2005, have prevented the state from selling bonds to finance the stem cell initiative. Judge Sabraw's decision does not clear the way for the sale of bonds. But the decision is expected to make it easier for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was created under Proposition 71, to raise interim funding from philanthropic groups, according to officials with the stem cell institute.

The ruling came a month after a four-day trial in which lawyers with connections to anti-abortion groups claimed the country's most ambitious stem cell research agency violated California law because it wasn't a true state agency and its managers had a host of conflicts of interest.

Lewman's ruling becomes official in 10 days unless the losing attorneys come up with new and dramatically different arguments.

Proposition 71 was placed on the California ballot in November 2004 to counter President Bush's stem cell research policy, which severely restricts the amount of federal funding that can be used for the work opposed by many conservative Christian groups. Approved by 59 percent of the state's voters, it will fund about $300 million annually in stem cell research that the federal government won't.

“It's unfortunate that the plaintiffs, after losing at the polls, went to court to frustrate the voters' will,” California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. “The sooner this legal fight is over, the sooner California can move to where the people want it – in the forefront of stem cell research.”

The stem cell agency's finances nevertheless will remain in limbo even after Friday's ruling. The litigation prevented the Institute for Regenerative Medicine from borrowing any of the $3 billion it is authorized to from traditional Wall Street bond buyers. That won't change until the expected appeals of the verdict are exhausted, probably some time next year.

Still, the agency managed to fund its first research grants earlier this month after six philanthropic organizations loaned the institute a combined $14 million, to be paid back once the Wall Street bond market is opened to the agency.

The grants, totaling $12.1 million, were awarded to 16 universities and nonprofit research institutes to set up basic stem cell research training programs.

---

me@rescam.org

Move forward on stem cell research

By Eli Broad and Irwin Jacobs; Broad is founder of The Broad Foundation and founder/chairman of KB Home and SunAmerica Inc. Jacobs is founder of Qualcomm Inc.

May 8, 2006

Recently, democracy scored a major victory: A California court decision strongly upheld Proposition 71, our state's $3 billion stem cell research initiative.

Approved by more than 7 million California voters nearly two years ago, Proposition 71 unleashed newfound hope for patients and scientists here in California and around the world.

The real potential for California stem cell research funding, however, continues to be held hostage in court by a small group of opponents, who likely plan to appeal this decision. Although differences in opinion form the basis for our democratic society, we cannot abide a “tyranny of the minority.” Because the majority view in favor of stem cell research is clear, consistent, and triumphs over religious and political party affiliations – and most important, because so many patients' lives and hopes hang in the balance – California should now be able to implement the majority will of the people.

Despite this reaffirming court decision, however, not one cent of voter-approved – and now court-validated – Proposition 71 bonds for stem cell research has been issued. Instead, California philanthropic foundations are stepping forward to loan the funds needed to advance research immediately, while opponents continue to use delay tactics in court.

Recently, our families joined leaders Bill Bowes, founder of Amgen, John Moores, owner of the San Diego Padres, their families and others, to support the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine's first stem cell research training grants to 16 institutions around California. Other state leaders, like the Dolby family, have donated funds to ensure that the institute can continue its scientific and operational activities during this litigation period.

This funding is a start, but it is only an initial down payment on the capital necessary to scale up California's stem cell research program. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine officials are now looking for other investor partners to support the next round of loans for research funding. The loans will be paid back, with a 5 percent interest cap, as soon as the court appeals process winds up favorably. But with any decent consideration for the democratic majority opinion, opponents will allow that legal process to conclude as quickly as possible, so we can get on with the real work of funding life-saving research.

As most Californians know, stem cell research truly is the most pioneering area of biomedical research today. For years, scientists have struggled to understand the causes of disease and labored long hours looking for cures and treatments for debilitating conditions. And now, stem cell research in California is poised to explore the causes, cures and treatments of many common diseases.

But the longer this unnecessary litigation battle continues, the more liabilities we will encounter. We have, for example, lost far too many scientists to other countries. In the past year, some of our leading researchers have moved to more hospitable funding environments in Israel, Singapore and the United Kingdom. We must stem the tide and keep our intellectual capital here in California.

Opponents of stem cell research eager to mount a baseless case in the California courts should now belatedly accept the will of Californians who spoke so resoundingly in November 2004. We voted then to create the largest stem cell funding program in the world in the leading research state-nation in the world, for one main reason: Despite the federal funding gap, we believe we can advance stem cell research in California.

As our fellow Californian, Nancy Reagan, said in a rare statement last month, “I am delighted with the decision to uphold Proposition 71. I am hopeful now that we can move ahead with this important work that means so much to so many.”

To our opponents in the minority: Step out of the way.

---

me@rescam.org

Stemm Cell Research?


I support it. dang right.


GEETER DUN.

---

South Korean scientist indicted in cloning scandal
By Choe Sang-Hun International Herald Tribune

FRIDAY, MAY 12, 2006
SEOUL Hwang Woo Suk, the disgraced cloning expert, was indicted on fraud and embezzlement charges Friday.

Prosecutors blamed the scandal, one of the most notorious cases of science fraud in recent years, on a combination of elements: a junior scientist who fabricated lab tests to please his boss, and Hwang himself, a charismatic head researcher who was blind to the scam but also ordered more fabrications to speed up the publication of his papers.

Junior researchers knew about the alleged wrongdoing but could not challenge Hwang, said a prosecutor, Lee In Kyu, during a nationally televised news conference. Five of Hwang's associates were also indicted on charges related to the scandal.

Reconfirming the earlier findings by Hwang's school, Seoul National University, Lee said that Hwang had never cloned embryonic stem cells from patients. Hwang's now-discredited claim had raised hopes that doctors one day would grow genetically matching tissues from embryonic stem cells to repair damaged organs or treat diseases like Alzheimer's.

The prosecutors, however, failed to clarify what role South Korean government officials had played in the dramatic rise of Hwang as a national hero and as the government's first "supreme scientist," a title created for him that granted him millions of dollars in research funds. Critics called for a parliamentary investigation.

"Prosecutors spent all those months in investigation, and yet they don't say anything about how much the government was involved and responsible," said Song Sang Yong, chairman of the Asia Bioethics Association. From President Roh Moo Hyun to his science minister and aides, the government has fervently supported Hwang.

Hwang was charged with fraud for accepting 2 billion won, or $2.1 million, in private donations based on his falsified research. He also was accused of embezzling at least 800 million won out of the estimated 37 billion won he had received in government and private research funds.

Hwang used part of the money to make donations to politicians, the prosecutor said. He was also charged with using part of the funds to buy human eggs for his research in violation of the country's bioethics law.

If convicted, Hwang could serve up to 10 years in jail.

The scandal raised doubt about the feasibility and ethics of one of science's most cutting-edge research fields: cloning human embryos and then destroying them to extract stem cells.

Lessons from Hwang's scandal will become a major topic at conferences by the World Congress of Bioethics, the Society for Social Studies of Science, and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology later this year, Song said. Unesco is working to revise and strengthen its 30-year-old code of conduct for scientists.

By raising false expectations, Hwang "indelibly hurt the people as well as the families and patients of hard-to-cure diseases," Lee said. "Some scientists abused the people's high expectations and a lack of peer reviews and disregarded ethics of research to attain their own goals."

Hwang and the five associates indicted Friday on similar charges were not arrested.

Calls to Hwang were not returned. Hwang has secluded himself in an undisclosed location since he resigned from his school in December.

Hwang's lawyer, Mun Hyong Sik, told local reporters that Hwang will dispute the charges. Hwang has earlier said that he was the victim of a conspiracy to discredit him.

No one in recent years has galvanized South Korea's national pride as Hwang did. In a paper published in the periodical Science in 2004, his team said it had cloned the first human embryo and extracted stem cells from it. In a technology called "nuclear transfer," Hwang transplanted a woman's DNA into her egg to clone an embryo. In 2005, Hwang's team published another paper in Science saying that it repeated the procedure with DNA from patients' body cells and the eggs of unrelated donors.

Hwang's fame began crumbling last year when news media and scientists began scrutinizing his papers and found evidence of fabrication. Science retracted both his papers.

According to prosecutors, it was unclear whether the stem cell line Hwang said his team created in its 2004 paper was produced by embryonic cloning or was just a human egg induced to develop by parthenogenesis, a process that does not involve cloning and is known as virgin birth because no sperm is used.

But Hwang's lab lost the cell colony during a test. Hwang nonetheless ordered the fabricating of DNA data and cell photographs and published his landmark 2004 paper, prosecutors said.

At the time, Hwang told the country: "I don't know whether we made a miracle, nor am I sure whether we are geniuses. But I do hope that one day a young Korean scientist who follows my steps will win a Nobel Prize by building a solid castle on the small foundation we have laid."

With his fame rising, Hwang's team members later attempted to create patient-tailored stem cells. But however hard they tried, the cell clumps created through nuclear transfer would not grow into full stem cell lines.

One of the team members, Kim Sun Jong, stole a stem cell clump extracted from fertilized eggs in Seoul's Miz Medi Hospital and "mixed" it with Hwang's cloned cells. While Hwang's cells continued to die, the one from Miz Medi grew. When nobody noticed his scam, Kim made five more stem cell lines.

Hwang said that he believed he had authentic embryonic stem cell lines.

Four of the six stem cell lines thus created died from lab contamination.

Believing that he still had two, Hwang again ordered data fabrication and published his 2005 paper in which he claimed to have created 11 patient- specific embryonic stem cell lines through cloning. "Kim was under severe psychological pressure to extract stem cell lines and was also motivated by a greed to win academic fame by contributing to the research of a world- famous doctor," Lee said.

Kim was charged with obstruction of business and tampering of evidence.


SEOUL Hwang Woo Suk, the disgraced cloning expert, was indicted on fraud and embezzlement charges Friday.

Prosecutors blamed the scandal, one of the most notorious cases of science fraud in recent years, on a combination of elements: a junior scientist who fabricated lab tests to please his boss, and Hwang himself, a charismatic head researcher who was blind to the scam but also ordered more fabrications to speed up the publication of his papers.

Junior researchers knew about the alleged wrongdoing but could not challenge Hwang, said a prosecutor, Lee In Kyu, during a nationally televised news conference. Five of Hwang's associates were also indicted on charges related to the scandal.

Reconfirming the earlier findings by Hwang's school, Seoul National University, Lee said that Hwang had never cloned embryonic stem cells from patients. Hwang's now-discredited claim had raised hopes that doctors one day would grow genetically matching tissues from embryonic stem cells to repair damaged organs or treat diseases like Alzheimer's.

The prosecutors, however, failed to clarify what role South Korean government officials had played in the dramatic rise of Hwang as a national hero and as the government's first "supreme scientist," a title created for him that granted him millions of dollars in research funds. Critics called for a parliamentary investigation.

"Prosecutors spent all those months in investigation, and yet they don't say anything about how much the government was involved and responsible," said Song Sang Yong, chairman of the Asia Bioethics Association. From President Roh Moo Hyun to his science minister and aides, the government has fervently supported Hwang.

Hwang was charged with fraud for accepting 2 billion won, or $2.1 million, in private donations based on his falsified research. He also was accused of embezzling at least 800 million won out of the estimated 37 billion won he had received in government and private research funds.

Hwang used part of the money to make donations to politicians, the prosecutor said. He was also charged with using part of the funds to buy human eggs for his research in violation of the country's bioethics law.

If convicted, Hwang could serve up to 10 years in jail.

The scandal raised doubt about the feasibility and ethics of one of science's most cutting-edge research fields: cloning human embryos and then destroying them to extract stem cells.

Lessons from Hwang's scandal will become a major topic at conferences by the World Congress of Bioethics, the Society for Social Studies of Science, and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology later this year, Song said. Unesco is working to revise and strengthen its 30-year-old code of conduct for scientists.

By raising false expectations, Hwang "indelibly hurt the people as well as the families and patients of hard-to-cure diseases," Lee said. "Some scientists abused the people's high expectations and a lack of peer reviews and disregarded ethics of research to attain their own goals."

Hwang and the five associates indicted Friday on similar charges were not arrested.

Calls to Hwang were not returned. Hwang has secluded himself in an undisclosed location since he resigned from his school in December.

Hwang's lawyer, Mun Hyong Sik, told local reporters that Hwang will dispute the charges. Hwang has earlier said that he was the victim of a conspiracy to discredit him.

No one in recent years has galvanized South Korea's national pride as Hwang did. In a paper published in the periodical Science in 2004, his team said it had cloned the first human embryo and extracted stem cells from it. In a technology called "nuclear transfer," Hwang transplanted a woman's DNA into her egg to clone an embryo. In 2005, Hwang's team published another paper in Science saying that it repeated the procedure with DNA from patients' body cells and the eggs of unrelated donors.

Hwang's fame began crumbling last year when news media and scientists began scrutinizing his papers and found evidence of fabrication. Science retracted both his papers.

According to prosecutors, it was unclear whether the stem cell line Hwang said his team created in its 2004 paper was produced by embryonic cloning or was just a human egg induced to develop by parthenogenesis, a process that does not involve cloning and is known as virgin birth because no sperm is used.

But Hwang's lab lost the cell colony during a test. Hwang nonetheless ordered the fabricating of DNA data and cell photographs and published his landmark 2004 paper, prosecutors said.

At the time, Hwang told the country: "I don't know whether we made a miracle, nor am I sure whether we are geniuses. But I do hope that one day a young Korean scientist who follows my steps will win a Nobel Prize by building a solid castle on the small foundation we have laid."

With his fame rising, Hwang's team members later attempted to create patient-tailored stem cells. But however hard they tried, the cell clumps created through nuclear transfer would not grow into full stem cell lines.

One of the team members, Kim Sun Jong, stole a stem cell clump extracted from fertilized eggs in Seoul's Miz Medi Hospital and "mixed" it with Hwang's cloned cells. While Hwang's cells continued to die, the one from Miz Medi grew. When nobody noticed his scam, Kim made five more stem cell lines.

Hwang said that he believed he had authentic embryonic stem cell lines.

Four of the six stem cell lines thus created died from lab contamination.

Believing that he still had two, Hwang again ordered data fabrication and published his 2005 paper in which he claimed to have created 11 patient- specific embryonic stem cell lines through cloning. "Kim was under severe psychological pressure to extract stem cell lines and was also motivated by a greed to win academic fame by contributing to the research of a world- famous doctor," Lee said.

Kim was charged with obstruction of business and tampering of evidence.

---

Kathryn :o)
The BOINC FAQ Service
The Unofficial BOINC Wiki
The Trac System
More BOINC information than you can shake a stick of RAM at.

Words that divide - Stem cell debate is semantical minefield

By Michael Kalichman and Lawrence M. Hinman

Kalichman is director of the Research Ethics Programs (http://ethics.ucsd.edu) and professor of pathology in the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). He is co-director for the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee at UCSD and has been involved in statewide discussions to address the appropriate ethical review of this research. Hinman is director of the Values Institute and professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego (USD). Together, Hinman and Kalichman began a regional Center for Ethics in Science and Technology (http://ethicscenter.net).

May 24, 2006

Words bring us together. Without them, there would be no society, no glue to hold isolated individuals within a linguistic cocoon. But words divide as well: Splitting churches and nations and families. And words have had a major role in dividing the Congress on the subject of stem cell research.

Today marks one year since the House of Representatives voted to approve the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The cosponsors of the Senate version of the bill are now pushing for a vote.

If the act comes up for a vote, it would not be the first time this area of research would be debated in the House or Senate, nor would it likely be the last. Human stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of human biology and the treatment of disease, but it also highlights profound moral and religious disagreements. Unfortunately, our choices of words serve to cloak substantive disagreements and create semantically driven disputes that could be avoided with careful attention to the subtleties of our vocabulary.

Misunderstanding surrounds even the definition of a “stem cell.” The stem cells of bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, the heart or the brain – typically called “adult stem cells” – do not have the potential to become any cell of the body. They are still called stem cells because they have the potential to become other cells, but their trajectory is limited to a small number of cell types. By contrast, stem cells derived from a human embryo – “embryonic stem cells” – are capable of becoming any cell of the human body given the right conditions.

Even after 30 years of research, successes with adult stem cells have been limited primarily to treatment of some blood cell disorders. Proponents of human embryonic stem cell research should keep in mind that these successes are real and that they demonstrate the utility of adult stem cell research. Similarly, opponents of human embryonic stem cell research should keep in mind that new attempts to derive stem cells from the human embryo will also take many years, but that the resulting stem cells offer a range of possibilities far greater than that for any one type of adult stem cell.

Many opponents and proponents of human embryonic stem cell research note that the central disagreement is about the “moral status” of the human embryo. Opponents of this research will often argue that once an egg is fertilized, the genetic identity of an individual is defined and the proper trajectory for that fertilized egg is a developmental process that will result in an embryo, a fetus, and eventually a newborn child. In this view, the fertilized egg deserves full moral status and therefore protection from any use other than for procreation.

On the other hand, proponents of this research will often recognize moral weight or status for the fertilized egg, but they don't see this as an absolute. While the fertilized egg deserves more consideration than an isolated egg or sperm, it deserves relatively less consideration than the developing embryo, which in turn carries much less moral weight than a developing fetus, or a newborn child.

The issue here is not whether the fertilized egg or embryo has moral status. The issue is whether that status is full and inviolate from the moment of conception or whether it is graded.

Proponents of this research should be aware that many believe that the fertilized egg is a person deserving of full moral consideration. Conversely, opponents of this research will hopefully understand that proponents have not decided to ignore all moral considerations, but that they have concluded that the moral obligation to improve the human condition through research deserves much greater moral weight than the fertilized egg or embryo.

Although there is general understanding of what is meant by “embryo,” the terms “pre-embryo” or “blastocyst” are sometimes used to describe early embryonic development. Many opponents of human embryonic research often define all of the earliest developmental stages as embryo; proponents subdivide these stages. Both are talking about exactly the same thing. The real focus should not be on the words, but whether there are significant developmental differences that have moral implications for how we treat this entity,

A final area of concern involves the question of human cloning. Nearly everyone opposes human cloning for reproductive purposes. Scientists propose, however, to derive embryonic stem cells by inserting DNA from the cells of one human into a human egg – a process often called somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning. Whether the resulting artificial zygote is allowed to develop into a blastocyst or not, opponents can be seen as correct in calling this an example of human cloning because even the single cell has a complete copy of the DNA of some other human. For proponents, however, this is not seen as human cloning unless the resulting blastocyst is implanted and allowed to develop.

Because these issues are so divisive, it is unlikely we will soon see agreement about definitions of the words we use. If we hope to make any progress, however, we must recognize that these key terms are used in different senses.

Many of our superficial disagreements are first and foremost misunderstandings. Recognizing this will allow us to focus our attention on the genuine issues of disagreement rather than on semantic disputes about words that confuse and divide citizens, scientists and lawmakers alike.

---

me@rescam.org

Initiative's creator keeps tinkering
Senator, oversight panel often at odds

By Terri Somers
Union-Tribune

June 2, 2006

California's groundbreaking $3 billion stem cell initiative was the brainchild of state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, who saw it as a way to circumvent the conservative politics behind federal funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

The Sacramento Democrat suggested the creation of a voter initiative to ask taxpayers to fund research that has the potential to cure some of society's worst diseases. Experience and early polling showed her the state Legislature would never approve a tax increase to fund the research, but it seemed possible voters would embrace the idea.

But when Ortiz finally saw the initiative, which was written by politically savvy patient advocates, she saw gaps that troubled her. And since voters approved the measure in November 2004, she has been one of its most dogged critics.

Ortiz, who campaigned in favor of the initiative, said she did so on the theory that it would be best to get voters to endorse it and then worry about fine-tuning it.

Over the past 18 months, she has been an author or co-author of several pieces of legislation seeking to increase government control and public oversight of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was created to disburse the stem cell research money.

These days, as Ortiz's time as a senator ticks away because of term limits, and she campaigns for secretary of state, a good chunk of her calendar is devoted to butting heads with people running the stem cell institute over Senate Bill 401, her latest attempt to change the initiative.

SB 401 is a constitutional amendment that would go before the voters and, if enacted, toughen the conflict of interest, intellectual property and public records components of Proposition 71.

“I really believe these policies need to be in place, not just to protect taxpayer money but because . . . if it fails, or disappoints the public, it could doom people's confidence in stem cell research and the initiative process,” Ortiz said.

But her efforts frustrate and anger the staff and governing committee of the institute. They are expected to discuss SB 401 at a committee meeting today in La Jolla.

“To me (SB 401) is death by 1,000 cuts,” said committee member Dr. John Reed, who heads the Burnham Institute in La Jolla.

The institute's oversight committee and staff have spent the past 18 months holding multiple public hearings and gathering public consensus to create the institute's policies and standards. But they still are not complete.

Meanwhile, the agency has been embroiled in court challenges that have prevented it from giving out more than one round of small training grants. Recently a Superior Court judge ruled the initiative was constitutional, but appeals are expected to continue for at least another year.

Long work days at the institute have led to working policies for conflict of interest, intellectual property and medical and ethical standards. Once the public hearings are complete, revisions will be made to the policies, which mean it could be more than a year before the final regulations are adopted.

“Let's not rush into this with an initiative that amends what we're doing before the public input is in,” Robert Klein, chairman of the oversight committee said at its April 6 meeting.

The oversight committee voted at that meeting to send Ortiz a letter that stated: “SB 401 is unnecessary and premature . . . we oppose it.”

Several members of the committee questioned why Ortiz would seek to derail their work.

“I think we have been operating in extraordinary good faith trying to deal with all of these issues,” said committee member Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of Stanford University's Medical School. “I find it to be quite distressing to see the potential for what, in essence, unwinds a lot of the work that we've been doing and moves down a very different pathway.”

Ortiz expects the bill to next be up for Senate consideration in August. But even if it passes through the necessary legislative committees, voters would not vote on the amendments to Proposition 71 until June 2008, long after Ortiz has left office, according to her staff.

“This is sort of one of the last runs of my service in the Legislature, and it's an uphill battle,” Ortiz said. “I wish I didn't have to do this.”

She said her activism on these issues might have been avoided if the initiative were better written. That is a direct blow to Klein, an author and now the institute oversight committee chairman, with whom she has had a contentious relationship.

A few short sentences further defining conflict of interest, or guaranteeing a specific return to the state when taxpayer-funded discoveries are sold, could have gone a long way in avoiding some of these legislative battles, she said.

Proposition 71 prevents the Legislature from meddling with it for the first three years. That didn't stop Ortiz, who filed her first bill to restrict how research money was spent just one month after voters approved the initiative.

That and every subsequent bill she proposed has prompted institute oversight committee members and staff to meet with Ortiz. Institute insiders say comment from Ortiz and others influenced the working policies the institute ultimately adopted.

“Much of what they have done with regard to policy is because I moved bills, or attempted to move bills, that prompted interplay between me and the (institute),” Ortiz said. “As uncomfortable as that has been, I think it will be a role I will play until I am gone from the Legislature.”

While the senator should get credit for influencing institute policy, there have been a lot of other people pushing for change, said John Simpson, of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

Along with his organization, the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland has also pushed for increased accountability and other changes.

Sometimes Ortiz did more than influence policy.

In March, lawmakers approved a performance audit of the institute, which was proposed by Ortiz and 10 other legislators. Proposition 71 also required a financial audit. Both audits are now under way, and results are expected to be made public before year's end.

Because Ortiz has not been dissuaded by the institute's efforts and audits, critics charge that she's using the high-profile stem cell initiative to elevate her political profile during a campaign season.

Ortiz denies the charge.

“For all the criticism I've received, it would have been politically smart of me to just shut up and embrace and defend Proposition 71 and raise lots of money from biotech interests. But I chose not to do that,” said Ortiz, whose campaign has collected more than $500,000 in contributions.

In response to this criticism, input from the institute and comments made at a May 17 Assembly Appropriations Committee meeting, Ortiz said she intends to amend her bill to make it clear that it will not go on the ballot until after the November 2006 election.

She also said she will amend the bill's intellectual property provisions so that they mirror the regulations the institute has already adopted, and which are now under review by the state Office of Administrative Law.

She's also made concessions to let the institute dictate how much return the state will demand when Proposition 71-funded discoveries are sold.

Nonetheless, the institute continues to take issue with the remaining proposals.

Among the points remaining in the bill is a requirement that the state Attorney General's Office review all licensing deals surrounding discoveries made with institute funding.

The bill would also make the public meetings and records law applicable to the institute's working groups, which include out-of-state volunteers who read grant applications and made recommendations on who should receive funding.

“These fixes make Proposition 71 less vulnerable to future litigation,” Ortiz said, “and gives the state teeth in enforcing its intellectual property agreements.”

---

me@rescam.org

As our fellow Californian, Nancy Reagan, said in a rare statement last month, “I am delighted with the decision to uphold Proposition 71. I am hopeful now that we can move ahead with this important work that means so much to so many.”

To our opponents in the minority: Step out of the way.


I can't believe that there are still debates going on within the scientific community re Stem Cell Research. Yes, there MUST be ethical considerations in all projects that allow man to take the hand of God to use any way that seems interesting. There is no question about it! Ethics need to be a part of scientific research, especially for such things as human cloning.

However, a person who has ever lived with someone for whom the stem cell research could be a blessing (and who were against this research until they had to live with the "disease") know almost instinctively that this research MUST CONTINUE AND INTENSIFY.

I don't think I would ever quote something of Nancy Reagan's except in this instance. I believe she was against stem cell research until her husband developed Alzheimer's Disease. How quickly she changed her tune once she experienced for herself how one such disease could deprive another human of their dignity. She had to live with this to really understand the situation and to see how there can be no doubt with regard to this debate.

I live with my 83 year old father who is in late stage Parkinson's Disease. This was an energetic, handsome, humorous and brilliant man and I was blessed (along with my younger sister and brother) to have this special person as my father. He was a wonderful dad and he gave all of us so much as we grew up. He now lives with the ravages of Parkinson's. We, along with him, must tolerate hallucinations, terrible pain, mobility problems and all of the well known (but little understood by the average person) symptoms that go along with this disease every day, hour by hour, second by second.

There can be no doubt that as far as research is concerned, Stem Cell research should be MANDATORY, by now.

Shari

---

We should not injure silence, for it is sacred.___________ Joao Gilberto

I like your style, Shari.

But what do you mean by the statement "Stem cell research should be mandatory" ?

Mandatory to whom? Mandated by whom? Did you mean 'legalized' instead?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Shira, I do not dispute the fact that it takes bold leadership to move mankind in assertive direction. In contrast, I am all for it.
As far as stem cell research is concerned I am totally in support. But let us not throw rights out with the bathwater. Let us start with the premise that each person belongs to himself and work from there. The mystics and socialists will have us believe otherwise. But hold your premises right there as a rock and do not deviate from it.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

This may be considered anything but politically correct, but i think the other side of the coin (not religion) needs to be examined and that is an ever increasing elderly population.

Assuming that average life expectancy in a modern 1st world country is 75, which is already starting to create a tremendous stress for the younger population, should we continue to extend it (life expectancy and economic stress)?

Currently the U.S. has say 280 milllion people of which 50% fall between 20-55 years (the economically productive) so 50% of the population are support the remaining 50%.

By 2050, this may be 60/40, or 40% of the population (current trend) will be supporting the other 60%. I think it may get tough for the 40%? At the very least it is going to stress the health system.

Will the retirement age increase or decrease going forward? Should we put the elderly 'back to work'? (at least to continue contributing to society at large).

Considering Stem Cell research may cure certain diseases, and allow for growth of new organs, it has the potential to extend life considerably.

Should there be ethical health policies combined with this research. For example, is there much point in spending significant resources and money sustaining a 70 year old that is chronically ill even if stem cell treatment can cure the disease and extend their life?

Should the public health system have an 'age cutoff' for certain illnesses (incurable, degenerative, terminal) thus promoting positive euthanasia.

Should people with terminal illnesses be allowed to terminate their own lives or allow their family to make the decision? (some countries already allow this).

Should bioethics and positive euthanasia social policies be explored in parallel with scientific research like Stem Cell?

or should the use of future stem cell technologies be left to the 'currelt policies' and freemarket, insurance policies (although i am certain that insurance companies will perform genetic screening) or people with money to afford the future treatments, stem cell storage etc (i.e. the wealthiest have the choice to potentially live longest...) the impoverished will die naturally.

The value of stemcell research may be considerable, well beyond curing diseas and extending life, but understanding the 'nature of life' and so the reserach is important. However IMO there are some critical considerations that need to be managed.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

I think you raise a lot of important questions here, Enigma.

First, I have mixed feelings about stem cell research, specially when they use cells from foetuses beyond the embryonic stage. I do understand though the people, who suffer from illnesses, where stem cells can cure their illness or even save their lives, but as I see it, we harldy know the long term consequences of this. And I think the issue raises some ethical questions, I find it hard to deal with.

I don't like the thought of people being considered as spareparts to others, but on the other hand I don't want to be a Luddite for research either.

About euthanasia my oppinion is more clear. I think it's a persons right to end his/her life as painless as possible, and if a person comes into a situation, where living is connected with unbearable pains, and/or where he/she sees him/herself in an unwanted situation even it's painless, it should be the person's right to end it. And if necessary with help from others.

Of course, the possibility of suffering of an undetected clinical depression must always be examined.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Americans try to clone human embryos
Harvard, UC seek to harvest stem cells

By Marie McCullough
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

June 7, 2006

PHILADELPHIA – Two American research teams said yesterday that they were trying to clone human embryos to harvest stem cells genetically matched to patients.

Scientists at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and UC San Francisco said their goal was to use embryonic stem cell colonies to model certain diseases. That could lead to developing stem cell therapies, although probably not for a decade or more.

“We are convinced that working with embryonic stem cells holds tremendous promise for the treatment of a host of currently intractable and incurable diseases,” said Harvard University Provost Steven Hyman.

Pursuing this promise is controversial. The field remains under a cloud cast by disgraced South Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk, who a year ago published a fraudulent paper claiming to have achieved what the Americans are now attempting. Conservative groups oppose the research – and government rules block federal funding of it – because it involves destroying human embryos.

What's more, the technology needed to tap the potential of genetically tailored stem cells is hit or miss, if not nonexistent.

The process starts with a patient's cell, such as a skin cell, and a woman's donated egg. The nuclear DNA from the patient's cell is inserted into the egg, which has been emptied of its own nucleus. An electrical or chemical signal fuses this “cloned” organism, which begins dividing into an embryo that, at about 100 cells, briefly contains the wondrous stem cells can become any tissues or organs in the body.

Only one team, at the University of Newcastle in Britain, has published credible evidence of cloning a human embryo to the 100-cell stage – and it took 36 eggs donated by 11 women. The British team did not try to harvest embryonic stem cells, much less coax them to differentiate into specialized cells.

Despite the obstacles, the American researchers said they were optimistic and determined.

Douglas Melton, co-director of Harvard's stem cell institute, and his colleague Kevin Eggan, a molecular biologist, have spent more than two years going through scientific and ethical reviews to get approval for their work, which will be funded entirely with private money.

Federal funding is only available for research using about 20 embryonic stem cell lines created before federal restrictions took effect in 2002. It has been determined that those lines are old and difficult to use.

Initially, the Harvard team plans to focus on diabetes, a disease that afflicts Melton's son and daughter, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease.

At UCSF, researchers hope to create cell models of neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's and Huntington's disease.

By cloning embryos using nuclear DNA from sick people, the scientists aim to produce stem cells that are genetically matched to the patients, thus avoiding the problem of rejection.

---

me@rescam.org