Messages In This Digest (5 Messages)
- 1a.
- REGULAR MEETING OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE From: Stephen Meyer
- 2.
- # 394 Friday, November 29, 2007 - ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH From: Stephen Meyer
- 3.
- Lab work interlinks adult cells, embryos --Omaha World-Herald From: Stephen Meyer
- 4.
- # 393 Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - DON'T BE FLIM-FLAMMED! From: Stephen Meyer
- 5.
- Google News Alert for: STEM CELL INFORMATION From: Stephen Meyer
Messages
- 1a.
-
REGULAR MEETING OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells
Sat Dec 1, 2007 6:40 pm (PST)
MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ("ICOC")
TO THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
Organized Pursuant To The
CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES ACT
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007
9:00 AM-5:00 PM (Estimated)
Location
UCLA
Grand Horizon Room
3rd Floor, Covel Commons, Sunset Village
330 De Neve Drive
Los Angeles, California 90024
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Roll Call.
[Members of the Public will be invited to provide testimony before or
during consideration of each agenda item. Speakers are asked to limit
their testimony to three (3) minutes.]
CONSENT ITEMS
4. Consideration of minutes from October 3, 2007 ICOC meeting.
5. Consideration of permanent adoption of the Grant Administration
Policy for Facilities.
6. Consideration of Standards Working Group items for final adoption
Regulations Section 100120: Record Keeping and MES Amendments Package:
Sections 100080, 100085, 100090, 100100.
EXECUTIVE PRESENTATIONS
7. Chairman's Report.
8. President's Report.
ACTION ITEMS
9. Consideration of applications for New Faculty Awards.
10. Consideration of additional funds for the Major Facilities Grant
Awards.
CLOSED SESSION
11.a. Discussion of Personnel (Government Code section 11126,
subdivision (a); Health & Safety Code section 125290.30(d) (3) (D)).
b. Discussion of confidential intellectual property or work product and
prepublication, confidential scientific research or data relating to New
Faculty Award applications. (Health & Safety Code 125290.30(d) (3) (B)
and (C)).
OPEN SESSION
12. Public report of any action taken, if necessary, during closed
session.
13. Consideration of president's compensation.
14. Consideration of relocation allowance policy.
15. Consideration of approval of Intellectual Property Policy for
For-Profit Organizations.
16. Consideration of Grants Administration Policy for For-Profit
Organizations.
17. Consideration of the following items for the Grants Working Group:
a. New scientific members for the Grants Working Group.
b. Changes to the honorarium for review activities of the Grants Working
Group.
18. Consideration of a concept plan for conferences and meetings.
19. Consideration amendments to the Internal Governance Policy and
review of the CIRM organizational chart.
ACTION ITEMS
20. Continuation of consideration of applications for New Faculty
Awards.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
21. Public comment. The Committee will accept public testimony on any
matter under its jurisdiction that is not on the agenda, but the
Committee cannot act on any such matter at this meeting.
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE.
Notice is hereby given that the order of consideration of matters on
this agenda may be changed without prior notice.
**NOTICE**
The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and its Independent
Citizens Oversight Committee, and any subcommittees thereof, comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by ensuring that the meeting
facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities, and providing
that this notice and information given to the Members of the Committee
is available to the public in appropriate alternative formats when
requested. If you need further assistance, including disability-related
modifications or accommodations, you may contact Melissa King at the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine at 415-396-9100 no later
than the day prior to the meeting.
Questions or requests for additional information prior to the
Independent Citizens Oversight Committee meeting may be referred to
Melissa King at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine at
mking@cirm.ca.gov or 415-396-9100.
This meeting agenda is also available on the website for the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine at http://www.cirm.ca.gov .
Melissa King
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
210 King Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Desk: 415-396-9119
FAX: 415-396-9141
www.cirm.ca.gov
- 2.
-
# 394 Friday, November 29, 2007 - ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH
Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells
Sat Dec 1, 2007 6:56 pm (PST)
# 394 Friday, November 29, 2007
<file:///C:/My%20Webs/myweb11/ ’S%20FUTURE\Archive%20322% 20Monday, %20April% 2020,%2020\
07%20-%20FLORIDA%20ONCE%20MORE% 20PIVOTAL% 20TO%20NATION
.htm> - ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH: Catholic Beliefs to Dictate Stem Cell
Program?
Religious freedom is a fundamental American right, no matter how foolish
that faith may seem to others. If I wanted to worship goldfish, I have
the legal right to do so, without being persecuted," but do I have
the right to impose Goldfish Worship on others?
My family's faith (though not my own) is Catholic. Should that
religion's beliefs be required of Baptists, Episcopalians, atheists,
Muslims, Presbyterians, Jews, agnostics, Sikhs and Buddhists?
The Catholic Church is trying to force to force its stem cell research
policies onto everyone.
This is not a casual attempt, but a world-wide effort, beginning with
the Vatican, which recently opined that supporting embryonic stem cell
research is an excommunicable offense. Think what that means that I
should literally be condemned to Hell for all eternity for my opinions
on medical research?
To me, that is as nonsensical" and cruel" as the religious
belief that anesthesia in childbirth was against God's wishes,
because it said in the Bible that "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth
children ".
Personally, I have more faith in God than that. For me, the reason God
gave us a brain is to think and solve problems. But that is my opinion,
and I would not attempt to enshrine it into law.
The reason America separates church and state is because there can never
be agreement on something unprovable. How can God be even described,
unless we can bring Him/Her/It into the room with us? And if we cannot
describe God without arguing, how can we ever hope to agree on religious
legislation?
But down through history, the Church has been a power structure, as well
as a source of comfort and wisdom. And when it steps into politics, it
must not be allowed to go unchallenged.
If religious officialdom forces a law, that affects us all. If you drive
into a town where the Churches "persuaded" local officials to
require all stores to close on Sundays, and you need to buy a quart of
milk, you are out of luck.
And if you live in a state or a country" or a world--- where stem
cell research was declared illegal…
In the United Nations, Catholic priests accompanied Bush administration
officials as they attempted to impose a world-wide ban on SCNT
(Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) an
advanced form of stem cell research.
Nationally, the Catholic Church's and other Religious Right
organizations routinely bully and terrify legislators, utterly
controlling the Republican Party's stem cell policy, preventing the
passage of even such a moderate and mild law as the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
In state after state, the Catholic Church is the center of the
anti-research movement.
In Missouri, the church passed out lawn signs opposing Amendment 2
(which said Missouri should not be denied any federally-approved medical
research), and let churches be offices for groups which passed out
plastic fetuses to children at county fairs, saying this is what
embryonic stem cell research is all about.
In California, Catholic churches distributed glossy full-color fliers
opposing the science supported by Proposition 71" and every
California church receives anti-embryonic research materials routinely,
for the priests to intone from the pulpit, and for parishioners to take
home with them.
In Michigan, the Church mailed 504,000 anti-research CDs (think of the
money" a church which takes a vow of poverty somehow can afford to
burn half a million CDs and postage and padded envelopes for one state
mailing alone) to the homes of Catholic families.
In Texas, meetings of the legislature are held late at night with little
or no public notice" so the Catholic anti-science view can be
drummed into the heads of legislators without opposition.
And now, with the experimental "success" of an alternative stem
cell technique, their campaign moves into high gear.
Led by the Catholic Church, anti-research forces will try to use the
experimental skin cell technique (Induced Pluripotent Stem cells, or
IPSc) to shut down embryonic and SCNT research.
Do I exaggerate?
In a moment we will see the actual open letter from the New York State
Catholic Conference revealing the Church's intent to control stem
cell policy.
New York has a $600 million dollar stem cell program. The Catholic
Church is attempting to thwart the very purpose of the law, and to
divert control away from the voters and the legislature.
They wish to say where the state's tax dollars should be spent"
trying to block funding for the Empire State's embryonic stem cell
research (ESCR).
If they can succeed in New York, they will try in other states-- not
even California's glorious new program will be safe from attack"
and they will try nationally as well.
Now politicians are quite understandably timid about challenging the
Church.
And the Church tries to sell itself as all-knowing, never to be
questioned. Have you ever wondered why parishioners are lectured to on
their knees? The Vatican's pronouncements are passed down from the
top. Debate is (to put it mildly) not encouraged: how often do people
stand up on Sunday and challenge the priest? Until very recently, the
services were even delivered in Latin, which nobody except the priests
understand.
What it boils down to is the Church issues pronouncements, and nobody is
allowed to say, "Hey, I disagree with that!"
But what if we could argue with the Church? What if we could have a
conversation with the church, run along the lines of a court of law,
where people have to speak the truth-- or be instantly challenged? When
a lawyer can say, "I object", and an impartial judge and jury
can decide" there is an opportunity for truth to prevail.
This is not idle chit-chat. Public medical policy affects my family, and
yours. Cures found means suffering eased: cures prevented means the
agony goes on.
And so, today, I would like to argue with the Church. First, to be fair,
I will print their side, a posted letter from the New York State
Catholic Conference in which they publicly propose that all New
York's money be taken away from ESC research, and given to only the
research which they consider worthy.
I have taken that letter, and divided it up into separate sentences. I
inserted underlines, parentheses, and numbers to indicate places where I
disagree, and placed my comments at the conclusion. But the material
itself is unchanged. The article was originally posted at:
(http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/ news/show_ newsDetails. asp?id=344
<http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/ > )news/show_ newsDetails. asp?id=344
NEW YORK STATE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
NEWS: For Immediate Release: November 20, 2007
Catholic Conference hails stem cell breakthrough, (1)
urges state funding be directed (2) toward this new research.
The New York State Catholic Conference hailed the breakthrough(3)
announced today by stem cell researchers from Wisconsin and Japan that
allows the creation (4) of embryonic-like (5) stem cells by
reprogramming (6) mature human cells, rather than destroying human
embryos. (7)
The Conference urges the state government to pursue this research with
the public funds earmarked in the New York State budget for stem cell
research. (8)
Kathleen M. Gallagher, director of pro-life (9) activities for the
Catholic Conference, made the following comment today:
"Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific research
and discovery. (10) This breakthrough announced in two scientific
journals appears to solve the ethical dilemmas (11) of embryonic stem
cell research and human cloning (12) by eliminating the need for them.
(13)
Instead, by simply (14) adding four genes to an existing skin cell, the
cell can be reprogrammed as a `pluripotent' (15) stem cell. The
process appears to be easier, (16) more cost efficient (17),
scientifically promising (18) and morally untroubling (19).
Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to create (20)and
destroy (21) human embryos (22) in a laboratory setting, the new process
eliminates the need for donor eggs (23) and the potential exploitation
of poor women (24) that could entail.
Further, it appears that medical issues (25) such as tissue rejection
(26) would not be a factor. (27)
This may be the best possible outcome (28) for people who yearn for
cures of chronic diseases and disabilities. (29)
Much work needs to be done, (30) but it seems clear (31) that the
hurdles (32) will be much easier to overcome (33) than those that
continue to plague (34) embryo research and cloning. (35)
"The Catholic Conference urges the Empire State Stem Cell Board,
created by Gov. Spitzer and the state legislature earlier this year, to
direct all state funding that would have gone to destructive embryo
research and cloning into research utilizing this new procedure, (36)
which can make our state a leader in the field (37).
At the same time, we continue to fully support funding for research on
`adult' stem cells, (38) which already have many (39) valuable
therapeutic uses in the
treatment of disease and disability.
The Conference congratulates those in the scientific community who have
pursued this lifesaving (40) research, which should put an end to any
scientific justification (41) for embryo-destructive research (42) and
the cloning of human beings.(43)
The Catholic Conference represents New York State's Bishops (44) in
matters of public policy."
(End of article).
Now, here are some of my objections, places where, in a court of law,
arguments would be allowed, the attorney's hand would go up, and the
words would be said: "I object, your honor".
1. "breakthrough"" to call any experiment a
"breakthrough" is an unfounded assertion. Experimental findings
must be tested and re-tested, replicated dozens of times. Can there be a
legitimate "breakthrough" on the basis of two apparently hopeful
experiments?
1. "urges state funding to be directed"" for the Catholic
Church to urge such a domination of public funds seems to me a clear
violation of our Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and
state.
1. "breakthrough" repeats the previous unsupported
allegation. It is a propagandist's trick to endlessly repeat a lie
or half-truth" but a breakthrough does not become one by verbal
advertisements, no matter how often repeated.
1. "creation"" first, an observation: until now, any
scientific advance which involved anything like "creation" was
sure to bring down the wrath of the Church. Now, apparently,
"creation" is acceptable. Secondly, if by creation the Church
in any way implies the beginning of life, then that must be challenged
as a statement of theology: a philosophical opinion. Even the Church
itself disagrees on the beginning of life. A great Catholic Saint,
Thomas Aquinas, identified the "quickening", when the baby first
stirs inside the mother, as the beginning of life. Is Saint Thomas
Aquinas now in danger of excommunication, as the Church seeks to define
life as beginning before the mother?
1. "embryonic-like"" this is an unsupported scientific
judgment. Science itself does not fully understand the properties of
embryonic stem cells; how can a non-scientific body assert that
equivalency has been achieved? IPS may turn out to be
"embryonic-lite" instead of embryonic-like.
1. "reprogramming"" that was the attempt of the
experiment. But scientific practice forbids claiming it as an
accomplishment, until it is reliably replicated by numerous independent
efforts.
1. "destroying human embryos"" here a religious
organization attempts to impose faith-based definitions on a scientific
debate. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines embryo: "especially
: the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the
end of the eighth week after conception." According to the
world's leading dictionary, therefore, the Catholic Church is just
plain wrong when it claims embryos are destroyed" because these were
not embryos in the first place, having never been implanted in the womb.
1. "The Conference urges the state government to pursue this
research with the public funds earmarked in the New York State budget
for stem cell research." The spokesperson for the Church has no more
right to dictate public policy for science as science has to dictate
theological positions to the church" which is to say, no right at
all.
1. "pro-life"" how can a religion call itself pro-life
when it opposes research which may save the lives of millions?
1. "Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific
research and discovery". The Church has been a consistent enemy to
medical advances, opposing everything from dissection and the study of
human anatomy (the very basis of medical research), to x-rays (opposed
because they might be used to see through women's clothing) to polio
research (which used tissue from aborted fetuses) to the cloning of
viruses and DNA research which gave us artificial insulin and over 100
critical medications for heart disease and cancer, " just as now, it
opposes embryonic stem cell research" but today is somehow a
"new dawn", because the church graciously accepts one form of
stem cell derivation, while still attempting to block others?
1. "ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research""
the only ethical dilemmas have been those emotional firestorms the
Church itself stirred up. For it to make such a claim is like an
arsonist complaining about heat.
1. "human cloning"" the research the Church seeks to
block (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic
cloning) does not clone humans at all. "Cloning" of cells is
what science wants, not the dangerous and useless nightmare of
attempting to clone people. Reproductive cloning is against the law in
California, a state which understands the difference between copying
cells and copying people.
1. "eliminating the need for them"" Embryonic stem cells
are the gold standard for the scientific community, as acknowledged by
the very scientists the Catholic Church is praising right now. The lead
investigators of both studies are on record as supporting the
continuation of embryonic stem cell research. As a non-scientific body,
the Church has no standing to make such a claim, pretending to foresee
the needs of medical science.
1. "simply adding four genes"-- there is nothing simple
about adding four genes (genetic research, of course, was also opposed
by the same Church which now blesses its results)-- one of the genes in
the experiment has properties that create tumors. Approximately 20% of
the laboratory mice in one of the two experiments developed cancer. In
the second experiment, one of the four genes used is known to cause
leukemia. Also, genetic manipulation also carries the risk of cell
mutation" these are not "simple" problems.
1. "the cell can be reprogrammed as a pluripotent stem
cell". This is the hope of the experimenters, not a proven fact.
Many steps must follow before any such statement can be made. It should
be noted that many such claims have been made before (see bottom of
page) and did any of those claims eliminate the need for embryonic stem
cells?
1. "The process appears to be easier"" this assumes not
only that the goal has been accomplished, but also that it can be done
again-- and easily too! That is like saying, well, it should be easy for
a human being to lift five hundred pounds overhead, because two world
champions have done it.
1. "more cost efficient"" this is a complete unknown. No
one has even attempted to perform reprogramming on a mass scale. For any
new medicine to be developed, vast quantities are required for testing,
which is part of the reason it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to
bring one new drug or practice to market. What we have here is an
apparently promising experiment, nothing more. It may take decades
before theory (even assuming success) can be translated into practice.
Only when multiple trials have produced sufficient materials which
actually work, which bring healing results to people" only then can
true costs be estimated.
1. "scientifically promising"" this is pure opinion. We
will not know this technique's true promise until it is replicated
successfully, and translated into useful therapies.
1. "morally untroubling"" Morals are based on opinion,
and opinions change. For instance, apparently the church no longer
objects to experiments on material drawn from aborted fetuses (which was
the case in one of the two experiments they praised) or flesh taken from
the penis of a newborn child (the other).
1. "Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to
create" (embryos) First, scientists do not create embryos for
research. They use IVF blastocysts already in existence, which are
scheduled to be destroyed. Or, they may use the product of SCNT, which
involves neither sperm, nor womb, nor implantation" calling that an
embryo is like saying a lightning bolt is a light bulb because both
involve electricity.
1. "and destroy". This is a deliberately loaded word. If we
do not except the religious definition, then it is not destruction we
are talking about, but science in the public good: this is an attempt to
save lives, not take them.
1. "human embryos"" again, imposition of a religious
definition.
1. "the new process eliminates the need for donor eggs""
how do we know this? Can the Catholic Conference predict the future?
1. "potential exploitation of poor women"" this refers
to the payment of cash to women who donate their eggs to the In Vitro
Fertility (IVF) process used world wide to help childless couples, and,
rarely, donations for research. An estimated one million Catholics have
been born by the IVF procedure, many involving a financial payment.
Interestingly, the Church at one point declared the IVF procedure itself
to be the moral equivalent of abortion, and recommended excommunication
for parents who sought to have a child by that method. That policy has
never been revoked, and to the best of my knowledge is still in
existence today" just not enforced, perhaps because the church does
not want to lose so many members.
1. "medical issues"" the Catholic church lacks standing
to offer an opinion on the multiple scientific/medical questions yet to
be answered.
1. "tissue rejection"" ibid
1. "factor"--ibid
1. "best possible outcome"" for whom? Scientists who
want the freedom to find out which scientific method works best? Or
Religion which seeks to impose its will on the public? Certainly it is
not the best outcome for patients whose suffering will continue as their
cures and therapies are delayed by stifling other forms of stem cell
research.
1. "people who yearn for cures of chronic disease and
disabilities"" these are the last people who would benefit from
the scientific censorship the Church has so frequently imposed, and is
attempting to do so again.
1. "Much work needs to be done"" colossal
understatement. Scientists must be allowed to go forward on all four
main areas of stem cell research" adult, embryonic, SCNT, and the
new "programming" method.
1. "it seems clear"" to whom? Religious opponents of
research?
1. "hurdles"" the greatest hurdle to scientific advance
is political opposition, which the Church embodies.
1. "will be much easier to overcome"" again, the Church
sets itself up as an arbiter of science and medical research, a job for
which it has no qualification.
1. "than those that continue to plague"" the
difficulties of finding cures to disease have always been huge" or
so many diseases would not be called incurable. An estimated one hundred
million Americans alone suffer chronic illness or injury, from autism,
Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, muscular
dystrophy, on and on" and the Church still opposes embryonic stem
cell research, which might help millions.
1. "embryo research and cloning"" if embryo research was
stopped, many of the most terrifying birth defects could never be
fought" and cloning? Human reproductive cloning is a science fiction
nightmare with neither need nor constituency. But to remove cloning from
science would be as ludicrous as denying it to gardeners, who practice
cloning every time they cut a slip from a plant. Shall we also deny the
cloning of viruses, part of the DNA research which gave us artificial
insulin?
1. "direct all state funding that would have gone to destructive
embryo
research and cloning into research utilizing this new
procedure"" this is a clear attempt at religious domination of
the political process, from an institution that has neither
qualifications to determine the best science, nor legal standing to
impose its will.
1. "which can make our state a leader in the field.""
The Church has systematically opposed the medical research which gave us
the medical benefits we now enjoy" why should we accept their
prescription? We should be guided rather by California, in which
biomedicine is the number one provider of jobs" California which by
Constitutional law supports the very research the Church would ban.
1. "we continue to fully support funding for research on
"adult" stem cells." Despite loudly-voiced vows of poverty,
the Catholic Church is the largest property-owner in the world. If it
wished to "fully support funding" the church should at least
contribute what California has" surely three billion would not be
too much from such a powerful global institution. Instead, however, the
Church has spent undisclosed amounts seeking to block research, as in
the state of Michigan, where the church (by its own admission) sent out
half a million (504,000) propaganda CDs to Catholic families,
"educating" them to oppose embryonic stem cell research.
1. "which already have many valuable therapeutic uses in the
treatment of disease and disability." The word "several"
would be more accurate than many. Adult stem cell research has been
fully funded and studied for over 40 years and so has produced
treatments, as for example in the use of blood stem cells to fight
certain forms of cancer. However, in too many cases, there is no immune
system match between the donor and the patient. All too often, the
patient dies for lack of this match. Embryonic stem cell research could
allow the successful treatments of adult stem cell research to be
expanded to include all patients with a disease, not just a select few.
No one suggests that adult stem cell research be abandoned, or
criminalized" it is a part of full stem cell research" but no
major scientific, medical, or educational establishment supports the
Church's attempts to limit research to adult cells alone.
1. "life-saving research"" opponents of embryonic stem
cell research often criticize us for being too enthusiastic" for
"hyping" our hopes. Is this not exactly that? Potentially
life-saving would be more accurate.
1. "which should put an end to any scientific
justification"" again, this is ideological opinion, nothing
more. The Church is not qualified to make any such assertions, any more
than a scientist should be considered experts on theological debates.
1. "for embryo-destructive research"" this is loaded
language, implying killing of embryos, when in point of fact these are
not embryos. Linguists may debate about what makes an embryo, and the
science is so new that language must change to fit the new information.
But it can be argued that even the contents of a married woman's
tampon contain a higher form of life than the blastocysts used for
research. That humble discarded item contains materials that were once
inside a woman's womb, whereas neither IVF-derived blastocysts, nor
an SCNT-derived ovasome will ever be inside a womb, and therefore cannot
possibly begin a pregnancy.
1. "cloning of human beings"" fear and smear tactics.
No responsible scientific or medical organization supports human
reproductive cloning. But the copying of cells, Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer, (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) is supported by
every major scientific, educational, and medical group which has taken a
position.
1. "The Catholic Conference represents New York State's
Bishops in matters of public policy." This seems an area of
potential litigation. The Catholic church cheerfully accepts a
non-political status when it comes to paying taxes. If it wants to avoid
paying its share of taxes, like a non-political charity, why then does
it feel free to engage in politics? Indeed, an argument can be made that
as representatives of the Vatican, (which has the status of a country)
those who represent its wishes should be required to register as foreign
agents. Why is the Catholic Church allowed to act like a domineering
political agency whenever it wishes, but retreat to its
"non-political" status when it comes to paying taxes?
P.S. Karen found the following alleged "breakthroughs" some
hailed as "alternatives" to embryonic stem cell research. One,
found seven years ago, is even called the same name as the newest
"breakthrough", reprogramming. Did it replace the need for all
the other "breakthroughs"? Did any of these prove so wonderful
that all the other methods to derive stem cells were abandoned as
useless" including the newest one?
"BREAKTHROUGHS":
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2000/06/00060207 2837.htm
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/ >releases/ 2000/06/00060207 2837.htm
Adult Stem Cells Can Produce A Wealth Of Cell Types, Science Authors
Report
Science Daily (Jun. 2, 2000) " Washington D.C. -- Reprogrammed
adult neural stem cells can potentially generate a cornucopia of cell
types-giving rise to cells in heart, liver, muscle, intestine and other
tissues, a 2 June Science study suggests.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2001/08/01081406 3557.htm
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/ >releases/ 2001/08/01081406 3557.htm
Study Identifies New Source Of Stem Cells
ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2001) " Montreal, August 13, 2001 -- A new
study from the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) of McGill
University has identified a non-controversial source of stem cells that
can produce a number of different cell types, including the type of
neural cells needed to potentially help patients recover from a spinal
cord injury or Parkinson's disease.
PLUS MORE!
Personally, I have no objection to any of them. I do not pretend to have
all the answers. If there is benefit from Adult, Embryonic, SCNT, or IPS
cells, that is to the good.
Science will find a way, unless it is censored into a new Dark Ages.
For an idea of the results of what scientific censorship can mean, we
have only to look back to the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church had
unopposed power, and the Black Plague wiped out much of Europe" and
medical dissection for research was illegal.
Do we want that again?
Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcell battles.com/ >
Don C. Reed is co-chair (with Karen Miner) of Californians for Cures,
and writes for their web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com
<http://www.stemcellbattles.com/ > . Reed was citizen-sponsor for
California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999,
named after his paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for
California's Senator Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory
laws, served as an executive board member for Proposition 71, the
California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act, and is director of
policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The retired schoolteacher is
the author of five books and thirty magazine articles, and has received
the National Press Award.
- 3.
-
Lab work interlinks adult cells, embryos --Omaha World-Herald
Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells
Sat Dec 1, 2007 7:00 pm (PST)
Omaha World-Herald
November 27, 2007
Midlands Voices
Lab work interlinks adult cells, embryos
BY SANFORD GOODMAN
The writer, of Omaha, is a board member of Nebraskans for Research.
A recently reported dramatic breakthrough in cell research is a
triumph of human embryonic stem cell research.
Opponents of the latter who have rushed to claim this breakthrough
as vindication of their position ignore a crucial fact: It would have
been impossible if they had been successful in their efforts to crimi
nalize research on human embryonic stem cells.
They also overlook the same remaining challenges with these cells
that they have cited as reasons not to pursue human embryonic stem
cell research.
Two teams of scientists announced Nov. 20 that they successfully
reprogrammed fully developed human cells into cells with the same
characteristics as human embryonic stem cells — which can become any
of the different parts of the body during the course of fetal
development.
As has been reported widely, the study of human embryonic stem
cells has great promise to advance medical science and alleviate the
suffering of tens of millions of people. Such cells used in medical
research are currently derived from embryos that are deemed excess by
the parents who had them created at in vitro fertilization clinics
and are otherwise destined for destruction, which opponents object to
for religious reasons.
Without using embryos, the two teams created what they call induced
pluripotent cells by inserting four genes into the fully developed
cells, a process called direct reprogramming.
The Japanese team had published a paper in August 2006 reporting a
similar finding with mouse cells and found that the same genes worked
in humans. The University of Wisconsin team, led by James Thomson,
worked with human cells only and avoided certain genes based on
earlier research with human embryonic stem cells. Consequently, two
genes differed in each team's work and more study is needed.
In order to confirm that the resulting cells were equivalent to
human embryonic stem cells, the researchers compared them to those
cells' known characteristics — which themselves would still be
unknown if there had been no human embryonic stem cell lines to study.
But problems remain. The scientists used certain, potentially
harmful viruses to insert the genes into the reprogrammed cells.
Also, the Japanese work with mice derived from induced pluripotent
cells showed that reprogrammed adult cells have a marked tendency to
generate tumors. These factors must be overcome before these types of
cells can be used safely in humans — for example, to cure children
with juvenile diabetes.
Before a legislative hearing in early November, however, opponents
of human embryonic stem cell research cited analogous issues with
human embryonic stem cells as important reasons to abandon research
on them in favor of adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell
research in animals.
They asserted that "animal embryonic stem cells provide a better,
easier, faster, cheaper and more scientifically powerful model for
research than human embryonic stem cells." This ignores that other
species' embryonic stem cells differ from their human counterparts in
important ways. Without comparison to human embryonic stem cells, we
would not have known this.
Above and beyond the creation of disease and patient specific cell
lines for study in the laboratory, the ultimate goal of reprogramming
research is to create replacement cells and organs for transplan
tation from a patient's own cells to avoid a subsequent lifetime
regimen of immunosuppressant drugs.
Prior to this breakthrough, the most promising path to this goal
was somatic cell nuclear transfer, the same technique used to clone
Dolly the sheep.
Dolly's birth in 1997 demonstrated for the first time that
mammalian development was reversible. Unknown factors in the
cytoplasm of the egg cell reprogrammed the nucleus of a skin cell to
mimic a fertilized egg cell.
This changed the way James Thomson thought about developmental
biology. Ironically, it came at a time when he was becoming the first
person to derive human embryonic stem cells from excess embryos.
Direct reprogramming has always been the goal of human embryonic
stem cell research, and it looks now to be within reach much sooner
than expected. But as Thomson has noted, more study of the newly made
cells is required to ensure that the "cells do not differ from
embryonic stem cells in a clinically significant or unexpected way,
so it is hardly time to discontinue embryonic stem cell research."
- 4.
-
# 393 Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - DON'T BE FLIM-FLAMMED!
Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells
Sat Dec 1, 2007 7:07 pm (PST)
# 393 Tuesday, November 27, 2007
<file:///C:/My%20Webs/myweb11/ ’S%20FUTURE\Archive%20322% 20Monday, %20April% 2020,%2020\
07%20-%20FLORIDA%20ONCE%20MORE% 20PIVOTAL% 20TO%20NATION
.htm> - DON'T BE FLIM-FLAMMED!
The Greatest Lift I Never Made, or: How the Opposition is Using an
Embryonic Stem Cell Advance to Try and Shut Us Down
Folks, the opposition is trying to use what may (or may not) be a
legitimate stem cell success to shut down embryonic and SCNT research.
They must not succeed.
This coming Friday, November 30, I urge you to read our column, and to
share it. Friday's essay, "Arguing with the Church" is what
for me this issue is all about censorship of research, which we must
never allow.
But first, here is something fun, which makes the point Friday's
essay will do in depth. (It is followed by an up-to-date sketch of where
the states are in terms of funding stem cell research.)
I loved the sport of Olympic weightlifting, though I was never great,
not even close. My best lift overhead was a 345 pound clean and jerk.
That is a lot for us ordinary mortals, about like a fully-loaded
refrigerator.
But the World Record at the time was a hundred fifty pounds more, 486
½ pounds, done by Bob Bednarski, who weighed less than my somewhat
pudgy 260, but who was all functional muscle and a athletic genius, like
Joe Montana, or Babe Ruth.
But the greatest weight I ever moved was 635 pounds and I lost a contest
in so doing.
Do you know what a power rack is? Visualize an anchored framework with
adjustable (inch-thick) "pins" to slide in and out, so that a
lifter's bar could be supported in a stable position at varying
heights. It is used for assistance exercises, where the athlete moves
the weight just a couple inches, to strengthen the body in a particular
part of the lift.
You see power racks in serious weightlifting gyms, where the power and
Olympic lifters play, no cutesy machines or shiny little dumbbells, but
genuine heavy iron.
You moved the empty bar to the height you wanted, set the pins, then add
as much weight as you wanted to pile on. The bar was safe, could be
moved from that point upward only-- and would not come crashing to the
floor if you failed.
Now, my friend Bill Starr, a Cherokee Indian weightlifter, was built
exactly like Conan the Barbarian in the Marvel comic books drawn by John
Buscema and Ernie Chan. He was just crawling with muscle and no fat
whatsover. He weighed 220 right then, at around 5'10", and word
"chiseled musculature" is about as close I can describe this
physical phenomenon.
But he had one small but important physical flaw. He could not quite
straighten his arms. It was just the way his bones were set, nothing to
do with having too much bicep muscle, or any nonsense like that. He
could run like a deer, play racketball at top speed, was superbly
coordinated but those elbows would not lock. He had to hold weights
overhead on sheer muscle, while the rest of us could just straighten our
arms and the last part (for us) was easy, bone on bone, just weight
support.
This was a weakness for Bill and he set out to strengthen it with the
power rack, holding the weight overhead in a stable position, just
moving it a few inches.
He came in one day, all excited.
"I did 500 in the lockouts," he said, sitting down at his desk
in the office we shared. (We edited a weightlifting magazine, STRENGTH
AND HEALTH, in the late 60's.) Then he turned to the pile of
letters on his desk. It was about the most bragging I ever heard him
do.
I could not help wondering, if maybe I could do that too because my arms
did lock. It was just an accident of birth, no accomplishment on my
part, but they would straighten out all the way, so I could support a
goodly amount of weight overhead, without much effort.
Now whenever Starr and I competed, (and we used to have lifting wars
over blueberry super high protein icecream milkshakes lifting wars
straining our guts out for a few delicious calories-- he always had to
spot me a hundred pounds or so.
But not this time. In this one exercise, because of our differing bone
structure, we could compete as equals, straight on, no spot, no
handicap, just go for it.
"I did 525", I said smugly next day.
"Bullcorn", said Starr, by way of profanity.
The battle was on. We set the date and time and stakes. I owed him three
blueberry milk shakes already this was double or nothing.
It was the lunch workout, a serious event at the York Barbell Club in
those days. People came from all across the country to train with us, or
just to sit and watch the giant people lift.
Today the action was not on the twin lifting platforms, but on the side,
at the power rack.
One foot forward, one foot back, we took our positions under the bar,
arms overhead but our feet positioned like a fencer's lunge; this
was the make or break position for the ultimate lift in competition, the
clean and jerk, the way the most weight can be moved overhead.
The bar was set at about 8 feet to win you had to push it off the pins
and hold it long enough to indicate control no tricks, no balance, no
coordination or timing just set yourself and strain your guts out.
We were young in the best shape of our lives. Starr looked like
Hercules; I was large but smooth, like the Pillsbury Doughboy if he went
on a diet.
Starr did 550 I did 575.
Starr muscled up 590 I managed 605.
Then Bill moved 630 pounds, so much the bar was quite literally bending
from the strain, and the weightplates on both sides had to have collars
or they would have slid off.
I took five pounds more, 635 pounds, strained so hard I literally
blacked out for a second and almost fell gathered my energies, walked
back and forth, chalked up my hands, breathed, went to the bathroom, did
everything but raise my arms to Odin and cry out for a lightning bolt
then I stepped under the bar, left foot forward, right foot back and
shoved.
635 pounds. It was the greatest lift of my life. It was, I felt certain,
a victory.
But Bill Starr picked up a tiny little weight plate, an itty-bitty
dust-covered one I had never seen in use before, the smallest made--a 1
¼ pound disk. It looked like a nickel with a hole in it.
He slipped the single weight on. Just the one.
"But that's not fair! You can't put a weight on only one
side," I spluttered.
"Where does it say that in the rulebook?" he said.
It took him three tries to make it, but at last there it was, shaking
till the weight plates rattled in their collars, but indisputably up
there.
I attempted 640, the next logical poundage, but did not come close. I
could not even make it vibrate on the rack.
I paid off his lousy six blueberry super high protein milkshakes
eventually-- but I might have won!
I have replayed this many times in my brain.
What I could have done, and should have done was to pick up a piece of
weightlifter's chalk, and made a mark on the bar-- and lifted that.
Starr had given his everything on the 636 ¼, there was every reason
to believe I could have won.
But mentally, I was defeated by the maneuver with the single
weightplate.
I got sidetracked on if it was legal or not, and it broke my
concentration.
Folks, we who support full stem cell research must not let this happen
to us.
We must not let this business with the Induced Pluripotency Stem cells
get us all flustered.
The opposition is trying to use that one (apparent) success as an
alternate strategy to make us sit by while they block embryonic and
SCNT stem cell research which would be the stupidest mistake we could
possibly make.
Friday's column is called "Arguing with the Church". It
might be important.
I urge you to join Karen Miner and me this Friday, right here at the
website, www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcell battles.com/ > , and
read the essay, "Arguing with the Church". If you agree with it,
please pass it along to your friends.
And now, here is the promised state update, well worth repeating.
Compiled by Don C. Reed, (and friends Karen Miner and Diane Wyshack) who
would also like to express the following opinion:
As someone who worked daily with Russ Oster in the last two months of
the New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act, I feel the measure failed
for the following reasons:
There was no serious campaign budget (barely half a million dollars!),
the Catholic Church's violation of the separation of church and
state was enormous, and the timing was unfortunate. New Jersey should
try again NEXT YEAR, when a Presidential election guarantees strong
turnout among Dems.
And now I will get off my soapbox!
Don
STATE STEM CELL FUNDING
1. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)'s
$3,000,000,000 over ten years is the largest source of embryonic stem
cell research funding in the world. By early spring of 2008, the CIRM
will have dedicated approximately $450 million to training,
infrastructure, facilities and embryonic stem cell grants. In a small
way, California was also the first state to fund embryonic stem cell
research, through the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of
1999.
1. Connecticut: SB 934, supported by Gov. M. Jody Rell, provides $10
million a year for ESCR ten years.
1. Indiana has about $50,000 invested in adult stem cell research at
Indiana University, appears to want to become an adult stem cell
research center.
1. Illinois: Gov. Rod Blagojevich has directed $20 million to the
Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute thus far.
1. Iowa: PENDING: Governor Chet Culver has proposed a $12.5 million
Institute for Regenerative Medicine at University of Iowa.
1. Maryland: the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006 has
appropriated $15 million for funding of (mixed adult and embryonic) stem
cell research, of which $9 million has been distributed. (Including
carryovers, state may have a total $23 million in 2008 unclear.)
1. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts was given one million
in state money to set up a stem cell institute. Additionally, a life
sciences center was set up with an additional ten million funding, from
which an undetermined amount of stem cell research funding may derive.
PENDING is a bill for $1,000,000,000 (one billion) over ten years:
Governor Deval Patrick's bill appears to be primarily for
infrastructure, education, tax breaks to encourage the biomedical
industry, gap funding (supplemental funds for researchers when federal
money is promised, but slow to arrive) rather than pure research grants.
1. New Jersey: blessings on Governor Corzine's legislation
authorizing $270 million in facilities grants, and an additional $10
million for stem cell research.
1. New Mexico: Governor Bill Richards proposes to spend roughly $6
million in 2008, blend of facilities ($3.8 million) and research grants
($2.2 million).
1. New York: Governor Elliott Spitzer has authorized $600 million
over ten years.
1. Ohio: has spent $19.4 million on adult stem cell research. State
has ability to fund Bush-approved ESCR lines, and last year dedicated $8
million additional funding to the Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative
Medicine
1. Texas: an unknown quantity. The $3 billion Lance Armstrong-led
Cancer Act does not specifically prohibit embryonic stem cell research,
and may in time contribute; however, current leadership promises there
will be no such research funded. On the adult stem cell front, it is my
understanding that $41.1 million is allocated for research at the
University of Texas.
1. Washington: Life Sciences Discovery Fund ($350 million tobacco
settlement) has no specific stem cell set-asides, but in theory could be
used for stem cell research.
1. Wisconsin: Governor Doyle established a $750 million investment
fund, Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery, a mix of public and private
funds, some of which will be used to build a research facility. Note:
Governor Doyle also has a special one million dollar incentive plus
other helps for companies who start up embryonic stem cell efforts.
Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com <http://www.stemcell battles.com/ >
Don C. Reed is co-chair (with Karen Miner) of Californians for Cures,
and writes for their web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com
<http://www.stemcellbattles.com/ > . Reed was citizen-sponsor for
California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999,
named after his paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for
California's Senator Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory
laws, served as an executive board member for Proposition 71, the
California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act, and is director of
policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The retired schoolteacher is
the author of five books and thirty magazine articles, and has received
the National Press Award.
- 5.
-
Google News Alert for: STEM CELL INFORMATION
Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" meyer74@bellsouth.net stephen_meyer_stemcells
Sat Dec 1, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)
Google News Alert for: STEM CELL INFORMATION
Saturday, December 01, 2007 5:55:41 PM
Close Scrutiny Needed as First Stem Cell Grants Offered to For ...
<http://www.genengnews.com/news/ >bnitem.aspx? name=27388795
Genetic Engineering News (press release) - New Rochelle,NY,USA
30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- California's stem cell agency is inviting
for-profit companies to apply for research grants for the first time,
the Foundation ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/ >news?hl=en& ncl=http: //www.genengnews .com/news/ bn\
item.aspx%3Fname%3D27388795
6 Institutions Form Stem Cell Research Partnership
<http://cbs2.com/local/ >stem.cell. research. 2.598793. html
CBS 2 - Los Angeles,CA,USA
The partners of the Southern California Stem Cell Scientific
Collaboration, or SC3, are USC, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, City of
Hope, UC Santa Barbara ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/ >news?hl=en& ncl=http: //cbs2.com/ local/stem. cell.r\
esearch.2.598793.html
Science Snippets
<http://straitstimes.asia1.com. >sg/Review/ Tech+%2526+ Science/STIStory _182\
183.html
Straits Times (subscription) - Singapore,Singapore
IN A step forward for stem cell work, local stem cell company ES Cell
International (ESI) has produced the world's first clinical-grade human
embryonic stem ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/ >news?hl=en& ncl=http: //straitstimes. asia1.com. sg/\
Review/Tech%2B%252526% 2BScience/ STIStory_ 182183.html
International Stem Cell Corporation CEO Issues Statement on De ...
<http://www.pr-usa.net/index. >php?option= com_content& task=view& id=46843& I\
temid=9
PR-USA.net (press release) - Varna,Bulgaria
Jeff Krstich, Chief Executive Officer of International Stem Cell
Corporation (OTCBB:ISCO), today issued a statement on the recent
announcement that two ...
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
