[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 742

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.

What Is a "Life Issue?"  By Frank Cocozzelli From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1.

What Is a "Life Issue?"  By Frank Cocozzelli

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

Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:43 am (PDT)

What Is a "Life Issue?" By Frank Cocozzelli
<http://www.talk2action.org/user/Frank%20Cocozzelli> Sat Jun 21, 2008
at 10:11:02 AM EST [printable version] print story
<http://www.talk2action.org/printpage/2008/6/21/10112/8151>
<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.talk2action.org/story/200\
8/6/21/10112/8151&title=What Is a "Life Issue?">
<http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&partner=talk2action&noui&jump=close&url=htt\
p://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/21/10112/8151&title=What Is a "Life
Issue?">
<http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed?aff=talkaction&u=http://www.talk2ac\
tion.org/story/2008/6/21/10112/8151&h=What Is a "Life Issue?">
<http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/21\
/10112/8151&amp;title=What Is a "Life Issue?">
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?title=What Is a "Life
Issue?"&url=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/21/10112/8151>
<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2\
008/6/21/10112/8151&title=What Is a "Life Issue?"> [Review it on
NewsTrust]
<http://www.newstrust.net/submit?ref=talk2action.com&url=http://www.talk\
2action.org/story/2008/6/21/10112/8151&title=What Is a "Life Issue?">
<http://www.buzzflash.net/submit.php?url=http://www.talk2action.org/stor\
y/2008/6/21/10112/8151> The Catholic Right, Part Sixty
On June 13, 2008 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
<http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml> approved a declaration
<http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/bishopsESCRstmt.pdf>
condemning embryonic stem cell research. Bill Donohue's Catholic League
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/4/104521/2225> issued an
immediate statement of support
<http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1446> , proclaiming, "The
life issues, then, are of preeminent importance to Catholics. To discuss
social justice, for example, while being dismissive of the life issues
is profoundly un-Catholic."
But as a Catholic who both actively supports and would benefit from
<http://www.stempac.com/weblog/diary/?storyId=566&authorId=5286874>
this research, I began to wonder, what does it take for something to
truly constitute a life issue for the princes of the Church?
topic: Church/State Separation
<http://www.talk2action.org/?op=search&topic=government> A few
posts back I was a bit optimistic that with its concern for Global
Warming that the Church hierarchy was beginning to understand just how
out of proportion with the need for Social Justice
<http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx> its take-no-prisoners
attitude on issues such as abortion, birth control and stem cell
research actually is. Sadly, I stand corrected.
In its most recent proclamation on stem cell research the U.S Bishops
again resort to bad science to make a dogmatic point. For example, they
seriously misstate the value of both adult and embryonic stem cells in
treating disease and disability:
Nature in fact provides ample resources for pursuing medical progress
without raising these grave moral concerns. Stem cells from adult
tissues and umbilical cord blood are now known to be much more versatile
than once thought. These cells are now in widespread use to treat many
kinds of cancer and other illnesses, and in clinical trials they have
already benefited patients suffering from heart disease, corneal damage,
sickle-cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, and many other devastating
conditions. (1) Researchers have even developed new non-destructive
methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem
cells-for example, by "reprogramming" adult cells. There is no moral
objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm
to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with
appropriate informed consent. Catholic foundations and medical centers
have been, and will continue to be, among the leading supporters of
ethically responsible advances in the medical use of adult stem cells.
This is a deliberately misleading statement. As far as a new technique
that could potentially reprogram embryonic stem cells from skin cells
cells are concerned, the independent, National Catholic Reporter more
soberly explained
<http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108n.htm> :
If headlines turn out to be prophetic, Nov. 20, 2007, was a historic day
in the decade-long ethical debate over embryonic stem-cell research.
"Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells," reads The New
York Times. "Major leap for stem cells," the Chicago Tribune added.
"Advance May End Stem Cell Debate," chimed The Washington Post.
But headline prophecies are a tricky business and less than two months
later, it appears The Washington Post was wise to use the word, "may."
Additionally, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, one of the two researchers who
discovered the technique told
<http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108n.htm>
AFP News Services:
TOKYO (AFP) - A Japanese scientist who helped produce stem cells from
skin says controversial research on human embryos must continue for now,
as it will take time to put the new breakthrough into practical
use..."It was a breakthrough. It allowed us to see a goal. But the goal
is far off in the distance," Shinya Yamanaka, the leader of the Kyoto
University research team, told AFP in an interview.
The bishops conveniently left out those important facts. But not
content with fudging science, the bishops then engaged in a bit of
historical revision:
This is not only a teaching of the Catholic Church. Our nation's
Declaration of Independence took for granted that human beings are
unequal in size, strength, and intelligence. Yet it declared that
members of the human race who are unequal in all these respects are
created equal in their fundamental rights, beginning with the right to
life. Tragically, this principle of equal human rights for all has not
always been followed in practice, even by the Declaration's signers. But
in our nation's proudest moments Americans have realized that we cannot
dismiss or exclude any class of humanity-that basic human rights must
belong to all members of the human race without distinction. In light of
modern knowledge about the continuity of human development from
conception onwards, all of us-without regard to religious
affiliation-confront this challenge again today when we make decisions
about human beings at the embryonic stage of development.
This is nothing more than George Weigel-Robert P. George-Michael Novak
neoconservative hogwash being substituted for historical fact. As I've
written here <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/30/13513/174>
and elsewhere
<http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n2/how_roman_catholic_neocons.html\
> , the natural law principles expounded by the Founders were far more
evolved than those adhered to of the Catholic Church's most orthodox
thinkers. Men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were students
of Richard Hooker <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker> and
John Locke <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke> . And as for the
Founders, while they did not does speak of or even hint of embryos in
the Declaration of Independence, their intent can be better inferred by
Article II
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitut\
ion> of the United States Constitution where personhood is described as
a natural born Citizen.
It is not difficult see that players of the Catholic Right were pivotal
in putting forth this declaration. As the Independent Catholic News
reported <http://www.indcatholicnews.com/usembr438.html> , a familiar
name was involved:
In presenting the document, Archbishop of Kansas City Joseph F Naumann
announced that another statement would be issued soon, "addressed
especially to Catholic engaged and married couples (including those
struggling with infertility), to explain the Church's teaching on
reproductive technologies such as 'in vitro' fertilization."
As you may recall from Part Fifty-seven
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/19/205630/099> of this series,
Archbishop Naumann threatened Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebellius with
denial of the Sacrament of Holy Communion for vetoing restrictive
abortion legislation sent to her desk for signing. Sebellius, a
Catholic, is a frequently mentioned possible running mate for
presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
In reading that line, two thoughts immediately appeared in my mind: 1)
Archbishop Naumann is wading deeper into the abortion politics game; and
2) Next he will begin denying Communion to Catholics who practice birth
control. If anything, Naumann's high-profile pronouncment is a clear
indication that hard-line social conservatives are not only asserting
themselves within the ranks of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, but are prepared to continue their noxious interventions in
American politics in the service of distorted dogma.
As an American Catholic, I question who are these people to speak for
people of other faiths, let alone for we faithful who support this
research on theological grounds? What of our Jewish, Anglican and UCC
brethren who believe that we are commanded by God to pursue this
potentially life-saving research?
As I previously observed
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/6/93546/13573> :
And so out of a combination of fear, reaction and yes, isolation, the
faction that now controls the Vatican gives aid and comfort to those who
share their dislike of modernity; neoconservatives and others who look
disapprovingly upon the Enlightenment and its progeny. They do so at the
expense of the natural born mostly for the protection of the fetus and
embryo. The Vatican and their allied neo-orthodox Americans such as
Richard John Neuhaus
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/11/14843/8450> have made
abortion such a litmus test issue to the points where one's position on
"life" is too narrowly defined as "abortion or not." Other "life"
issue, such as health insurance for children
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/20/9463/6330> and curing
disease are unjustifiably given the short shrift.
Are these clergy so aloof that they will place the status of a
blastocyst <http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm> - a
clump of cells with no primitive streak
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-476523/primitive-streak> (the
structure that forms in the early stages of embryonic development, the
beginning of a central nervous system) above the needs of a seven
year-old child whose short, precious life is threatened by juvenile
diabetes, muscular dystrophy or some other devastating illness?
Isn't this too a legitimate "life issue?"
But it appears that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, like the
increasingly dogmatic Vatican hierarchy it speaks for, is more concerned
about life in the abstract than about lives in the real world.
(1) In general see the site www.stemcellresearch.org. Current clinical
trials using adult and cord blood stem cells can be viewed at the site
ClinicalTrials.gov by using the search term "stem cell."
The Catholic Right: A Series, by Frank L. Cocozzelli :
Part One <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/8/72320/82268> Part
Two <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/16/201710/016> Part Three
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/23/82935/0830> Part Four
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/4/104521/2225> Part Five
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/20/161851/677> Part Six
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/25/12735/8807> Intermezzo
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/18/16483/1526> Part Eight
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/8/12/102839/012> Part Nine
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/3/102738/5110> Part Ten
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/23/135525/409> Part Eleven
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/30/153018/850> Part Twelve
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/10/9/162913/621> Part Thirteen
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/10/22/93447/659> Part Fourteen
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/10/29/14391/976> Second
Intermezzo <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/5/162719/121>
Part Sixteen <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/19/14369/238>
Part Seventeen <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/26/161847/02>
Part Eighteen <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/12/23/102445/59>
Part Eighteen <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/12/23/102445/59>
Part Nineteen <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/1/6/21324/54744>
Part Twenty <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/1/15/94844/5458>
Part Twenty-one
<http://www.talk2action.org/admin/story/2007/1/21/134454/051> Part
Twenty-two <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/9/185313/3896>
Part Twenty-three
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/19/1480/64082> Part
Twenty-four
<http://www.talk2action.org/admin/story/2007/3/3/214059/9546> Part
Twenty-five <http://www.talk2action.org/> Part Twenty-six
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/29/15140/0729> Part
Twenty-seven <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/5/5/10522/79375>
Part Twenty-eight
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/5/13/101113/408> Part
Twenty-nine <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/5/19/193721/515>
Part Thirty
<http://www.talk2action.org/admin/story/2007/5/26/14405/9350> Part
Thirty-one <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/6/2/95313/98784>
Part Thirty-two <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/14/84524/4542>
Part Thirty-three
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/21/152153/103> Part
Thirty-four <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/28/92824/6304>
Part Thirty-five <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/5/85647/37604>
Part Thirty-six <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/11/14843/8450>
Part Thirty-seven
<http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/9/15/204842/863> Part
Thirty-eight <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/9/23/10019/3685>
Part Thirty-nine <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/9/30/185549/826>
Part Forty <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/7/144951/317>
Part Forty-one <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/14/103915/79>
Part Forty-two <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/20/9463/6330>
Part Forty-three <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/28/95610/502>
Part Forty-four <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/3/95345/2216>
Part Forty-five <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/11/10/202932/61>
Part Forty-six <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/8/91648/2989>
Part Forty-seven <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/22/2095/1841>
Part Forty-eight <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/6/93546/13573>
Part Forty-nine <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/19/14360/0868>
Part Fifty <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/2/3/152215/6332>
Part Fifty-one <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/1/2058/11800>
Part Fifty-two <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/15/155758/128>
Part Fifty-three <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/4/14/123759/690>
Part Fifty-four <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/4/19/151344/729>
Part Fifty-five <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/4/27/84714/4719>
Part Fifty-six <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/3/20210/77101>
Part Fifty-seven <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/19/205630/099>
Part Fifty-eight <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/31/134213/766>
Part Fifty-nine <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/7/83618/77113>
Digg
<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.talk2action.org/story/&ti\
tle=>
del.icio.us
<http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&partner=talk2action&noui&jump=close&url=htt\
p://www.talk2action.org/story/&title=>
Newsvine
<http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?aff=talkaction&u=http://www.talk2act\
ion.org/story/&h=>
Reddit
<http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.talk2action.org/story/&amp;titl\
e=>
stumbleupon
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?title=&url=http://www.talk2action.org\
/story/>
Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.talk2action.org/story/&\
title=>

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity

•  2
  New Members

Visit Your Group

Y! Messenger

Files to share?

Send up to 1GB of

files in an IM.

Yahoo! Groups

Balance your life

by learning how to

make smart choices.

Yahoo! Groups

Familyographer Zone

Join a group and

share your pictures.

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

Messages | Calendar

MARKETPLACE

You rock! Blockbuster wants to give you a complimentary trial of Blockbuster Total Access.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 741

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.

Stem Cells Europe, Amsterdam 1-3 September 2008 From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1.

Stem Cells Europe, Amsterdam 1-3 September 2008

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

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:47 am (PDT)

Stem Cells Europe, Amsterdam 1-3 September 2008

Select Biosciences are proud to announce their inaugural Stem Cells
Europe <http://www.selectbiosciences.com/conferences/SCE2008>
conference which has been designed to review existing and new life
science applications of stem cell research.

This year's event is to be held in Amsterdam, the dynamic capital city
of The Netherlands. If you register now you could save €100!
<https://selectbiosciences.com/conferences/SCE2008/booking/register.aspx\
> It would also be advantageous for you to attend the Post-conference
market tutorials.

The agenda topics have been split into two sections – Research and
Business & Ethics. The subjects that will be covered in the Research
Track are: Advances in Tissue Engineering; Regenerative Medicine; Drug
Discovery and Disease-Related Research; Therapeutic Advances Using Adult
Somatic Stem Cells; Therapeutic Potential of Pluripotent Human Embryonic
and Reprogrammed Somatic Stem Cells; Epigenetics. The Business & Ethics
Track will be covering: Commercialization of Stem Cell Research;
Start-Up Case Studies; Regulatory and IP Situation; Review of Bioethics
Related to Stem Cells; Funding Sources for Stem Cell Research; Company
Spotlight Presentations.

We have confirmed the following speakers from both Academia and Industry
who have submitted some very interesting presentations: Stephen Minger,
Director, Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, King's College; Bernard Siegel,
Director, Genetics Policy Institute; Ian Wilmut, Director Centre for
Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh; Sheng Ding, Professor,
Scripps Research Institute; Lorraine Young, Professor, Wolfson Centre
for Stem Cells Tissue Engineering; Fergus McKenzie, Programme Manager,
ITI Life Sciences; Dominique Bonnet, Senior Group Leader, Cancer
Research; Magdi Yacoub, Professor, Imperial College London; Ingwer Koch,
Director of Patent Law, European Patent Office; Julie Daniels, Head of
Programme, University College London; Ursula Gehling, Head of Research,
University Hospital ! Hamburg; Miriam Bibel, Project Head, Novartis
Institutes for BioMedical Research; Alain Chapel, Principal
Investigator, Institute of Nuclear Safety; Pier Lorenzo Puri, Assoiate
Telethon Scientist, Dulbecco Telethon Institute; Karim Hayernia, Chair
of Stem Cell Biology, NESCI; Ian Dimmick, Manager, North East England
Stem Cell Institute; Stefan Przyborski, Director, Reinnervate Limited;
Enal Razvi, Biotechnology Analyst, Select Biosciences; Thomas Skutella,
Director, University of Tuebingen; Jolyon White, Technology Consultant,
London Technology Network; Louise Leong, Science Director, Stem Cells
for Safer Medicine; Nick Bassil, Patent Attorney, Kilburn & Strode;
Phillipa Montgomerie, Associate, DLA Piper; Laure Brevignon, Research
Associate, University ! of Cambridge; Cathy Prescott, Director,
Biolatris

If you would like to present your research on a poster whilst attending
the meeting you can still submit an abstract for consideration
<http://www.selectbiosciences.com/conferences/SCE2008/Abstract_Submissio\
n.aspx> until 21st July 2008.

Alternatively if you are interested in Sponsorship or Exhibiting
opportunities please contact the Exhibition Manager on
paul.raggett@selectbiosciences.com
<mailto:paul.raggett@selectbiosciences.com> alternatively call him on
+44 (0) 1787 315117

Look forward to seeing you there!

www.StemCellsEurope.org <http://www.stemcellseurope.org/>

--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/?p=unsubscribe&uid=3e2c19fb1372309e2c71eac91f\
c63492>

To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/?p=preferences&uid=3e2c19fb1372309e2c71eac91f\
c63492>
Forward a Message to Someone this link
<http://globalstemcell.org/?p=forward&uid=3e2c19fb1372309e2c71eac91fc634\
92&mid=4>

[Powered by PHPlist2.10.5, © tincan ltd] <http://www.phplist.com/>

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity

•  1
  New Members

Visit Your Group

Y! Messenger

Files to share?

Send up to 1GB of

files in an IM.

Y! Groups blog

The place to go

to stay informed

on Groups news!

Find Balance

on Yahoo! Groups

manage nutrition,

activity & well-being.

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

Messages | Calendar

MARKETPLACE

---

Blockbuster is giving away a FREE trial of - Blockbuster Total Access.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 740

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.

DEFEND CALIFORNIA'S STEM CELL PROGRAM!   Send one E-mail—or From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1.

DEFEND CALIFORNIA'S STEM CELL PROGRAM!   Send one E-mail—or

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

Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:17 pm (PDT)

DEFEND CALIFORNIA'S STEM CELL PROGRAM! Send one E-mail—or
Yourself?

Folks, your help is needed.

Tuesday, June 17, there will be a Sacramento hearing on a bill which
would (once again) attempt to hamstring the operations of the California
stem cell program.

Proposition 71 is under attack—again! Tuesday is a crucial hearing
to protect Prop 71, our wonderful stem cell program, and today is
Friday.

Can you come to Sacramento that day? If so, drop me an email here.

Before then, there is work to be done. Today, in about half an hour, I
will be on the road to Sacramento to visit the offices of the members of
the Health Assembly Committee.

They don't know I'm coming, and it will be like, "Oh, you
don't have an appointment? No? Oh, well, the person you should
really talk to Susan______, but she is in a meeting, could you come back
in 2 hours and 37 minutes?" Which I will say of course, write the
time down, say thank you very much, and go on to the next of the 26
offices…

No matter what state you live in, the California stem cell research
program is for you.

But the hearing is the crucial thing. If our side is not represented, we
will lose. So far the patient advocate side basically has not been
heard. I have been there babbling at all four hearings, but nobody else,
and the bill has not received a single no vote.

You personally can help. Doing nothing, hoping someone else will show
up, is the way to lose. If you are in driving distance of Sacramento,
please consider joining me at the hearing. I do not have the hour or the
room number, but will know them soon.

If you cannot come yourself, could you send an email?

Consider sending an email (the same one) to each member of the
committee.

One sentence is all that is really needed, and you do not have to live
in their district.

It could be short: "As a supporter of stem cell research, I urge
your NO vote on Senate Bill 1565. "

Or long as you want.

Here is the letter I sent:

NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER

As the father of a paralyzed young man, and the sponsor of a successful
California law supporting spinal cord injury research*, I strongly
oppose SB 1565 (Kuehl/Runner), a bill with many hidden threats.

Three reasons leap to mind:

1. SB 1565 would require the Little Hoover Commission to investigate the
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)—for a fourth
time. The California stem cell program has already been investigated
(and found squeaky clean) three times. Further dissection is not only a
waste of taxpayer dollars, but also a distraction from duty on an
already short-handed CIRM staff.

2. By mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to affordable access for
uninsured Californians, (a goal we all share) SB 1565 would deny
bargaining ability to the CIRM. This could defeat the CIRM's ability
to negotiate with corporations. For instance, diseases like Spinal
Muscle Atrophy (SMA) devastate lives of infants and their families, but
the number of patients is not a large enough market to attract corporate
investment. If CIRM retains its bargaining ability, (which SB 1565
threatens) it could offer flexibility in pricing on one area, in
exchange for industry involvement in an "orphan disease" like
SMA, thus potentially saving lives and advancing science for the good of
all.

3. Co-author Senator George Runner, who has been described as
"virulently anti-embryonic" in terms of stem cell research,
reportedly seeks a new change in SB 1565. Senator Runner wishes to
increase funding for the more conservatively-favored "adult"
stem cell research, the type approved (and preferentially funded) by the
Bush Administration. To backpedal now would be to deny the will of the
California voters.

While doubtless begun with the best intentions, SB 1565 would be a
frustrating obstacle to the California stem cell program, and all who
support research for cure.

On behalf of millions who suffer chronic disease and disability, and who
look to embryonic stem cell research for hope, I urge your strong
opposition to SB 1565.

Sincerely,

Don C. Reed

* California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of
1999, named after my paralyzed son, provided funding for a paralysis
treatment developed by Geron, which is currently under discussion by the
FDA, and we hope it will soon go to human trials.

Okay, that was my letter. Yours does not have to be so elaborate. A
sentence or two is fine.

Below are the email addresses. The bill itself is the very bottom of
the page,

Thanks, and I hope to see you at the hearing, June 17th!

Best,

Don

Assembly Health Committee

Mervyn M. Dymally - Chair

Dem-52

(916) 319-2052

Assemblymember.dymally@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.dymally@assembly.ca.gov>

Alan Nakanishi - Vice Chair

Rep-10

(916) 319-2010

Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov>

Patty Berg

Dem-1

(916) 319-2001

Assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov>

Wilmer Amina Carter

Dem-62

(916) 319-2062

Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov>

Hector De La Torre

Dem-50

(916) 319-2050

Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov>

Kevin de Leon

Dem-45

(916) 319-2045

Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov>

Bill Emmerson

Rep-63

(916) 319-2063

Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov>

Ted Gaines

Rep-4

(916) 319-2004

Assemblymember.Gaines@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Gaines@assembly.ca.gov>

Loni Hancock

Dem-14

(916) 319-2014

Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov>

Mary Hayashi

Dem-18

(916) 319-2018

Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov>

Edward P. Hernandez

Dem-57

(916) 319-2057

Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov>

Bob Huff

Rep-60

(916) 319-2060

Assemblymember.huff@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.huff@assembly.ca.gov>

Dave Jones

Dem-9

(916) 319-2009

Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov>

Sally J. Lieber

Dem-22

(916) 319-2022

Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov>

Fiona Ma

Dem-12

(916) 319-2012

Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov>

Mary Salas

Dem-79

(916) 319-2079

Assemblymember.Salas@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Salas@assembly.ca.gov>

Audra Strickland

Rep-37

(916) 319-2037

Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov>

Dave Jones - Chair

Dem-9

(916) 319-2009

Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov>

Van Tran - Vice Chair

Rep-68

(916) 319-2068

Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.tran@assembly.ca.gov>

Anthony Adams

Rep-59

(916) 319-2059

Assemblymember.Adams@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Adams@assembly.ca.gov>

Noreen Evans

Dem-7

(916) 319-2007

Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov>

Mike Feuer

Dem-42

(916) 319-2042

Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov>

Rick Keene

Rep-3

(916) 319-2003

Assemblymember.keene@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.keene@assembly.ca.gov>

Paul Krekorian

Dem-43

(916) 319-2043

Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov>

John Laird

Dem-27

(916) 319-2027

Assemblymember.laird@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.laird@assembly.ca.gov>

Lloyd E. Levine

Dem-40

(916) 319-2040

Assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov>

Sally J. Lieber

Dem-22

(916) 319-2022

Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov
<mailto:Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov>

Here is the full text of the bill.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1565 AMENDED

BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 9, 2008

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 16, 2008

INTRODUCED BY Senators Kuehl and Runner

( Coauthor: Senator Wiggins

)

(Coauthor: Assembly Member Jones)

FEBRUARY 22, 2008

An act to amend Section 125290.60 of, and to add

Section 125293 to , the Health and Safety Code, relating to

reproductive health.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1565, as amended, Kuehl. California Stem Cell Research and

Cures Act.

The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act (the act), an

initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004,

statewide general election as Proposition 71, establishes the

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the purpose of

which is, among other things, to make grants and loans for stem cell

research, for research facilities, and for other vital research

opportunities to realize therapies, protocols, and medical procedures

that will result in the cure for, or substantial mitigation of,

diseases and injuries. Existing law establishes the Independent

Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC) composed of appointed members,

that is required to perform various functions and duties with regard

to the operation of the institute, including, but not limited to,

establishing standards applicable to research funded by the

institute. Existing law prohibits amendment of Proposition 71 by the

Legislature unless the amendment is approved by the voters, or the

amendment is accomplished by a bill introduced after the first 2 full

calendar years and approved by a vote of 70% of both houses, and

only if the amendment enhances the ability of the institute to

further the purposes of the grant and loan programs.

Existing provisions of Proposition 71 provide

The act provides that the ICOC shall establish standards

that require that all grants and loan awards under the act shall be

subject to intellectual property agreements that balance the

opportunity of the state to benefit from the patents, royalties, and

licenses that result from basic research, therapy development, and

clinical trials with the need to assure that essential medical

research is not unreasonably hindered by the intellectual property

agreements.

This bill would require that intellectual property standards that

the ICOC develops shall include a requirement that each grantee and

the licensees of the grantee submit to the CIRM for approval a plan

that will afford uninsured Californians access to any drug that is,

in whole or in part, the result of research funded by the CIRM, and

would require that any plan subject to that approval shall require

that the grantees and licensees thereof sell drugs at a price that

does not exceed any benchmark price in the California Discount

Prescription Drug Program.

The act provides that the CIRM shall have 3 separate scientific

and medical working groups, including the Scientific and Medical

Research Funding Working Group, which, among other things, shall make

grant and loan award recommendations to the ICOC. Existing law

provides that, in order to ensure CIRM funding does not duplicate or

supplant existing funding, certain research categories shall not be

funded by the CIRM, except when at least 2/3 of a quorum of the

members of the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group

recommend to the ICOC that such a research proposal is a vital

research opportunity.

This bill would, instead, only require a simple majority of a

quorum of the members of the Scientific and Medical Research Funding

Working Group to recommend to the ICOC that a particular research

proposal is a vital research opportunity.

Existing law establishes the Milton Marks "Little Hoover"

Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, a

multimember body appointed by the Governor and the Legislature with

various duties that include making recommendations to the Governor

and the Legislature to promote efficiency in government operations.

This bill would require request the

commission to conduct a study of the governance structure of the

California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. This bill would

, by July 1, 2009, require the commission to provide

that if the commission conducts the study, it shall, by July 1, 2009,

submit, to the appropriate committees of each house of the

Legislature, a report on the results of the study and recommendations

of ways the governance structure of the ICOC could better ensure

public accountability and reduce conflicts of interest, consistent

with the purposes of Proposition 71, and would require the commission

to make the report available to the public.

Vote: 70%. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 125290.60 of the

Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

125290.60. Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group

(a) Membership

The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group shall

have 23 members as follows:

(1) Seven ICOC members from the 10 disease advocacy group members

described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of subdivision (a) of

Section 125290.20.

(2) Fifteen scientists nationally recognized in the field of stem

cell research.

(3) The Chairperson of the ICOC.

(b) Functions

The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group shall

perform the following functions:

(1) Recommend to the ICOC interim and final criteria, standards,

and requirements for considering funding applications and for

awarding research grants and loans.

(2) Recommend to the ICOC standards for the scientific and medical

oversight of awards.

(3) Recommend to the ICOC any modifications of the criteria,

standards, and requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above

as needed.

(4) Review grant and loan applications based on the criteria,

requirements, and standards adopted by the ICOC and make

recommendations to the ICOC for the award of research, therapy

development, and clinical trial grants and loans.

(5) Conduct peer group progress oversight reviews of grantees to

ensure compliance with the terms of the award, and report to the ICOC

any recommendations for subsequent action.

(6) Recommend to the ICOC standards for the evaluation of grantees

to ensure that they comply with all applicable requirements. Such

standards shall mandate periodic reporting by grantees and shall

authorize the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group

to audit a grantee and forward any recommendations for action to the

ICOC.

(7) Recommend its first grant awards within 60 days of the

issuance of the interim standards.

(c) Recommendations for Awards

Award recommendations shall be based upon a competitive evaluation

as follows:

(1) Only the 15 scientist members of the Scientific and Medical

Research Funding Working Group shall score grant and loan award

applications for scientific merit. Such This

scoring shall be based on scientific merit in three separate

classifications--research, therapy development, and clinical trials,

on criteria including the following:

(A) A demonstrated record of achievement in the areas of

pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell biology and medicine,

unless the research is determined to be a vital research opportunity.

(B) The quality of the research proposal, the potential for

achieving significant research, or clinical results, the timetable

for realizing such significant results, the importance of the

research objectives, and the innovativeness of the proposed research.

(C) In order to ensure that institute funding does not duplicate

or supplant existing funding, a high priority shall be placed on

funding pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell research that

cannot, or is unlikely to, receive timely or sufficient federal

funding, unencumbered by limitations that would impede the research.

In this regard, other research categories funded by the National

Institutes of Health shall not be funded by the institute.

(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), other scientific and medical

research and technologies and/or any stem cell research proposal not

actually funded by the institute under subparagraph (C) may be

funded by the institute if at least two-thirds

a simple majority of a quorum of the members of the

Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group recommend to

the ICOC that such a research proposal is a vital

research opportunity.

SECTION 1. SEC. 2. Section 125293 is

added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

125293. (a) The intellectual property standards that the ICOC

develops shall include a requirement that each grantee and the

licensee of the grantee submit a plan to the California Institute for

Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) that will afford uninsured Californians

access to any drug that is, in whole or in part, the result of

research funded by the CIRM.

(b) The ICOC shall require submission of the plan required by

subdivision (a) before a drug is placed into commerce. The plan shall

be subject to the approval of the CIRM, after a public hearing and

opportunity for public comment.

(c) (1) Any plan subject to subdivision (a) shall include a

requirement that each grantee and any licensee of the grantee that

sells drugs that are, in whole or in part, the result of research

funded by CIRM and that are purchased in California with public funds

shall sell those drugs at a price that does not exceed any benchmark

price in the California Discount Prescription Drug Program (Division

112 (commencing with Section 130500)), as it exists on January 1,

2008.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not preclude any public agency from

obtaining prices that are lower than the price determined as

described in paragraph (1) through negotiation, bulk purchasing, or

any other purchasing arrangement and shall not be construed to

conflict with, or preempt, any other provision of state or federal

law or regulation that would result in lower drug prices.

(d) For purposes of this section, "drug" includes any article

recognized in the United States Pharmacopeia or supplement thereof,

the National Formulary, or any supplement thereof, and any article

intended for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, or prevention of

disease in humans or animals, or any article intended for use as a

component thereof, and shall include therapeutic products, including,

but not limited to, blood, blood products, cells, and cell

therapies.

SEC. 2. SEC. 3. (a) The

Legislature hereby requests the Milton Marks "Little Hoover"

Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy

shall to conduct a study of the

governance structure of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures

Act, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 2,

2004, statewide general election (Proposition 71), including the

membership of the Independent Citizens

Citizen's Oversight Committee and the relative roles of the

committee and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

(b) By If the commission conducts the

study described in subdivision (a), the commission shall, by

July 1, 2009, the commission shall submit,

submit to the appropriate committees of each house of the

Legislature, a report on the results of the study required

requested by subdivision (a) and recommendations

of ways the governance structure of the Independent Citizen's

Oversight Committee could better ensure public accountability and

reduce conflicts of interest, consistent with the purposes of

Proposition 71. The commission shall make the report available to the

public.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Visit Your Group

Y! Messenger

Instant hello

Chat in real-time

with your friends.

Yahoo! Groups

Stay healthy

and discover other

people who can help.

Real Food Group

Share recipes,

restaurant ratings

and favorite meals.

Need to Reply?

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

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Calendar

MARKETPLACE

---

You rock! Blockbuster wants to give you a complimentary trial of - Blockbuster Total Access.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

[StemCellInformation] Digest Number 739

Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (2 Messages)

1.

JOHN McCAIN, BASEBALL, AND STEM CELL RESEARCH From: Stephen Meyer

2a.

#446 Friday, May 30, 2008 - FDA, THE CANCER SCARE, AND MY SECRET PLA From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.

JOHN McCAIN, BASEBALL, AND STEM CELL RESEARCH

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

Wed Jun 4, 2008 6:15 am (PDT)

JOHN McCAIN, BASEBALL, AND STEM CELL RESEARCH

Do you like the stem cell policies of President George Bush? If so, you
will love John McCain, who is more of the same, only worse.

A McCain Presidency would attack stem cell research three ways.

1. He has promised to sign a bill to put stem cell scientists in
jail; 2. He approves of a law to redefine human life as legally
beginning at the blastocyst stage, potentially criminalizing embryonic
stem cell research; 3. He has pledged to appoint even more
ultra-conservative judges to the Supreme Court, effectively stacking it.

But you heard that the Senator from Arizona supported the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act? That is true, and he deserves credit. John
McCain did vote twice to support (H.R. 810, S5, Castle/DeGette)--unlike
President Bush, who twice vetoed it.

Bear in mind, however, that Castle/Degette is not a strong bill. It was
written as cautiously and conservatively as possible, so that even the
most anti-research President might be able to sign it. There is no
reference to advanced stem cell research like SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer), and no funding. Its improvement? Mr. Bush's policy
allowed federal funding only for those embryonic stem cell lines in
existence before August 9th, 2001. Castle/Degette would have removed
the date.

So a McCain Presidency would allow one mildly positive bill to go
forward. That's it: his total contribution to stem cell research.

How he would oppose the research is far more significant.

Look at three commitments the Senator has made, all utterly damaging to
research.

STRIKE ONE: Like President Bush, and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS),
Senator McCain is in favor of jailing stem cell scientists if they
participate in advanced stem cell research, Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer (SCNT), sometimes called therapeutic cloning. As you know, SCNT
involves a skin cell and an emptied egg like a woman loses every month;
it involves no sperm, no implantation in the womb, no womb—and no
child at all—except perhaps a person being healed of an incurable
disease. However, John McCain has pledged to prohibit SCNT, the first
ban on medical research in American history, which Mr. Bush tried (and
failed) to do in all his years in office. The law to ban the research is
the Cloning Prohibition Act, offered by Brownback.

The Brownback Cloning Prohibition Act sees no difference between cloning
a baby (useless, dangerous, and deserving of criminalization ) and
copying cells with SCNT, which positive process is supported by
essentially the entire medical, research, and patient advocate
community.

The Act would put scientists in jail for ten years, and/or fine them a
minimum of one million dollars. It would threaten the same penalties for
doctors, parents, or patients themselves; anyone who tried to use SCNT.

Could Senator McCain support such a cruelly unfair law? Listen to his
own words, in an interview with conservative National Review editor
Ramesh Ponnoru.

(interviewer Ponnoru) "On the question of stem cells. I believe the
last time around you voted for federal funding for using the embryos at
I.V.F. clinics. Have you reconsidered that? Is that still your view?

Sen. McCain: Yeah. It's still my view. I've watched many close
friends suffer from many of these debilitating diseases. I'm for all
kinds of stem-cell research. But I would hope that we can make
scientific progress so that this wouldn't be that much of an issue
any more but I support federal funding for it and I understand that I
have a difference of opinion with some of my friends in the pro-life
community.

Ponnuru: All kinds of stem-cell research? What about stem-cell research
that involves human cloning?

Sen. McCain: I'm obviously against any human cloning. Obviously.

Ponnuru: Would you be willing to ban it?

Sen. McCain: Sure.

Ponnuru: So you'd support something like the Brownback bill? (The
Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007, see below)

Sen. McCain: Yes. I think I'm a co-sponsor."*…

--National Review, March 5th, 2007

STRIKE TWO: Senator McCain supports a bill which would redefine human
life as legally beginning at the blastocyst stage: granting
"personhood" status to the microscopic joining of sperm and egg.

According to his spokesperson (and numerous sources including Paul
Krugman of the New York Times)**, McCain would sign the South Dakota
anti-abortion law, considered the most extreme ever proposed. The law
contains "personhood" provisions, stating that "life begins
at conception". This could be disastrous to stem cell research
hopes.

Remember that discarded blastocysts are currently the only source of
embryonic stem cells. If a blastocyst (the microscopic joining of sperm
and egg) has legal standing in a court of law, this could criminalize
the entire field of embryonic stem cell research. The In Vitro
Fertility (IVF) process, mixing sperm and eggs in a Petri dish,
generally ends up with 15-20 blastocysts, most of which are too weak to
survive. These will be thrown away, donated to another couple (who
generally prefer to make their own), frozen forever—or donated to
research as a source of hope for cure.

Could this use of discarded blastocysts, turning medical trash into
treasure, be allowed, if the bill John McCain approved should become
law?

Look at the official text:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Section 1. "…the guarantee of due process of law under the South
Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings.

"Section 2. The legislature finds that the life of a human being
begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm…"

From the instant of fertilization, a blastocyst (often shed unnoticed by
married women in their natural cycles) is entitled to "due process
of law".

Mr. McCain claims to support embryonic stem cell research—but he
approves of legislation which could make that research illegal?

STRIKE THREE: Senator McCain has pledged to support "strict
constructionist" (ultra-conservative) judges to the Supreme Court.
His example of the sort of judge he would appoint? Samuel Alito and
Antonin Scalia. There are already seven Republican judges to only two
Democrats on the court, considered one of the most conservative ever. If
even one more conservative judge was appointed, the Roberts Court would
have an absolute conservative majority.

And who would advise him on his Supreme Court appointments? None other
than that most anti-stem cell Senator of all, Sam Brownback****.\

Folks, in baseball terms, if John McCain was at bat, the count would be
one ball, and three strikes.

In the twisted logic of those who oppose stem cell research, that is
probably a home run.

But for me, he's out.

*Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1036 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1036

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit human cloning.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 29, 2007
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.
BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr.
DEMINT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr.
GRASSLEY, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr.
MARTINEZ, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, and Mr.
VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit human cloning.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 498D. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.
`(a) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term `human cloning' means human asexual
reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material from one or
more human somatic cells into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose
nuclear material has been removed or inactivated so as to produce a
living organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically
virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human
organism.

`(2) ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION- The term `asexual reproduction' means
reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.

`(3) SOMATIC CELL- The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having
a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or
deceased human body at any stage of development.

`(b) Prohibition- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public
or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, knowingly--

`(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning;

`(2) to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; or

`(3) to ship or receive for any purpose an embryo produced by human
cloning or any product derived from such embryo.

`(c) Importation- It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public
or private, knowingly to import for any purpose an embryo produced by
human cloning.

`(d) Penalties-

`(1) CRIMINAL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates this section
shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

`(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Any person or entity that violates any provision of
this section shall be subject to, in the case of a violation that
involves the derivation of a pecuniary gain, a civil penalty of not less
than $1,000,000 and not more than an amount equal to the amount of the
gross gain multiplied by 2, if that amount is greater than
$1,000,000…"

**

529M0546

SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ENGROSSED NO. HB 1215 - 02/17/2006

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the
conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion… that
life begins at the time of conception…

***"McCain Is Not a Moderate", by Paul Krugman, the New York
Times

"Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have
signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.

The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the
appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and
incest were excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense:
the South Dakota law** has produced national shockwaves precisely
because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of
the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's
recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the
Senate's third most conservative member."—13 March, 2006

****"On the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court, McCain
mentioned that Sam Brownback (emphasis added) would play an advisory
role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court. As
models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel
Alito and Antonin Scalia." –Catholic News Agency, January 23,
2008.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2a.

#446 Friday, May 30, 2008 - FDA, THE CANCER SCARE, AND MY SECRET PLA

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

Wed Jun 4, 2008 6:16 am (PDT)

#446 Friday, May 30, 2008 - FDA, THE CANCER SCARE, AND MY SECRET PLAN

Cancer is prevalent in my family. My mother died young (58) of breast
cancer; my older sister died of leukemia, a form of blood cancer (age
23); my younger sister is battling both cancer and leukemia right now.

So when I hear that the field of stem cell research may be held up
because of the possibility of cancer, how shall I feel?

Cautious, definitely. Cancer is a serious risk.

But the only way any of us can keep safe from cancer altogether is to
live on a different planet.

The air we breathe, the water we drink—polluted. The food we take
into our bodies—chemicals, pesticides, preservatives, all known
carcinogens.

Should we stop the research because of that fear?

Should we say, no human trials with embryonic stem cells until we can
guarantee there are no risks at all?

In other words, never?

As you know (if you have suffered through this column for any length of
time) the FDA is considering allowing human trials for embryonic stem
cell therapies.

April 10th was a hearing, and the transcript is available online, at the
FDA page. (http://www.fda.gov <http://www.fda.gov/> ) The search box is
at the upper right corner of the page, type in embryonic, then choose
the April 10th hearing transcripts if you want to read the complete
word-by-word testimony. Some parts of the hearing were closed, I
understand, but you can definitely get the message.

The number one topic—voiced on almost every page of the
transcript—is the fear of cancer.

Over and over and over, statements are made about cancer and teratomas
and tumors, as if our field was as dangerous as tobacco, which of course
is allowed.

Numerous statements are made about not allowing the trials to go forward
until all possible threats of cancer are removed.

Is there a risk of cancer?

Here are the facts, as plain as I understand them, and always with the
proviso that I am neither scientist, nor doctor.

If a scientist were to put pure embryonic stem cells into my body, there
would almost certainly be a teratoma. A teratoma is a lump, a growth, a
tumor—not cancer. A teratoma is harmless of itself, unless it grows
in a place where any lump would be dangerous—like the spine. We
don't want it, but a teratoma is not cancerous.

Also—and this is important— a teratoma comes (if it does) only
when undifferentiated embryonic stem cells are put in. To the best of my
knowledge, no scientist wants to do this—nobody wants to put
undifferentiated cells in. They want to differentiate (change) the cells
first.

Think of a carpenter's nails, screws, nuts and bolts. These all
begin as hot liquid metal, very dangerous to work with—but we do not
use them in that formless shape—at the nail factory, the molten iron
is poured into molds, and shaped, and cooled. We only use them when the
metal is completely set.

Same with stem cells. The embryonic stem cells are
differentiated—shaped—into whatever kind of cell is needed. We
use them only after differentiation.

In the Keirstead/Geron experiments, that means oligodendrocytes, cells
to create myelin, cells to insulate damaged nerves in the spine.

These are already differentiated.

For the past few days I have been struggling with the nearly 300 page
FDA report, the transcript of the April 10th hearing on embryonic stem
cells and "safety". I put that in quotes because that is not all
that is being debated; there is also the unsaid agenda which everybody
carries.

All of us have a plan. With me, it is to advance the research.

With some of the folks in the hearings, it seems to be the
opposite—what kind of logical-sounding excuse can they come up with
that will delay human trials?

It is never easy, guessing the intent of people's minds. Honorable
folks can disagree. Very intelligent folks, doctors and scientists, and
as always, part of me wants to say, well, these folks are smarter than
me, let them alone, don't make a fuss.

But everybody on earth is smarter than me in one thing or
another—that does not mean I am going to keep silent. Not to mention
I am a parent, and this affects my paralyzed son, and millions like him,
all around the world, somebody's loved one, afflicted with one
incurable condition or another.

I don't intend to be on my deathbed (many years from now!) and there
is my son in his wheelchair beside me—still in his wheelchair? I am
sure he would be polite and not actually say, gee Dad, if only you had
stepped up to the plate…

No, before I head into the great beyond, I intend to see my son on his
feet: walking around, kicking a soccer ball, or kicking an anti-science
politician—sorry.

So I will always voice my opinion, no matter how much more qualified the
opposition may be.

And I will also have a backup plan.

So here it is, my secret backup plan.

Roman and I will probably go to China.

Not now, of course. The research is not ready. But when it is, I think
the Chinese will bring it together first. That's why I'm
studying Mandarin every day, one hour, without fail: tapes in the car,
books by my bedside, little cards in my wallet.

When the time is right, I will borrow on my house again, like I did when
Rome was injured, and we will go.

I will work with a Chinese spinal cord injury surgeon (some of whom
already do 300 traditional spinal cord operations in a year), and a
scientist or two, make sure everyone knows exactly what has to be done
(always assuming Roman agrees, of course) telling them in two languages
exactly the mix of stem cells and neurotrophic agents or whatever has to
be administered.

After the operation, I figure it will take six months of rehabilitation,
which we will do in China also, because we could not afford it here,
even borrowing on the house.

Why China? Why not stay in my own land, especially since I honestly
believe the research breakthroughs will happen here?

There is an American option, of course. I will write about that in the
near future.

But to go from idea to implantation, the way it looks now, there are too
many road blocks in the way. Naturally, I will be working to remove
those obstacles, but… in a few minutes I will pick up my
Chinese/English dictionary and start the morning practice.

Maybe I am wrong.

I hope I am.

But when I see cancer fear being systematically spread—even hyped!--
in the FDA report, it feels like they are just going through the
motions, after which they fully intend to deny the trials.

Right now, as you know, the FDA orally notified Geron that the trials
were "on hold", for unspecified reasons.

Geron is waiting for a letter from the FDA explaining those reasons.

It is my guess the FDA will deny the trials. The letter will say
something like there are too many risks for the trials to go forward at
this time, and here are a list of impossible conditions that must be met
first, before embryonic stem cell research is allowed a chance.

If I am wrong, fine.

Some good people tell me, don't worry, be patient, just wait-- the
next President will fix things.

But what if the FDA establishes guidelines that are impossible to meet,
and those guidelines have to be overturned before human trials can take
place?

It will be very hard for new FDA scientists to overturn safety
standards, even misguided ones.

If the stem cell trials are blocked by unfair tactics, like setting the
safety bar impossibly high, you and I will need to speak up.

Start thinking about this. Discuss it with your friends. Think about
groups you belong to, media folks you may know.

Get ready.

Don Reed

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

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

Visit Your Group

Y! Groups blog

the best source

for the latest

scoop on Groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Real Food Group

Share recipes

and favorite meals.

Family Photos

Learn how to best

capture your

family moments.

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

Messages | Calendar

MARKETPLACE

You rock! Blockbuster wants to give you a complimentary trial of Blockbuster Total Access.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe