Thursday, November 29, 2007

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 725

Messages In This Digest (3 Messages)

Messages

1.

Germany Doubling Stem Cell Funding

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:39 pm (PST)

Germany Doubling Stem Cell Funding

11/28/2007

[It is being reported by the German government that they will be
doubling the amount of yearly funding that they provide for stem cell
research]

It is being reported that Germany will be doubling their funding for
stem cell research.

The current allocation of five million euros (7.4 million dollars) will
be raised to to just under 10 million euros, Annette Schavan told the
weekly Focus magazine in an interview.

"From now on we are going to double the annual funding total for adult
cell recoding techniques, in order to push forward advances in this
area," she said.

"Over the next few years Germany must be a motor in adult stem cell
research so that we can expand on the results already obtained," she
added.

This move by the German government to double funding for stem cell
research has not come without its critics, with many people feeling that
any research involving the use of stem cells is unethical and should not
be federally funded.

Those critics should be a tad more open to the idea of stem cell
research, as recent results have proven that stem cells can be extracted
from human skin thus not from a live human or animal embryo.

"First, there has been a debate over the stem cells research," said
Junying Yu, Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin. "Because extraction
of stem cells by the existing methods leads to destruction of embryos
and closing of human embryos has also resulted in ethnical debate. If we
can transform the human skin cells into stem cells, we avoid this type
of debate. Second, if the cells from a patient can be reprogrammed into
stem cells similar to embryonic stem cells made through the cloning
techniques, tissue and or organs can be cultured and used for
transplantation in the patient. Third, the stem cells made using our
technique can be used to test and precisely predict the effect of drugs
on the patients because of its unique genetic fingerprint."

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2.

Google News Alert for: stem cells

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:42 pm (PST)


Google News Alert for: stem cells

Monday, November 26, 2007 9:23:09 AM

Hermitage parents plan trip to Thailand for stem-cell
<http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/315006893259762.php>
Youngstown Vindicator - Youngstown,OH,USA
They plan to take her to Thailand in January for an experimental adult
stem cell procedure that they hope will help strengthen her heart, and
also help her ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.vindy.com/content/loca\
l_regional/315006893259762.php>

NW: Kyoto U. team turns skin into stem cells
<http://www.therapeuticsdaily.com/news/article.cfm?contentValue=1617608&\
contentType=sentryarticle&channelID=28>
Therapeutics Daily (subscription) (press release) - Newtown,PA,USA
A team of Kyoto University researchers has succeeded in cultivating stem
cells from human skin, clearing a major hurdle in growing transplant
tissue from a ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.therapeuticsdaily.com/\
news/article.cfm%3FcontentValue%3D1617608%26contentType%3Dsentryarticle%\
26channelID%3D28>

International Stem Cell Corporation CEO Issues Statement on De ...
<http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news\
_view&newsId=20071125005041&newsLang=en>
Business Wire (press release) - San Francisco,CA,USA
Mr Krstich's message further noted that unlike the de-differentiation
process, the stem cell lines produced by ISCO's Parthenogenesis process
do not employ ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.businesswire.com/porta\
l/site/google/index.jsp%3FndmViewId%3Dnews_view%26newsId%3D2007112500504\
1%26newsLang%3Den>

Google Blogs Alert for: stem cells

If Embryonic Stem Cell Research is SO Great...
<http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/11/if-embryonic-stem-cell-res\
earch-is-so.html>
By mike volpe(mike volpe)
Bush isn't against stem cell research and in fact he isn't against any
form of stem cell research at all, even the controversial embryonic stem
cell research. Bush isn't even against government funding for all
embryonic stem cell ...
Proprietor Nation - http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/
<http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/>

This Season's Hottest Gift - Stem Cells
<http://intellitech.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/this-seasons-hottest-gift-s\
tem-cells/>
By aristheologis
Two independent teams, one from Japan and the other from Wisconsin, have
shown that, "they turned human skin cells into what appear to be
embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo." This
accomplishment is reason ...
Intellitech: Chronicling Innovation - http://intellitech.wordpress.com
<http://intellitech.wordpress.com/>

QBI Neuroscience Seminar - Physical exercise stimulates resident ...
<http://www.uq.edu.au/events/event_view.php?event_id=3806>
By UQ Events
Speaker: Dr Daniel Blackmore, Queensland Brain Institute Title: Physical
exercise stimulates resident stem cells & augments the regenerative
capacity of the ageing brain All welcome.
UQ Events - http://www.uq.edu.au/events/ <http://www.uq.edu.au/events/>

Embryonic Stem Cells From Skin: Making Old Cells Young
<http://digg.com/health/Embryonic_Stem_Cells_From_Skin_Making_Old_Cells_\
Young>
This video was placed by the stem cell clinic Cellmedicine
(www.cellmedicine.com) describing the recent paper that makes adult skin
cells into embryonic stem cells. The video available at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RLlUdJLy74 ...
Digg / upcoming - http://digg.com/ <http://digg.com/>

Stem cell breakthrough by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
<http://richarddawkins.net/article,1902,n,n>
A recent discovery in stem cell research is no minor event: researchers
have figured out how to reprogram adult cells into a state that is
nearly indistinguishable from that of embryonic, pluripotent stem cells.
...
RichardDawkins.net : The Latest Updates - http://richarddawkins.net/
<http://richarddawkins.net/>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.

Google News Alert for: STEM CELL INFORMATION-Monday, November 26, 20

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:45 pm (PST)


Google News Alert for: STEM CELL INFORMATION

Monday, November 26, 2007 10:20:46 PM

Stem cell clinic closed
<http://www.nationnews.com/story/315095110731643.php>
The Nation Newspaper - Bridgetown,St. Michael,Barbados
The BBC documentary aired last December 12 and was re-screened on BBC
World News on December 13, claimed that stem cells in the city of
Kharkiv, ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.nationnews.com/story/3\
15095110731643.php>

Pluristem's Reverse Stock Split Effective Today
<http://newsticker.welt.de/index.php?channel=fin&module=smarthouse&id=63\
7005>
WELT ONLINE - Germany
About Pluristem Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc. is a Company dedicated to
the commercialization of non-personalized (allogeneic) stem cell therapy
products for ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://newsticker.welt.de/index.p\
hp%3Fchannel%3Dfin%26module%3Dsmarthouse%26id%3D637005>

Health/Science Calendar
<http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/11/26/healthscience_ca\
lendar>
Boston Globe - United States
Stem cell century The Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Petrie-Flom Center
for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law
School will host ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.boston.com/news/scienc\
e/articles/2007/11/26/healthscience_calendar>

End of the divide
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_lysaght/2007/11/under_the_s\
kin.html>
Guardian Unlimited - UK
First, biologists have long been persuaded that careful studies of how
embryonic stem cells transform themselves into organs and sophisticated
tissue will ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.\
uk/michael_lysaght/2007/11/under_the_skin.html>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Green Y! Groups

Environment Groups

Find them here

connect with others.

Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

Wellness Spot

on Yahoo! Groups

A resource for living

the Curves lifestyle.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 26, 2007

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 724

Messages In This Digest (7 Messages)

Messages

1.

Encourage stem cell research in all ways....By WILLIAM BRINKLEY

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:16 pm (PST)


Nov. 24, 2007, 2:29PM
Encourage stem cell research in all ways
Last week's news of breakthroughs should never mean a stop to promising
works in progress

By WILLIAM BRINKLEY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Advances published last week in the area of stem cell research hold
great promise, particularly for those who seek to realize the potential
of embryonic stem cells.

The process described in studies published in the journals Science and
Cell could revolutionize the way in which such work is pursued in the
future.

However, all of this is couched in those terms: promise and could.
Scrutiny of the work is in its early stages, and we do not know how far
such work can go; nor are we aware of all the pitfalls involved. Such
unknowns always exist in science and should not impede an enthusiastic
spate of work in this area.

On the other hand, it should not halt work in areas that are already
established and have been under way for nearly a decade.

Currently, research in the use of a technique called somatic cell
nuclear transfer to produce patient-specific human embryonic stem cells
holds great promise as well, both for understanding disease development
and progression, and for organ and tissue replacement.

Unfortunately, legal constraints that restrict public access to
embryonic stem cells lines have delayed this work in Texas and
nationally. Indeed, much of the enthusiasm for the new work published
last week is generated by the fact that it avoids these legal and
ethical issues.

Stem cell nuclear transfer involves taking the genetic material from a
mature cell, such as a skin cell, and transferring it into the nucleus
of an egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg then
divides and produces an embryo that is genetically identical to the
mature organism from which the genetic material is drawn. Dolly, the
first cloned sheep, came from this kind of effort. The promise of the
technique lies in its potential to produce patient-specific stem cells
that can be used to study disease and eventually produces treatments.

Although stem cell nuclear transfer has worked effectively in rodents
and other experimental animals, it has not yet worked to produce
patient-specific stem cells. Earlier this month, a research team led by
Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov at the Oregon Health & Science University
reported success using the technique with Rhesus macaque monkeys. This
was the first report of success for such work in primates. It offers
considerable promise and renewed hope that the procedural modification
will work in other higher primates, including humans. The successful
breakthrough was praised as "highly encouraging" by stem cell
researchers far and wide, including Dr. Paul Simmons at The University
of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Dr. Margaret Goodell,
director of Baylor College of Medicine's Stem Cell and Regenerative
Medicine (STaR) Center.

Even the British creator of the cloned sheep Dolly, Dr. Ian Wilmut,
praised the work of the Oregon team as a significant step forward toward
human application. However, in a separate report, he personally vowed to
abandon the stem cell nuclear transfer technique for cloning human cells
in favor of the new procedure revealed in Cell and Science last week.

Using slightly different techniques that involve the same principle, the
two teams — one from the University of Kyoto in Japan and the other
from the University of Wisconsin — created pluripotent human stem
cells using the process known as "deprogramming" human somatic cells
(i.e., skin fibroblasts). The procedure involves exposing the skin cells
to specific signaling agents that reprogram the genetic expression
pattern of a cell. This prompts the cells to switch from becoming skin
cells to becoming more embryonic-like. They are pluripotent, capable of
developing into various other tissues and organ-specific cells. Although
this approach is still in early stages, several seminal papers will be
appearing in journals in the next month that give great credence to this
alternative approach.

Such developments should be seriously considered by the stem cell
research community, as they offer yet another rational approach to
making patient-specific pluripotent stem cells.

The new discoveries generate optimism about future development of
techniques that may circumvent the use of human embryonic stem cells.
However, I, along with others in the field, believe that to disregard
any procedure that currently holds promise is shortsighted and
scientifically risky. Stem cell nuclear transfer already holds distinct
promise, as the Oregon team's ability to produce a wide array of
embryonic cells in experimental primates demonstrates.

Choosing to focus on only one avenue of research or type of cell source,
would — at this stage of regenerative medical research — be
irresponsible, unreasonable and premature. Promising and successful
research exploring human stem cells should be supplemented with —
not supplanted by — new and potentially exciting approaches, with
all forms of research moving forward along multiple independent paths.

Scientific research in cancer, diabetes, tissue regeneration or other
areas should proceed freely and openly along all viable lines of
investigation until there is sufficient progress that can be
successfully applied to the treatment and alleviation of diseases and
human suffering.

In fact, these various lines of research will probably produce new
findings that will complement each other and expand our depth and
breadth of knowledge. Exciting new discoveries will be made in the field
of embryonic stem cell research, and no one knows what important
discoveries would be missed if we were to abandon stem cell nuclear
transfer to "place all of our eggs in one new basket," especially if
that decision were largely driven by emotional and political expediency.

Brinkley is senior vice president and dean of the Graduate School of
Biomedical Sciences at Baylor College Of Medicine. He can be reached at
brinkley@bcm.edu <mailto:brinkley@bcm.edu> .

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2.

Stem-cell science outruns political debate....San Jose Mercury News

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:42 pm (PST)

Stem-cell science outruns political debate By Marcy Darnovsky Article
Launched: 11/23/2007 01:36:53 AM PST San Jose Mercury News

Research teams at two prestigious universities announced a major feat of
biological alchemy this week: They've taken ordinary human cells and
turned them into cells with all the characteristics and promise of
embryonic stem cells.
This entirely new way to derive what the researchers are calling induced
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells uses neither eggs nor embryos. Instead, it
reprograms body cells, reactivating genes that return them to the
undifferentiated state characteristic of "conventional" embryonic stem
cells.
If the new technique holds up, it will also reprogram the science and
politics of stem-cell research.
Consider first the technical advance that so-called "direct
reprogramming" represents. It starts with bits of skin - biological
materials that are plentiful and readily available, instead of eggs that
have to be extracted from women with invasive and risky procedures. Nor
does it require embryos, whose destruction evokes strong objections from
some religious conservatives.
What's more, direct reprogramming promises to deliver the benefits that
cloning-based stem-cell research was thought to offer, without its major
risks. It could yield disease-specific stem cells that would be valuable
in screening drugs for safety and efficacy, or in studying early disease
processes. If researchers can learn to control the differentiation and
prevent the tumor-forming tendencies of iPS cells - the same challenges
they face with other sorts of embryonic stem cells - then the new method
could someday be used to produce patient-specific treatments or
replacement tissues that wouldn't trigger immune reactions.

If direct reprogramming fulfills these expectations, it will be
difficult to argue for continuing to experiment with cloning techniques
that require large numbers of women's eggs and increase the chances of
unauthorized efforts to create a cloned human being.
In fact, Ian Wilmut of Dolly-the-cloned-sheep fame reached that very
conclusion last week, and announced that he'll no longer participate in
what scientists had been calling the "cloning race." Since Wilmut leads
one of the handful of cloning research teams in the world, and holds one
of only two licenses in the United Kingdom to work on cloning
techniques, his decision has practical as well as symbolic meaning.
Of course, many technical hurdles remain before iPS cells are ready for
the doctor's office. But the work seems to be moving extraordinarily
quickly. There's been little progress in cloning research over the past
10 years. Although primate embryos were finally cloned for the first
time earlier this month, it still takes hundreds of eggs to produce a
stem-cell line, across all the species that have been cloned. By
contrast, researchers were able to transfer their success in direct
reprogramming in mice to human cells in less than six months.
In short, the technical prospects of direct reprogramming are
overwhelmingly positive. And its political promise is also enormous. It
could smooth the contention and polarization that have marked the
stem-cell debate, disconnect the stem-cell issue from culture-war
battles over embryo politics and abortion rights, and put an end to the
use of embryonic-stem-cell research as a political wedge issue. We can
even hope to see policy-makers move forward with much-needed oversight
of emerging biotechnologies, including a federal ban on human
reproductive cloning.
What lessons about politics and science should we take from this turn of
events? Some may be tempted to argue that political values should be
kept out of decisions about scientific research and new technologies.
But that would be a mistake. There's a right way and a wrong way to join
politics and science; the stem-cell debate offers a prime example of how
not to do it.
Partisan political expediency doesn't belong in science. But we do need
thoughtful debate, nuanced decisions, and careful policy-making on human
biotechnologies. And we surely want to bring into these considerations
our best sense of the technologies' likely social consequences, and our
commitments to human rights, social justice and the public interest.
MARCY DARNOVSKY is associate executive director at the Center for
Genetics and Society in Oakland. She wrote this article for the Mercury
News.
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.

Stem-cell advance opens up the field...The Christian Science Monitor

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:44 pm (PST)

Stem-cell advance opens up the field By Peter N. Spotts
11/24/2007
The Christian Science Monitor (www.csmonitor.com
<http://www.csmonitor.com/> )
With a new technique's lower cost and scrubbed-up ethics, more labs are
likely to enter the arena.
"This is a paradigm shift," agrees Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of
education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.
"This will have a huge impact on the ethical debate.
Washington, DC (The Christian Science Monitor) - Colonies of tiny cells
flourishing in petri dishes in the US and Japan are reshaping the
political and ethical landscape surrounding human stem-cell research.

In the process, these diminutive colonies also may level the playing
field in stem-cell research – internationally and domestically.

These are some of the effects analysts say they see coming out of this
week's announcements that two teams have genetically reprogrammed skin
cells so that they take on the traits of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the subject of intense medical interest because
of their ability to develop into any of the major cell types in the
human body. Over the long term, these stem cells could become the
foundation for therapies for a range of diseases, scientists say. This
week's announcement suggests it will be possible for scientists to study
these cells without the ethical and political difficulties of harvesting
them from unused human embryos.

For the emerging field of stem-cell research, "this is enormous," says
Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the liberal Center for Genetics and
Society, based in Oakland, Calif. "I can't think of another development
"that has been this big,"

"This is a paradigm shift," agrees Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of
education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.
"This will have a huge impact on the ethical debate."

That debate has centered on the sources for human embryonic stem cells
– especially those that have the potential to be patient-specific.
For research purposes, scientists have turned to fertility clinics where
patients either have donated their nascent embryos to research or no
longer need them to start a family. But the process of extracting the
stem cells destroys these soon-to-be embryos, technically called
blastocysts. The destruction is abhorrent to those who hold that human
life begins at conception.

The ethical debate grows more heated when cloning – the most
controversial idea for generating patient-specific stem cells –
enters the picture. In 1997, a team in Scotland led by Ian Wilmut cloned
Dolly the sheep from adult tissue by extracting the DNA from nucleus of
adult cells and injecting it into the emptied nuclei of unfertilized
sheep eggs. The eggs were fertilized, then implanted into ewes.

The approach is banned in humans. Last week, however, scientists from
the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton, reported for
the first time that they had used the technique to generate embryonic
stem cells cloned from an adult primate – a macaque monkey. This
strongly hinted that eventually the approach could work with humans.

But the technique, which in principle could draw on a patient's own
cells to generate new tissue for treatments, is highly inefficient –
requiring many eggs to yield one successful clone from which stem cells
can be drawn and nurtured. It implies generating nascent embryos
exclusively as stem-cell factories. And it raises the concern among many
people that the approach will lead eventually to cloning humans as a
means of reproduction.

By contrast, the US and Japanese teams discovered genetic triggers that
could in effect turn back the clock on already-developed cells. Working
independently, each team found four genes that, when introduced into the
nucleus of skin cells, yielded cells indistinguishable from embryonic
stem cells. The Japanese team, led by Kazutoshi Takahashi at the
University of Kyoto, used the approach on mice last year. His lab, and
one led by the University of Wisconsin's James Thompson, essentially
tied for the race to test the approach using human cells.

For now, the two groups' work "changes everything and changes nothing;
and caution is warranted," says Dr. Thompson. "This changes everything
because these are not from embryos." But, he adds, it changes nothing
because scientists still don't know how embryonic stem cells morph into
the wide variety of cell types in the body. The caution comes because
without that information, it's unclear if the new cells can live up to
their promise. Thus, research on human embryonic stem cells is still
vital, he emphasizes.

Still, some labs appear to be doing that. In Scotland, Dr. Wilmut
announced earlier in the week that his lab is dropping the cloning
approach and focusing on the genetic reprogramming approach as well.

If this is any indication, a shift in stem-cell research could follow.
The new technique's relative ease, lower cost, higher output, and
scrubbed-up ethics are likely to draw more labs into the field, Thompson
suggests.

Moreover, such an expansion might further invigorate US research in the
face of aggressive competition from countries like Britain and Japan.

The advance could trigger some interesting political shifts, some
analysts suggest. For example, US restrictions on embryonic stem-cell
research could become harder to change in light of these discoveries,
according to Alta Charro, a University of Wisconsin law professor.

Already, the issue appears to be losing traction, Mr. Reynolds adds.
Earlier this month, for instance, New Jersey voters rejected a plan to
borrow $450 million for the state's stem-cell research program.

Indeed, the defeat, the discoveries, and the prospect that a new
administration might loosen the federal purse strings for human
embryonic stem research could add an element of uncertainty to existing
or planned state stem-cell programs.

"Right now, all of the activities on the pro-stem-cell front in the
states has been driven by the lack of federal funding for this
research," says Patrick Kelly of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization. "So if a new administration comes in and approves more
federal funding, the need in the states is going to be diminished." But
in states with existing programs "I don't think they'll ever be
redundant."

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4.

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise ...Media-N

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:47 pm (PST)

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise STANFORD,
Calif. - Researchers from Wisconsin and Japan announced today they had
reprogrammed adult human cells to act like embryonic stem cells, a
discovery that researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine are
calling a big step toward new therapies for disease.
(Media-Newswire.com) - STANFORD, Calif. — Researchers from Wisconsin
and Japan announced today they had reprogrammed adult human cells to act
like embryonic stem cells, a discovery that researchers at Stanford
University School of Medicine are calling a big step toward new
therapies for disease.

The work marks the first time researchers have taken adult human cells
and used them to create genetically identical stem cells that can then
become a wide range of cell types. This technique eliminates the need to
use human eggs and create embryos before harvesting the stem cells,
overcoming what, to some people, is an ethically troubling aspect of the
research.

"This is a truly wonderful discovery," said Irving Weissman, MD,
director of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and
Regenerative Medicine.

Today's news comes a week after researchers at the Oregon Health &
Science University announced creating embryonic stem cells from adult
primate cells using nuclear transfer, a technique that requires creating
an embryo to extract genetically identical stem cells.

"Both methods give the promise that one can capture in a stem cell
line the genetic diseases of the patients that donate the body
cells," said Weissman. Stem cells created from the cells of a person
with multiple sclerosis, for example, could provide researchers with a
way of understanding how that disease develops and eventually lead to
new ways of preventing or treating the disease.

Cells that are genetically identical to a person could also be
transplanted to treat a disease such as Alzheimer's without
triggering an immune reaction.

Both Weissman and Renee Reijo Pera, PhD, director of human embryonic
stem cell research and education, say they intend to continue pursuing
all avenues of embryonic stem cell research. "We should not gamble
on which method will prove best because patients who may have a narrow
window of time for therapies depend on us to use the method that will
get us there faster and best," Weissman said.

Reijo Pera added that for studying the earliest steps in the developing
embryo, her particular focus, nuclear transfer is still the only option.
The technique announced today generates stem cells but doesn't mimic
the first days of human development, an area of study that could lead to
advances in treating infertility or preventing birth defects.

"There's a lot of need to understand those earliest stages for
women's health and infertility," she said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5.

Vatican expert praises discovery of new stem cell technique not invo

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:48 pm (PST)

Vatican expert praises discovery of new stem cell technique not
involving embryos

Rome, Nov 23, 2007 / 10:33 am (CNA <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/>
).- The chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Msgr. Ignacio
Carrasco, described as "very positive and important" the
discovery of a new technique for obtaining stem cells that does not
involve the destruction of a human embryo.

Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka of the University of Kyoto and
American scientist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin,
published the results of their discovery in the magazines Cell and
Science.

Both were able to obtain stem cells using human skin cells. Scientists
are calling the discovery revolutionary as it would allow doctors to
create stem cells with a specific patient's genetic code, eliminating
the risk that the body would reject transplanted tissues or organs.

Speaking to Europa Press, Msgr. Carrasco said that in addition to being
"an important scientific step," the discovery also shows that
many scientists have "taken seriously" the "ethical
objections" to the cloning of human embryos.

In this sense, the fact that two different groups of scientists have
embarked on this project shows that "researchers also have a
conscience," Msgr. Carrasco said.

However, he noted with concern that the controversy over research with
human embryos "would continue," since therapeutic cloning
"was only a justification" and interest in the manipulation of
embryos continues, especially from an economic point of view.

Professor Lukas Kenner of the Institute of Clinical Pathology at the
University of Vienna and until recently a member of the Pontifical
Academy for Life, said this discovery confirms that "research with
embryos has no future," and that those who "insist on continuing
down this road have other motives."

Ideological and economical motives

In an interview with the Italian daily Avvenire, Kenner pointed to
"ideological motives" behind the push for embryonic stem-cell
research. "It must be made clear that any attempt to create life
apart from the fusion of the sperm and the egg is not justifiable from
the biological point of view. On the contrary, to separate the
attribution of human dignity from the beginning of biological life is
bio-ethically explosive," he said.

Kenner also pointed out the economic interests that exist behind the
support for embryonic stem-cell research, especially since
experimentation with animals "is much more costly."
"Liberalizing research with embryos would mean huge economic savings
for research labs," he said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.

# 390 Friday, November 16, 2007 - FERTILIZED EGG ELIGIBLE FOR DRIVER

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:05 pm (PST)


# 390 Friday, November 16, 2007
<file:///C:/My%20Webs/myweb11/Archive%20322%20Monday,%20April%2020,%2020\
07%20-%20FLORIDA%20ONCE%20MORE%20PIVOTAL%20TO%20NATION̢۪S%20FUTURE\
.htm> - FERTILIZED EGG ELIGIBLE FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE?

We are indebted to DAILY KOS for bringing this issue to public
attention: see article
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/14/145659/75
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/14/145659/75>

I'm joking about the driver's license, of course. But there the
humor ends.

Read a few sentences from an Associated Press article by P. Solomon
Banda, "Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown", Wednesday,
November 14, 2007.

"DENVER (AP) " The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way
Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot
measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person. (emphasis
added-dr)"

"If approved by voters, the measure would give fertilized eggs the
state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due
process"

"(opponents)" said the measure would hamper in-vitro fertilization
and stem cell research and would effectively ban birth control.

"" similar voter-led initiatives or legislative efforts are under
way in five other states, including Montana, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan
and South Carolina."

Friends of this column may recollect a similar effort we defeated in
California several years ago, in which a seemingly unrelated bill
parental notification of abortion-- contained language which could have
shut down embryonic stem cell research.

That one was defeated by a margin so narrow that one leading paper ran a
story incorrectly announcing the measure had won"

Consider: if a fertilized egg is legally defined as a person, embryonic
stem cell research could be considered murder.

Also birth control

And, of course, all forms of abortion, at any stage.

I have felt for years that the Religious Right was attacking stem cell
research for a hidden reason" if they could find a way to call
embryonic stem cell research murder, by saying a few cells are the legal
equivalent of a person, that would automatically criminalize all forms
of abortion.

To stop abortion, they would deny everyone the greatest medical advance
in history.

I personally think America has it about right on abortion. We are in the
middle, neither totally for, nor totally against it. If I understand
correctly, and I am absolutely not an expert on this, it is legal to
have an abortion in the early stages, but not later, when the child has
a chance at survival on its own. Other than that, it is the woman's
decision.

But whatever one's opinion is on abortion, there is a huge
difference between a child growing in the nurturing shelter of a
mother's womb-- and some cells in a dish of water. Implanted in
the womb, a blastocyst could become a baby. Stem cells in a Petri dish
biologically cannot become a child "I defy any opponent of research
to show how a baby can be born in a 5" dish of salt water, or on a
microscope slide-- it is physiologically impossible.

This is basic biology. How can there be a pregnancy, unless the
fertilized egg implants in the walls of the womb? Without implantation,
there is no pregnancy, and no child.

Cells, cells, nothing but cells; stem cell research is nothing but
cells.

Eventually, reason will prevail, and the attacks on our research will
cease, or at least become so ignored as to have no effect. But that day
could be delayed fifty years.

What could happen if Colorado passed a law stating that a blastocyst-- a
microscopic fertilized egg, even one in a Petri dish-- has all the
constitutional protections of a born human being?

That could provide grounds for another lawsuit against the California
stem cell program, attempting to shut us down.

The last frivolous lawsuit delayed us almost two years.

And if the case was appealed all the way to the current U.S. Supreme
Court, can anyone guarantee how they would rule?

A bad decision could take decades to reverse.

There are 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats on this court. Do we want such
an ultra-conservative court to have a chance to rule on the
Constitutionality of stem cell research?

P.S. Sadly, I must retract my earlier statement about trusting GOP
candidate Rudi Giuliani on stem cells at a recent Republican debate,
both he and McCain made statements opposing the SCNT process. If we want
a President who fully supports stem cell research, he or she will have
to be a Democrat this time. None of the current crop of Republicans
appears able to break away from the Religious Right on the issue of
medical research.

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcellbattles.com/>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
7.

THE STEM CELL DEBATE .....The Bangkok Post

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:23 pm (PST)


THE STEM CELL DEBATE

The Bangkok Post

Monday November 26, 2007

It's being touted as the latest

cure-all, but is

this new therapy

really safe?

Story by APIRADEE TREERUTKUARKUL

It's the year 2030. Satta Silarat is lying in his hospital bed,
breathing slowly against a background of rapid beeps from the heart
monitor. The old man has been suffering from heart disease for a long
time and needs an urgent operation.

After surgery, Satta recovers and is discharged.

The day he is discharged a man in a dark suit is waiting for him out in
front of the hospital.

''It's not good if anybody sees us meeting,'' Satta tells the man, who
works for Amata, an organ cloning company.

The firm provided the cloned heart he received during the transplant
operation that saved his life.

''I'm just curious,'' the man in the dark suit says. ''If you're so much
against our company, why did you opt to use our cloning service?''

Satta comes to a halt. ''If I'm dead, who's going to lead the protests
against your company?'' the old activist says wryly.

This is a scene from an entry in the cartoon and animation competition
about bioethics run by the National Health Foundation and the National
Centre for Genetics Engineering and Biotechnology.

The bioethics of cloning and the use of stem cells is currently the
subject of heated debate.

And although the scene depicted is only an animation, it really could
happen in the next 20 years.

Stem cells are immature cells which have the capacity to turn into many
different types of cells that make up tissues and organs. Experts have
heralded stem cell transplants as the future for treatment of various
genetic disorders.

Cells can be obtained from many sources _ embryos, adult tissue, bone
marrow, blood and umbilical cord.

Stem cell injections are increasingly being used worldwide to treat
ailments as diverse as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

Some medical researchers claim stem cell treatment can prolong a
patient's life and tout the process as the new hope for sufferers of
chronic diseases.

However, there are also concerns that commercial banking of stem cells,
or injecting them into a patient, is more hype than hope.

''Do we pin much hope on medical advances? Stem cell treatment for most
chronic diseases is still very much in the research stage and any
advertising [about their efficacy] should be a subject of concern,''
said Prasert Palittapongarnpim, a stem cell expert at Chiang Rai
Prachanukroh hospital.

Dr Prasert warned that while stem cell treatment had been proven
successful for leukaemia and thelassemia, as a cure for other chronic
diseases it was still in the experimental stage.

Without thorough safety measures, stem cell therapy could endanger
patients. There was a higher risk of infection and resistance to the new
cells.

Critics also question if it is ethical, because no laws governing the
use of stem cells have been laid down.

Vichai Chokewiwat, who chairs the Southeast Asian Medical Ethics
Foundation, conceded there was a grey line between stem cell experiments
and medical treatment in Thailand because there was no clear legal line
between stem cell research and treatment.

It was essential that doctors heed the Helsinki Declaration on medical
ethics and human experimentation, which says patients as consumers must
be aware of all health risks, said Dr Vichai.

Although the Medical Services Department has set up a committee to draft
regulations on the use of stem cells for research, the task is still far
from complete. Nothing has been done since the first hearing earlier
this year, he said.

Moreover, the draft regulation does not cover stem cell therapy in
hospitals because the issue should be considered by each hospital's
ethics committee.

Dr Vichai said the Medical Council and the Medical Registration Division
should be more responsible in taking care of patients' interests when
there is no law to regulate stem cell use.

''The Public Health Ministry has all the essential bodies to take care
of the business. For example, the Medical Council is responsible for
doctors' actions and medical ethics, while the Medical Registration
Division is tasked with dealing with hospital malpractice.

''It all depends how much effort they are willing to put into it,'' he
said.

Dr Teerawat Hemachuta, of Chulalongkorn University's faculty of
medicine, said health bodies need to draw up measures to guard against
abuse of stem cell research. He claimed some patients treated with stem
cells felt better during the first phase of treatment, but their
condition later deteriorated and in some cases they even died.

''Some medical researchers worry that any controls on stem cell research
and study will hinder advancement in the technology,'' he said.

''In fact, there are some research projects that practically abuse
patients. Such unethical stem cell research could backfire on national
medical science in the long run.

''That's why laws and regulations on stem cell use are urgently needed
in this country.''

Sawaeng Boonchalermvipas, an expert on medical law at Thammasat
University, said in the absence of specific regulations on stem cell
therapy, health agencies should apply the Medical Council's regulation
regarding human organ transplants to stem cell research and treatment.

Patients and their relatives should realise that any cell treatment is
still in a preliminary stage here, he said. Commercial stem cell therapy
was considered ''fraudulent business'' under Article 341 of the Criminal
Act.

''Both the law and medical ethics are equally important to doctors when
it comes to the stem cell issue,'' said Mr Sawaeng.

''Patients' lives should not be put at risk by unethical medical
practices.''

Tassanee Nanudorn, editor of Smart Buy magazine run by the
non-governmental organisation Consumer Thai, said a lack of expertise in
the field further adds to the problems inherent to stem cell
exploitation.

Apart from the need to speed up passage of laws and regulations, the
public should also be equipped with facts and information about stem
cell technology.

Only through knowledge could they protect their own interests and not be
easily misled by mushrooming advertising about the benefits of stem cell
treatment.

''Thai consumers are at risk of becoming the victims of medical hype
because of the increase in stem cell therapy and stem cell banks at
private and state hospitals without proper controls and experts to
explain the pros and cons,'' she said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Yahoo! Groups

Going Green

Share your passion

for the planet.

Wellness Spot

on Yahoo! Groups

A resource for living

the Curves lifestyle.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, November 24, 2007

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 723

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)

Messages

1.

OF STEM CELL ADVANCES, FOUNTAINS OF YOUTH, AND SUICIDAL RABBITS

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:38 am (PST)


OF STEM CELL ADVANCES, FOUNTAINS OF YOUTH, AND SUICIDAL RABBITS

The news is full of the recent Yamanaka/Thomson stem cell experiments,
dubbed Induced Pluripotent Stem (IPS) stem cells, or
"reprogramming", supposedly so wonderful that embryonic stem
cell research is no longer even necessary!

First of all, what is IPS?

Basically, 4 genes are placed inside a skin cell. According to two
studies, one by Shinya Yamanaka and the other by Jamie Thomson, the skin
cell is manipulated backward in the developmental cycle until it becomes
young again, embryonic-like, a sort of cellular fountain of youth.

Is it embryonic-like, or Embryonic-lite?

IPS cells could be an exciting new tool for the cause of cure—or
maybe not.

Personally, I am in favor of investigating any promising new tool,
including this one. There are problems associated with it, such as the
fact that 20% of the experimental mice developed cancer—but there
may be ways to overcome that unacceptable risk.

What needs to be done is simple: Investigate, duplicate, replicate,
test: perform the same rigorous examinations on which all good science
is built: only then will we know.

If IPS works, wonderful.

If it brings more federal, state, or private funding, that would also be
helpful—the amount of money invested in medical research of any sort
is pathetically inadequate.

But should we, for this one possibility, abandon all other embryonic,
SCNT and adult stem cell research already underway?

Should we (as Bob Klein said, in a recent interview) "bet the
farm" on this one approach?

That reminds me of a story.

The Chinese tell of a farmer who had painstakingly plowed a clearing in
the forest. It was hard work, (they could not afford a horse, and he had
to provide the muscle power himself, dragging a sharpened stick through
the soil) and every night he went to bed exhausted.

One day he was straining behind the plow, a rabbit appeared. Chased by a
fox, the rabbit ran so fast it dashed its head against a tree-- and
killed itself.

The family ate the suicidal rabbit, in a nice stew.

Next morning, the farmer went out to the fields—and sat down under
the tree.

When his wife asked why he was not plowing, the farmer replied:

"I am waiting for the next rabbit."

If a lucky break—or breakthrough—appears, we should investigate,
and if it proves worthwhile, take advantage of it.

But we should not abandon the plow.

Supporters in every country should take pride in our continuing
victories. Despite every obstacle the opponents have thrown up,
embryonic stem cell science is moving forward.

( At the end of this column, I am going to reprint something I did a
while back, listing some of the accomplishments of embryonic stem
cells—we need to remember what has already been done.)

Time has not dimmed the memory of the day I held in my hand a laboratory
rat which had been paralyzed, and which now walked again, thanks to
human embryonic stem cells. That was March 1, 2002, the opening day of
the Roman Reed laboratory at the University of California at Irvine.

In the next few months, Geron takes that experiment to human trials. For
the first time in the history of the world, there was a chance that
paralysis might be defeated.

We should give up solid advances like that for a tantalizing possibility
that will take ten to fifteen years to even fully test?

Can anybody spell d-e-l-a-y--???

And while we are on the subject, a couple points need to be clarified.

First, this morning's Washington Post contains an essay by Michael
Gerson, a long-time opponent of embryonic stem cell research. The essay,
called "Stem Cells, the Right Way", claims "vindication for
George Bush", giving him credit for the "breakthrough".

George Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research— setting
excruciatingly narrow limits on funds for the emerging science, vetoing
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, attempting to throw SCNT
researchers into jail-- how does he deserve credit for an advance made
by embryonic stem cell researchers?

Embryonic stem cell experts developed the new cells. Shinya Yamanaka is
a world-renowned ESCR expert—and Jamie Thomson is credited with
having begun the field.

What inspired Dr. Thomson? He says it was the SCNT research of Ian
Wilmut, which President Bush tried so hard to criminalize.

"(It) changed the way I thought about developmental biology,"
Thomson said in a recent interview for the New York Times,
"Development was reversible."

Second, this advance in no way lessens the need for embryonic, adult, or
SCNT research.

The world faces a veritable plague of incurable disease and disability.
In America alone, an estimated one hundred million citizens suffer
chronic illness or injury—one out of three of us have diseases or
disabilities from which we will never get well.

We are bankrupting ourselves, spending two trillion dollars last year on
medical costs—that is as much as all federal income taxes put
together—and 75% of that is from chronic disease or disability.

To solve this gigantic problem, we will need every tool we can cram in
the toolbox.

A good toolbox, of course, contains more than just a hammer; we also
need a set of socket wrenches, a level, a couple of screwdrivers, maybe
a tape measure—and more.

In regenerative medicine, we cannot even know everything we need yet,
because the science is just beginning. Maybe adult stem cells will turn
out to be best for blood disease, or embryonic for spinal cord injury,
or the new IPS "reprogramming" for heart tissue, or somatic cell
nuclear transfer to make the vast quantities of cells that are
needed—more likely a combination of all of the above-- what works is
the answer.

As Dr. Yamanaka, co-inventor of the new cells, puts it: "New
advances do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells …
progress… would be indefensibly delayed if IPS cell research is
pursued at the expense of further hES (human embryonic stem) cell
research… Research into all avenues of human stem cell research
must proceed together. Society deserves to have the full commitment of
scientific inquiry at its service."

--Cell Stem Cell 1, October 2007, Elsevier Inc.

And now, a quick reminder: something to share…

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRESS

Embryonic stem cell research is an amazingly new science, begun in 1998
by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin. Despite continual
political attacks, and extremely limited funding, human Embryonic Stem
Cell (hESC) research has already made a substantial contribution to the
battle against incurable disease and disability. Below is a sampling of
embryonic stem cell research progress.

ALS: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease: At the
University of Wisconsin at Madison, scientists have turned hESC into
motor neurons (nerves which carry messages between brain and body),
offering possibilities for repairing damage caused by ALS, spinal cord
injury, and other nerve-related disorders.

--Nature Biotechnology, January 30, 2005

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE: Until now, it was impossible to study the
complete progress of this horrific disease, which robs sufferers of both
memory and life. We do not know how or why or even exactly when it
begins. With human embryonic stem cells, (hESC), however, we may be able
to isolate the disease and observe its progress from inception to death
on human tissue cells, not human beings. hESCs may also provide a new
way to design better Alzheimer's medicines. Dr. Lawrence Goldstein
of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, UCSD, is using hESC to test new
ideas of how Alzheimer's disease develops, and how it might be
treated.

--L. Goldstein, personal communication, March 26, 2005

BIOLOGICAL PACEMAKERS: In Israel, Dr. Izhak Kehat and Dr. Lior Gepstein
grew heart stem cells in a Petri dish, and transplanted them into the
severely damaged hearts of pigs. Eleven of thirteen hearts regained
more normal heart rates. Control animals had no improvement. Their work
indicates that stem cell transplantation can translate into clinical
benefit for heart disease sufferers.

--Washington Post, September 26, 2004

BLINDNESS: The major cause of blindness in Americans over age 60 is
macular degeneration: the loss of retinal cells in the eye. Dr. Robert
Lanza and Dr. Irina Klimanskaya of Advanced Cell Technology in New
Jersey used hESC to make retinal cells, which may one day offer the
return of vision to millions suffering from blindness due to retinal
disease.

--Medical Science News, September 23, 2004

CANCER: The speed at which cancer develops is a major obstacle in
curing this devastating disease. At Kumamoto University in Japan, and
Cambridge University in England, surface proteins were developed that
could mark cancer stem cells, laying ground work for new drugs that may
one day slow, or even turn off, tumor formation. Advancing
understanding about cancer stem cells draws from knowledge gained about
the growth and development of hESCs. This work will open the door to a
day when cancer treatments may be truly curative.

--University of Cambridge, 19 January, 2005

CYSTIC FIBROSIS: Cystic fibrosis inflames the lungs, strangling CF
patients in thick slimy mucous. Using hESCs, Dr. Stephen Minger of
King's College, London, developed a stem cell line of cystic
fibrosis. Now the disease can be studied in a human cell line that has
genetic mutations akin to those seen in CF sufferers.

--BBC News UK, September 9 2004

DEAFNESS: The death of tiny hair cells inside the ear contributes to
deafness for an estimated 28 million Americans. These cells do not
naturally regrow. However, using hESC techniques, Dr. Stefan Heller of
Boston's Eye and Ear Infirmary has generated these inner-ear hair
cells, raising the possibility that this technique may lead to new
treatments for the deaf.

--Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, October 27, 2004

DIABETES: At Stanford University, researchers have made
insulin-producing cells from mouse embryonic cells. When transplanted
into diabetic mice, these cells reduced blood sugar fluctuations and
increased lifespan (1). And at the University of Miami, Dr. Juan
Dominguez Bendala isolated a protein necessary to turn embryonic stem
cells into large quantities of insulin-producing pancreatic cells (2).

--1.http://www.diabetes.co.uk/htm/news/newstemcellstudy.htm

--2. Beacon Journal, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami,
September 7, 2004

GROWING HUMAN TISSUE: At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), Dr. Robert Langer used embryonic stem cells to grow liver,
cartilage, nerve tissue and blood vessels, all of which appeared to
function normally when transplanted into mice.

--Boston Globe, October 28, 2003

HEMOPHILIA: At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Dr.
Jeffrey Fair and Dr. Oliver Smithies used ES cells to reverse hemophilia
(blood clotting disorder) in mice.

--Science Daily, February 15, 2005

IMMUNE SYSTEM DISEASE: Cambridge, Massachusetts: Adult mice were bred
without the gene RAG-2, needed for the immune system. Using Somatic
Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, or therapeutic cloning) to make the cells,
RAG-2 was given to the mice, partially restoring the non-functioning
immune system. This successful proof-of-principle experiment reveals
possible benefits for the battle against AIDS.--Cell, April 5, 2002, (1)
17-22

PARKINSON'S: Israel's Dr. Benjamin Reubinoff transplanted human
embryonic stem cells into the brains of rats which did not have
dopamine-producing nerve cells. (Dopamine in a healthy body controls
motion; loss of dopamine production in the brain is associated with a
Parkinson's sufferer's shaking). Implanted stem cells became
dopamine-producing cells and brought significant improvements in the
animal's motion relative to controls.--BBC News,

June 30, 2004

SPINAL CORD INJURY PARALYSIS: Using hESCs, Dr. Hans Keirstead in the
Roman Reed Laboratory at UC Irvine restored myelin insulation around
damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed
rats.—Journal of Neuroscience, accepted for publication, March 31,
2005. See also New York Times, February 23, 2005)

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2.

Sean Tipton On NPR-Stem Cell Story

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:29 pm (PST)

Check out the archive for All Things Considered Tomorrow at www.npr.org
<http://www.npr.org> From: Corlette, Jane
<mailto:jane_corlette@harvard.edu> To: dianewyshak@verizon.net
<mailto:dianewyshak@verizon.net> Cc: camr.friends@freehood.net
<mailto:camr.friends@freehood.net> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007
3:20 PM Subject: RE: [CAMR.friends] Npr

I heard the NPR piece – yeoman job, Sean – how you can keep from
pouring hot oil on Doerflinger escapes me

From: camr.friends-bounces@freehood.net
<mailto:camr.friends-bounces@freehood.net>
[mailto:camr.friends-bounces@freehood.net] On Behalf Of Sean Tipton
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:06 PM
To: Corlette, Jane
Cc: camr.friends@freehood.net <mailto:camr.friends@freehood.net>
Subject: [CAMR.friends] Npr

Hey folks

Npr tells me the stem cell story will air on all things considered at
4;05. At least that was the plan as of 2pm

Sean

Sean Tipton
ASRM
stipton@asrm-dc.org
202-863-2494
202-421-5112 (mobile)
(sent from my blackberry, so forgive any terse comments or spelling
errors!)

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.

Govt to back study on nonembryonic stem cells

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:31 pm (PST)

Govt to back study on nonembryonic stem cells
The Yomiuri Shimbun
(Nov. 24, 2007)
The Education, Science and Technology Ministry will spend 7 billion yen
over the next five years to promote further research on new technology
to produce cells resembling embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin
cells, sources said.

The ministry's move came in the wake of an announcement earlier this
week that a team of scientists led by Kyoto University Prof. Shinya
Yamanaka became one of the first two groups to produce induced
pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells. The other team was at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States.

The research was lauded as a scientific breakthrough that avoids ethical
and practical obstacles seen in the use of human embryonic stem cells.

The Cabinet Office plans to quickly draw up a framework to put the
technology to practical use and accelerate the pace of study, the
sources said.

But a heated international race is expected in the iPS research field as
U.S. President George W. Bush plans to give his backing to the U.S.
team.

According to the sources, the focus of the research in the next five
years includes:

-- Mass production of human iPS cells.

-- Tests on animals, such as monkeys, as part of cell regeneration
medical studies.

-- Establishing an iPS cell bank.

Research also will focus on clearing safety concerns.

Even though iPS cells involve fewer ethical questions than embryonic
cells, concerns remain because one gene used in the reprogramming
process is the oncogene, which embeds cancer in the genetic information
that is passed along.

During the current fiscal year, the ministry will accept applications
from research institutes in various fields that would be willing to take
charge of putting iPS cells into practical use. The applications will
then be screened by an expert panel, according to the sources.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet Office will soon start discussing safety
standards to permit regeneration research involving human iPS cells to
proceed smoothly to practical use, the sources said. The Council for
Science and Technology Policy will lead the discussions with the science
ministry and the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry.

Another concern is that, theoretically, eggs and sperm can be made from
iPS cells, which may lead to new ethical issues.

The Cabinet Office also will discuss research ethics code issues, the
sources said.

Fumio Kishida, state minister in charge of science and technology
policy, said Thursday the work is "a great achievement."

He added, "The government should create an environment that will allow
Japan to take the lead in this field."

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4.

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:39 pm (PST)

Stanford researchers say new stem cell method has promise
STANFORD, Calif. Researchers from Wisconsin and Japan announced today
they had reprogrammed adult human cells to act like embryonic stem
cells, a discovery that researchers at Stanford University School of
Medicine are calling a big step toward new therapies for disease.

This story was released on 2007-11-22

(Media-Newswire.com) - STANFORD, Calif. Researchers from Wisconsin and
Japan announced today they had reprogrammed adult human cells to act
like embryonic stem cells, a discovery that researchers at Stanford
University School of Medicine are calling a big step toward new
therapies for disease.

The work marks the first time researchers have taken adult human cells
and used them to create genetically identical stem cells that can then
become a wide range of cell types. This technique eliminates the need to
use human eggs and create embryos before harvesting the stem cells,
overcoming what, to some people, is an ethically troubling aspect of the
research.

"This is a truly wonderful discovery," said Irving Weissman, MD,
director of Stanford?s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative
Medicine.

Today's news comes a week after researchers at the Oregon Health &
Science University announced creating embryonic stem cells from adult
primate cells using nuclear transfer, a technique that requires creating
an embryo to extract genetically identical stem cells.

"Both methods give the promise that one can capture in a stem cell line
the genetic diseases of the patients that donate the body cells," said
Weissman. Stem cells created from the cells of a person with multiple
sclerosis, for example, could provide researchers with a way of
understanding how that disease develops and eventually lead to new ways
of preventing or treating the disease.

Cells that are genetically identical to a person could also be
transplanted to treat a disease such as Alzheimer?s without triggering
an immune reaction.

Both Weissman and Renee Reijo Pera, PhD, director of human embryonic
stem cell research and education, say they intend to continue pursuing
all avenues of embryonic stem cell research. ?We should not gamble on
which method will prove best because patients who may have a narrow
window of time for therapies depend on us to use the method that will
get us there faster and best,? Weissman said.

Reijo Pera added that for studying the earliest steps in the developing
embryo, her particular focus, nuclear transfer is still the only option.
The technique announced today generates stem cells but doesn?t mimic the
first days of human development, an area of study that could lead to
advances in treating infertility or preventing birth defects.

"There's a lot of need to understand those earliest stages for women's
health and infertility," she said.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5.

More on the stem cell debate

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:42 pm (PST)

November 23, 2007 More on the stem cell debate
Everyone knows that ethics is influenced by culture. But there seems to
be the start of a migration of scientists in the stem cell research area
to Asia. Apparently many Asian religions worry less than western
religions about "playing god", and take a much more liberal view to
cloning. Exellent article and debate on the subject in an article in the
New York Times by John Tierney entitled "Are Scientists Playing God? It
Depends On Your Religion
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/science/20tier.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&or\
ef=slogin> ". The additional links to books are articles are
particularly interesting.

Posted by Beth Krasna on November 23, 2007 at 05:27 PM in Science
<http://thinkingethics.typepad.com/thinking_ethics/science/index.html>
| Permalink
<http://thinkingethics.typepad.com/thinking_ethics/2007/11/more-on-the-s\
te.html>

Technorati Tags
<http://www.technorati.com/search/http://thinkingethics.typepad.com/thin\
king_ethics/2007/11/more-on-the-ste.html> : religion and science
<http://technorati.com/tag/religion+and+science> , stem cell resea

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6.

On the Verge of Something Big

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:48 pm (PST)

November 23, 2007...9:36 am On the Verge of Something Big
Eric Chiao is a scientist at Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology
and Regenerative medicine. Along with his research, he teaches in
Stanford's Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education,
and was responsible for deriving its first embryonic stem cell lines.

by Eric Chiao, Ph.D.

When the news about the new discoveries first hit, I immediately
wondered how it would effect me. I realized that there would be a flurry
of disease specific induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell lines. Then I
started thinking about how it would be politically manipulated to
restrict human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. I spent most of my
mental energy devising philosophical arguments for the continued support
of hESC research.

On Tuesday, I got an e-mail from a friend, who forwarded me Shinya
Yamanka's Cell paper. He asked jokingly how long it would take me to get
some iPS cells. I replied somewhat tongue-in-cheek that apparently it
would take about 20 days (Yamanka reported seeing colonies of embryonic
stem cells at 25 days).

Since I've sent that reply, I've come to believe that we are one the
verge of a new phase in biomedical research. As basic researchers, we
exploit the power of model systems (using lower animals such as worms,
flies and mice) as much as possible. In the past, basic research with
mouse embryonic cells trumped human embryonic cells because we could
easily mutate and change the mouse genome. The hope for human embryonic
stem cell research was based on translation: the (relatively) minor
differences in regulatory pathways between mice and humans, and
eventually, from the lab to the clinic.

When Yamanka announced he had made the first mouse iPS cells in July, it
was cool, but you could already manipulate the mouse genome, such as
using "knock out mice" to render a gene inoperable, and then observing
the effect. So it didn't change the direction of anybody doing research
outside of the "reprogramming" field.

But a human "model system," has, until now, been out of reach for basic
biomedical research. What we have in humans is a huge population of
pre-made mutants'a wide range of genetic predispositions for diseases
and disorders, such as cancer and aging. This makes us the species of
choice for devising medical treatments.

It's true that technical hurdles must be overcome before we can use
these cells for tissue replacement therapies. But the fact that human
iPS cells can presumably make all the normal adult cell types means that
we now have within our grasp (to borrow the mouse lingo) all of the
"constructs" to make embryonic stem cell lines for every human genetic
disorder in just 20 days. ; ) These "diseases-in-a-dish" will become
important tools for discovering drugs and understanding human disorders
and development.

We may see the ascendance of these new discoveries as a model system, on
par with the path-breaking work made in mice made over the last
twenty-five years.

But only much faster.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
7.

Ethical Concerns And Church-State Violations

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:50 pm (PST)

Ethical Concerns And Church-State Violations
23 Nov 2007 10:24 am

I was thinking about saying something about this Richard Cohen column
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR20071\
11901187.html> while I was ranting at Jon Chait
<http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/mitt_romney_and_fai\
thbased_pol.php> about religion and democracy, but decided to let it
slide. In the aftermath of the stem-cell news
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY4MTRhMmVlNDU4OGE3ZGQ3NWJlMj\
A0ZWYxNWUwN2Y=> , though, it seems worth bringing up again. Cohen
writes:
Back before Bush, it was considered narrow-minded and, worst of all,
elitist, to judge a person by the intensity of his religious
convictions. Belief was not supposed to matter, and so it was
impermissible to conclude anything about a person even if he thought
Darwin was wrong or, more recently, that homosexuals chose their sexual
orientation, presumably just to irritate the Christian right. Religion
was irrelevant. Everyone said so -- and I agreed.

Bush changed that. He infused government with religion, everything from
ineffective programs that promote sexual abstinence to an adamant
refusal to authorize federal spending for most embryonic stem-cell
research. The administration even erected barriers to the marketing of
the Plan B morning-after pill. All these measures ran up against
obstacles that were essentially religious, not strictly scientific, in
nature.
Richard Cohen, meet James A. Thomson
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&oref=login>
:
Dr. Thomson̢۪s laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one
of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first
time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive
national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to
turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem
cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns
about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such
research offered insights into human development and the potential for
powerful new treatments for disease.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least
a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it
enough,” he said. “I thought long and hard about whether I
would do it.”

He decided in the end to go ahead, reasoning that the work was important
and that he was using embryos from fertility clinics that would have
been destroyed otherwise. The couples whose sperm and eggs were used to
create the embryos had said they no longer wanted them. Nonetheless, Dr.
Thomson said, announcing that he had obtained human embryonic stem cells
was “scary,” adding, “It was not known how it would
be received.”
Hmmm. So he found the work ethically troubling, but decided to go ahead,
on the justification that the embryos he would use were slated for
destruction anyway. This is, of course, distinct from George W. Bush's
more conservative position
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html> ,
which was that we should provide federal funds only for research on stem
cells from embryos that had already been killed - albeit while making no
attempt, one might add, to impede private research like Dr. Thomson's.
But just how distinct are they, and what's the nature of the
distinction? Well, that's a good question ... and hey, maybe Richard
Cohen can answer it. He seems pretty sure of himself, after all. So my
challenge to Cohen is this: Please explain why the Bush position is so
distinct from Dr. Thomson's as to make the latter a responsible
scientist, and the former a dangerously-religious zealot who elevated
faith over "science," and permanently effaced the bright line between
church and state. I'll give you, say, nine hundred words
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI20050\
32401528.html> or so to do so.

Meanwhile, I'd saying something snide about this passage ...
If anything, Romney is the anti-Huckabee. There is not the slightest
hint that his religion has constrained his politics in any way. You name
the issue and he's been for it and against it -- gun control, abortion,
gay rights. Call this what you may, it is proof that Romney is not
enslaved by any dogma. His religion, to which he is committed, is
distinctly his business and would not, as far I can tell, have any
bearing on his presidency.
... but it would be tough to top Larison
<http://larison.org/2007/11/19/romney-unbound/> .

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
8.

A triumph of science-----The Register Guard - Eugene, Oregon

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:56 pm (PST)

A triumph of science

Published: Nov 23, 2007 05:01:33AM

The Register Guard - Eugene, Oregon

Back-to-back breakthroughs in stem cell research that will each, in
their own ways, shape the future of the field have dramatically
demonstrated the rewards of unfettered scientific exploration.

Barely a week after Oregon researchers announced that they had
successfully cloned a monkey embryo from the skin cells of an adult
rhesus macaque and then harvested embryonic stem cells from the clone,
scientists from the United States and Japan successfully reprogrammed
human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells.

Unfortunately, the political ramifications of Tuesday's achievements
threaten to overshadow the scientific progress they represent. Even more
ominously, the minority who condemn embryonic stem cell research for
religious reasons, which includes President Bush, already are using the
most recent discovery to support a permanent ban on federal funding for
all research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

That would be a terrible mistake, the minimum consequences of which
would be delays to potential lifesaving treatments for any number of
deadly diseases and devastating injuries.

Instead of acknowledging the wisdom of pursuing all productive channels
of research, the White House adopted a smug "I told you so"
justification for Bush's six-year ban on federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research.

"I don't think there's any doubt that the president's drawing of lines
on cloning and embryo use was a positive factor in making this come to
fruition," Bush adviser Karl Zinsmeister said Wednesday.

Nice try, Spinmeister, er, Zinsmeister. But according to the scientists
involved in the new research, the opposite is true. It took the existing
research on embryonic stem cells" much of which was conducted in
spite of the federal funding ban" to discover how to reprogram skin
cells to act like embryos.

"My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back four or
five years," said James Thomson, who led a team at the University of
Wisconsin involved in Tuesday's breakthrough and who discovered human
embryonic stem cells in 1998. Thomson said Bush's funding limits
"represented very bad public policy as far as I'm concerned."

Everyone should be thrilled that scientists may have discovered a
technique that will end the unproductive religious objections to
embryonic stem cell research. But existing embryonic stem cell research
has a nine-year head start, and clinical trials on treatments could come
as early as next year.

Similar trials from the new technique are many years farther down the
road, with no guarantee that they̢۪ll match the promise of
embryonic stem cells.

Two-thirds of the American public, including many prominent Republicans,
support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Tuesday̢۪s discovery isn̢۪t a victory for opponents of stem
cell research; it̢۪s a victory for science.

Copyright © 2007 The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA
<http://regweb.registerguard.com/rga/index.php/info/copyright>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
9.

A curious morality--The London Guardian

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:01 pm (PST)

[Ed Owen] A curious morality
The London Guardian

Banning the use of primates in medical research might ease guilty
consciences, but the cost will be human lives
Ed Owen <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/profile.html>

Articles
* Latest <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/index.html>
* Show all <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/index.html>
Profile <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/profile.html>
[Webfeed] <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/index.xml>
All Ed Owen articles
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/index.xml>
About Webfeeds <http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds.html>
November 23, 2007 4:30 PM | Printable version
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_owen/2007/11/a_curious_morality.\
html.printer.friendly>
Like most people, I am instinctively uncomfortable about the use
primates in medical research. But to argue that it should be banned, as
Gill Langley
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gill_langley/2007/11/no_more_monkey\
_business.html> did in her comment piece, is to deprive thousands upon
thousands of people suffering from terrible diseases of potential cures
and treatments.

Mike Robins has Parkinson's disease. Like many sufferers, Mike had
severe, debilitating and untreatable tremors every day from the moment
he woke until the time he finally managed to sleep at night. Yet
following ground-breaking research involving macaques, neurosurgeons
developed a "brain pacemaker" that helped eliminate these devastating
symptoms. This work has given Mike his life back
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOHtUzW02cg&feature=related> .

Of course animal research using monkeys, as with any animals, is not a
universal panacea - how could it be? But the vast majority of leading
scientists in the field testify to the importance of monkeys in research
not only to develop new treatments, but also to understand the brain and
to test the safety of new medicines and vaccines.

A report
<http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/animalresearch/introduction\
> by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2005 showed how research
using primates had been vital in the development of treatments for
hepatitis C and vaccines for polio. And a year ago, an independent UK
committee chaired by Professor Sir David Weatherall concluded (pdf)
<http://www.nhpstudy.com/NHP_Study-Final_report.pdf> that: "There is a
strong scientific case for the carefully regulated use of non-human
primates where there are no other means to address clearly defined
questions of particular biological or medical importance."

It is the strength and weight of this scientific and medical evidence
that has forced many anti-vivisectionists like Gill to call not for an
immediate ban but for the "phasing out" of such research.

This position was adopted by MEPs who recently signed a written
declaration
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//EP//TEXT+PV+2007\
0906+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN#pvitem3> cautiously calling for a timetable
to work towards a ban on the use of primates in research.

I, like everyone else, would like to feel that one day medical research
using primates may not be necessary, and a great deal of effort is being
invested to find successful alternatives to such work. But we should not
delude ourselves about how far such alternatives can replace the use of
live animals. One anti-vivisection group, for example, has suggested
<http://www.navs.org.uk/research/49/53/705/> that functional MRI scans
of human patients' brains can replace studies using monkeys. Yet
specialists have been able to refute this unequivocally, saying that
human imaging does not even come close to providing the vital
information those engaged in medical research require.

The plain, if awkward, truth is that most serious players in the
scientific community believe that a programme for an arbitrary ban - in
an area where the rate and direction of research is inevitable
unpredictable - is not compatible with making further medical progress.

The level of public opposition to the use of animals in medical research
is now probably at an all-time low. More and more medical researchers
and practitioners are choosing to speak out in support of their vital
work to help cure disease and treat sickness, and tough action by the
police and courts have successfully reduced the activities of the
violent extremists.

So the tactics of the anti-vivisection movement is shifting, and part of
that shift is to identify and target particular aspects of medical
research it perceives to carry less public support. Research using
primates is an obvious choice for those whose real agenda goes much
wider.

Only a very small number of primates are actually used in medical
research (about 0.2% of all procedures using animals in the UK involve
primates, mainly small monkeys like macaques and marmosets), and no
great apes are ever used. But the value of such work is, for the
foreseeable future at least, beyond reasonable doubt.

Banning primate research might ease the guilty consciences of some. But
its effect would be to confront us with the much greater moral
responsibility of stopping countless thousands of people from receiving
the medical interventions they need to protect and prolong their lives.
It is really that simple.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
10.

California Stem Cell Report .....Thursday, November 22, 2007

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:06 pm (PST)

California Stem Cell Report
News, information and commentary on public policy and business issues
involving California's new stem cell agency, the California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine, created by Prop. 71. This Web page is
published by David Jensen, whose background and email contact can be
found on this page under oddly titled section, "About Me."
Thursday, November 22, 2007 Two CIRM Directors Upset by Improper Action
by Colleague; Watchdog Calls for Klein Resignation

[http://bp1.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0XMQ3dn76I/AAAAAAAAAEw/ObQlw0ovDRQ\
/s320/sheehy+--chron.gif]
<http://bp1.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0XMQ3dn76I/AAAAAAAAAEw/ObQlw0ovDRQ\
/s1600-h/sheehy+--chron.gif>
Two directors of the California stem cell agency have expressed concern
about an allegedly illegal attempt by a fellow director to influence a
$638,000 grant to his own research institution.

Their comments were contained in today's coverage of the attempt by John
Reed, which was first reported on this web site on Wednesday. The item
generated stories today in San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego
Union-Tribune and The Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and on a
blog Wednesday for Nature magazine.

Jeff Sheehy, a CIRM Oversight Committee member, said that Reed, who is
president of the Burnham Insitute, should consider resigning. Sheehy
(see photo) told Sabin Russell of the Chronicle, "We need to resolve
this before questions are raised about the integrity of our processes."
Russell also reported that David Serrano Sewell, a San Francisco deputy
city attorney and member of the Oversight Committee, was "upset" by
Reed's action but stopped short of calling for his resignation. "Patient
advocates understand the rules. I just wish John hadn't done what he
did," Sewell said.

Some of the members of the 29-person Oversight Committee are appointed
to what are known as "patient advocate" positions.

John M. Simpson, stem cell project director of the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, previously had called for Reed's
resignation. The Chronicle reported
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/BAPRTGU8P.D\
TL> that Simpson is also now calling for the departure of Robert Klein,
chairman of CIRM. It was Klein, an attorney, who advised Reed to write
the letter in violation of CIRM's conflict of interest policy.

Today's news stories also carried the first comments from Reed and
Klein. Both declined to respond initially to inquiries from this writer.

Reed told the Chronicle: "It did not occur to me that conflict rules
would prevent me from contacting staff to provide what I believed to be
relevant information."Klein described his actions as an "inadvertent
error." He was quoted in the Chronicle as saying that although the
letter was directly personally to Arlene Chiu, the chief scientist at
CIRM, it was never seen by "the scientific team." He said, "Our
firewall worked. The influence didn't change anyone's mind, because the
letter wasn't even considered."However, CIRM documents obtained by the
California Stem Cell Report show that Tamar Pachter, general counsel for
CIRM, responded to Reed's letter in subsequent correspondence to Burnham
by saying, "Staff has considered the substance of the letter, and
appreciates the time and thought that went into it..."Simpson has filed
a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission
concerning Reed's action. Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune
said the commission could fine Reed or Klein up to $5,000.Reed's action.
Terri Somers of the San Diego Union-Tribune said
<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20071122-9999-1n22s\
tems.html> the commission could fine Reed or Klein up to $5,000.

Here are links to the Nature item
<http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/11/conflictofinterest_\
claims_in_c.html> and the Bee story
<http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/510319.html> . The Mercury News also
carried a short item
<http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7531682?nclick_check=1> .
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , conflicts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts> ,
Grant-making
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/Grant-making>
, media coverage
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/media%20cover\
age> , openness
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/openness>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 9:38 AM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/two-cirm-directors\
-upset-by-improper.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=128872923776044\
6306&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/two-cirm-directors\
-upset-by-improper.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=128872923776\
0446306>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=1288729237760\
446306>
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Text of John Reed letter
Here is a link to the complete text
<http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/BIMRLetter.pdf> of the John
Reed letter mentioned in the item below. It has been posted by John M.
Simpson of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. We were
unable to post the material on the California Stem Cell Report because
of technical difficulties here in Mexico.

Here is a link to the news release
<http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/?postId=8820> from
foundation on the Reed letter.
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , conflicts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts> ,
media coverage
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/media%20cover\
age> , openness
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/openness>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 1:10 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-john-reed-\
letter.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=340976125204512\
6789&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-john-reed-\
letter.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=340976125204\
5126789>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=3409761252045\
126789>
Burnham's John Reed, Influence and a CIRM Grant Denial

[http://bp2.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0RFZXdn75I/AAAAAAAAAEo/pSCYziIOX80\
/s320/john_reed+--+burnham.jpg]
<http://bp2.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0RFZXdn75I/AAAAAAAAAEo/pSCYziIOX80\
/s1600-h/john_reed+--+burnham.jpg>
In an apparent violation of a state conflict of interest policy, an
influential director of the California stem cell agency earlier this
year attempted to overturn a decision by the agency's staff that
ultimately resulted in the loss of a $638,000 grant to his research
institution.

John Reed, president of the Burnham Institute of La Jolla, Ca., on Aug.
2 wrote a 6 ½ page letter to the agency staff, warning that denial
of the grant would set a "dangerous precedent" that would impair the
mission of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
The letter came about as the result of a suggestion by chairman of the
institute, Robert Klein.

The California Stem Cell Report (CSCR) obtained a copy of the letter
from Reed (see photo) from CIRM after filing a request under the state's
public records act for documents relating to the Burnham grant.

In response to questions from CSCR, Richard Murphy, interim president of
CIRM, said, "Dr. Reed called the chairman to ask how to deal with what
Burnham saw as technical mistakes in CIRM̢۪s interpretation of the
application. The chairman, not knowing enough about the technical
details or whether mistakes had been made, suggested that Dr. Reed write
a letter to the science team, which was knowledgeable about the
issues."Murphy also said, "After CIRM received the letter, Dr. Reed was
informed that he must refrain from participating in any way in CIRM's
consideration of the Burnham grant."John M. Simpson, stem cell project
director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa
Monica, Ca., called for Reed's resignation, declaring that he would file
a formal complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission,
which deals with conflict-of-interest violations.

Simpson, a longtime observer and participant in CIRM proceedings,said,
"The law is clear....John Reed flouted the law." He continued, "When you
hand out millions of dollars in public money, you have to play by the
rules."

Asked whether CIRM contemplated any action regarding Reed, Murphy
replied, "Dr. Reed now fully understands the conflict rules. CIRM does
not intend to take any further action regarding this matter."

Klein did not respond to an email asking about his role in the Reed
letter. Reed also did not respond to questions emailed to him.

Reed presides over a nonprofit research institution that has received
$17 million in CIRM grants and that has an annual budget of $87 million.
According to Burnham's web site, it has 750 employees and ranks 5th in
the nation in NIH funding among private research institutions.

CIRM's policy <http://www.cirm.ca.gov/faq/pdf/ICOC_Members.pdf> on
conflict of interest states: "Members of the ICOC shall not make,
participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official
position to influence a decision regarding a grant, loan, or contract
with their employer.

"Members of the ICOC shall not make, participate in making or in any way
attempt to use their official position to influence a decision regarding
a grant, loan, or contract that financially benefits the member or the
entity he or she represents."The application for the grant in question
came from David Smotrich, an adjunct professor at Burnham and founder of
the La Jolla IVF clinic. The grant was highly rated by scientific
reviewers, who examined it behind closed doors and made the initial
decision to fund it. Their findings then went to the Oversight Committee
for final action last February during a public meeting. The application
was considered at that time under the board's normal procedures. The
names of the applicant and institution were withheld from the public and
the Oversight Committee. Reed was barred from voting and taking part in
the discussion, but that fact was not known to the public at the time.

Following Oversight Committee approval, the Smotrich application and all
other approved grants were scrutinized administratively to assure that
they complied with terms for the grants. CIRM staffers did not question
the science or the credentials of the researcher. But they indicated as
early as Feb. 24, according to CIRM documents, that there were problems
with the eligibility of Smotrich. The issues involved whether he was a
fulltime faculty member at Burnham, was located on the Burnham site and
whether he had his own dedicated lab at Burnham.

The exchange between CIRM and Burnham about Smotrich went on for seven
months. The letter from Reed came just as CIRM staff was planning to
announce the grant denial at the Oversight Committee meeting early in
August.

He said in his "appeal" letter to Arlene Chiu, then the top scientist at
CIRM, that Smotrich "rightfully deserves" the grant. He devoted the bulk
of his letter to Smotrich's credentials and his research, which included
an "embryo rescue program" that would salvage leftover embryos from IVF
that would otherwise be discarded.

Reed wrote: "I also wish to emphasize the potentially damaging
consequences that a decision not to recognize Dr. Smotrich's legitimacy
as a faculty member may have on clinician investigations, as it will
surely discourage clinical researchers from participating in the CIRM
mission to advance stem cell therapies. Finally, the particular grant
recommended for funding is of great strategic importance to the entire
CIRM effort, and therefore we urge CIRM staff to take this into
consideration."Referring to the "embryo rescue program," Reed said,
"This is a unique resource not found anywhere else in the entire state
and the only source currently available in California for deriving new
hESC lines with the goal to share these freely with the entire CIRM
research community to advance the fundamental goals of CIRM. Thus, to
abandon the grant on perceived technical grounds flies in the face of
the mission of CIRM."Reed added that denial of the grant "sets a
dangerous precedent that adversely affects all clinician-scientists,
most of whom will have a significant component of their time devoted to
clinical activity and whom will often by supported by non-academic
sources."

On Aug. 27, Tamar Pachter, CIRM general counsel, wrote Burnham
concerning Reed's Aug. 2 letter. She said his request to appeal the
staff decision was rejected because no right of appeal existed for
administrative findings. She said the decision did not involve the
merits of the research or Smotrich's credentials.

She wrote, "To be fair to all the applicants (as well as potential
applicants who self-selected out of the applications process because
they could not meet the eligibility requirements of the RFA), and to
carry out its duties as a state agency with integrity, CIRM must
consistently enforce eligibility requirements." Burnham was offered an
opportunity to withdraw the application but refused to do so. The
decision not to fund the grant was announced late in the day in the
waning minutes of the October meeting of the Oversight Committee, a move
controlled by Klein in his role as chairman.

The CIRM news release the next day on the meeting did not identify
Burnham as losing the grant, a decision made by Murphy, who overruled a
recommendation by then chief communications officer Dale Carlson. (Prior
to his appointment at CIRM, Murphy was president of the Salk Institute,
another medical research organization in La Jolla.)

Carlson had submitted the draft release to Murphy for approval. Its next
to last sentence said that the grant to Burnham had been denied. In an
email exchange on the evening of Oct. 3 (the day of the Oversight
meeting), Murphy said he did not want to mention the Burnham grant.

Carlson then emailed Murphy that the Burnham case and another grant that
was withdrawn demonstrated the rigor of staff review and showed that the
agency was a good steward of public funds. He wrote: "Putting out a
release in the morning that fails to note these items in light of the
press coverage they'll be receiving, would seem like we're being
protective and/or inexplicably secretive. Better to include the news at
the bottom of the release. It shows we think the items that appear first
are more important, but these are at least worth noting."Murphy then
replied to Carlson, "From CIRM's point of view, you're right. It makes
us look meticulous, as we are. But I hate to build our reputation for
quality on the carcass of another institution, which no doubt will be
embarrassed by the coverage. John Reed will be under fire from his board
and donors for allowing this to happen, and we don't want to pile on.
Let Burnham handle it anyway they want, but I don't think we suffer by
remaining silent. If it hits the fan, I'll take the rap by saying
truthfully that it was a technical decision, the science was great, but
rules are rules. We did what we had to, and we look forward to their
resubmission.

"Thanks for caring so much, but there's a balance on this one, and I
think we serve the community kland CIRM best by minimizing the issue and
remaining silent."(Below is the full text of Murphy's response to
questions from the California Stem Cell Report.)

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this said that news release
following the Oct. 3 Oversight Committee did not contain any mention of
the Burnham grant. The news release said a grant had been denied but did
not identify Burnham.)
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , conflicts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts> ,
media coverage
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/media%20cover\
age> , openness
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/openness> ,
scientific culture
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/scientific%20\
culture>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 6:35 AM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/burnhams-john-reed\
-influence-and-cirm.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=717767775883830\
1795&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/burnhams-john-reed\
-influence-and-cirm.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=717767775883\
8301795>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=7177677758838\
301795>
Text of CIRM Response on Reed Letter
Here are the questions that the California Stem Cell Report submitted to
Richard Murphy, interim president of CIRM, concerning the Aug. 2 letter
by John Reed, president of the Burnham Institute and a member of the
CIRM Oversight Committee, and Murphy's verbatim response.

CSCR: Have Oversight Committee members been told that they cannot
intervene for or against applicants either before or after ICOC action
on applications?

Murphy: "Yes. Members of the ICOC are required to take the Attorney
General's on-line ethics course, which includes information regarding
the prohibition against participating in a decision in which a person
has a financial interest. In addition, the Attorney General's Office
made an ethics presentation to the Board in 2005 and CIRM's outside
counsel made an ethics presentation to the Board in April 2007."

CSCR: Have any other directors besides Reed intervened?
Murphy: "No.".

CSCR: Was Reed at any time told, either verbally or in writing or any
other way, that his letter was inappropriate or improper or may have
violated conflict of interest laws.

Murphy: "After CIRM received the letter, Dr. Reed was informed that he
must refrain from participating in any way in CIRM's consideration of
the Burnham grant. In addition, CIRM staff did not consider the letter
in conducting their administrative review of the Burnham grant."

CSCR: Did the ICOC or any committee of the ICOC discuss Reed's action or
letter at any point?

Murphy: "Neither the ICOC nor any of its subcommittees received or
discussed Dr. Reed's letter."

CSCR: Did any CIRM staff or member of the Oversight Committee or the
chairman suggest to Reed that he should write his Aug. 2 letter
concerning the Smotrich grant?

Murphy: "Dr. Reed called the Chairman(Robert Klein) to ask how to deal
with what Burnham saw as technical mistakes in CIRM̢۪s
interpretation of the application. The Chairman, not knowing enough
about the technical details or whether mistakes had been made, suggested
that Dr. Reed write a letter to the science team, which was
knowledgeable about the issues."

CSCR: Does CIRM or the ICOC contemplate any refresher sessions on ethics
or conflict of interest for ICOC members? Have such briefings already
occurred in 2007?

Murphy: "Yes, in addition to the Attorney General's on-line course,
which members are required to take every two years, the Board has
received two oral briefings on conflict of interest issues, including in
April 2007. The Board will continue to receive periodic ethics training
to ensure that members are familiar with the rules."

CSCR: Burnham was told that the denial of the grant would be announced
at the ICOC meeting in August. Why did that not happen?

Murphy: "CIRM did not announce in August because Burnham had appealed
the determination, and that issue was not resolved before the ICOC
meeting in August."

CSCR: Re your note on the press release on the October ICOC meeting and
your concerns about how the Burnham institute might feel concerning the
Smotrich matter, do you think this was a case where
you put Burnham's interests ahead of CIRM's. Isn't the integrity of CIRM
more important than Burnham's or Reed's reputations?

Murphy: "CIRM's action in rejecting the Burnham grant speaks for itself.
CIRM staff conducted themselves with the highest degree of
professionalism and integrity and informed the Board of their decision
at a public meeting in San Diego. Given the public discussion of this
issue, I saw no need to include it in a press release following the
meeting. My decision was indeed made to be supportive of Burnham, but it
in no way compromised CIRM̢۪s integrity or interests."

CSCR: I can only find a link to ICOC conflict of interest policies on
the CIRM web site. Were the policies codified into regulations and
officially issued as such?

Murphy: "As required by the Political Reform Act, the ICOC adopted a
conflict of interest code that applies to members and CIRM staff. In
addition, the ICOC voluntarily adopted a conflict of interest policy for
its members that goes beyond the requirements of state law. Unlike the
conflict of interest code, the policy was not codified into
regulations."

Murphy: Does CIRM or the Oversight Committee contemplate any action in
connection with Reed's letter?

Murphy: "It is important to remember that Dr. Reed sent his letter after
the ICOC had approved the grant, which received the second highest score
from a group of out-of-state scientists on the Grants Working Group. At
the time, Dr. Reed mistakenly believed that conflict rules would not
prevent him from providing technical information regarding the status of
a faculty member to CIRM staff. As soon as CIRM staff received the
letter, counsel advised Dr. Reed that he must refrain from contacting
the staff and board members regarding a grant to the Burnham and advised
staff to disregard Dr. Reed's letter. It therefore had no effect on
CIRM's process, and Dr. Reed now fully understands the conflict rules.
CIRM does not intend to take any further action regarding this matter."

CSCR: If there is other material that you think would help provide
insight into this matter, please send it along as well.

Murphy: "None."
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , conflicts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts> ,
media coverage
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/media%20cover\
age> , openness
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/openness>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 6:33 AM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-cirm-respo\
nse-on-reed-letter.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=877208130772756\
2529&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-cirm-respo\
nse-on-reed-letter.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=877208130772\
7562529>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=8772081307727\
562529>
Monday, November 19, 2007 Financial Scrutiny of CIRM Coming Up Next
Week

[http://bp0.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0IjIXdn74I/AAAAAAAAAEg/vo6YjxFqlWI\
/s320/chiang,+john.jpg]
<http://bp0.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/R0IjIXdn74I/AAAAAAAAAEg/vo6YjxFqlWI\
/s1600-h/chiang,+john.jpg>
The Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight Committee may be one of
the more obscure entities in state government. It has only been around
for three years. It has only met once. And it already has had a 66.6 per
cent turnover in membership.

The group will meet again next Tuesday in San Francisco to consider the
doings of the $3 billion California stem cell agency. And it will have
plenty to chew on â€" everything from intellectual property to a
101-page analysis of CIRM by the Bureau of State Audits.

But few surprises are expected. This is a friendly group, created by
Proposition 71 and chaired by state Controller John Chiang(see photo),
who once brought one of his children to a meeting of the CIRM Oversight
Committee in Los Angeles. However, the committee is charged with
reviewing CIRM's financial practices and performance, which gives it
plenty of leeway to make constructive criticism. Perhaps even
recommending public disclosure of the economic interests of grant
reviewers who conduct their activities behind closed doors, or at least
seeking an opinion from the state attorney general on disclosure, as
suggested by the state auditor.

Or the committee could recommend disclosure of the names of the
universities and nonprofit research institutions that are seeking $227
million in taxpayer funds to build stem cell labs â€" names which
CIRM has refused to reveal on the grounds that they might be
embarrassed.

The group apparently has two new members, Gurbinder Sadana and Loren
Lipson. Sadana is a private physician in Pomona, Ca., and serves on the
board of directors of the Pomona Valley Hospital. Lipson was recently
appointed, and no information was available concerning him/her on the
state controller's web site.

One of the new appointees replaces John Hein, who was a lobbyist for the
California Teachers Association. The Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights challenged his appointment as illegal because he did not
meet the legal qualifications. Also off the board is Richard Siegal, who
runs his own oil exploration company and has given widely to health care
issues. No reasons for their departure were available on the
controller's web site.

Chiang is also new to the board. The other members of the committee are
Daniel Brunner, a retired attorney from the Sacramento area who
co-founded Affordable Health Care Concepts in Sacramento; Jim Lott,
executive vice president of the Hospital Association of Southern
California, and Myrtle Potter, a former vice president of Genentech who
now is involved in commercial and residential real estate development.
Potter was named as woman of the year in 2006 by the American Diabetes
Association and serves on the board of directors of Amazon.com.

One of items on the agenda is a proposal for a conflict of interest
code, which was not available on the controller's web site at the time
of this writing.

You can find the agenda and other information on the committee here
<http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo/cfaoc/meetings/yr2007/index.shtml> .
Labels: audit
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/audit> ,
conflicts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts> ,
openness
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/openness>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 3:48 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/financial-scrutiny\
-of-cirm-coming-up.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=617259584609421\
3795&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/financial-scrutiny\
-of-cirm-coming-up.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=617259584609\
4213795>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=6172595846094\
213795>
Sunday, November 18, 2007 Text of Monash Statement
Here is the text of the statement from Monash University concerning the
stem cell research investigation that was linked to Alan Trounson,
incoming president of the California stem cell agency. The statement was
provided by Jeff Sheehy, a member of the agency's Oversight Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR RELATING
TO AUSTRALIAN STEM CELL CENTRE (ASCC) RESPIRATORY PROJECT P028

1.On 28 February 2007 the Project Agreement for ASCC Respiratory Project
P028 lapsed and was not extended. Monash and the ASCC agreed to allow
funding for the Project to lapse.
2.The component of the Project with results which were questioned was
the “COPD Extension Research Project” funded by the ASCC
from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007.
3.The central hypothesis of the Project was that smoking induced lung
damage can be reversed or improved by the infusion of mesenchymal stem
cells.
4.In February 2007 the ASCC reported to the University some concerns
about the respiratory project led by Professor Alan Trounson,
specifically the following issues:
The potential lack of good research practice during the project,
The potential misrepresentation of results and failure to inform the
ASCC of specific data arising from the project.
5.Following its independent enquiries, the University established a
Preliminary Investigation Committee in April 2007 in order to
investigate the concerns raised by the ASCC in accordance with
University policies for dealing with matters of possible research
misconduct. These policies are based on and compliant with The
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research issues by the
NH&MRC, ARC and Universities Australia.
6.The Preliminary Investigation Committee has recently reported its
findings of fact to me in a confidential report. I have accepted those
findings and have determined (based on the Committee̢۪s findings)
that research misconduct by the senior research fellow responsible for
the conduct of the Project in Professor Trounson̢۪s laboratory had
occurred and that there were mitigating circumstances.
7.Specifically, the Committee found that the senior research fellow
engaged in conduct that was negligent and that seriously deviated from
accepted standards within the scientific and scholarly community for
conducting and reporting research. This conduct consisted of:
negligent recording of research data and recording of analysis of
research data by the senior researcher;
negligently inaccurate preparation of reports and presentations of
research results provided to the ASCC;
negligently failing to report results in a timely fashion to the ASCC
(including results that might have been regarded as counter-hypothesis).
The Committee made no finding that the negligent conduct was fraudulent
or designed to deceive.
The senior research fellow has admitted that his recording of data was
negligent but indicated that in many cases the primary data for many of
the experiments were recorded in other laboratories since many assays
were “outsourced”.
8.The Committee also found that there were mitigating circumstances in
that the senior research fellow, who had been delegated responsibility
by the Project Leader, was inexperienced in managing a research project
of the type and size of the Project and managing the number of
researchers and students he had to supervise.
9.Professor Alan Trounson was the Project Leader, supervisor of the
senior research fellow and chief investigator, of the Project. No
allegations of research misconduct have been made in relation to
Professor Trounson
10.The University has or will take the following actions:
(a)counsel the senior research fellow who is no longer employed at
Monash University that the standards of record keeping and reporting
were inadequate;
(b)appoint a research mentor for the senior research fellow to ensure
that deficiencies in performance in these areas are appropriately
remedied;
(c)enter into discussions with the ASCC to establish what funds the
University ought properly to repay to the ASCC in relation to the
Project;
(d)instigate a review of University procedures relating to the conduct
and supervision of research and ensure appropriate steps are taken to
prevent a recurrence of the events that occurred in relation to the
Project.
It should be noted that it was considered that the senior research
fellow has accepted that the negligence and carelessness exhibited are
unacceptable and has shown remorse for his conduct.
11.No material from the Project has been published, or used to obtain
further grant funding, the Research Project has lapsed.
12.On the basis of the above, the matter is now concluded.

Professor Richard Larkins
Vice-Chancellor
Monash University
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , scientific culture
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/scientific%20\
culture>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 2:53 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-monash-sta\
tement.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=883343274310839\
9142&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/text-of-monash-sta\
tement.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=883343274310\
8399142>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=8833432743108\
399142>
Friday, November 16, 2007 Australian Stem Cell Inquiry Linked to
Trounson Concluded
Monash University has apparently reached a conclusion in its
investigation into $1 million stem cell research project headed by Alan
Trounson, the incoming president of the California stem cell agency.

Trounson was not under investigation, although a researcher who worked
under him was.

Here is what the Sydney Morning Herald said
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Stem-cell-research-was-negligent-un\
i/2007/11/16/1194766958776.html> : "A Monash University investigation
into an abandoned million-dollar stem cell research project, headed by
world renowned Melbourne scientist Alan Trounson, has found data and
reports were handled negligently.

"The investigation committee made no finding that the negligent conduct
by an unnamed research fellow working under Professor Trounson was
fraudulent or designed to deceive."The newspaper continued: "In a
statement on Friday, Monash Vice-Chancellor Professor Richard Larkins
said there were mitigating circumstances leading to the negligence by
the senior research fellow.

"The review found that the senior research team member was inexperienced
in managing a project of the type and size undertaken and inexperienced
in supervising the number of researchers and students he had in his
charge.

"It said his work included negligent recording of research data,
negligent inaccurate preparation of reports and presentations of
research results to the ASCC, and negligently failing to report results
in a timely fashion."The Herald-Sun reported
<http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22768561-2862,00.html> :
"In a statement issued this afternoon by Vice-Chancellor Richard
Larkins, a committee investigating the matter found "that the senior
research fellow engaged in conduct that was negligent and seriously
deviated from accepted standards within the scientific and scholarly
community for conducting and reporting research".
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for
Taxpaper and Consumer Rights, had this comment. "I've not yet read the
investigators' report; only Australian news accounts.

"It appears that while Alan Trounson was not implicated in any
wrongdoing, the research abuse happened on his watch, done by someone he
had hired.

"The incident demonstrates once again the need for strict oversight and
adherence to guidelines when public money finances research. Complete
openness and transparency are the guarantor of good practices.

"I expect Dr. Trounson has learned from the Monash University incident
and will bring an even greater commitment to those essential values in
his new position as president of the California Institute for
Regenerative
Medicine."

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 3:42 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/australian-stem-ce\
ll-inquiry-linked-to.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=573078510274790\
1167&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/australian-stem-ce\
ll-inquiry-linked-to.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=573078510274\
7901167>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=5730785102747\
901167>
Looking Behind the WARF Stem Cell Patent Challenge
The California scientist behind the challenge to the WARF stem cell
patents says scientists have an obligation to be sure that research "can
benefit the society that supports it."

Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the
Scripps Research Institute, made the remark in a recent piece
<http://www.nature.com/stemcells/index.html> on "Nature Reports: Stem
Cells."

Loring wrote about the history behind the challenge to the patents and
her motivation. The piece also carries remarks from WARF.

Here are a couple of excerpts: "We were surprised when WARF responded
(to the challenge) with a press release saying, correctly, that I and
the other scientists also have patents. This isn't relevant to the
validity of the WARF patents, and seems to be an attempt to undermine
our credibility. Our patents, like (Jamie) Thomson's, are assigned to
companies or to our universities, and we have little control over how
they are enforced. We are not challenging Thomson; we're challenging the
patent owner, WARF."Loring continued: "I do not get paid for our work
on this challenge. I did not set out to become an expert in patent law,
and it is still very much outside my comfort zone. I'd rather be
spending my time learning more about the molecular interactions that
make human ES cells pluripotent. But the spirit of scientific inquiry
often requires us to venture beyond our areas of expertise, and I think
that scientists have an obligation not only to perform research but to
make sure that our research can benefit the society that supports it."

Labels: IP
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/IP> ,
scientific culture
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/scientific%20\
culture>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 5:58 AM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/looking-behind-war\
f-stem-cell-patent.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=260635485363290\
5187&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/looking-behind-war\
f-stem-cell-patent.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=260635485363\
2905187>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=2606354853632\
905187>
Thursday, November 15, 2007 Scientific Criticism and Libel Update
The next proceeding in the Flamm-Cha libel lawsuit will be Nov. 20 in
Los Angeles Superior Court. The case involves Bruce Flamm, a Riverside,
Ca., physician and stem cell researcher Kwang Yul Cha.

Earlier this month, Cha failed to override an anti-SLAPP motion by
Flamm. For more on this, see our item here
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/science-libel-and-\
law-california-case.html> .
Labels: scientific culture
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/scientific%20\
culture>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 3:41 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/scientific-critici\
sm-and-libel-update.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=176784986937358\
6045&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/scientific-critici\
sm-and-libel-update.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=176784986937\
3586045>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=1767849869373\
586045>
Celebrity Leeza Gibbons Named as CIRM Director

[http://bp2.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/Rzx0LXdn73I/AAAAAAAAAEY/5I_EoCuF9Eo\
/s320/gibbons,+leeza2.jpg]
<http://bp2.blogger.com/_3pJxAJznD8E/Rzx0LXdn73I/AAAAAAAAAEY/5I_EoCuF9Eo\
/s1600-h/gibbons,+leeza2.jpg>
The latest addition to the board of directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency is former television talk show hostess,
Leeza Gibbons.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Wednesday announced
<http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/8103/> the appointment of
Gibbons(shown in photo). She fills the post formerly held by scientist
Leon Thal, who died in a plane crash last February. Gibbons fills a slot
designated for a patient advocate for Alzheimers as the result of her
nonprofit group, Leeza's Place, which is aimed at caregivers for persons
with memory disorders.

Gibbons' celebrity status attracted more news coverage
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311768,00.html> than the usual
appointments to the CIRM Oversight Committee, which are almost invisible
in the media. She co-hosted "Entertainment Tonight" from 1994 to 2000.
This year, she appeared on the "Dancing with Stars" TV show, part of the
so-called reality genre. She appeared in at least one movie, "Last
Action Hero(1993)," with Schwarzenegger.

Gibbons may be the only member of the Oversight Committee with a
personal web page <http://www.leezagibbons.com/> and public blog, which
can be found on her web site. However, she is not the only Hollywood
figure to serve on the 29-member panel. Sherry Lansing, a former top
film executive, has a seat on the board. Jonathan Shestack, a Hollywood
producer, also is a member.

Gibbons' efforts with memory disorders grew out of her own family's
experience with her mother, according to her web page.

The Leeza's Place site <http://www.leezasplace.org/> says, "Developed
in response to the challenges Leeza and her family encountered while
seeking specific and needed support, Leeza's Place is a potent source of
information, strength and purpose. Nestled within your own community,
Leeza's Place is a multifaceted reprieve, for both caregivers and the
recently diagnosed, that integrates educational programs, connective
social activities, emotional support, and intergenerational programming
designed to help you navigate through your community's continuum of
care."The site also sells books and information on dementia, such as
"Brain Longevity" by Dharma Singh Khalsa and "scrapbooking" software,
which is aimed at preserving memories. Also offered are a "memories
forever" bracelet and a "comfort and care" candle.

The governor, whose motto is "action, action, action," left Thal's
position vacant for nine months despite a provision in state law that
requires Oversight Committee vacancies to be filled within 30 days.
However, it is not uncommon in state government for such provisions to
be ignored.

One vacancy now exists on the Oversight Committee: the slot occupied by
Brian Henderson, dean of the USC School of Medicine. Henderson has
retired from USC, which makes him ineligible to serve. Filling that
vacancy is also the responsibility of the governor. Look for Henderson's
replacement in nine months.
Labels: ICOC
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/ICOC> , ICOC
financial interests
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/ICOC%20financ\
ial%20interests>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 8:22 AM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/celebrity-leeza-gi\
bbons-named-as-cirm.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=876214751343622\
0605&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/celebrity-leeza-gi\
bbons-named-as-cirm.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=876214751343\
6220605>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=8762147513436\
220605>
Monday, November 12, 2007 Excessive Haste on $300,000 Stem Cell PR
Contract
The California stem cell agency's plan to hire a public relations firm
for $300,000 is a case of misplaced priorities.

It is quite clear that CIRM needs to move swiftly on its communications
needs, particularly in light of the emphasis placed on public education
by both its interim and incoming presidents.

But first CIRM needs to find a permanent chief communications officer.
Otherwise, the agency will be signing a major contract without
consulting the person who will have responsibility for overseeing it.
Premature selection of a PR firm, in fact, could hinder the hiring of a
top-notch person, who might look askance at the choice or at the
management that chooses to take such precipitous action.

CIRM will be issuing the contract without what amounts to very necessary
"peer review." And that is the kind of scrutiny that a skilled
communications professional would give any prospective PR firm.

Some also question the need for a PR firm, period. One is John M.
Simpson, stem cell project director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights, who argues for a minimalist approach.

Simpson, who is a practitioner of the fine art of PR, among other
things, told the California Stem Cell Report in part (his full comments
are carried in the item below),

"People who hire PR firms are more interested in image than in
substance. The way you get good media relations is simple: Do good work
in an open way and answer all questions candidly.

"CIRM needs a committed and knowledgeable communications officer and an
assistant completely familiar with all CIRM and ICOC activities. With
the current downsizing in the news business many such talented people
are available."

However, we do not believe that CIRM can fulfill its major
communications responsibilities with two persons. CIRM is limited by law
to no more than 50 employees; it now has about 26. Given the limit, a
good communications firm would be necessary to execute the agency's
ambitious public education plans outlined in the strategic plan. Without
outside help, it would require a personnel commitment that probably is
beyond CIRM.

And the outside help should be picked under the direction of CIRM's own
communications expert, which is what that person is hired to do..

CIRM has gone through two PR firms and two staff PR persons in its short
history. The largest contract $378,000) went to Edelman PR and generated
some dissatisfaction at CIRM, which is at least partial evidence that
the agency needs expert help in picking a new firm.

Regardless, any contract will generate negative attention. Reporters and
editors in the mainstream media have a jaundiced view of highly paid PR
firms. Too often they fail to serve either their masters or the media
well.

(Here is a link
<http://www.cirm.ca.gov/rfp/pdf/RFP_Public_InfoComm_Firm.pdf> to the
request for bids on the contract, which are due Nov. 30. The request
says that the contract could be awarded prior to end of the year.)
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , CIRM PR
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20PR> ,
contracts
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/contracts>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 2:44 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/excessive-haste-on\
-300000-stem-cell-pr.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=654919018283653\
4665&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/excessive-haste-on\
-300000-stem-cell-pr.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=654919018283\
6534665>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=6549190182836\
534665>
FTCR on $300,000 PR Plan
Here is what John M. Simpson, stem cell project director for the
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, had to say about the CIRM's
$300,000 plan to hire a public relations firm, perhaps before the
beginning of the year. "People who hire PR firms are more interested in
image than in substance. The way you get good media relations is simple:
Do good work in an open way and answer all questions candidly.

"CIRM needs a committed and knowledgeable communications officer and an
assistant completely familiar with all CIRM and ICOC activities. With
the current downsizing in the news business many such talented people
are available.

"In a rare case, perhaps for a specific large task, under the close
direction and supervision of the CIRM communications officer, there
might be a benefit from an outside consultant.

"It's absolutely essential that the communications officer play the key
role in hiring any communications consultants. Consider it peer review
â€" the scientists should understand that concept.

"CIRM should put a top priority on hiring a communications officer."

"Instead, what the RFP calls for won't facilitate communication with the
media. It will hinder it and irritate the working press.

"CIRM will end up wasting $300,000 of taxpayer money and the ICOC will
be wondering why they are unhappy with the news coverage they get."
Labels: CIRM management
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20manage\
ment> , CIRM PR
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search/label/CIRM%20PR>

posted by California Stem Cell Report at 2:41 PM
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/ftcr-on-300000-pr-\
plan.html> | 0 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10000891&postID=400464194752147\
0669&isPopup=true> links to this post
<http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/ftcr-on-300000-pr-\
plan.html#links>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=10000891&postID=400464194752\
1470669>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=10000891&postID=4004641947521\
470669>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

HDTV Support

on Yahoo! Groups

Help with Samsung

HDTVs and devices

Real Food Group

Share recipes,

restaurant ratings

and favorite meals.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Recent Posts