Friday, December 19, 2008

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 773

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

Message

1.

CHRISTMAS, UNDER DURESS......... By Don Reed

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" Stephen276@comcast.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:54 am (PST)


CHRISTMAS, UNDER DURESS

by Don C. Reed

I went to my Grandson's Christmas program last night.

Gloria, beloved wife of almost 40 years, goes to church at least once a
week, without fail.

I go when forced by societal pressures, i.e. Gloria. Roman Junior goes
to a Catholic school, so I go if it is something to do with him, plus
the Mrs. always muscles me into a Christmas religious service of some
kind or other.

Technically, I felt, I had already done my Christmas obligation.

Last week, Gloria put on a small dinner for the homeless. Our local
church provides a place to sleep for about four families down on their
luck. Gloria purchased multiple pizzas, sent her husband to purloin
oranges off our neighbor's tree, arranged cupcakes from a friend,
made homemade guacamole dip and cut up bread strips to dip with, as well
as providing bottled drinks and items of the vegetable persuasion.

I thought there would be a lot of people involved in the providing part
of the dinner, but there wasn't. It was just us.

When we came in the door, a woman looked up and said: "Did you bring
the dinner?"

I thought: what if we had forgot? Would they have eaten?

There were about eight children.

One man, well-dressed, studied his shoes. Beside him were two little
girls. Their hair was tied up in bows. I said hello, shook hands, he
introduced his children proudly. I did not see a mom. What if I was a
single parent, with two little girls to care for?

Gloria took command as usual, lining everyone up like she was in the
military.

"No, just one piece of pizza till everybody gets served!"

"What, pizza again?" I heard somebody say.

The women hustled the children over, to make sure they were fed before
the food was gone. They ate everything we brought and I wished there was
more. Just one piece of pizza, for the main dish?

But it was something, and the Catholic Church had made it possible,
encouraging parishioners like Gloria to help with food, while the Church
provided shelter and also some real-life helps like job hunting
assistance.

On the one hand Gloria's church is the epitome of charity; on the
other, the Pope's narrow-minded and anti-scientific views (if
listened to) would condemn millions to lives of needless suffering.

A former member of the Hitler Youth, Pope Benedict (formerly Joseph
Ratzinger) may be over-reacting to his Nazi past. Probably all
German-Americans are at least somewhat embarrassed about the horrible
cruelties inflicted by the nation from which their ancestors sprang (I
am half German on my mother's side, her Schneider family name
changed to Snyder) and the Pope makes stem cell research sound like the
Nazi science of eugenics, trying for the "master race", which is
total nonsense. Trying to cure people's misery is a whole lot
different than trying to create a bunch of Hitler mini-monsters.

Have you read the Pope's latest statement on bioethics? It is 32
pages long, and was created by a Church council which he led before
becoming Pope.

If you want to read the statement, a condensed version follows. it says:

The document … expressly approved by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict
XVI…is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of
their spirit" (Dignitas personae, n. 37).

In other words, you cannot even disagree in your own mind, let alone
argue about it

Stem cell research is life and death important to me.

And under the current Pope, almost every form of advanced stem cell
research is forbidden.

Sure, there was a little disclaimer: "The Church, by expressing an
ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research
concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper
to medical science itself…" (emphasis added)

The truth is the Church will intervene and control exactly as much as it
can get away with. In Italy, the Pope's word is pretty much law. In
the United Nations, robed priests went with Bush Administration
officials to put pressure on small countries to ban Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning), trying to
criminalize it throughout the world. They failed, but not through lack
of trying.

From Michigan to Missouri, the Catholic Church has mounted full-force
political efforts to block embryonic stem cell research.

But there was one line in the Pope's statement, which gave me hope
for the day when the Church will inevitably reconsider its stance, as it
has done in the matter of x-rays, small-pox vaccine, anesthesia, and
many other medical advances, initially opposed.

"…danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a
vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin…"

That was a loophole, perhaps, which might one day be used to alter a
mistaken policy.

Because what parent would not consider cure for a child, dying?

I remembered where my grandson got his middle name.

When Rome was four years old, he had a friend named Jacob, who was
eight. Roman and he used to throw a football around, and Jacob was
always patient and kind.

But he contracted leukemia, and there was no cure. His parents did the
best they could for him, but the pain grew worse and worse. I visited
him one time, and brought my old Marine World slide show along, and told
him about the sharks and dolphins, and for a little while the lines of
pain eased on his face. But then the stories ended, and the pain sank in
again.

Roman told him, when he grew up, if he ever had a son, he would name him
after Jacob.

After many months of struggle, Jacob told his mother, he did not want to
go on any more. And she held him in her arms as he let go, and died.

Our son remembered the promise, which was how Roman Jacob Reed got his
name.

I thought about a rally I attended, a march against cancer, put on by
Assemblymember John Dutra, original sponsor of the Roman Reed Spinal
Cord Injury Research Act, and a devout Catholic. He had let me speak at
the event, and of course I spoke strongly about stem cell research,
therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research, how it had nothing to
do with making babies and everything to do with making cures-- the whole
nine yards.

Afterwards, two little nuns came over to speak with me. I got a little
frightened--

oh, no, I am in for it now—because how can you argue with a nun?

But the older nun said, quite firmly:

"We wanted you to know, we support the research."

The second nun nodded, and smiled.

Like the 72% of American Catholics who support embryonic stem cell
research, she had made up her own mind.

My knee was hurting, so I had to stand up for a while. We there almost
an hour early, sigh… I went out in the lobby, and there were many
pamphlets and brochures. I did not thumb through them, knowing if I
found anything about stem cell research, I would not like it. I
remembered the 32 page document, which talked about opposing research
because it lessens the "dignity" of humankind—where is the
dignity in loss of bowel and bladder control? Where is the dignity in
losing one's mind to Alzheimer's?

Gloria always tells me, the Pope is a man, and people make mistakes.

But this is such a powerful man, and the mistake is so enormous!

I went and sat down again, my stomach in knots.

Then the children filed in.

And began to sing.

As a lover of music, some of it was legitimately painful to my ears.
These were just regular kids, everybody in the school, and some did not
quite grasp the concept of following notes. At one point I suppressed a
groan and muttered something to Gloria, in what I thought was the
softest of whispers. She elbowed me sharply, indicating with a jerk of
her head that one of the children's fathers was the enthusiastic
cameraman directly to our left.

But then it was our grandson's turn to walk up on stage. Roman Jacob
Reed Part Two, son of our son. Roman senior was beaming in the back.
Mom Terri and Jason were home taking care of our new puppy.

All the children sang. Most of the pieces (mercifully) were short.

But the music director harbored ambitions.

As I glanced at the program, I felt my eyes widen.

The last number was-- the Hallelujah Chorus, from Handel's Messiah?

Handel's Messiah has been called the greatest piece of music in the
world. It is also genuinely difficult to sing right, even for trained
professionals.

I knew from experience, having massacred the piece myself, decades ago,
in the choir of the church I attended before marrying Gloria. It took
months of preparation and rehearsal, every one of us had a musical
background-- and even then we barely survived.

And these little kids—regular normal kids off the street-- were
going to attempt the Hallelujah Chorus?

Now. The most important two notes in that song are the first one, and
the last. You have to start off STRONG-- The "Haaa" in Haleluja
has to be a full-throated bellow, a shout-- and finish with a cutoff
note that is clean and sharp, abdominal power, and control.

The conductor raised her baton—the audience held its breath—

And then it came.

"HAAA-lay-loo-ya! HAAA-lay-loo-ya!"

As if by Christmas magic, power descended on those children's
voices. It was like a second choir, and every child was caught up in the
joy, faces bright as Christmas candles.

They sang the complicated parts, Halleluja, hallelujah,
hall-lay-ay-loo-ya!",

when one group sings one thing, and another group does something else,
And He shall reign forever, and ev--" while a third group sings
another Halleluja altogether-- and every word has to be heard, and every
note singularly appreciated.

They nailed it. It was plainly impossible, but they were kids and did
not know it was impossible, and so they did it anyway, good and loud,
going for it on every single note.

"…Hall-ayyyy—loooo-yaaaaa--!"— they cut off the last note
clean and sharp, and it echoed in the hushed church.

An instant of silence—and then the roar of applause began.

For these, our voices of the future.

May they build a church more open, to the hope of a healthier world.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

ZE08121202 - 2008-12-12
Permalink: http://zenit.org/article-24541?l=english

Synthesis of Instruction "Dignitas Personae"

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org <http://www.zenit.org/> ).- Here
is the synthesis of the instruction "Dignitas Personae" that was
released today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on
certain bioethical questions. It was published in English, French,
German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish.

* * *

Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae

Aim

In recent years, biomedical research has made great strides, opening new
possibilities for the treatment of disease, but also giving rise to
serious questions which had not been directly treated in the Instruction
Donum vitae (22 February 1987). A new Instruction, which is dated 8
September 2008, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
seeks to provide some responses to these new bioethical questions, as
these have been the focus of expectations and concerns in large sectors
of society. In this way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
seeks both to contribute "to the formation of conscience" (n. 10) and to
encourage biomedical research respectful of the dignity of every human
being and of procreation.

Title

The Instruction opens with the words Dignitas personae - the dignity of
a person, which must be recognized in every human being from conception
to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses "a great
`yes' to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection
on biomedical research" (n. 1).

Value

The document is an Instruction of a doctrinal nature, published by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and expressly approved by the
Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. The Instruction therefore falls within
the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium
of the successor of Peter" (Instruction Donum veritatis, n.18), and is
to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit"
(Dignitas personae, n. 37).

Preparation

For several years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has
been studying new biomedical questions with a view to updating the
Instruction Donum vitae. In undertaking the examination of such new
questions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "has benefited
from the analysis of the Pontifical Academy for Life and has consulted
numerous experts with regard to the scientific aspects of these
questions, in order to address them with the principles of Christian
anthropology. The Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae of
John Paul II, as well as other interventions of the Magisterium, offer
clear indications with regard to both the method and the content of the
examination of the problems under consideration" (n. 2).

Intended recipients of the document

The Instruction is meant for "all who seek the truth" (n. 3). Indeed, in
presenting principles and moral evaluations regarding biomedical
research on human life, the Catholic Church "draws upon the light both
of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man
and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in
human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions
which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life" (n. 3).

Structure

The Instruction has three parts: "the first recalls some
anthropological, theological and ethical elements of fundamental
importance; the second addresses new problems regarding procreation; the
third examines new procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and
the human genetic patrimony" (n. 3).

First Part:

Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects of Human Life and
Procreation

The two fundamental principles

"The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the
moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as
a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the
inviolable right of every innocent human being to life" (n. 4). "The
origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the
family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the
reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly
responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of
marriage" (n. 6).

Faith and human dignity

"It is the Church's conviction that what is human is not only received
and respected by faith, but is also purified, elevated and perfected"
(n. 7). God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son
has made it possible for us to become children of God. "By taking the
interrelationship of these two dimensions, the human and the divine, as
the starting point, one understands better why it is that man has
unassailable value: he possesses an eternal vocation and is called to
share in the trinitarian love of the living God" (n. 8.).

Faith and married life

"These two dimensions of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow
us to understand better the sense in which the acts that permit a new
human being to come into existence, in which a man and a woman give
themselves to each other, are a reflection of trinitarian love. God, who
is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share
in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as
Creator and Father... The Holy Spirit who is poured out in the
sacramental celebration offers Christian couples the gift of a new
communion of love that is the living and real image of that unique unity
which makes of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord
Jesus" (n. 9).

The Church's Magisterium and the legitimate autonomy of science

"The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of
recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not
intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls
everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She
reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in
reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at
every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific
character of the personal act which transmits life" (n. 10).

Second Part:

New Problems Concerning Procreation

Techniques for assisting fertility

Among the procedures which respond to problems of fertility are the
following:

"techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization" (n. 12): that is,
"techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of
gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are
joined in marriage" (footnote 22). "techniques of homologous artificial
fertilization" (n. 12): that is, "the technique used to obtain a human
conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage"
(footnote 23). "techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and
its fertility" (n. 12). "techniques aimed at removing obstacles to
natural fertilization" (n. 13). "adoption" (n. 13).

Techniques are morally permissible if they respect: "the right to life
and to physical integrity of every human being", "the unity of marriage,
which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a
father or mother only together with the other spouse" and "the
specifically human values of sexuality" (n. 12), which require that the
procreation of a new human person come about as a result of the conjugal
act specific to the love between a husband and wife.

Therefore, "techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its
fertility are permitted" (n. 12). In such procedures, the "medical
intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the
conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order
to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally
performed" (n. 12). "Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles
to natural fertilization... are licit" (n. 13). "Adoption should be
encouraged, promoted and facilitated so that the many children who lack
parents may receive a home... In addition, research and investment
directed at the prevention of sterility deserve encouragement (n. 13).

In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos

The experience of recent years has shown that in all techniques of in
vitro fertilization "the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high"
(n. 14). Even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial
fertilization, the number is above 80% (cf. footnote 27). "Embryos
produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded"; a
increasing number of couples "are using artificial means of procreation
in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring"; of the
embryos which are produced in vitro "some are transferred into the
woman's uterus, while the others are frozen"; the technique of multiple
transfer in which "the number of embryos transferred is greater than the
single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be
lost... implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos" (n. 15).

"The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in
the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the
replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure...leads to a
weakening of the respect owed to every human being. Recognition of such
respect is, on the other hand, promoted by the intimacy of husband and
wife nourished by married love... In the face of this manipulation of
the human being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be repeated
that God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived
infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person,
or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between
them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness..
Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the
sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception
until its natural end" (n. 16).

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is a variety of in vitro procreation in
which fertilization in the test tube does not simply "take place on its
own, but rather by means of the injection into the oocyte of a single
sperm, selected earlier, or by the injection of immature germ cells
taken from the man" (footnote 32).

This technique, which is morally illicit, causes a complete separation
between procreation and the conjugal act" (n. 17). It takes place
"outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose
competence and technical activity determine the success of the
procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the
embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the
domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human
person" (n. 17).

Freezing embryos

"In order to avoid repeatedly taking oocytes from the woman's body, the
process involves a single intervention in which multiple oocytes are
taken, followed by cryopreservation of a considerable number of the
embryos conceived in vitro. In this way, should the initial attempt at
achieving pregnancy not succeed, the procedure can be repeated or
additional pregnancies attempted at a later date" (n. 18). The freezing
or cryopreservation of embryos "refers to freezing them at extremely low
temperatures, allowing long term storage" (cf. footnote 35).

"Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human
embryos; it presupposes their production in vitro; it exposes them to
the serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high percentage does
not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at
least temporarily of maternal reception and gestation; it places them in
a situation in which they are susceptible to further offense and
manipulation" (n. 18).

With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence
the question becomes: what to do with them? All the answers that have
been proposed (use the embryos for research or for the treatment of
disease; thaw them without reactivating them and use them for research,
as if they were normal cadavers; put them at the disposal of infertile
couples as a "treatment for infertility"; allow a form of "prenatal
adoption") present real problems of various kinds. It needs to be
recognized "that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a
situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore, John
Paul II made an "appeal to the conscience of the world's scientific
authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human
embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally
licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and
thousands of `frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of
essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human
persons" (n. 19).

The freezing of oocytes

"In order avoid the serious ethical problems posed by the freezing of
embryos, the freezing of oocytes has also been advanced in the area of
techniques of in vitro fertilization" (n. 20).

In this regard it needs to be stated that while the cryopreservation of
oocytes is not in itself immoral, and is employed in other medical
contexts which are not the subject of this document, when it takes place
"for the purpose of being used in artificial procreation" it is "to be
considered morally unacceptable" (n. 20).

The reduction of embryos

"Some techniques used in artificial procreation, above all the transfer
of multiple embryos into the mother's womb, have caused a significant
increase in the frequency of multiple pregnancy. This situation gives
rise in turn to the practice of so-called embryo reduction, a procedure
in which embryos or fetuses in the womb are directly exterminated" (n.
21).

"From the ethical point of view, embryo reduction is an intentional
selective abortion. It is in fact the deliberate and direct elimination
of one or more innocent human beings in the initial phase of their
existence and as such it always constitutes a grave moral disorder" (n.
21).

Preimplantation diagnosis

"Preimplantation diagnosis is a form of prenatal diagnosis connected
with techniques of artificial fertilization in which embryos formed in
vitro undergo genetic diagnosis before being transferred into a woman's
womb. Such diagnosis is done in order to ensure that only embryos free
from defects or having the desired sex or other particular qualities are
transferred" (n. 22).

"Unlike other forms of prenatal diagnosis..., diagnosis before
implantation is immediately followed by the elimination of an embryo
suspected of having genetic or chromosomal defects, or not having the
sex desired, or having other qualities that are not wanted.
Preimplantation diagnosis...is directed toward the qualitative selection
and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of
abortion... By treating the human embryo as mere `laboratory
material', the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to
alteration and discrimination...Such discrimination is immoral and must
therefore be considered legally unacceptable..." (n. 22).

New forms of interception and contragestation

There are methods of preventing pregnancy which act after fertilization,
when the embryo is already constituted.

"Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before
implantation" (n. 23); for example, the IUD (intrauterine device) and
the so-called `morning-after pills' (footnote 42). They are
"contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once
implanted" (n. 23); for example, the pharmaceutical known commercially
as RU-486 (footnote 43).

Even if such interceptives may not cause an abortion every time they are
used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual
intercourse, it must be noted, however, that "anyone who seeks to
prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been
conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a
pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion". In the case of
contragestatives "what takes place in reality is the abortion of an
embryo which has just implanted... the use of means of interception and
contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral"
(n. 23).

Third Part:

New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of
the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony

Gene therapy

Gene therapy commonly refers to "techniques of genetic engineering
applied to human beings for therapeutic purposes, that is to say, with
the aim of curing genetically based diseases" (n. 25).

Somatic cell gene therapy "seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects
on the level of somatic cells" (n. 25). Germ line cell therapy aims "at
correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose
of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the
individual" (n. 25).

From the ethical point of view:

Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes "are
in principle morally licit...Given that gene therapy can involve
significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be
observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic
intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person
being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical
integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the
pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the
patient or his legitimate representative is also required" (n. 26). With
regard to germ line cell therapy, "the risks connected to any genetic
manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable" and
therefore "in the present state of research, it is not morally
permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the
resulting progeny" (n. 26). ith regard to the possibility of using
techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the
presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool, it must be
observed that such interventions would promote a "eugenic mentality" and
would introduce an "indirect social stigma with regard to people who
lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be
appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not
constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with
the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is
expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the
long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals... Finally
it must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human
being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to
take the place of his Creator" (n. 27).

Human cloning

Human cloning refers to "the asexual or agametic reproduction of the
entire human organism in order to produce one or more `copies'
which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially identical to the
single original" (n. 28). The techniques which have been proposed for
accomplishing human cloning are artificial embryo twinning, which
"consists in the artificial separation of individual cells or groups of
cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of development... which are
then transferred into the uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in
an artificial manner" (footnote 47) and cell nuclear transfer, which
"consists in introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or somatic
cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is followed by stimulation of the
oocyte so that it begins to develop as an embryo" (footnote 47). Cloning
is proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction, that is, in order to
obtain the birth of a baby, and medical therapy or research.

Human cloning is "intrinsically illicit in that...it seeks to give rise
to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal
self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to
sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to
human dignity" (n. 28).

With regard to reproductive cloning, "this would impose on the resulting
individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting him - as has
been stated - to a form of biological slavery, from which it would be
difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to
himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics
of another person represents a grave offence to the dignity of that
person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people... In the
encounter with another person, we meet a human being who owes his
existence and his proper characteristics to the love of God, and only
the love of husband and wife constitutes a mediation of that love in
conformity with the plan of the Creator and heavenly Father" (n. 29).
With regard to cloning for medical therapy or research, it must be said
that to "create embryos with the intention of destroying them, even with
the intention of helping the sick, is completely incompatible with human
dignity, because it makes the existence of a human being at the
embryonic stage nothing more than a means to be used and destroyed. It
is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends" (n.
30). As an alternative to therapeutic cloning some researchers have
proposed new techniques which are presented as capable of producing stem
cells of an embryonic type without implying the destruction of true
human embryos, for example, by altered nuclear transfer (ANT) or oocyte
assisted reprogramming (OAR). Doubts still remain, however, "regarding
the ontological status of the `product' obtained in this way" (n.
30).

The therapeutic use of stem cells

"Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with two basic characteristics:
a) the prolonged capability of multiplying themselves while maintaining
the undifferentiated state; b) the capability of producing transitory
progenitor cells from which fully differentiated cells descend, for
example, nerve cells, muscle cells and blood cells. Once it was
experimentally verified that when stem cells are transplanted into
damaged tissue they tend to promote cell growth and the regeneration of
the tissue, new prospects opened for regenerative medicine, which have
been the subject of great interest among researchers throughout the
world" (n. 31).

For the ethical evaluation, it is necessary above all to consider the
methods of obtaining stem cells.

"Methods which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the
stem cells are taken are to be considered licit. This is generally the
case when tissues are taken from: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of
the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of
natural causes" (n. 32). "The obtaining of stem cells from a living
human embryo...invariably causes the death of the embryo and is
consequently gravely illicit... In this case, research...is not truly at
the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the
suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of
other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves"
(n. 32). "The use of embryonic stem cells or differentiated cells
derived from them - even when these are provided by other researchers
through the destruction of embryos or when such cells are commercially
available - presents serious problems from the standpoint of cooperation
in evil and scandal" (n. 32).

Numerous studies, however, have shown that adult stem cells give more
positive results than embryonic stem cells.

Attempts at hybridization

"Recently animal oocytes have been used for reprogramming the nuclei of
human somatic cells... in order to extract embryonic stem cells from the
resulting embryos without having to use human oocytes" (n. 33).

"From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense
against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human
and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity
of man" (n. 33).

The use of human "biological material" of illicit origin

For scientific research and for the production of vaccines or other
products, cell lines are at times used which are the result of an
illicit intervention against the life or physical integrity of a human
being.

Experimentation on human embryos "constitutes a crime against their
dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a
child once born, just as to every person. These forms of experimentation
always constitute a grave moral disorder" (n. 34). With regard to the
use of "biological material" of illicit origin by researchers, which has
been produced apart from their research center or which has been
obtained commercially, the moral requirement "must be safeguarded that
there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of
scandal be avoided. In this regard, the criterion of independence as it
has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient.
According to this criterion, the use of `biological material' of
illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear
separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause
the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in
scientific experimentation". It needs to be remembered that the "duty to
refuse to use such `biological material' springs from the necessity
to remove oneself, within the area of one's own research, from a gravely
unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human
life. Therefore, the above-mentioned criterion of independence is
necessary, but may be ethically insufficient" (n. 35). "Of course,
within this general picture there exist differing degrees of
responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify
the use of such `biological material'. Thus, for example, danger to
the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was
developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that
everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that
their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.
Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being
utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them
is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision"
(n. 35).

(end—DR)

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

All-Bran

Day 10 Club

on Yahoo! Groups

Feel better with fiber.

Yahoo! Groups

Going Green Zone

Learn to go green.

Save energy. Save 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

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 772

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

Message

1.

Genetics Policy Institute (GPI) invites you to further stem cell sci

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" Stephen276@comcast.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:15 pm (PST)



[GPI Logo]

Genetics Policy Institute (GPI) invites you to further stem cell
sciences and build worldwide public support for stem cell research by
making a year-end donation today.

Once again the holiday season is upon us. It is the time of year to be
thankful, and to appreciate all that we have been given. However, we
must not forget those less fortunate, especially adults and children
suffering from chronic medical conditions – many of whom define
"hope" as the promise of stem cell research.

Throughout 2008, Genetics Policy Institute <http://www.genpol.org/>
(GPI) provided the stem cell field with continued support, fearless
leadership and passion. GPI's efforts brought 1,000 leading
stakeholders to Madison for the World Stem Cell Summit and freely
disseminated thousands of copies of the World Stem Cell Report. GPI
addressed society's most challenging policy questions, and supplied
accurate educational resources to key policy-makers, media, industry and
the public.

Next year, we will launch two additional initiatives. We have partnered
with the National Association of Biology Teachers to advance stem cell
science education in public schools throughout the nation – donor
support is essential for this initiative. We have also begun
fundraising to launch Stem Cell Action, a campaign that will enlist 1
million stem cell supporters to ensure the pro stem cell voice is heard
loud and clear.

The 2009 World Stem Cell Summit and World Stem Cell Report will achieve
greater reach and impact and our bi-monthly newsletter continues to
inform 15,000+ subscribers on the latest headlines in science, business
and policy.

I invite you to make a year-end gift to the Genetics Policy Institute to
advance stem cell sciences, defend the hundreds of millions without
cures and build worldwide public support for stem cell research. No
donation is too small.

2009 is a critical year. With a new administration entering the White
House, GPI and its partners have a lot to accomplish to ensure stem cell
issues are an important priority in the new administration's work
plan.

The promise of stem cell research cannot be realized without your help.

Thank you for supporting stem cell research. And thank you for
considering GPI in your holiday thoughts and gift plans. We wish you a
wonderful holiday season and a bright, healthy New Year!

Cordially,

[Bernard's Signature]
Bernard Siegel, J.D.
Founder and Executive Director
Genetics Policy Institute

[Donate Now Button] <http://www.genpol.org/donate.html>

--

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/news/?p=unsubscribe&uid=e20de954698c9c991952e\
1842857572b
>

To update your preferences visit this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/news/?p=preferences&uid=e20de954698c9c991952e\
1842857572b
>

Forward this message to a Colleague this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/news/?p=forward&uid=e20de954698c9c991952e1842\
857572b&mid=87
>

[Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy,
Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Powered by PHPlist2.10.5, © tincan ltd] <http://www.phplist.com/>

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Everyday Wellness

on Yahoo! Groups

Find groups that will

help you stay fit.

Yahoo! Groups

Going Green Zone

Resources for a greener planet.

Resources for a greener you.

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

Sunday, December 14, 2008

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 771

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

Message

1.

STEM CELL RESEARCH MAY SOLVE THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN  ....by Don C. Re

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" Stephen276@comcast.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:09 am (PST)


STEM CELL RESEARCH MAY SOLVE THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN

by Don C. Reed

As President-elect Obama takes office, he will, of course, reverse the
Bush prohibitions on stem cell research. That is the right thing to do,
in a country built on freedom.

But then the real fight will begin—about funding. President-Elect
Obama pledged to double NIH funding, from $28 billion to $56 billion a
year. We must, at minimum, hold him to that promise.

But, because of the economic crisis, some legislators will argue,
America "can't afford" serious funding for stem cell
research.

This is exactly backward. We must invest—massively—in
regenerative medicine, precisely because of the meltdown.

Let me prove this.

Does anyone disagree that medical costs are a gigantic causative factor
in the current economic crisis?

It is just common sense. What is the number one cause of people losing
their homes? The inability to pay healthcare costs.

Experts may disagree on the number of bankruptcies caused by inability
to pay health care costs (American Association of Retired Persons, AARP,
estimates

1.85 million families are affected), but by any estimate, the financials
are staggering.

Here are some gigantic numbers.

1. $2.3 trillion direct health care costs in 2007. (1)

2. $2 trillion indirect costs (time lost from work,etc.) minimal
estimate (2)

3. Total medical cost: $4.3 trillion.

4. Total federal income taxes for last year: $1.8 trillion.(3)

Round off those figures, for the sake of argument.

Federal income tax-- two trillion.

Medical debt—four trillion.

Unless you know a way to subtract four trillion from two trillion, the
entire federal income tax receipts could not pay our health care costs.

Think of that. If we gave the military nothing, shut down every
federally-funded institution and program, and gave every federal income
tax dollar to health care—we could pay less than half of our
nation's medical bills.

Why is it so expensive? People are living longer lives, and not getting
well from their diseases and disabilities. Three quarters of all
medical costs come from chronic (incurable) diseases and disabilities.
(4) Since we cannot cure them, we have no choice but to maintain them in
their misery. These are our loved ones; we must do right by them.

But-- if we cure just one disease, we lower health care costs by many
billions. When the vaccine for polio was found (through very
controversial research, strenuously opposed by conservative religion) we
saved $30 billion dollars every year, not to mention saving lives, and
easing suffering. Not only did we save that money, but we also gained
move, because people who did not have polio could be productive
additions to our society, giving us the benefit of their labors, and
contributing to our tax revenues, instead of taking. Cure made them a
financial asset, not an expense—and saved their lives.

Doubling the NIH budget is the least we can do, if we are solve our
economic crisis.

So, get ready for the argument, folks. On its successful outcome depends
the lives of our loved ones, and the financial wellbeing of our nation.

1. National Coalition on Health Care document: Poisal, J.A., et al,
Health Spending Projections Through 2016: Health Affairs, 21 February
2007, w242-253

2. Estimate extrapolated from: Benefits of Research and the Role of
NIH, Executive Summary, U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee, 2000:
cited indirect health care costs were substantially higher than direct
costs in 1999: $1.3 trillion direct, $1.7 trillion indirect. While I
have no reason to suspect this proportion changed since then, I chose a
significantly lower figure to err on the side of caution.

3. $1,366, 241, 000,000 personal: $395,536 billion corporation.
Source: IRS: Tax Stats at a Glance

4. "Medical care costs of people with chronic diseases account
for more than 75% of the nation's $2 trillion medical care costs
(2005 figure-DR)"—Dept. Health and Human Services, Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Yahoo! Groups

Going Green Zone

Learn to go green.

Save energy. Save the planet.

All-Bran

Day 10 Club

on Yahoo! Groups

Feel better with fiber.

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

Sunday, December 7, 2008

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 769

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

Message

1.

CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM STUDIED BY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM: First He

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" Stephen276@comcast.net   stephen_meyer_stemcells

Sun Dec 7, 2008 12:30 pm (PST)


CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM STUDIED BY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM: First
Hearing Report

"Be then as adversaries in law: strive mightily, but eat and drink
as friends." –William Shakespeare.

by Don C. Reed

November 20th was the first hearing in the Little Hoover Committee
process, beginning an in-depth study of California's stem cell
program.

How did I feel about it? Probably the way a survivor of the Titanic
shipwreck might feel, if he was out on the ocean again, and sees an
iceberg, just ahead.

First, by way of background, Senate Bill 1565 (Kuehl/ Runner) asked the
Little Hoover Commission (LHC, an efficiency organization) to study the
California stem cell program: to see (among other things) if the
governing board of experts was a conflict of interest. For instance,
there were representatives of colleges on the board; although they were
not allowed to vote on money which would go to their college, did their
presence on the voting board make it automatically corrupt?

The California court system had already spoken on that issue, saying:

"…by approving Proposition 71, the voters have determined that the
advantages of permitting particularly knowledgeable persons to decide
which research projects to fund outweighs any concerns that these
decisions may be influenced by the personal or professional interests of
those members, so long as those members did not participate in any
decision to award grants to themselves or to their employers."

SB 1565 had been vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the
Little Hoover Commission was going ahead anyway.

They have the power to do that, because, (like the California stem cell
program itself), the LHC is both part of the government, and also set up
in such a way as to shield it from changing political winds. To do its
job, each agency must maintain a high level of independence.

Thirteen commissioners now have the power to not only study and
criticize, but also to suggest changes in the greatest stem cell program
in the world—and offer laws to make those changes mandatory.

As I sat in the back of room 4203 of the Capitol building, I thought of
all the attacks California's program has had to weather, to get
where we are today.

Remember the endless assaults on stem cell research: from the Bush
Administration, the Republican party, the religious right, and anti-tax
forces. One law was actually passed in the GOP-controlled U.S. House of
Representatives to put advanced stem cell research scientists in jail
for ten years and fine them a million dollars-- a law President Bush
promised to sign if it reached his desk—and which was only blocked
after tremendous battles in the United States Senate. That law was
proposed four times.

California's stem cell program, voted into power four years ago, has
only been allowed to operate for about 20 months, delayed by a lawsuit
from ideological and anti-tax groups.

We were only able to go forward when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
authorized a state loan, funds to operate with until the lawsuits were
decided in our favor. At last, the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) was allowed to begin to fund stem cell
research—accompanied by a seemingly endless stream of what I regard
as anti-CIRM legislation, so many different laws to limit our program it
was hard to keep track of them all, not to mention numerous audits,
reviews, and investigations.

Despite that ocean of icebergs, California's stem cell ship of state
had advanced—and now we faced what might be our greatest threat.

The first two speakers were Michael Klausner, Professor of Law, Stanford
Law School, and Ken Taymor, Executive Director, Berkeley Center for Law,
Business, and the Economy. I knew Ken Taymor; he comes to most of the
meetings: great big tall guy, looks like a basketball player.

Their testimony was primarily technical, and advisory.

Mr. Klausner said a large decision-making board (the ICOC has 29
members) is automatically less efficient because of its size.

I wondered how he felt about the United States Senate (100 members) or
the U.S. House of Representatives (435 members).

Ken Taymor stated that (with exceptions) the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine had done an exemplary job on transparency: keeping
the public informed, and allowing involvement.

Both men were questioned exhaustively by the committee, given every
chance to say exactly what they wanted to say. For instance, after
Taymor made the "exemplary" statement, the question came:

What do you mean, the ICOC did an exemplary job of informing the public,
and then you immediately point out an instance where important
scientific deliberations are held in secret—is that not a
contradiction?

Taymore's answer: That tension describes the situation. On the one
hand the public is welcome to the overwhelming majority of meetings; on
the other, the scientific advisory board does hold portions of its
meetings "in camera" (private).

There was a lot like that, complicated questions and difficult answers.

Then came the critics: John Simpson, Director, Stem Cell Oversight and
Accountability Project, Consumer Watchdog: and Jesse Reynolds, Director,
Project on Biotechnology in the Public Interest, Center for Genetics and
Society.

Both men called for major changes in our program. They asked for a
reduction in the leadership board, (the ICOC) that it should be reduced
from its present 29 members to 15, and that all representatives of a
university or research institute should be removed, or at least not
allowed to vote.

They asked that our stem cell program be put under the control of
another state agency, with hire and fire powers over the board, and the
authority to take our funds away.

Our hard-won stem cell research money could be spent somewhere else???

Mr. Reynolds said:

"…the special funds for the CIRM should no longer be allocated in
a manner isolated from the budget review process… the large,
untouchable set-aside for stem cell research is out of place during
these difficult times."

John Simpson said he had not yet made up his mind on that issue
(allowing our funds to be removed), but felt it should be considered.

Both men commented that as President Obama had pledged to remove the
Bush restrictions, and to double the NIH budget, there would now be
plenty of money. (Hold that thought, please).

But then I noticed something: small but important.

One member asked Mr. Simpson if one of the reforms he suggested was
practiced by the National Institutes of Health. There was a substantive
pause, after which Simpson answered honestly.

"No".

Something clicked in my worrying brain.

The Commission was not automatically buying the objectors' case.

One of the critics talked about putting the California stem cell program
under a separate agency-- but the Chair pointed out that would require a
Constitutional amendment. (Which did not mean it was impossible, but
more difficult than a simple legislative change.)

It felt like they were really trying to understand the situation.

I have testified at hearings when the members had their minds made up,
and were just going through the motions; this was different.

The next two speakers were Susan V. Bryant, Vice Chancellor for
Research, University of California, Irvine, and member of the
Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC), and Ralph O'Rear,
Vice President, Facilities and Planning, Buck Institute for Age
Research;

Remember that statement earlier about how there was going to be plenty
of money from the Federal Government for research, now that a more
understanding President was coming aboard?

Ms. Bryant pointed out, even if President-elect Obama doubled the NIH
funding, (which must be done—DR) that would only raise the money
available to embryonic stem cell research from $40 million to $80
million—no substitute for California's roughly $300 million a
year.

Ralph O'Rear talked about new companies opening up in California,
and young scientists were able to find funding in the Golden State. He
said that since Prop 71, scientists were no longer afraid of stem cell
research because of political worries, but were instead excited about
the new possibilities.

He contrasted that with the sad situation at the NIH where five years of
flat funding has meant more and more caution about giving grants, which
favors the older and established scientist-- the average age of a
scientist getting a major NIH grant is now about forty-three years old,
dashing the hopes of young researchers. This must change, and California
is part of the needed improvement.

Then it was the turn of Robert Klein, Chairperson, Independent Citizens
Oversight Committee and Alan Trounson, President of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

Why was there such a large board?

Many specialized viewpoints were needed.

What would he (Bob) do differently, if he had to re-write Prop 71 again?

Bob asked to confer with the ICOC on that one. It was such an important
question, he said. It was his style to lead by consultation.

I remembered all the meetings he chaired, and how nothing was decided
until everyone—public as well as board member—had ample
opportunity to say their say. This was why more decisions passed
unanimously, or close to it, because they worked carefully and
inclusively.

Chairman Daniel Hancock of the LHC asked Bob Klein if he had
"benefited personally in any way" from his work as Chair.

Bob said no.

Then, when Mr. Hancock indicated he wanted more information, the
chairman of the ICOC gave a more full answer:

If my memory serves, Bob said he had donated $6.5 million to the
campaign to pass Proposition 71. He held no stem cell or biomedical/life
science stocks, having voluntarily divested himself of anything like
that, when he took the job as chair. He worked without a salary for the
first four years, but that would have to change, in the economic times
at present.

But for me the most telling point was that Bob (a real estate man) had
written and helped implement the California Housing Finance Authority,
which provides loans for low income housing. Klein's own company
develops low income housing, which would seem to be an automatic
conflict of interest. He could have used his knowledge and position to
benefit his company and himself-- but in all the decades of that
program's existence, he had never taken a single grant or loan from
it.

Questions flew, and at last came one I was waiting for:

"Did I hear correctly, that the ICOC leveraged $272 million of
taxpayer money-- into $1.15 billion in purchasing power?" said
Little Hoover Chairman Daniel W. Hancock.

Bob said yes: by requiring matching funds from institutions wanting
facilities grants (buildings and equipment) an additional $880 million
had been brought to the table.

And then—did my ears deceive me? The chair said something like:

"That's A+ work on leveraging. It will be good to study this
public/ private partnership. It might be a good test case for how the
state might work."

He asked Bob to write more about leveraging and how it worked.

There was a lot more—Bob said how even a small improvement in the
costs of treatment for a few incurable diseases would pay for the whole
program. Trounson added that the main payment is cures for our loved
ones.

What about the international cooperation with Japan that was just
announced? President Trounson answered, talking about the growing number
of countries—countries!—that are entering into research
agreements with California, bringing hundreds of millions of more
research dollars to add strength to our efforts.

Regulations? The California system has an unprecedented level of
oversight, exceeding National Institutes of Health standards in many
cases, and our standards are held up as examples to imitate.

Was the board "hamstrung" by absences, and an inability to find
a quorum, as the critics implied?

Bob mentioned that one ICOC member's child has autism, and that it
is sometimes very difficult to get to meetings; also, some of our
patient advocates for disease have that condition themselves, and health
issues get in the way. But a new policy was being worked out where a
small number of members could be allowed to telephone in to meetings.
(That policy, consideration for which was begun in August, has since
been approved.) Even so, there had been a quorum at all 30 of the major
ICOC meetings.

To me, the real answer is the action accomplished, that decisions were
made and funds were awarded, so the researchers could to do the most
important work of their lives-- that is a decidedly un-hamstrung ICOC.

Both men spoke about the continuing need for cooperation with Assembly
and Senate in Sacramento: pointing out that our legislators' input
has helped shape California's stem cell research policies, every
step of the way.

He mentioned the hoped-for human trials on embryonic stem cell therapy
for spinal cord injury—I wanted to raise my hand and say,
"Originally funded by the Roman Reed Act, named after my
son!"—but restrained myself, with some difficulty.

Speaking on behalf of the patient advocates were Judy Roberson, Herb
Meyer, Susan Rocci and Raymond Barglow—each brought a different
perspective to the issue at hand. Each was an effective speaker for our
cause.

Karen Miner did not come because her wheelchair broke.

Bill Remak was ready to come, but in our conversation about travel
arrangements, he mentioned that last week he had broken both collarbones
in a car crash. I said no, Bill, even for you, there has to be limits.

But he sent a letter of public testimony anyway, saying, in part:

" …We feel that the intent and language of proposition 71
clearly defined the purpose of the program and created a transparent
system where the consumers of successful outcomes from the investments
in research would have a voice, thus keeping separate any political
influence from having an impact on the decision making of the
committee…

We do not wish to see this changed in any way.

…As a member of consumer and disease organizations that represent a
constituency of over 16 million Californians, I respectfully ask the
Commission to reject any recommendation that will suggest a change in
the mandate and governance that already exists.

Sincerely,

Bill Remak, B.Sc. MT, B. Public Health, SGNA

Chairman, California Hepatitis C Task Force

Chair, National Association of Hepatitis Task Forces

Executive Committee, California Chronic Care Coalition

Board Member, FAIR Foundation

My overall impression of the meeting? A huge sigh of relief.

The Little Hoover Commission's investigation will be lengthy and
thorough; I will be involved as much as I can. Naturally, I volunteered
to serve on any committees for which I might be eligible. Anything which
concerns our stem cell program is of tremendous interest to me, and I
want to help, making sure our side is fully considered.

There will be several small meetings up and down the state in the next
few months. I will let you know when they happen, (or look up Little
Hoover Commission on the web, and click on CIRM meetings—you can
also sign up to receive email notification) and you can attend, and be
part of this important work.

But I think the LHC will work to make it fair. Our state has a right to
be sure every dollar is carefully and wisely spent.

Besides, the California stem cell program should be studied, to be
learned from. If I had my way, every state would have something
similar.

If they find areas to improve, experience shows what will happen. The
ICOC will wrestle with the criticism, agonize and argue over it, and
then figure a way to make change where change is needed.

And as the LHC takes an in-depth look at the California stem cell
program,

I have a pretty good idea what they will find:

Something shining: which benefits California, our nation, and the
world—and that is worth defending.

Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
10 Day Club

on Yahoo! Groups

Share the benefits

of a high fiber diet.

Health Groups

for people over 40

Join people who are

staying in shape.

Special K Group

on Yahoo! Groups

Learn how others

are losing pounds.

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

Recent Posts