Monday, December 3, 2007

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 727

Messages In This Digest (7 Messages)

Messages

1.

The red and blue of stem cells-By Ellen Goodman-June 15, 2007

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 6:18 pm (PST)

ELLEN GOODMAN The red and blue of stem cells
By Ellen Goodman | June 15, 2007

BY NOW you may be forgiven for suspecting that science is tinted -- if
not entirely tainted -- by politics. The arguments over evolution and
global warming alone are enough to make anyone believe that we have red
and blue science as well as red and blue states.
But nothing has been quite as polarizing over the past six years as the
controversy over embryonic stem cells. Stem cells have been a defining
issue even among politicians who can't define them.
So it is no surprise to see a genuine, bona fide scientific breakthrough
put through the political spin cycle. Last week, a trio of competing
labs from Japan to Massachusetts rolled back the biological clock in
mice and turned ordinary skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic
stem cells. The research raised the possibility that we might eventually
be able to make stem cells without destroying human embryos.

This announcement came on the eve of a House vote to allow federally
funded scientists to study cells from leftover frozen embryos at
fertility clinics. And this disharmonic convergence put the politicians
into orbit.

It tweaked conspiracy theories by embryonic stem cell proponents such as
Democratic Representative Rahm Emanuel, who suggested the irony of
having a breakthrough announced every time a bill comes up for a vote.
Opponents such as Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops speculated on a higher intervention in his favor. As he said,
half-jokingly, "God is telling us He is there!"

The bill passed anyway and now heads to the White House. If the
president goes through with his veto, you can bet he'll cite this
research as proof that, see, told you so, we don't actually need to use
human embryos.

Before this happens, let me offer a brief refresher course in Stem Cells
101. What scientists are trying to do is to take an ordinary cell from
the human body and persuade it to become, say, a heart muscle cell or a
brain cell or a liver cell to fix whatever ails us. But they don't know
how to do it.

The reason researchers use embryos is not because they want to run a
recycling program for IVF clinics. Nor because they have a passion for
wedge issues. It's because the embryo can do what scientists can't do
yet. The embryo contains signals that tell the cell to switch on the
program of development. But to harvest stem cells, the embryo has to be
destroyed.

If, as this latest breakthrough suggests, researchers can reprogram
ordinary body cells to act like stem cells in the friendly laboratory
mouse, they may eventually be able to avoid the use of embryos at all.
Which would be good news all around.

But anyone who says we don't need human embryos in this scientific
pursuit has forgotten a couple of things. First of all, we don't know if
the new research will work with people. Second, this breakthrough
actually began with scientists studying the genes in mice embryos.
Anybody who wants to repeat the work in humans will have to use human
embryos to learn the same mechanics.

In short, we'll need to use human embryos even to help us eventually
stop using human embryos. Pop quiz anyone?

The stem cell debate has been embedded in abortion politics from the
get-go, locked into an argument over the moral status of an embryo. Even
as science progresses, the politics stay stuck.

Today, as cell biologist Kenneth Miller notes, one side claims, "We can
do everything we need with adult stem cells." The other side says, "Only
embryonic stem cells have the full therapeutic potential that we need to
save lives." In fact, adds Miller, "Neither side is right. We are far
too early in the game to know."

How early? Bioethicist Art Caplan compares us to folks "standing at
Kitty Hawk watching the Wright brothers and asking if you can ever get
to the moon." Didn't we need a little federal help for that liftoff?

At this early stage we should be pursuing every promising route of
research. As Caplan says, "If I were in a wheelchair, I'd want to put my
chips on as many numbers as possible."

As the bill heads to the White House, the question is not whether
research on embryonic stem cells will go forward. It is going forward in
foreign countries and private companies and states that support it from
Massachusetts to California. It's whether it will go forward with
federal funding and oversight and accountability.

For once in this administration it would be swell to see science trump
its bully of a brother: political science.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com
<mailto:ellengoodman@globe.com>

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

Bush's 'vision' on stem cells...... By Ellen Goodman

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 6:32 pm (PST)

[The Boston Globe] <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/> Bush's
'vision' on stem cells By Ellen Goodman November 30, 2007
I HAVE A friend who dedicated her first book to her husband, "without
whom this would never have been possible." Years later, when the husband
was gone, she used to fantasize about tweaking her dedication: "To my
husband, without whom this book would have been done five years
earlier."

I thought of her as the Bush administration claimed credit for a bona
fide breakthrough in biology. Two groups of scientists in Wisconsin and
Japan have found a way to reprogram ordinary skin cells so they behave
like embryonic stem cells. So it may become unnecessary to use embryos
in this cutting-edge research.

When the good news was announced, the White House had the gall - an Oval
Office alternative for chutzpah - to claim the victory as theirs. "This
is very much in accord with the president's vision from the get-go,"
said policy adviser Karl Zinsmeister. Without the slightest hint of
irony, he suggested that their stalwart opposition actually fueled the
scientists' success. Next thing you know, the president will nominate
himself for the Nobel Prize in medicine.

Let us pause and review Stem Cells 101. What scientists are trying to do
is take an ordinary cell from the human body and persuade it to become,
say, a heart muscle cell, or a brain cell, or a liver cell, to fix
whatever ails us.

The researchers did not study embryonic stem cells because they wanted
to run a recycling center for leftovers from in vitro fertilization
clinics. Nor did they have a passion for wedge issues. Rather, the
embryo could do what they were still unable to do: cause ordinary body
cells to act like stem cells.

This breakthrough was not the president's "vision from the get-go" or
any other go. First of all, the Bush administration bet on the wrong
horse - adult stem cells. Second, the researchers couldn't have gotten
to step two without step one. They needed human embryos to learn how to
do this without human embryos. They'll still need embryos for some time,
as both a benchmark and a way to judge whether stem cells from skin are
effective and safe.

Not only did the "vision" impede the science, the administration also
slowed it by starving funding and scaring off researchers. So James
Thomson, the biologist whose work forms the bookends of this research,
offers this, um, dedication: "My feeling is that the political
controversy set the field back four or five years."

Now he and other scientists are muting that political controversy.
Pro-life Republicans have every reason to breathe a sigh of relief. The
idea that a leftover frozen embryo had greater moral status than your
aunt with diabetes didn't wash with the general public. It was a losing
battle for conservatives who are used to directing the culture wars. It
even split pro-life politicians. Senator Orrin Hatch ended up arguing
with the absolutists: "People who are pro-life are also pro-life for
existing life."

Democrats, on the other hand, may breathe a sigh of regret. The
stem-cell controversy gave pro-choicers an iconic image of their enemy:
someone who put the embryo uber alles. It gave progressives a poster
girl in Nancy Reagan - and a poster boy in Michael J. Fox. Stem cells
were to the left what partial-birth abortion was to the right, a way to
frame a touchy issue and look like the reasonable center.

The issues that range around the stem-cell debate will still be with us
and with politicians. There remain more than 400,000 frozen embryos
languishing in IVF clinics. As for the relative worth of an embryo and
an "existing life"? There are likely to be ballot measures next year to
give a fertilized egg the legal status of a human being.

Indeed, the sleeper issue of this campaign may be the one found in a
YouTube video called "Libertyville Abortion Demonstration." There,
pro-life protesters at an abortion clinic are asked what punishment
should be meted out to a woman who has an abortion if it becomes
illegal. Their answers: "I don't know." "I've never really thought about
it." Candidates won't get away so easily.

Nevertheless, this is a moment when anyone who prefers a cure to a
battle cry should celebrate. There is still a long way from
reprogramming a skin cell to treating a disease. But we've come to think
of scientists as people racing ahead of us, leaving behind huge moral
potholes. This time, science may resolve the quandaries it created.

So this success is dedicated to the scientists who freed themselves from
the clutches of politics. But not to the president, without whom, well,
this too would have been done years earlier.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com
<mailto:ellengoodman@globe.com> .
[http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_st\
ory_end_icon.gif]

Stem cell breakthrough could benefit GOP
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/20/stem_cell_breakth\
rough_could_benefit_gop>
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3.

By now you've probably heard ......By Jonah Goldberg of Tribune Medi

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:03 pm (PST)

By Jonah Goldberg Tribune Media Services December 02, 2007 6:00 AM
By now you've probably heard that scientists have discovered an elegant
way to create the equivalent of embryonic stem cells (ECS) without
having to create — and destroy — embryos. They just reprogram
some skin cells and, voila, bypass all the controversial stuff. The
long-promised miracle cures are still a long way off, if they're coming
at all, and ECS research still has its boosters, but it seems pretty
clear that stem cells have been decoupled from the abortion wars.

Still, there has been one amazing breakthrough. Thanks to stem cells,
journalists are finally growing backbones.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Ron Reagan Jr., the
acclaimed dog show emcee, tried his hand at being an infomercial snake
oil barker. "I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into
what may be the greatest breakthrough in our or any lifetime: the use of
embryonic stem cells," Reagan announced. After listing numerous diseases
and injuries it could cure, Reagan delivered the pitch: "How'd you like
to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the
hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine."

"Wait! There's more! Order your Biological Repair Kit in the next seven
minutes, by voting 1-800-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, and you'll receive a second
repair kit at no additional cost. OK, I exaggerate. But the tone wasn't
far off.

Reagan wasn't alone, either. Then-vice presidential candidate John
Edwards proclaimed in 2004, "If we do the work that we can do in this
country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people
like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair
and walk again."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., outraged by conservatives seeking to inject
religion into politics, nonetheless proclaimed: "Mr. Speaker, the
National Institutes of Health and Science hold the biblical power of a
cure for us."

When President Bush was grappling with embryonic stem cell research in
2001, Newsweek's science correspondent, Sharon Begley, warned in a cover
story that this might be "a cruel blow to millions of patients for whom
embryonic stem cells might offer the last chance for health and life."

In the current issue of Newsweek, Begley now tells us that the
technology was always oversold. The notion that stem cells will lead to
quick cures and transplants is "more fiction than fact."

The New York Times, in the words of Yuval Levin, formerly of the
President's Bioethics Council, "has been tenaciously partisan and
frankly dishonest in its advocacy for embryo-destructive research in the
past decade." The Times almost never used the word "cloning" and
downplayed the risks to women who donated eggs. Now, it points out to
readers that not only did the old method have considerable drawbacks,
but that the task of delivering cures and therapies remains "daunting."
But, as Levin writes at Commentarymagazine.com, the Times "sees that the
fight may be drawing to a close," so "it's time to put away the word
games and speak openly about what has always been at stake." Who says
stem cells can't help regenerate spinal tissue?

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

Stem-cell fight far from over...The Denver Post

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:07 pm (PST)

a conversation with ... Stem-cell fight far from over Article Last
Updated: 12/02/2007 04:56:05 AM MST The Denver Post
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., was in Denver last week to endorse
Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. She
stopped by The Denver Post to meet with the editorial board.
Today's Q&A with DeGette is our fourth installment of "A Conversation
With ... ," an occasional multimedia report on the people and issues
that shape our times.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado made news this past week by
endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton for president. She'll be back in the
spotlight in coming weeks as she continues her fight for federal funding
for embryonic stem-cell research in light of a promising new study that
ordinary skin cells can be transformed into embryonic stem cells.
POST: What do you think
DeGette Video
* Watch
<http://video.denverpost.com/mms/rt/1/site/medianewsgroup-denverpost-pub\
01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=opinionvideos&maven_referralO\
bject=f6923f09-dd85-4408-bfa7-f2336c160f7e> video as U.S. Rep. Diana
DeGette discusses stem cell research with The Post's editorial board.
about last week's developments?
DeGETTE: To take adult stem cells and make them essential to other kinds
of cells is a big breakthrough. But I would also sound a cautionary note
that this research is really still in its nascent stages, and it is not
â€" certainly at this point â€" a substitute for other kinds
of research, like embryonic stem-cell research.
The religious right and the White House, every time there's some other
breakthrough, they want to say that's a substitute for embryonic
stem-cell research. In fact, we don't know which of these types of
research will end up being the research that will end up curing all
these diseases.
What we do know is embryonic stem-cell research is almost 10 years ahead
of this new type of discovery, and so there are a lot of advances
coming, particularly out of Great Britain and some other countries, on
skin regeneration on macular degeneration.
I expect you'll see some big announcement in the next few months about
embryonic stem cell research or somatic cell nuclear transfer or some
other technique. What this all points out to me is that Congress needs
to stop playing God, Congress and the White House need to stop telling
researchers what types of cell research they should be doing.
POST: Do you foresee yourself running another embryonic stem-cell bill?
DeGETTE: I certainly do intend to reintroduce the bill, but we may want
to look at other ways to move the issue.
We are so close on the research with so many of these diseases. One of
my colleagues, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, he's been in a wheelchair
since he had a gun accident. You know they're close to nerve
regeneration, they're close with the islet cell regeneration with
diabetics. What it's going to take is some serious attention and
resources through the NIH to all of this research.
I'm not going to say it's embryonic stem-cell research or it's adult
stem-cell research or it's somatic cell nuclear transfer. Everybody was
really happy to see that research announced last week, but ... we've got
to think really hard about the ethics of what we're doing.
I went to England a couple of years ago. They have a whole system that
they set up around the time in vitro fertilization clinics were set up.
A board reviews all research proposals, not just embryonic stem-cell
proposals, but anything having to do with these kinds of research.
The board is composed of researchers who don't have a financial
interest, lay people and elected officials. And before someone can do
this research in Great Britain, they have to submit a proposal to this
board. We don't have anything like that in this country, even for the
federal-funded lines of embryonic stem-cell research. We don't have any
code of ethics for that or any ethical review.
POST: What do you see happening with SCHIP?
DeGETTE: I think in the end we're going to have to do a one-year
extension of the bill and we'll have to come back and talk about it next
fall. In some ways, if we extend SCHIP for one year, it's almost better
than some of these proposals people have been making it's the current
system and it has more eligibility. Colorado is going to really be hit
financially if it has to keep enrolling kids and keep bringing them into
SCHIP without the additional funding.
Right now in this country we have 6 million kids on SCHIP. We have an
additional 6 million kids eligible who aren't enrolled, primarily
because we don't have the resources to do outreach and enrollment and
keep them in the program.
The president says $5 billion and the Democrats say $35 billion, and
everybody admits the president's money would be far insufficient to even
fund the kids who are on SCHIP now. So if we agreed to that, we'd have
to drop kids who are on the rolls now. Who are we as Congress to pick?
People from other countries think it's absolutely insane we have 9
million kids in this country who are uninsured. Six million of them are
eligible for SCHIP.
POST: What's the status of the energy bill?
DeGETTE: I've been championing that standard in the Energy and Commerce
Committee, but we never got the bill on the floor because the
Republicans didn't want to see it.
As we begin to do more renewable energy, the energy economics will shift
to the West in a really exciting way. We're having informal talks, we're
about two votes short in the Senate to do a renewable portfolio
standards bill. We'll know in about two weeks whether we have enough
votes. I think we may pass something before the end of the year.
POST: Congress has very low approval ratings. Do you think the people
thought they'd elect Democrats and they would end the war?
DeGETTE: Absolutely. It's frustrating for all of us. It would be
difficult to end the war because Congress gave the president war powers.
Now we can either rescind the war powers, which we don't have the votes
to do, or we can not fund it.
What we've done is begin to reverse the course of the war. The president
is now starting to withdraw some troops, public opinion is still very
much against the war, and at least the situation hasn't gotten worse.
We're also having aggressive oversight hearings on the war and other
issues that would never have happened.

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

Stem cells are vital to cures....By MIKE CASTLE

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:10 pm (PST)

Stem cells are vital to cures
By MIKE CASTLE PERSPECTIVE

December 2, 2007

As Diabetes Awareness Month draws to a close, we are reminded of the
important role both education and research play in quality of life.
Medical advancements like the glucose monitor and insulin pump are
helping more individuals with diabetes to practice less intrusive ways
of managing disease.

Medical research is the best way to fight the diseases of today and
prevent suffering tomorrow. Many of the world's leading scientists
believe that stem cell research holds the key to combating diseases such
as diabetes and others such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease
and cancer.

I believe strongly in advancing all forms of ethical medical research
and have authored legislation in Congress to ensure scientists have
access to the highest quality stem cell lines, in the hope of finding
cures to some of our most devastating diseases.

Many of these cell lines are off limits due to an outdated policy that
hasn't been updated as science has advanced.

These stem cells come from excess frozen embryos created for the
purposes of in vitro fertilization that will never be implanted in a
woman and would otherwise be discarded as medical waste.

At this stage, a blastocyst is the size of a pinhead, but the stem cells
carried inside have the ability to transform into virtually any mature
human cell, such as a heart, muscle, nerve and liver cell.

The legislation I authored has passed both houses of Congress twice and
was vetoed by President Bush twice.

Just recently, scientists reported that ordinary human skin cells may be
able to be reprogrammed to become pluripotent -- the ability to become
any of the 220 types of cells in the human body, similar to embryonic
stem cells.

The research conducted by leading scientists at the University of
Wisconsin, Harvard University and Kyoto University in Japan has shown a
risk of tumor growth. But all agree that this exciting breakthrough
might serve as a model in order to test this new avenue of research.

They also believe that while this is a positive scientific development,
such research is not yet a replacement for embryonic stem cell research.

In fact, pursuing both areas of research has never been more important.

Research holds the key to more effective treatments that improve quality
of life and overall life expectancy. We only limit our capabilities of
advancement when we stifle research. Access to federal funding can
enable American scientists to lead the world in medical advances, as we
do in so many other areas.

Short of efforts by many members in Congress to increase funding for all
medical research at the National Institutes of Health, congressional
appropriations have not kept pace with medical inflation costs. Private
research on embryonic stem cell research exists on a much greater scale
than permitted with use of federal dollars.

Science would benefit greatly from expanding federal oversight and
regulation to all forms of stem cell research.

My judgment and my great hope is that embryonic stem cell research will
move forward with full force under the next federal administration. In
the meantime, we should pursue any and all avenues for research that
hold such promise for improving the lives of so many who are suffering
without existing treatment or cures.

My passion for advancing and expanding research on stem cells comes from
years of meeting with those who are suffering from diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and the family and friends who care for them.
There is no greater promise for better treatments and potential cures
than there is with federal investment in all ethical forms of medical
research.
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware has sponsored legislation
to lift federal funding limits on embryonic stem cell research.

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

Stem cell discovery unlikely to end culture war

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:11 pm (PST)

Posted December 2, 2007

Stem cell discovery unlikely to end culture war

By Robert Mentzer
Wausau Daily Herald
rmentzer@wdhprint.com <mailto:rmentzer@wdhprint.com>

The recent discovery of a new way of producing stem cells that doesn't
involve the use of embryos is the kind of breakthrough that could change
the nature of the debate over stem cell research. But the two sides of
the political debate are firmly entrenched, and resolution between them
may not follow scientific progress.

"It certainly changes the landscape," said Mark Brown, a philosophy
professor at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County who has studied
the bioethics of stem cells extensively. "Everybody in the field is
rethinking the implications of their view. ... I think there probably
will be a consensus that if the science holds up, this is a line of
research which we all can agree on."

Two labs, one at Kyoto University and the other at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, have discovered a method for turning skin cells into
"somatic" cells with the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells.
Stem cells hold potential for treating a wide range of maladies because
they can be coaxed to grow into any type of cell, offering hope that
damaged brain or other organ cells can be regrown.

Brown believes the discoveries could "cool the political heat" somewhat,
and for this reason doubts that the issue will be as important in the
2008 presidential election as it was in 2004. And some people who have
followed the issue agree.

"The fact now is that the dispute over using embryonic cells, that
dispute is kind of over," said Ron Putzer, 63, of Wausau, who opposes
embryonic stem cell research. "If (the new technique) does what they can
do by taking stem cells from an embryo, it's going to make both sides
happy."

While anti-abortion groups like Wisconsin Right to Life and advocates of
embryonic stem cell research both expressed cautious optimism at the
breakthrough, few shared Putzer's sense that it would put the issue to
rest.

"(This breakthrough) begins to separate regenerative medicine from the
heart of the abortion debate, which is good," said R. Alta Charo, a
professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
who has advocated the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research.
"But we still do have an ongoing need to work with embryonic stem cell
lines."

Charo called the discovery, arrived at independently by scientists at
Kyoto University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "the Holy
Grail" of stem cell science. She said she has never been an advocate of
embryonic stem cell research per se. Rather, she said, she is "an
advocate for making sure research into regenerative medicine was not
hampered by making embryo research a proxy for the abortion wars."

In this sense, defenders of embryonic stem cell research will be happy
to see resources allotted to making sure the new method will be as
effective for research as embryonic stem cells were. But in many
respects, the political sides of the abortion wars are not budging.
Anti-abortion groups are heavily invested in promoting adult stem cell
research, and many anti-abortion activists are hesitant to embrace the
new method of generating stem cells.

"If it is at the expense of adult stem cell research, I'd be a little
cautious," said Dorothy Giallombardo, 56, of Merrill, an opponent of
embryonic stem cell research.

Like other opponents, Giallombardo points out that adult stem cells are
used in treatments now, while treatments derived from embryonic, or now
somatic, stem cells haven't yet been developed.

"The question that always comes to mind is why is all this money being
poured into an area that is so experimental?" Giallombardo said.

For two reasons, said Brown. The first is that adult stem cells are
scarce and that they present technical difficulties in a laboratory
setting. The second is that there appear to be limitations about what
adult stem cells can become.

"They turn into, principally, blood, and that's mainly what the
applications are, to certain sorts of blood disorders," Brown said.
"Which is important, but it isn't much help to somebody who's got heart
disease or Parkinson's."

Charo said she has "no doubt that we will find something else next week
to fight about that will actually, underneath it, represent the abortion
battle. I'm quite sure that by next week we'll find another proxy war."

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

Google News Alert for: stem cells...Sunday, December 02, 2007

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

Sun Dec 2, 2007 7:15 pm (PST)


Google News Alert for: stem cells

Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:55:18 AM

Cancer risk cut in new method for embryo-free stem cells
<http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/2007/12/02/133254/Cancer-risk.htm>
China Post - Taipei,Taiwan
San Francisco -- Scientists eliminated a gene known to trigger cancer
from a process that turns skin cells into multipurpose stem cells,
solving a flaw that ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.chinapost.com.tw/healt\
h/2007/12/02/133254/Cancer-risk.htm>

Vote may allow stem cell sperm
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2975718.ece>
Times Online - UK
ARTIFICIAL sperm and eggs created from stem cells in the laboratory
could be used in fertility treatment under proposals to be put forward
in the House of ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/\
news/uk/science/article2975718.ece>

Discovery won't end work on stem cells
<http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2007/12/discovery_\
wont.html>
Reading Eagle - Reading,PA,USA
The Issue: Separate researchers in the United States and Japan have
discovered a way to reprogram cells to act similar to stem cells, and
embryos are not ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/\
editorials/archives/2007/12/discovery_wont.html>

CELL STARTER <http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/245624.html>
Indian Express - New Delhi,India
It should provide an unlimited supply of stem cells without the
ethically controversial embryo destruction and the restrictions on
federal financing that ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.indianexpress.com/sund\
ay/story/245624.html>

Google Blogs Alert for: stem cells

New Stem Cells Cancer-Free
<http://www.newser.com/story/13032.html?rss=y>
Scientists who recently turned skin into embryonic stem cells are now
tweaking the process to reduce cancer risk, Reuters reports. A team at
Kyoto University grew live mice with a cell cocktail, but said the
rodents grew tumors. ...
Top Stories from Newser - http://www.newser.com/
<http://www.newser.com/>

Saturday science subject: Stem cells from skin
<http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13709>
US and Japanese scientists have developed a technique to generate
embryonic-like stem cells from simple skin cells. As BBC News reports,
the technique not only sidesteps the ethical controversy that lies with
harvesting embryonic stem ...
The Tech Report: News - http://techreport.com <http://techreport.com/>

Embryonic Stem Cell Scientists Reports Additional, More Important ...
<http://digg.com/general_sciences/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Scientists_Reports\
_Additional_More_Important_Discovery>
Building on his research reported last week, acclaimed stem cell
researcher Shinya Yamanaka, has shown how to convert human skin cells
into cells that resemble embryonic stem cells without using the
tumour-causing gene c-Myc. ...
Digg / upcoming - http://digg.com/ <http://digg.com/>

Michael Kinsley Forgets History On Stem Cells
<http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/12/michael-kinsley.html>
By Tom Maguire
Michael Kinsley opines on the latest breakthrough in stem cell research
and explains "Why Science Can't Save the GOP". Ramesh Ponnuru comments
at The Corner but let me address this from Kinsley: Third, although the
political dilemma ...
JustOneMinute - http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/
<http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/>

Stem cells from skin: a breakthrough
<http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/stem-cells-from-skin-breakthrough.htm\
l>
By Lumo(Lumo)
... different countries, could perhaps take a part of the credit. It is
rather likely that the discovery will lead to an expansion of stem cell
research in the future. There are already hints that the method could be
helpful to cure cancer.
The Reference Frame - http://motls.blogspot.com/
<http://motls.blogspot.com/>

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

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Endurance Zone

A Yahoo! Group

Learn how to

increase endurance.

Yahoo! Groups

Find Green Groups

Share with others

Help the Planet.

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