Can you imagine little clones of Misfit or Siran running all over the place!

Are you asking for a donation, perv?

Whats this Perv Poop....

Give the donation to your wife Pleeeese....

---

Some basics on stem cell research

By Elaine Alice Murphy

June 24, 2005

I am a non-scientist married to a neuroscientist-turned-administrator who's one of 29 overseers of California's stem cell initiative. Of late, he's been giving mini-lectures to lay audiences about stem cell technology and I've been listening in. I've learned a lot.

First of all, the level of ignorance in the general population about stem cells is profound. It's not that people are incapable of understanding the technology; they have busy lives, and eyes tend to glaze over when confronted with technical charts and graphs in a field not your own. Alternatively, the subject may need a soothing voice to explain it, just like the birds and the bees.

The problem is, opponents of stem cell science are stepping into this knowledge vacuum to frame the debate. This may explain why the field is saddled with inaccurate labels that evoke reflex negative responses – for instance, the boogeyman "human cloning," which President Bush and his advisers dismissively use.

Let's get one thing straight. Therapeutic stem cell work is not "human cloning." There are no humans being cloned. Cloning humans should be against the law – everywhere – and it may not even be technically possible. Many scientists believe that the complexities of human chemistry will likely prevent homo sapiens from ever getting a "Dolly."

Even "embryonic stem cells" seems a misnomer when applied to the breakthrough work just accomplished by the South Koreans. The technique they used, which offers so much hope to sufferers of disease, goes by the cumbersome name "somatic cell nuclear transfer," or SCNT. It does not use fertilized embryos, but rather unfertilized eggs.

Biology 101 refresher: "Somatic cells" are the cells in our body's organs. Each contains a nucleus carrying our unique genetic information, that is, our DNA.

SCNT works like this: an unfertilized, donated egg has its nucleus scooped out – in science-speak it's "enucleated" – thereby becoming a neutered shell with no genetic blueprint (DNA) of its own. Scientists then extract a nucleus from a patient – say from a skin cell – and transplant it into the enucleated egg.

The enucleated egg containing the patient's DNA is now poised to become a factory for making cells 100 percent genetically identical to the patient's. To start the process, scientists jolt the tissue with chemicals or electricity, and cells begin to divide. At about the five-day mark, when between 60 and 200 stem cells have formed, the process is halted, the cultivated stem cells are scooped out, and the little egg factory is thrown away.

And, oh, what stem cells come out of these factories! Unlike umbilical cord stem cells, or adult-tissue stem cells, SCNT stem cells are "pluripotent," meaning they have the capacity to develop into any cell type in the human body, be it heart cells or nerve cells or pancreas cells, whatever is needed. Since they contain the genetic information of the patient-donor, they will not likely be rejected by the patient's immune system when scientists eventually transplant them back to carry out repair functions. Therein lies the hope.

Why is SCNT cell production terminated at just five days? That marker has long been honored by scientists and is consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Science as a guideline for U.S. stem cell work. Five days of cell divisions yields adequate product and stops well short of the 14-day point at which cell differentiation is under way.

Audiences ask, "What about the slippery slope? What if a 'mad scientist' tried to bend this technology to clone a human?" The possibility of rogue research is remote and, hopefully, any "mad scientist" would be prosecuted. And where would he or she do the work? In the garage? Not likely. In a university, surrounded by colleagues and students, where scientific research is carefully regulated? Impossible.

When lay audiences begin to understand SCNT stem cell technology, the result is usually an astonished, "Is that all it is?" Even opponents seem reassured. I've watched avowed right-to-life advocates – who are nonetheless anti-disease – say cautiously, even hopefully, "You mean there's no real embryo here? No egg fertilized by a sperm?" The answer is no, not in somatic cell nuclear transfer.

So I've concluded that medical scientists need a Karl Rove to develop strategy, because it's time to reframe the debate. We need to stop using inflammatory terms like "human cloning" to describe therapeutic stem cell work. Perhaps we should even strike the label "embryonic" when referring to stem cells produced by SCNT, given that no traditional sperm-meets-egg embryo is involved. Stanford Nobelist Paul Berg has suggested we call them patient-specific stem cells.

Researchers and patient advocates dream of genetically matched insulin-producing cells implanted into diabetics, cells bearing mucous-clearing properties implanted into cystic fibrosis patients, healthy nerve cells implanted into the brains of Parkinson's patients and the spinal cords of paralyzed people, and on and on. Doesn't the risk of a phantom rogue scientist pale against the potential of stem cells to mitigate and even cure such chronic and degenerating diseases affecting real people? And which is morally superior, using an unfertilized egg to fight disease or wasting it?

Here's the deal: After learning the reality of SCNT stem cells' production and potential, if you remain morally opposed to the technology, simply turn away stem-cell-derived therapies when they're offered, as some Christian Scientists refuse blood transfusions. But please don't impose your restrictions on me.

[i]- Murphy is a California-based writer.[/url]

---

me@rescam.org

Stem cell center officials get word on funding source

By Terri Somers
STAFF WRITER

July 13, 2005

IRVINE - As the state's groundbreaking stem cell institute enters its seventh month and prepares to fund its first round of research grants, its governing body is just now learning where it is going to get its money.

The institute's citizen oversight committee learned at its monthly meeting yesterday that the state treasurer's office is preparing to sell $200 million in bond anticipation notes to start funding the institute's first round of grants and first full year of operations.

To date the institute had been running on a $3 million loan from the state and a $5 million donation from the Dolby Foundation.

The state is supposed to sell up to $300 million in bonds annually over the next decade to fund the institute. But lawsuits challenging the legality of Proposition 71, the law that established the institute, must be settled before that sale can happen.

In the meantime, the state plans to sell the bond anticipation notes to investors willing to risk that the institute will win the legal challenges, enabling the state to issue the bonds so that the notes can be repaid.

After administrative costs, the anticipation notes will add about $188.4 million to the coffers of the stem cell institute.

The institute received 26 applications for funding under its first round of grants, which will be used to train more scientists in the field of stem cell research, said Zach Hall, interim president of the institute.

The institute's grants working group, which includes volunteer scientists from outside California, will review the applications over two days in August and then recommend to the oversight committee which should be funded.

The bond anticipation notes need to be sold before the oversight committee's September meeting, when it is expected to vote on the grant recommendations.

Meanwhile, the institute continues to plow through money for staff and services that its leaders say are essential.

Several oversight committee members seemed surprised to learn yesterday that the institute is being billed $27,700 a month for public relations services it receives from Edelman, a national firm. The institute is receiving the bills and services on a monthly basis and isn't paying them until a longer-term contract can be negotiated with Edelman, Hall said.

Committee member Jeff Sheehy, deputy communications director at the University of California San Francisco's AIDS Research Institute, said he was "shocked" to learn that the institute has been billed for these services since April because he "just hasn't seen the product."

But oversight committee chairman Robert Klein said the institute's one staff member dealing with communications cannot handle the high volume of media calls, public speaking requests and other public relations work.

---

me@rescam.org

Supporters of stem cell bill pushing for full Senate vote

COX NEWS SERVICE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON – Backers of government funding for stem cell research said yesterday they would push for a Senate vote despite a move to shift support to new proposals that supposedly would not involve destruction of human embryos.

Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the new proposals are being used to try to draw votes away from their bill, which would remove restrictions President Bush placed in 2001 on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells are attractive to researchers because of a property known as "pluripotency," meaning that they can develop into any kind of body tissue. This ability may make new treatments possible for a number of devastating diseases.

Bush's action in 2001 limited federal support to research on stem cells already in existence, but many scientists say these cells are inadequate and in some cases contaminated.

During yesterday's brief but contentious hearing of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees health spending, Specter complained that the restrictions are holding up potentially life-saving research and said it was "scandalous" that research on stem cell lines derived from unwanted human embryos has been stalled.

"I only have one vote in 100," Specter said, "but I've waited too long now. Eight years is too long to wait for stem cell research."

Specter and Harkin said they had the 60 votes necessary to overcome an expected filibuster by opponents of the bill, and an aide to Harkin said they were pushing for full Senate action, "possibly late this week or early next week."

But Harkin said the new bills are being drafted in an effort to peel votes away from their bill.

"There are forces out there who want to stop this bill," he said. "And these alternative methods of deriving stem cells are suddenly very popular among people who want to maintain current restrictions on stem cells."

The Senate bill is identical to a measure that the House passed in May by a vote of 238-194 and which Bush has said he would veto.

It would direct the National Institutes of Health to provide grants for research using stem cells derived from thousands of unused human embryos being stored at in-vitro fertilization clinics.

Although it contains provisions that sponsors say would prohibit payment to couples who own the embryos and would allow research only on cells that are slated for destruction, Bush and others say it would amount to deliberately harvesting human life for research.

Separately, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an order yesterday that earmarks $10 million in state money for stem cell research, making his state the latest in a line of states that includes California in funding the controversial research.

Blagojevich said he would consider it immoral not to act because stem cell research is an important avenue through which some diseases could be cured.

---

me@rescam.org

Supporters of stem cell bill pushing for full Senate vote

COX NEWS SERVICE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON – Backers of government funding for stem cell research said yesterday they would push for a Senate vote despite a move to shift support to new proposals that supposedly would not involve destruction of human embryos.

Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said the new proposals are being used to try to draw votes away from their bill, which would remove restrictions President Bush placed in 2001 on using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

Well, I do have mixed feelings about stem cell
research, but I tend to lean more towards allowing
it to continue because of the possibility that the
outcome will do so much good. It's good that Harkin
and Specter are pushing for this vote. I wasn't aware
that there were serious alternatives to stem cell research
that would not involve destruction of embryos, so I'm
interested to know what those are.

I don't think that responsible scientists would
"deliberately harvest human life" to further research.
That is somewhat of a harsh statement considering that
the outcome of that research would be used to save so
many lives, including the lives of critically ill children.
Perhaps there can be some kind of compromise between
opponents and supporters of stem cell research.

---

Putting stem cells in primates backed

By Lisa M. Krieger
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

July 16, 2005

SAN JOSE – An influential group of bioethicists has given the go-ahead to future research that would introduce human neural stem cells into the brains of our primate cousins, but outlined strict ethical boundaries.

At least two U.S. teams of scientists are already creating "chimeras" by inserting human neurons into primates. Such "neural grafting" conjures up images of super-smart primates such as those in the film "Planet of the Apes."

Could the introduction of human cells into primate brains make them more "humanlike"? How would one tell? And where should the line be drawn?

To answer such questions, Johns Hopkins University assembled a group of 22 philosophers, neuroscientists, primatologists, stem cell researchers and other experts, including Stanford University law professor Hank Greely.

"We can't say that it is impossible that putting human stem cells into nonhuman primates will lead to some aspect of humanlike consciousness, although it is highly unlikely," Greely said.

"These recommendations are an effort to make sure that something like that doesn't happen inadvertently or accidentally," he said.

There are huge therapeutic opportunities in the field of embryonic stem cell research, according to the group's report, published in yesterday's issue of the journal Science.

Because future therapies may require testing in primates, the panel sought to create responsible research guidelines.

"We may want animal tests before we use treatments in humans," said Greely.

"The closer to humans you get, the better your model – but the better your model, the more you worry about 'humanizing' the animal you put the cells into," he said.

Six factors should be considered before attempting such research, the report concluded. They include: the number of human cells injected, the age of the animal, the species, the size of the animal's brain, the site of injection, and whether the animal's brain was injured or diseased.

The group was not troubled by transplants of a few human cells into healthy adult brains of more distant relatives such as monkeys.

But it had far greater concerns about implanting large numbers of human cells into the developing brains of chimps and great apes, whose brain size and genetic makeup are close to humans – and perhaps transferring humanlike behaviors.

Adult animals are not as impressionable as younger ones, and embryos are thought to be the most impressionable of all, Greely said.

And the larger the quantity of human embryonic stem cells inserted, the more powerful the influence they are likely to have, he said.

In April, a National Academy of Sciences report recommended that stem cells shouldn't be implanted into the embryos of primates. Both Canada and the United Kingdom ban such research altogether.

---

me@rescam.org

Will Frist back stem cell research?

MORTON KONDRACKE
ROLL CALL

July 19, 2005

The Senate's stem cell debate forces a moment of truth upon Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.: Is he, at bottom, a doctor and scientist dedicated to saving lives, or just an ambitious politician out to advance his career?

At the moment, the evidence suggests the latter – that he's working to peel votes away from legislation that would hasten stem cell research and in the process give himself and his party political cover.

Polls consistently show that as many as two-thirds of voters support federal funding of medical research using embryos left over at in-vitro fertilization clinics and otherwise destined for destruction. Even many evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics support the research.

But the religious right wing of the Republican Party and the right-to-life movement – which probably have veto power over GOP presidential nominees – strongly oppose the research on the grounds that the embryos constitute sacrosanct "human life."

To the dismay of many who admire him, this would not be the first time Frist has allowed his ambition to trump his scientific judgment and put him in league with the ideologues.

In July 2001, after serious study and soul-searching, he bucked the right wing and endorsed federal funding of embryonic research within proper ethical guidelines. But then in August 2001, Frist saluted when President Bush limited the funding to stem cells obtained prior to that time and supported the Bush claim that researchers would have as many as 60 batches (or "lines") of stem cells to work with. It turns out that only 22 lines are available and all are contaminated, making them unsuitable for use in humans.

The current Senate fight pits those who want to eliminate Bush's restrictions – including most scientists and disease advocacy groups who are eager for robust stem cell research – and the ideologues who are trying to retain them. Pro-stem-cell forces, led by Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are working to win 60 votes – or possibly 67, enough to override a presidential veto – for H.R. 810, which passed the House in May by a vote of 238-194.

But Frist is working to fashion an alternative bill being drafted by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., that would retain the Bush limits and, for political cover, back new techniques for deriving stem cells without destroying embryos. Those voting for the Enzi measure could claim they support stem cell research; however, abundant scientific testimony indicates that the alternative methods, while promising in some cases, would delay potential discovery of treatment for such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injury. (As readers may know, I'm not objective on this subject. My wife, Milly, died of Parkinson's last year, and I am on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.)

If alternatives to embryonic research prove to have greater potential to produce cures, they should – and inevitably will – win out in the race for scientific backing. But as Frist himself said in 2001, "research using the more versatile embryonic stem cells has greater potential than research limited to adult stem cells and can, under the proper conditions, be conducted ethically."

"Adult" stem cells – obtained from umbilical cords, placentas, skin or other tissue – offer an alternative line of research, one that is being actively pushed by the Bush administration. It should be – but not to the exclusion of embryonic stem cell research.

Some of the proposed alternatives are more speculative, and some of them involve ethical difficulties of their own. One of them, for instance, calls for removing a single cell from a live embryo, potentially altering its nature should it ever be implanted in a woman's uterus. Other techniques have been floated, but all are theoretical, whereas it's clear that cell lines can be derived now from leftover embryos.

The stem cell controversy is only the latest in which Frist has dismayed admirers of his record as a physician. Bowing to the right, he relied on old videos of brain-damaged Terry Schiavo to determine that she should be kept alive. In Frist's defense, it could be said that, as the Republican leader, he has an obligation to support Bush. But should he do so when it's clear that Bush policy flies in the face of life-saving science?

Frist may calculate that even if the House stem cell bill passes the Senate, Bush will surely veto it, and the House will not override the veto. If so, standing up to the right in this case would be a waste of effort and political capital.

But this begs the question: When, if ever, will he stand up? Frist has saved thousands of lives as a heart surgeon. He means to save millions more as an advocate for worldwide disease prevention and treatment.

Right now, though, he faces a choice: to do what is right and to help millions who might benefit from research he knows is desirable, or to hold it back in the name of personal advancement.

---

me@rescam.org

Too little support seen to stop stem cell veto

ASSOCIATED PRESS

August 1, 2005

WASHINGTON – Despite a boost from the majority leader, there is not enough Senate support now to override a threatened veto if Congress tries to ease restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, a key proponent said yesterday.

A favorable Senate vote is considered more likely now that Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has reversed his position to support more federal dollars for research. However, the Senate vote will not matter if, as lawmakers predicted, a veto by President Bush stands in the House.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who sponsors a bill easing restrictions that Bush put in place, said Frist gave his side "a big boost."

A vote on the bill could come in September.

While a bill would pass the Senate with a simple majority, 67 senators would be needed to fend off a veto by Bush if all 100 senators voted.

"My analysis is that we have 62 votes at the present time, and we've got about 15 more people who are thinking it over," Specter said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "I believe that by the time the vote comes up, we'll have 67."

On the same program, a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., countered: "You don't have the votes in the House of Representatives to overcome a presidential veto."

The bill passed the House in May by 44 votes, fewer than the two-thirds of the 435-member House needed to override a veto. However, Specter said Frist's endorsement could provide "a little political cover" for House members to vote to override.

Supporters of the research believe that stem cells, which potentially can grow into any type of tissue in the body, hold the promise of one day treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and more.

Foes of the research consider it the equivalent of abortion because embryos must be destroyed to harvest stem cells.

---

me@rescam.org

Frist takes a stand
Senate leader can help in stem cell debate

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

August 1, 2005

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist may have damaged his chances for winning the Republican nomination for president in 2008, but he did the right thing when he reversed himself and announced support for lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The decision put him at odds with President Bush and social conservatives who oppose the research on moral grounds.

Frist's announcement is important because the Senate had been considering a vote on a bill that would loosen restrictions placed on embryonic stem cell research by President Bush through an executive order in 2001. At that time, Bush said federal funding would be limited to about 60 lines of cells that already existed.

Embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos during the first five days of existence. At that time, the group of about 100 cells is called a blastocyst. Removing the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, which is why President Bush and others oppose the research.

But proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe it holds tremendous promise for curing a range of degenerative conditions affecting close to 100 million Americans. This is because embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells, have the potential to grow into different kinds of tissues, replacing heart tissue or spinal cord tissue, for example. Other stem cells cannot do that.

Before its summer recess, the Senate was considering a number of bills on stem cell research. The most popular version, identical to one recently passed by the House on a 238-194 vote, would allow researchers to use some of the 400,000 or so embryos in fertility clinics across the nation, many of which would otherwise be discarded. The bill also would set ethical guidelines for researchers.

Senate opponents of this bill have introduced about a half dozen other measures designed to draw support away from the main legislation, known as the Specter-Castle bill after its chief sponsors, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del. Some critics say the alternative bills also are intended to spread the vote so President Bush would not have to veto a bill lifting restrictions.

As Senate majority leader, and as a respected heart-lung transplant surgeon, Frist is in a position to move the Specter-Castle bill to a vote when senators return to Washington in September. Although Specter said he fears it may be too late, Frist needs to persuade other senators to withdraw their bills for a clean vote on the Specter-Castle bill. Failing that, he should move for quick votes, setting up a final one for the main legislation.

If the Specter-Castle bill lands on his desk, maybe President Bush will have second thoughts about vetoing a measure whose goals are supported by a large majority of Americans.

---

me@rescam.org

Who’s Leading The Way?
While Americans debate profound moral questions about stem cells—particularly those derived from human embryos or fetal tissue—and Congress battles over bills to fund research, scientists outside the U.S. are making advances that one day might help us understand how diseases develop and possibly provide new treatments, even cures. We asked Parade investigative reporter Micah Morrison to look at the state of stem cell research around the world...

---

me@rescam.org

Researchers see new way for creating stem cells

By Gareth Cook
Carey Goldberg
THE BOSTON GLOBE

August 23, 2005

Harvard scientists have created cells similar to human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, a major step toward someday possibly defusing the central objection to stem cell research.

The team showed that when a human skin cell was fused with an embryonic stem cell, the resulting hybrid looked and acted like the stem cell. The implications: It may eventually be possible to fashion tailor-made, genetically matched stem cells for patients using such a cell fusion technique, rather than by creating and then destroying a cloned embryo. That use of early embryos is the main sticking point for opponents of stem cell research.

The Harvard researchers cautioned that the fusion technique, described in this week's issue of the journal Science, is inefficient and deeply flawed at this point, and emphasized that it should not deter embryonic stem cell research that involves embryos, nor diminish support for such research.

"Our technology is not ready for prime time yet," said Kevin Eggan, the paper's senior author and an assistant professor at Harvard. "Our results do not offer an alternative now."

The paper comes amid debate in Congress over whether the federal government should expand its financing for research on embryonic stem cells, which are seen as potential treatments for a range of diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and Parkinson's. Eggan said he feared that his work could be cited by opponents who have argued for finding ways of doing stem cell research without using human embryos.

Legislation has passed the House and is pending in the Senate to make eligible for federal funding research using tens of thousands of cell lines harvested from donated frozen embryos after the Aug. 9, 2001, cutoff set by President Bush. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., recently reversed himself and announced that he supports the bill, raising hopes it would be acted on this fall.

The Harvard work is part of a broader effort to find ways to conduct embryonic stem cell research without destroying embryos, a quest spurred by politics but driven mostly by the needs of scientific inquiry.

There is a limited supply of human eggs, which are needed for creating embryos through cloning, and egg donors face a slight health risk. The new cell fusion technique would enable scientists to create vastly greater quantities of embryonic stem cells for research.

That would mean they could do far more experiments aimed at understanding what happens when a regular, adult cell is transformed into an embryonic stem cell, a process known as "reprogramming." Researchers are struggling to determine how a cell that is "adult," already committed to its role in the body as, for example, a nerve cell or skin cell, regresses back to the proto-state in which, as a stem cell, it could still potentially become any of the hundreds of types of cells in the body.

The cell fusion technique "provides an experimental tool," said Azim Surani, a Cambridge University professor who performed similar cell fusion in mice and was not involved with the Eggan paper. "It's not something that we can use now, but it allows us to take steps toward understanding this process of reprogramming."

To make an adult cell regress to an embryonic stem cell state without needing an egg cell to do it "is what a lot of scientists dream about being able to do," he said. "It opens up many different avenues in terms of doing basic research."

The Harvard paper showed that the cell fusion would work in humans, and went further, showing exactly how extensive the "reprogramming" is – that virtually all genes went from having a skin cell pattern to having an embryonic stem cell pattern. Under a microscope, the fused cell looked like an embryonic stem cell. It could turn into many different types of cells. And it had the chemical markers of embryonic stem cells.

"We've taken back a cell that had only one choice, a specialized function, and we've given it back the power to make many different choices, like an embryonic stem cell," said Chad Cowan, the paper's lead author.

All the cells of the body have the same DNA, but there is a system, called "epigenetics," that turns some genes off and on. This is what distinguishes a skin cell from another type of cell. And this is what must be "reprogrammed" to change the cell type.

In cloning, scientists use an egg cell to do the reprogramming. That is, a nucleus from a skin cell is put in an egg cell that has had its nucleus removed. Something in this egg cell changes the DNA around so that the new nucleus now thinks it's a fertilized egg, and begins to develop.

Ultimately, using cell fusion could work better than using an egg for human stem cell therapy, Surani said.

But for now, gigantic obstacles remain. The most crucial flaw in the fused cell was that it contained twice the genetic material that cells usually carry, and there is no known way to return it to normal. Such cells would be extremely risky to use for therapies in humans, though they could be valuable for research.

Eggan said he planned to explore ways to solve the problem of the extra genes. It could be possible to pull out the extra DNA before the fusing process is complete.

Another option may be to reprogram the skin cell using the stem cell's cytoplasm, the area of the cell that is outside the nucleus where DNA is concentrated.

The other great obstacle to the cell fusion technique is its inefficiency. When Cowan was creating the fused cells, he found that about 50 million skin cells and 50 million embryonic stem cells would yield only 10 or 20 of the fused hybrid cells. Fortunately, he said, the resulting hybrid cells were stable and could be multiplied in culture.

If researchers manage to understand reprogramming well enough, Cowan said, it may someday be possible to use drugs to induce, for example, a pancreas cell in a diabetic patient to go back in time to its stem cell state and transform itself into the kind of pancreas cell that makes needed insulin.

But that, he said, is still science fiction. In the nearer future, the cell fusion technique offers the prospect of the kind of "limitless supply of human embryonic stem cells" that could allow researchers to forge ahead toward figuring out reprogramming.

"You can now start to figure out the pieces of that puzzle, through biochemistry and genes," he said. And because the cells are human cells, "You cannot only figure out how it works but how it works for humans, which would be clinically relevant."

---

me@rescam.org

California's $3 billion stem cell agency awards first grants

By Paul Elias
ASSOCIATED PRESS

September 9, 2005

SACRAMENTO – California's $3 billion stem cell agency began awarding its first research grants Friday, despite legal challenges that put its future in doubt.

"This is really a historic and important occasion for us," said Zach Hall, who was named permanent president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine on Friday.

The recipients of the first two grants, totaling $7.3 million over three years, weren't immediately made public Friday, but since the stem cell board's representatives from Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco, recused themselves from the voting, it's likely that their institutions are the ones getting the money.

Lawsuits challenging the legality of the stem cell agency have prevented it from borrowing the $3 billion in bond money voters authorized in November.

A $5 million charitable donation from sound pioneer Ray Dolby and a $3 million loan from the state have kept the agency afloat and enabled it to hire staff and open a permanent headquarters in San Francisco. But the agency's accountants warn it will run out of money by May without another cash infusion.

On Friday, Robert Klein, the chair of the 29-member committee that oversees the agency, said he's seeking "bridge funding," but didn't offer any details about the interim financing plan.

"I don't understand how they can award grants if they don't have money," said Dana Cody, a lawyer with the anti-abortion group Life Legal Defense Foundation, which is suing the committee that oversees agency. Cody's lawsuit alleges that the committee members aren't state officials and therefore can't dole out state funds.

Wall street bond investors won't loan money to the agency as long as the lawsuits are pending, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said.

Other critics unsuccessfully lobbied the committee to hold off awarding grants until it resolved its legal issues and instead focus on creating conflict-of-interest policies and other related issues.

"The stem cell program doesn't have any money," said Marcy Darnovsky, the associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland. "It is irresponsible for its leaders to promise grants that they may be unable to deliver."

The grants will be used to train students and budding scientists on how to conduct stem cell research, including the cloning of embryos exclusively for research use.

Some 26 California universities and nonprofit research foundations applied for a combined $45 million in funding. The 29-member agency board awarded 16 grants totaling nearly $39 million.

Human embryonic stem cells are created in the first days after conception and give rise to all the organs and tissues in the human body. Scientists hope they can someday use stem cells to replace diseased tissue.

But many social conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the work because embryos are destroyed during research. President Bush in 2001 restricted the use of federal money to fund stem cell work, which scientists complain the administration's policy has hampered the field from advancing.

Support in Congress is growing to loosen Bush's stem cell funding policy, including the backing of Senate majority leader Bill Frist, but the president has vowed to veto any such measure.

Since 59 percent of the California electorate approved the state's stem cell agency, nine other states have similar proposals pending in their legislatures. New Jersey has already approved $11.5 million in stem cell funding and state leaders are contemplating authorizing another $380 million in funding.

'Virgin conception' first for UK

By Jonathan Amos
BBC News science reporter, Dublin

September 9, 2005

Human embryos created using a so-called "virgin conception" technique have been made in the UK for the first time.

The Roslin Institute, which also cloned Dolly the sheep, reported the so-called parthenotes at a Dublin conference.

They are made by stimulating a human egg to start dividing like an embryo without the addition of any genetic material from a male sperm cell.

The Edinburgh team has so far created six parthenotes to the stage at which they would hope to mine stem cells.

"At the moment we have not managed to get stem cells from these embryos but that continues to be our ambition," Roslin's Dr Paul De Sousa told the British Association's Festival of Science in the Irish capital.

Embryonic stem (ES) cells are "master cells" that in the normal reproductive situation go on to form all of the body's tissues.

The Edinburgh-based team hopes to obtain such cells from the parthenotes and use them to investigate their potential in laboratory research and in medical treatments.

The scientists stress the embryos would never be implanted in a woman's womb - and the terms of their research licence prohibit this anyway.

'Inefficient' outcomes

Parthenogenesis (out of the Greek for "virgin birth") occurs quite naturally in a number of lower animals. Insects such as bees and ants use it to produce their drones. Some larger animals can also reproduce this way - there are a few lizards, for example - but it is rare.

And scientists have induced parthenotes artificially in creatures such as mice and monkeys, although it very often results in abnormal development.

Non-UK work on human parthenogenesis for laboratory research has had very indifferent results so far - and the Roslin team also reports highly inefficient outcomes.

For ES cells to be obtained, an embryo must be grown to the so-called blastocyst stage of about a 100 cells. Roslin's blastocysts achieved about half that, but, with time, Dr De Sousa is hopeful of success.

"It's a numbers game," he said. "It's just a matter of supply of tissue to be engaged in experimentation."

The Roslin team is using eggs in its research programme that have been taken from volunteer donors who have decided to undergo sterilisation.

In normal reproduction, eggs would kick out half their genetic material in preparation to receive the male complement delivered by a sperm cell.

To make parthenotes, therefore, the eggs must be cultured in the lab in such a way that they retain all of their chromosomes. A spark of electricity is then used to initiate the process of embryonic division.

It took Roslin about 300 eggs to get the half-dozen blastocysts.

'Parallel strands'

Some scientists have advocated parthenogenesis on the basis that it could be a more ethically acceptable way to obtain ES cells; working on normal, fertilised embryos is a deeply controversial area.

But others have doubted its use on technical grounds, arguing the degree of genetic manipulation required to achieve parthenogenesis makes this route to ES cells an unnecessarily complicated one.

Even the cloning of human embryos would appear to be a more straightforward approach, they argue.

However, Dr De Sousa believes the infancy of stem cell research means science has to keep its options open.

"I think there are many reasons to be engaged in parallel strands because we don't know that any one of them is going to lead to where we want to go," he said.

Dr De Sousa also believes the research will tell them a great deal about imprinting, the process that controls how genes inherited from the mother and father are switched on and off in the developing embryo.

It is the errors in this process that are thought to lie behind many of the failed attempts to clone embryos.

Moratorium call

Groups opposed on moral grounds to this whole area of research reacted with dismay to Friday's announcement.

Matthew O'Gorman, of the charity Life, commented: "It is another example of Frankenstein science which illustrates how out of touch with public opinion these recent scientific developments are.

"[The Roslin team] was granted a licence by an unelected, unaccountable quango," he said, referring to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which approved the Roslin research.

Mr O'Gorman said Life was concerned the experiments exploited women, as eggs could only be made available by undergoing treatment that posed a potential risk to health.

Friday's announcement came less than 24 hours after Newcastle researchers said they would be creating embryos using genetic material from three parents - a father and two mothers - as a means of tackling rare diseases.

The "pro-life" groups argued that the latest developments made it clear it was time for reproductive science to be restrained.

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, called on the government to put a moratorium on licences for embryo research.

She said: "We know so little about the mechanics of embryology that at the very least we should wait until we know a lot more until we say we can do it better than nature.

"These are very big steps indeed, and the whole area is running completely out of control."

Mrs Quintavalle said the use of stem cells from discarded umbilical cords offered great potential to cure disease - with none of the ethical difficulties of experimenting on human embryos.

Despite uncertain funding, agency issues first grants

Bill Ainsworth
Terri Somers
STAFF WRITERS

September 10, 2005

SACRAMENTO – California's groundbreaking stem cell agency yesterday announced its first grants to train a new generation of scientists in a potentially promising area of research that has been restricted by the federal government.

Universities and research institutions throughout the state, including four in San Diego, received grants to help develop the "intellectual" infrastructure to launch an aggressive program for seeking cures and treatments using human embryonic stem cells.

There's only one problem: The agency doesn't yet have the money to fund the $39.7 million in grants it awarded to train about 170 researchers over the next three years.

Two lawsuits have delayed the $3 billion in bond funds approved by voters in November when they passed Proposition 71.

But Robert Klein, the chairman of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, which oversees the stem cell agency, said he hopes to secure first-year grant funding of $12.5 million by October.

Under Klein's plan, officials from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was set up by Proposition 71, will seek money from philanthropic and nonprofit groups that fund research.

The money would come in the form of "bond anticipatory notes." If the state prevails against the lawsuits seeking to block the sale of the voter-authorized bonds, the organizations would be repaid. If the state loses, the funds would become gifts to the state that don't need to be paid back.

Klein said a variety of organizations were interested in buying the anticipatory notes, but he declined to identify them. Furthermore, he said he expected opponents of stem cell research to try to block the sale of the notes.

"It's going to be a challenge, but we're moving ahead," Klein said.

Officials from the stem cell agency applauded the research programs that received grants, saying they would help jump-start an area that has been long neglected in the United States because of opposition by President Bush.

In 2001, Bush sided with social conservatives by restricting the use of federal research money to fund stem cell work. Opponents say the research requires the destruction of embryos, which they equate with the destruction of human life.

In Congress, a growing movement would ease federal restrictions, but Bush has vowed to veto any legislation that seeks to change the rules.

Zach Hall, who was named permanent president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine yesterday, said the federal limits have had a chilling effect on the training of researchers, causing the United States to fall behind the rest of the world.

Hall said the grant-funded training will bring engineering, chemistry and nanotechnology into stem cell research and examine ethics and the law.

"This program will be the most comprehensive and broadest program for stem cell research training in the country and I assume in the world," Hall said.

Grants were awarded to virtually all the major research universities in the state, including Stanford, the University of California Berkeley and the California Institute of Technology.

The stem cell agency awarded three-year grants to the four major research centers on San Diego's Torrey Pines Mesa, which have formed a stem cell consortium to share money and training, said Dr. Evan Snyder, who heads the program at the Burnham Institute. The Burnham Institute got $2.2 million, the Scripps Research Institute received $1 million, the University of California San Diego got $3.6 million and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies received $1.4 million, according to the stem cell agency.

Each institute applied for a grant individually but explained in the grant request that it planned to pool money with the three other research facilities, Snyder said.

"Our goal was to make San Diego a cohesive, collaborative and interactive powerhouse for the state," Snyder said. "By sharing each facility's different strengths, we would get the biggest bang for our buck."

UCSD Chancellor Marye Anne Fox said the training program will have a big impact on the region's economy.

"We will train the next generation of stem cell scientists who canlead our local biotechnology industries and our state's stem cell researchprograms to develop future therapies for devastating human geneticdiseases," she said.

Grants were awarded by the 29-member Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee at an all-day meeting in Sacramento. Members discussed each of the proposals, which had been previously evaluated by a group of scientists and patient advocates.

The awards are intended to train graduate students, clinical researchers and scientists who have just gotten their Ph.D.'s.

Officials of the state's stem cell agency said they decided to award the grants despite the financial uncertainty to speed research and to signal potential donors that the program isn't going to be slowed down by lawsuits.

"It's a way of being sure we are ready to move when the money comes in and get our program under way immediately," Hall said.

Some criticized the decision, saying the agency could use the delay from the lawsuits to strengthen its procedures for awarding grants and returning money to the state generated by any commercial discoveries from the research projects.

"They are making promises that they may or may not be able to keep," said Jesse Reynolds, director of biotechnology accountability at the Center for Genetics and Society. "It's unclear whether the money is going to come in."

One lawsuit against the program contends that the committee members who oversee the stem cell agency are not state officials and therefore not authorized to distribute state money.

But some supporters of stem cell research applauded the effort to keep moving rapidly.

"People are suffering. People are dying," said Don Reed, sponsor of the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, "We've got to get the structure in place so we can move forward once these petty lawsuits are out of the way."

Other states also are moving forward to fill the gap left by the federal government. Since November, nine states have proposals pending to fund stem cell research.

"I was surprised how fast California became a model," said Klein, who spearheaded the drive to pass Proposition 71. "It's inspiring."

Mouse stem cells used to repair sheep hearts

Patricia Reaney
REUTERS

September 15, 2005

LONDON – Embryonic stem cell research moved a step forward on Friday as French scientists reported they had used master cells from mice to repair heart damage in sheep.

Researchers at the National Centre for Scientific Research in Montpellier, France and the European Hospital Georges Pompidou in Paris transplanted mouse cells into 9 sheep that had suffered a heart attack.

A month later the sheep had healthier hearts than a control group of animals that hadn't received the cell transplant, the scientists said.

The finding strengthens the possibility the technique will be used one day to treat heart disease in humans.

'As far as I know there has been no previous large animal study looking at the effects of stem cells in myocardial infarction (heart attack),' said Professor Philippe Menasche, a cardiac surgeon who worked on the research.

Stem cells are master cells in the body that can develop into any cell type. Scientists believe they could be used to treat diseases ranging from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to diabetes.

But their use is controversial because the most promising stem cells for treating human diseases are derived from very early human embryos.

IMPROVED HEART FUNCTION

Menasche and his colleagues, who reported the research in The Lancet medical journal, said an important aspect of their study was that the embryonic stem cells used in the research were not completely undifferentiated.

They had been guided or coaxed into developing into heart cells before they were transplanted in the sheep.

'They are not fully differentiated. They will complete their maturation and their differentiation in vivo, once grafted into the heart,' he explained in an interview.

The cells were implanted into the sheep two weeks after the animals suffered a heart attack. A month later new heart cells were evident.

Menasche said the cells changed into heart cells and improved the function of the animals' hearts. Half the animals were given immunosuppressant drugs but the scientists said there were no signs either group rejected the cells.

'Interestingly the cells were not rejected, whereas you would have expected them to be,' said Menasche.

Adult stem cells are found in tissue and blood but scientists believe they are not as pluripotent – able to form any cell type in the body – as embryonic stem cells.

'I think that overall the (scientific) community has recognised the limitations of adult stem cells with regard to plasticity. If you really want to make cardiac cells you probably have to rely on embryonic stem cells,' Menasche added.

The researchers are now planning to test embryonic stem cells in larger animals.

Research: Stem cells repair mice spinal cords
More study is needed before tests on humans

By Lauran Neergaard
ASSOCIATED PRESS

September 20, 2005

WASHINGTON – Injections of human stem cells seem to directly repair some of the damage caused by spinal cord injury, according to research that helped partially paralyzed mice walk again.

The experiment, reported yesterday, isn't the first to show that stem cells offer tantalizing hope for spinal cord injury – other scientists have helped mice recover, too.

The new work took an extra step by suggesting that the connections the stem cells form to help bridge the damaged spinal cord are key to recovery.

Surprisingly, they didn't just form new nerve cells. They also formed cells that create the biological insulation that nerve fibers need to communicate. A number of neurological diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, involve loss of that insulation, called myelin.

"The actual cells that we transplanted, the human cells, are the ones that are making myelin," said lead researcher Aileen Anderson of the University of California Irvine. "We're extremely excited about these cells."

The research was reported in yesterday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stem cells are building blocks that turn into different types of tissue. Embryonic stem cells in particular have made headlines recently, as scientists attempt to harness them to regenerate damaged organs or other body parts. Essentially, embryonic stem cells are a blank slate, able to turn into any tissue given the right biochemical instructions.

They are not the only type of stem cell. Anderson and colleagues used fetal neural stem cells, a type that are slightly more developed than embryonic stem cells because they are destined to make cells for the central nervous system.

The researchers injured the spinal cords of mice and nine days later injected some with the human neural stem cells.

Four months later, the treated mice could step normally again with their hind paws. Mice given no treatment or an injection with an unrelated cell showed no improvement.

The question was what sparked that improvement. Injections of stem cells simply might stimulate the body to produce some healing factor, or they might directly repair damage themselves.

So Anderson injected the animals with diphtheria toxin, which kills only human cells, not mouse cells. The improvements in walking disappeared, suggesting it was the cells themselves responsible for recovery.

"It was striking," Anderson said.

Finally, the researchers analyzed the actual mouse spinal cords to see what the human stem cells had turned into. The hope was that they would make neurons, or nerve cells, and some did.

The bulk of the injected stem cells formed oligodendrocytes, a different type of cell that forms myelin, the insulation coating that is key for nerve fibers to transmit the electrical signals they use to communicate.

The toxin step was key to ensuring the transplanted cells themselves are functioning, and all researchers must provide such evidence because different types of stem cells almost certainly will work by different mechanisms in different tissues, said Dr. Doug Kerr, a Johns Hopkins University neurologist who is performing similar spinal cord research with embryonic stem cells.

Much more research must be done before testing stem cells in people with spinal cord injuries, Anderson said. One question is how soon after an injury cells must be administered to have any effect – no one knows how nine days in a mouse's life correlates to the post-injury period for a person.

Also, the mice were bred to avoid immune system destruction of the human cells, and suppressing a person's immune system because of similar transplant rejection risk poses big problems.

"The last thing we want to do is take someone who's living a productive life – if confined, we all understand that – and make them worse," said Anderson, who added the work also shows the need to study all types of stem cells. "The exciting part is the potential is there."

The research was funded by the nonprofit Christopher Reeve Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Yesterday, StemCells Inc. of Palo Alto, whose fetal-derived stem cells were used in the new mouse study, filed an amended application to the Food and Drug Administration asking permission to start injecting the cells into the brains of infants with Batten disease, a fatal, inherited syndrome that destroys the central nervous system.

Two other U.S. companies also say they are close to the goal of testing human neural stem cells as therapies.

This year, Hans Keirstead and his colleagues, also at UC Irvine, reported that rats with disabling spinal injuries could walk nearly normally again after getting injections with human embryonic, rather than fetal, cells developed by Geron Corp. of Menlo Park.

Those cells initially were harvested from days-old human embryos and then cultivated under special laboratory conditions that forced them to become immature oligodendrocytes. Once injected into injured spinal cords, the cells matured and wrapped themselves around injured neurons, which often lose those natural coverings as a result of injury-induced inflammation, leaving even intact neurons unable to function properly.

Geron has said it hopes to begin clinical trials in patients next year.

A third company, NeuralStem Inc. of Gaithersburg, Md., is also in the race.

In unpublished research, rats with spinal cord damage improved significantly after getting injections of human fetal spinal cord cells, said UC San Diego neuroscientist Martin Marsala, who led the studies with NeuralStem's cells. The animals had ischemic paraplegia, a paralysis of the lower body and rear limbs caused by a temporary blockage of blood flow to the spine.

Patients with this syndrome, which can occur when one of the body's large arteries bursts, are not only paralyzed but also suffer from spastic twitches because of the loss of a kind of neuron that normally suppresses those movements. In rat and pig studies, about one-third of the human fetal cells morphed into exactly that type of neuron, resulting in far less spasticity, Marsala said.

NeuralStem has been talking with the FDA with the aim of getting the go-ahead to begin human testing next year.

The FDA has said several questions will have to be answered before such tests can go forward, including whether some stem cells might turn into the wrong kinds of cells after being injected.

The Washington Post contributed to this report.

U.S. sets up national stem-cell bank

By Maggie Fox
Health and Science Correspondent
REUTERS

October 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - The University of Wisconsin, where human embryonic stem cells were first isolated, will host the first federally funded bank of the valuable cells, the U.S. government said Monday.

The bank will house many of the officially sanctioned batches of human embryonic stem cells, the National Institutes of Health said.

"The National Stem Cell Bank, awarded to the WiCell Research Institute in Wisconsin, will consolidate many of the federally funded eligible human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines in one location, reduce the costs that researchers have to pay for the cells, and maintain quality control over the cells," the NIH said in a statement.

The NIH also said it would fund two centers, at the University of California, Davis and Northwestern University in Chicago, for embryonic stem-cell research.

However, some advocates of stem-cell research said the steps fall short of what is needed.

Scientists say stem cells could transform both medicine and basic biological research, offering the potential for tailored tissue and organ transplants and new understandings of disease.

Many believe there could be several sources, including those cells taken from days-old human embryos. But some people oppose the use of embryonic stem cells, saying a human life must be destroyed to grow the cells.

President Bush announced with a compromise in August of 2001, saying federal funds could be used to study only those batches, or lines, of human embryonic stem cells that already existed at the time.

The Wisconsin center will care for and distribute many of these.

Many scientists have complained that these cell lines are now outdated and hard to work with, and there is a debate over what kinds of research they might be useful for.

Members of Congress who support expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cells said the move to establish the research centers was not enough.

"The reality is that the best way to jump start embryonic stem cell research in this country ... is to expand the federal policy so scientists have access to the most technologically advanced, cleanest, genetically diverse and disease specific lines possible," said Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who supports expanded federal funding of stem-cell research.

Dr. James Thomson of WiCell, who first found human embryonic stem cells in 1998 and who will help head the stem-cell bank, agreed.

"Although the creation of this center is very important, I hope that NIH will ultimately decide to fund additional similar centers across the United States to support this rapidly expanding field," Thomson said in a statement.

The NIH earmarked $16.1 million over four years for the stem cell bank and $9.6 million for the research centers.

"This resource will enable us to fully analyze, characterize and control the quality of approved cell lines," NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni said in a statement.

New experiments could ease stem-cell impasse
Efforts seek to rid need for embryos

By Gina Kolata
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

October 11, 2005

If there were no controversy over human embryonic stem cells, Drs. Rudolf Jaenisch and George Daley probably never would have started some unusual, and difficult, experiments.

Stem cells, a type of universal cell in early embryos, in theory can grow into any of the body's tissues and organs. But embryonic stem cells are drawn from human embryos after they have grown for about five days in the lab, and obtaining those cells requires that the embryos be destroyed. Critics say that action is destroying human life.

So while most stem-cell scientists focus on obtaining stem cells from early embryos, Daley, of Harvard Medical School, and Jaenisch, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have begun asking if they can get stem cells another way, perhaps by creating aberrant cell clusters that contain stem cells but never could survive more than a week or so. The idea is to produce embryonic cells without the embryos and make nearly everyone happy.

The research has caught the attention of some members of Congress, who have proposed bills to allow federal funding for such methods. Daley says there are legitimate scientific reasons to do the work.

The idea also has attracted scientists such as Markus Grompe, director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center in Portland, who says he is about to start human embryonic stem-cell work for the first time because the new method offers him a way to do so without violating his moral principles.

"Virtually everyone in the stem-cell field is interested in this," Grompe said. "Some feel it's the only ethical way. Others feel it is the only practical way."

All agree there has been an ethical impasse.

On one side are those like Grompe who say human life is a continuum that begins with a fertilized egg. A human embryo, however early, is human life, he says, and he finds it unacceptable to destroy human embryos to extract their stem cells. The end cannot justify the means.

In the middle are those like Daley. He says human embryos have "a unique moral status" that should be respected.

"There's a significant weight to the decision to use human embryos," Daley said.

But, he added, using human embryo stem cells to find ways to relieve human suffering "pays respect to their unique moral status." And, he said, "I fully accept the ethical trade-off."

Yet another group, which includes Jaenisch, says that for them there is no means-end calculus. Early embryos, they say, are simply microscopic balls of cells with no particular moral status. They have no body parts, they look nothing like a fetus, and most die anyway when they are implanted in women. For them, embryonic stem-cell research poses no ethical issue.

That impasse has led to a search for other ways of getting these precious cells.

Daley said his interest in the new methods "is being driven by the realities of federal funding and the political climate in the United States."

The federal government will pay only for research with human embryonic stem cells that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. It will not pay for the creation of any new human embryonic stem-cell lines. Scientists are free to use private funds, but that has not been easy, Daley said.

"It's incredibly difficult to raise private money to sustain a reasonable research program," he said. "The federal government funds 95 percent of what we do. So if the federal government will not fund embryonic stem-cell research, we have to use ingenuity."

Jaenisch said his motivation is pragmatic.

"I recognize that some people have a problem," he said.

At issue is the question of who decides what research should be pursued, and why. The players include not just scientists but also a group of fervid observers who are looking for compromise.

They include, most prominently, Dr. William Hurlbut, a physician by training who teaches ethics courses at Stanford University and is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

For three years, Hurlbut has been trying to get a consensus on alternative methods of obtaining stem cells, after deliberating on the moral status of the human embryo for a president's council report on cloning.

He personally finds it morally unacceptable to destroy a human embryo, but he also understands the immense promise of stem cells.

"I was really torn," Hurlbut said.

Then he had an idea. What if scientists got embryonic stem cells in the following way: Do not fertilize an egg. Instead, start cloning in an altered way so that, he says, no embryo is produced. Ordinarily, with cloning, scientists slip an adult cell into an egg whose genetic material has been removed.

The egg reprograms the adult cell's genes, taking them back to the state they were in when sperm first fertilized egg. Those reprogrammed genes then direct the development of an embryo, then a fetus, a newborn and, finally, an adult that is genetically the same as the adult that provided the original cell.

Scientists have cloned a variety of animals – most recently a dog – and have used cloning to create early human embryos and extract their stem cells. Of course, those human embryos potentially could become babies if they were implanted in a uterus, and destroying those embryos to get their stem cells, some say, is destroying human life.

Hurlbut proposed something different. First, remove genes from the adult cell that are needed for the full development of an embryo, or silence those genes or alter their pattern of expression. Then start cloning by adding that altered cell to an egg.

"What I'm suggesting is creating something that never rises to the level of a living being," he said. "No embryo is ever formed. It's not a human embryo if it doesn't have the potential to develop into the human form."

He decided to call it a "biological artifact."

Getting the human eggs is a complication. Hurlbut and others do not sanction asking young women to take drugs to produce copious amounts of eggs for use in research. Instead, Hurlbut said, they may be able to use eggs that are normally discarded by fertility clinics.

They eventually may be able to remove eggs from ovaries of women who were having their ovaries surgically removed, or from the bodies of women who had just died. That is another scientific problem – researchers are not yet able to prod immature eggs in ovaries to mature, but Hurlbut is confident that process can and will be done soon.

Will others who object to destroying human embryos accept the idea of creating "biological artifacts" and extracting stem cells from them?

Hurlbut tried to find out. He said he spoke to hundreds of people – religious leaders, ethicists, scientists. He presented his ideas to the president's council, and the council recommended animal studies to test the approach.

Grompe elaborated on the idea, attracting a long list of endorsers, including those opposed to standard stem-cell research that involves destruction of human embryos.

They include John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.

"It wouldn't be a compromise," Haas said in a telephone interview. "It would be a resolution" of the moral problem.

They also include M. Edward Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, a group that says, "We deal openly and explicitly with religiously based moral values in addressing contemporary issues."

In an e-mail message about the biological artifact method, Whelan said: "I have strong moral objections to creating human organisms in order to harvest cells from them in a way that destroys them. But those objections simply would not apply to proposals that would not in fact involve human organisms."

For now, Jaenisch and Daley are testing the idea in mice. Jaenisch said he is convinced the method can work, but he has a paper going to press and declined to provide details.

Agencies' legal brief backs state's stem cell initiative

By Terri Somers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

October 13, 2005

Patient advocates and scientific research institutes filed legal papers yesterday in support of California's stem cell initiative, saying it represents the will of the voters to fund research that may change the practice of medicine and cure some of society's most devastating diseases.

The stem cell initiative supporters, many of whom employ researchers eligible to apply for some of the $3 billion in grants made available by the initiative, say court challenges against what is known as Proposition 71 have no legal merit.

Among the agencies that filed the friend-of-the-court brief are the Burnham Institute, the Salk Research Institute, Stanford University and the University of Southern California. Those facilities have been awarded funding under Proposition 71 for training scientists in the stem cell field. The funds haven't been distributed because of the legal challenge.

In March, lawyers who have opposed embryonic stem cell research and abortion filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging the state's stem cell funds are not properly overseen by government officials in Sacramento.

Instead, the funding is to be controlled and distributed by the newly formed California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. A 29-member committee of patient advocates, researchers and biotechnology professionals was appointed to oversee the institute.

The lawsuit filed by the Life Legal Defense Foundation said the state Constitution requires elected public officials to oversee spending of taxpayer dollars.

Until the legal challenge is resolved, the State Treasurer's Office cannot sell the bonds needed to fund the grants.

The brief filed in Superior Count in Alameda County reiterates the legal arguments made by the stem cell institute's lawyers: Proposition 71 is constitutionally sound because the initiative approved by voters in November amended the constitution.

Stem cell supporters say the initiative guarantees that the science to be funded is sound, because grants are determined through a merit-based process that involves review of applications by respected scientists.

Stem cell method saves embryos
Technique is solution to key ethical objection

By Nicholas Wade
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

October 17, 2005

Scientists have devised two techniques to derive embryonic stem cells in mice, one of which avoids the destruction of the embryo, a development that may shift the grounds of the long-standing political debate about the research.

The destruction of embryos is a principal objection of anti-abortion advocates who have strenuously opposed federal financing of the research.

The second new technique manipulates embryos so they're incapable of implanting in the uterus, a possible ethical advantage in the proposed therapy, which converts a patient's skin cell into embryonic cells and then new tissues to repair the body. Both methods are described in today's online edition of Nature.

The technique for making embryonic stem cells without compromising the embryo was developed in mice and has yet to be adapted to people, but the two species are very similar at this level of embryonic development. "I can't think of a reason why the technique would not theoretically work in humans," said Brigid L.M. Hogan, an embryologist at Duke University.

If it does work in people, which could take many months to find out, the technique might divide the pro-life movement into those who accept or reject in vitro fertilization, because the objection to deriving human embryonic stem cells would come to rest on creating the embryos in the first place, not on their destruction.

"This gets around all of the ethical arguments, except for that small minority of the pro-life community that doesn't even support in vitro fertilization," said Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, R-Md., whose Web site describes him as "a pro-life legislator."

The only way of deriving human embryonic stem cells has been to break open the embryo before it implants in the uterus, a stage at which it is called a blastocyst, and take out the inner cell mass, whose cells form the tissues in a human body.

Although the blastocysts used in the procedure are ones that fertility clinics have rejected for implantation, many opponents of abortion say the destruction of an embryo is wrong. Congress has forbidden the use of federal money for such research, and federally supported scientists can work with limited number of existing lines of embryonic stem cells that have been exempted by President Bush.

Robert Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology, a biotechnology company in Worcester, Mass., have developed an alternative way of generating embryonic stem cells that leaves the embryo viable.

They let a fertilized mouse egg divide three times until it contained eight cells, a stage just before the embryo becomes a blastocyst. Removing one of these cells, they then coaxed it into growing in glassware and forming cells that have the same essential properties as embryonic stem cells derived from the inner cell mass, Lanza's team reports.

The seven-cell embryo was implanted in the mouse uterus and grew successfully to term. This part of the procedure is known to work with humans, too.

Lanza's technique is likely to be welcomed by many in the middle of the debate, although it hasn't won over the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Richard M. Doerflinger, its deputy director for pro-life activities, dismissed the technique, saying preimplantation genetic diagnosis itself is unethical.

The technique "is done chiefly to select out genetically imperfect embryos for discarding, and poses unknown risks of future harm even to the child allowed to be born," Doerflinger said in an e-mail message.

Only a procedure that generated embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos "would address the Catholic Church's most fundamental moral objection to embryonic stem cell research as now pursued," Doerflinger said in testimony in December to the President's Council on Bioethics.

But Markus Grompe, a leading stem cell scientist and a Roman Catholic who supports the church's teaching on the unacceptability of destroying embryos, praised the Lanza approach, provided that the extracted cell could not develop into an embryo by itself. "I find it clearly less objectionable than the outright destruction of the embryo," said Grompe, who studies liver stem cells at the Oregon Health and Science University.