Friday, February 25, 2005

Stem Cell Research Threatened by Legislation

The public debate is often aroused by scientific areas of investigation. Such is the case with the field of stem cell research.

Missouri so far has had by far the highest rate of varied opinions, for quite a while. While State legislators have introduced bills in both the Missouri House and Senate to ban a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), criminalizing certain kinds of research into medical uses of embryonic stem cells in Missouri, Missouri research institutions, including Washington University, have come out in strong opposition to the legislation. These groups are joining with other organizations to form the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

Now the fight has moved to California and now some taxpayer groups and a pro-life legal firm have filed suit to shut off the funding. The suit, filed in state court, argues that the California Constitution makes it clear any taxpayer money must be under the exclusive management and control of the state.

Waiting to see what others come up with just for the sake of dragging down something that not only that's moving very slow (it's been 5 years since stem cell research hit main stream), but could be the new era of human development.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Missouri: Stem Cell Debate Tests Basic Beliefs

Senate Bill 160 and House Bill 457 would ban therapeutic cloning. These bills would essentially ban what is known as embryonic stem cell research, making attempting such research a class B felony. Complicating the issue is the fact that most Missouri residents don't understand the science behind stem cell research.

In fact, a recent public opinion poll conducted by Market Strategies, a national polling firm, revealed that only one-third of Missourians had heard about somatic cell nuclear transfer stem cell research. SCNT is the type of research the Stowers Institute, a Kansas City medical research facility, seeks to protect.

"Somatic cell nuclear transfer represents, perhaps, our greatest hope for curing diseases such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and many more," said Marie Jennings, spokesperson for the Stowers Institute.

State Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, a sponsor of SB 160, said he opposes SCNT because he believes it to be unethical.

"To me it's a simple matter of deciding whether we should be creating a human embryo for the purpose of destroying it," Bartle said. "We could achieve medical advancements by experimenting on the prison population. But we don't do that."

As debate on the issue continues on both sides of the legislature, a look at the science behind the controversy can help the average Missouri resident decide where they stand.

Read on

Outside the U.S., Businesses Run With Unproved Stem Cell Therapies

Stem cell clinics offering unproven therapies for a range of diseases have become a multimillion-dollar industry, operating in Mexico, Ukraine, Barbados, China and elsewhere.

Charging tens of thousands of dollars, the clinics typically draw patients who have exhausted conventional therapies.

The backgrounds of the people behind the clinics vary — many see themselves as crusaders for the disabled and dying.

Tom Hill had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, an incurable deterioration of the nervous system that spares the cognitive parts of the brain, leaving its victims sharply aware as they slowly die. The doctors told him there was no way to reverse the disease. Tom refused to listen. In the spring of 2003, he found http://www.biomark-intl.com. BioMark International offered a stem cell injection for a variety of illnesses, including Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy, depression and ALS. Tom threw himself into setting up a BioMark injection.
"They normally charge $21,000 but they want to be listed on my website," he wrote on a notepad.

He got the fee down to $10,000.

The stem cells could be injected into a vein, which BioMark said would bring the biggest results in three months, or into the fat of the abdomen for improvements that would come later but last longer. Tom decided he would split the cells and do it both ways. From the week he was diagnosed, he had told everybody that he would survive. He had fought so hard. This was a cure whose power nobody could deny. Alone with the doctor, Tom felt the sting of two needles. In a few minutes, it was over. Restoration had begun, he thought.

In October, the family of Craig Lauver, an ALS patient in Mifflintown, Pa., who was convinced that a BioMark injection could cure him, called the FDA with concerns about the company.

The FDA began a fraud investigation, persuading the Lauver family to help set up an undercover operation. Craig Lauver's brother, Nelson, said he asked BioMark to send somebody to inject the cells.

When a BioMark representative arrived from Arizona on Nov. 14, an FDA agent was there posing as Nelson's business colleague. The representative talked about the therapy, while two FDA agents in a bedroom controlled a video camera hidden in a lamp. After about 20 minutes, they entered the living room and pulled out their badges.

The FDA questioned and released the BioMark representative.

The same day, the FDA raided BioMark's office in Miami Beach, according to an e-mail the company sent to a patient.

The FDA froze BioMark's Bank of America accounts, which held $264,554.12, court documents show.

The company was shut down, but on the Internet it still looked like a thriving business. The website was dense with links to news articles about stem cells and diseases. The words "BioTech Advances" were bannered across the top, alongside the image of somebody peering into a microscope. A DNA double-helix spiraled down the left. There were links for "Research and Development," "Scientific Support" and "Testimonials."

On the Internet, satisfied BioMark customers described improvements, such as smoother skin, better sleep and more energy — sometimes within hours of their injections. Scientists leave open the possibility that the patients are experiencing more than the placebo effect, but without controlled clinical trials it is difficult to know what is happening.

In early November, Tom received an e-mail from BioMark stating that the board of directors wanted to offer him a second treatment. He would only be required to pay about $1,000. Perhaps the first stem cell injection just needed a boost. He was ready to wire the money as soon as BioMark scheduled an appointment. Then the news arrived. BioMark was under investigation for fraud. [...] On March 23, 2004, Tom Hill died at Haven House Hospice in Atlanta. He was 56. The FDA recently sent Valerie, Tom's wife, a check for $6,896, part of the money the government seized from BioMark. The company remains under investigation.
One afternoon in December, Valerie returned home to find a message on her answering machine from BioMark.

It was for Tom.

Valerie didn't know it, but the company had set up an office in London and found doctors in Tijuana and Rotterdam, the Netherlands, to start administering their injections again. It set up a Swiss bank account to receive payments from patients.

The caller said she would phone back but never did.



A NEW SEARCH FOR HOPE

The patients arrive every few weeks at the Corporativo Oncologico in Tijuana — Americans slumped in wheelchairs, hobbling on crutches or carried by loved ones toward the stem cells inside.

The clinic's main business is providing low-cost radiation treatments. But recently Dr. Armando Garcia, the head of the clinic, began administering stem cells for BioMark.

The field of stem cells is so new that almost anybody can claim its potential. Without subjecting their therapies to clinical trials — the standard of Western medicine — it is difficult to know if the treatments work.

At least three clinics trace their roots to the Institute for Problems of Cryobiology and Cryomedicine in Kharkov, Ukraine. Founded in 1972, the institute researched techniques for freezing biological samples for use in medicine and agriculture.

For nearly two decades, scientists at the institute experimented with solutions made from aborted fetuses, injecting people for ailments including diabetes, multiple sclerosis and depression.

In the early 1990s, Ukrainian researchers familiar with the institute's work started a Kiev company called EmCell, charging $25,000 per treatment.

Rader, who had heard about EmCell through a business contact, later formed his own company, offering treatments in the Bahamas.

The Bahamian government asked him to leave in 2000 after a New York television station aired a critical report.

Rader, who said his cells come from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, now meets patients one weekend a month in the beachfront city of La Romana in the Dominican Republic. His company, Medra Inc., is based in Malibu.

One of the busiest overseas clinics is run by Dr. Hongyun Huang, a 49-year-old Beijing neurosurgeon who says he has a waiting list of more than 1,000 foreign patients.

Huang returned to China in 2000 eager to try them in humans. He treated people with spinal cord injuries before taking on patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, injecting the cells into holes drilled into their skulls.

Most of his patients are from the United States and Europe. They pay $20,000 each for the surgery.


Read more on latimes.com articles:
latimes.com
latimes.com

Monday, February 14, 2005

Missouri Struggling with 'Therapeutic Cloning'

More than 60 people came to the Capitol last week to share their stories with senators who are considering a bill that would ban a procedure for growing stem cells, the building blocks of all human tissue.

Martie Meador, a mother of four from Warrenton, said that the research technique creates a human embryo that is killed when the stem cells are removed. That makes the price of potential new cures too high.

Testifying against a ban was LaNeal Skinner of Kansas City. Her husband, Gary Skinner, was 49 when they learned that he had Alzheimer's disease, which plunged them into a three-year spiral of despair.

Skinner pleaded with senators to let the research go forward so that future Alzheimer's victims wouldn't suffer the same fate as her husband, who died in 1999.

The woman's testimony brought into focus the questions that senators are grappling with as they decide on the proposed ban. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Monday on legislation that would declare a certain type of cutting-edge medical research a felony in Missouri. A similar bill was introduced this week in Kansas.

The controversy involves a technique known as therapeutic cloning. Researchers take a human egg cell and remove its nucleus. They take the nucleus from an ordinary body cell and transfer it into the hollowed-out egg cell. The egg cell is stimulated to divide, just as an egg cell does after fertilization by a sperm cell. The cells are placed in a nutrient culture and allowed to develop into a ball of about 300 cells. Inside that ball are the stem cells that have yet to differentiate into nerve, muscle, blood or bone cells.

Researchers are trying to discover how to prod the stem cells into becoming the various tissues of the body such as insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve cells for spinal injury patients.

Gov. Matt Blunt said this week that he does not believe that the process creates a new human life. Blunt said that if the bill reached his desk, he is likely to veto it.

Meador and at least 19 other witnesses said that the cell created in the cloning process is a human embryo, just like an egg cell that is fertilized by a sperm.

James Cole, the general counsel for the anti-abortion group Missouri Right to Life, said that the technique is the same used to create cloned sheep and mice.

Even a few respected researchers said that limits must be imposed on research involving human cells. Richard Chole, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said, "I'm committed to advancing science. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I believe it should be at the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it."

About 40 opponents of the ban said that the technique does not create a human life, only a cluster of cells identical to the patient who donated the nucleus. They urged senators not to block the dramatic advances in medical care that the technique might offer.

William Neaves, the president of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, which wants to do embryonic stem cell research, pointed to the writings of Richard McCormick, a Catholic priest considered one of the American church's leading medical ethicists.

McCormick noted that the majority of human eggs fertilized within a woman's body never implant in the uterus. Therefore, the fertilized egg is not a human being until implantation, he concluded.

Since it is not a human being, the ball of cells that result from fertilization could be used in medical research to help the sick, McCormick wrote. Therapeutic cloning, however, never even gets to that point, because the ball of cells that develops is not the product of a sperm and an egg, Neaves said.


Source

Adult Stem-Cell Breakthrough Seen Weakening Case for Embryonic Cells

BOSTON (CNS) - Researchers at Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston have identified adult stem cells that may have the capacity to repair and regenerate all tissue types in the body, which experts say weakens the case for embryonic stem-cell research.

"This discovery represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy," said Dr. Douglas Losordo, chief of cardiovascular research at St. Elizabeth's. "Based on our findings we believe these newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate into most tissue types in the human body. This is a very unique property that until this time has only been found in embryonic stem cells."

Losordo, together with Dr. Young-sup Yoon, led the team of researchers whose findings demonstrating the unique properties of these cells were published in the Feb. 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

According to Father Pacholczyk, who lent a conservative view to the ongoing debate regarding human embryonic stem cell research, at the Church of St. Mary on Sunday afternoon, supporters of research using embryonic stem cells have long argued that adult stem cells were not as flexible as embryonic stem cells, thus making them less useful in repairing or healing damaged tissues and cells in the body.

"What appears novel about this report is that they have carefully derived a single cell type from the bone marrow, which can be expanded and used to flexibly generate a number of tissues," explained Father Pacholczyk.

"Adult stem cells are incredibly powerful," he added.


More details here

Halfway on Stem Cells

Political leaders ought to be careful to maintain ethical boundaries when they endorse stem cell research, but Governor Romney goes too far when he seeks to forbid work on embryos expressly created to seek cures for diseases. The Massachusetts Legislature should side with Senate President Robert Travaglini, who wants to put the state on record as supporting this important work.

Both Romney and Travaglini would forbid financial compensation to obtain embryos used in research. Both would forbid human reproductive cloning. Both would establish a review board to set ethical guidelines for research and establish new standards if research veers in unexpected directions.[...]

Gov. Mitt Romney's announced opposition to human embryonic stem cell research represents a sudden change in position that threatens vital research in Massachusetts.

Romney created a furor on Beacon Hill on Thursday after telling The New York Times that he favored banning the use of new human embryonic stem cells for research...

He also sent a letter to Senate President Robert Travaglini explaining his position.

In his Times interview, Romney said he now opposes the use of embryonic stem cells which come from human embryos created for the sole reason of research. He does not oppose the use of adult stem cells, which can be grown from existing human tissue.[...]

According to a national opinion survey released last year by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Results For America (a project of the Civil Society Institute) 74 percent of Americans want the White House to lift restrictions on stem cell research.

Read more on stemnews.com and boston.com

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Britain Pro-lifers Row over Cloning License

The controversy over cloning has been reignited by the British government as it issued the second human cloning license to the Father of Dolly the Sheep on Tuesday. Scientists, pro-lifers, conservative Christians and patients are all ready to express their differing opinions, and a complicated debate is brewing across the world.

Pro-lifers and conservative Christians have generally two major concerns over the cloning of human embryos. First of all, a large number of human embryos will be created for experiments, but end up being destroyed in the laboratories, and so many say the dignity of these living human subjects is being threatened. Secondly, it is worrying that no scientist can guarantee a cloned human embryo will not eventually be implanted to be born.


The UK’s leading pro-life group, LIFE, stated in its press release, "It comes as no great surprise to us that Professor Wilmut has decided to expand his practice of the cloning of animals to the cloning of human beings. Although he has claimed that he is personally opposed to so-called "reproductive" cloning, it is important to highlight that there is no difference in the technique used to clone human embryos for research which he proposes, and cloning human beings to birth. The only difference is in the intended fate of the embryos created."

LIFE Research and PR Officer Patrick Cusworth said, "Everything about the developing human being is decided at the point of fertilisation- whether this occurs through cloning or through natural means. To take such early human life and to disembowel and cannibalise it (in the words of the German Reichstag who banned ALL forms of human cloning), is a profoundly dehumanising process, which lacks any form of medical ethics at all."[...]

LIFE calls on both the UK government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to prove to the British public their much-publicised commitment to ethical standards in science and research, by banning all practices which involve the creation, manipulation and destruction of human life.

"Science must always exist to benefit humanity - not the other way round," it emphasised.


Read on

Cord Blood Banking Only Makes Sense if It's a Shared Effort

Companies such as Cord Blood Registry, Boston-based Viacord, and about 20 others are betting that anxiety about these illnesses will induce parents to fork over about $1,500 plus a $100 annual fee to store a healthy newborn's umbilical-cord blood as "insurance."

Cord Blood Registry stated in September that it had 250,000 stored units, and reported that business doubled last year. Some obstetricians estimate that one in five patients pay to bank cord blood.

Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics states "private storage of cord blood as "biological insurance" is unwise," and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states parents shouldn't feel they must "invest considerable sums in such a highly speculative venture."

It's quite unlikely a family would ever use privately banked cord blood. Moreover, private storage undermines what could be a far more useful public system that saves lives.

Many companies exaggerate the likelihood that a family will need privately stored cord blood. For example, Viacord's website states ''the lifetime odds of being diagnosed with a disease treatable by cord-blood stem cells is one in 27" and that future research may increase the risk to ''one in two." These figures sound impressive, but are misleading.

Some private banks imply that cord blood contains many "stem cells" that can heal organs like the brain and pancreas someday, thus curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and other illnesses. But cord blood isn't rich in the specific kinds of stem cells that might heal these organs, so this use is theoretical at best. Also, some stem cells can be obtained later from children and adults, so storing cord blood isn't the only chance to get them.

In the end, families with a history of cancers like leukemia or certain genetic diseases (like sickle-cell anemia or Hurler's syndrome) that improve with bone-marrow transplants could consider privately banking cord blood with a reputable company, since there is a reasonable chance that a child's cord blood could be used by another member of the family.

But the value of private cord-blood banking for healthy families doesn't seem to justify the costs, though for the well-off, it's at least a harmless way to satisfy medical anxiety, unlike, say, whole-body CT scanning with its radiation exposure and wild-goose-chase findings.

What makes more sense is having a public cord-blood bank that could connect donors to people in need. Today, about a quarter of patients can't find a match when they need a bone-marrow transplant, though about 5 million people are registered bone-marrow donors. (The problem is worse for minorities, because they are underrepresented in the donor pool.) If Americans saved and shared cord blood from all 4 million newborns each year, thousands of lives might be saved.


Read on

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

About Stem Cell Lines

The disconcerting fact at the moment is that there just aren't that many viable cell lines for study and use – not if you're a researcher who depends, at least in part, upon federal funding, a description that pretty much includes all interested scientists and laboratories.

When President Bush restricted stem cell research in 2001, spurred by opposition to using human embryos as source material, he declared that the number of pre-existing cell lines was adequate to meet the nation's research needs.

That number was 78, and it proved to be an illusion. Almost half of the cell lines identified by the Bush administration were not actually available to U.S. scientists...

The passage of Proposition 71 in November, which allocates $3 billion for stem cell research over the next 10 years, is bound to raise that number.

When it comes to making a stem cell line, the hard part isn't only about the science. Researchers derive starter stem cells from human embryos originally created by fertility clinics. These embryos must be donated to science. They cannot be bought or sold[...]

How the Stem Cell line gets created

At the bottom of the tissue culture dish, which has been negatively charged to encourage cell adhesion, lies a first layer of fibroblast cells, usually mouse-derived.

Fibroblasts, or "feeders," are connective tissue cells that create an underlying matrix upon which stem cells can grow. But maybe more importantly feeder cells secrete factors that help keep stem cells in their undifferentiated state.

Keeping stem cell lines undifferentiated is absolutely essential if they are eventually to be used for medical purposes. There are 3 types of stem cells that develop life through a gradual restriction:

1. Totipotent stem cells can create whole organisms, plus all extra-embryonic tissues such as the placenta. They are master cells and, in humans, exist only during the first few divisions after an egg is fertilized;

2. Pluripotent stem cells are slightly more specialized. They can make all of the cells of the organism, and some but not necessarily all the placental cell types;

3. Multipotent stem cells are even more specialized. They can develop into only a limited number of cell types. Hematopoietic cells, for example, are blood stem cells that can morph into several types of blood cells but cannot develop into, say, neurons.[...]

Last month, researchers at UCSD and the Salk Institute reported that all human embryonic stem cell lines currently approved for use in federally funded studies were contaminated with a foreign molecule derived from mice. The finding, they said, renders the lines unusable for human medical therapies.[...]

Read more

Harvard Stem Cell Researcher Urges State to Endorse Controversial Science

A leading researcher in human embryonic stem cells urged lawmakers and business leaders on Tuesday to send message of support for the controversial science or risk losing top scientists to other states who have passed supportive laws and put up funding.

Douglas Melton, the co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, told about 150 people at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast that there could be a great future for Massachusetts in terms of science and economic opportunities.

Current Massachusetts' laws are unclear as to whether such research is even legal, and other states have moved quickly to pass legislation welcoming stem cell research. California backed its laws with a $3 billion bond issue.

"I'm not saying it's a disastrous situation," Melton said. "I think this is a time to make a decision in this state about whether we do want to invest...."


Read on

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Human Embryo Experiments Set For Go-Ahead

A legal challenge to Britain’s first stem cell research licence is to go ahead.

It is a decision that will re-ignite the controversy over human cloning, and the move could have implications for a separate ruling expected today on the pioneers who created Dolly the sheep.

Campaigners had sought a judicial review of a decision in August last year by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to grant a team from Newcastle University the right to clone human embryos for medical research.

Peng Voong, a policy analyst for the Lawyers Christian Fellowship who brought the case, argued that the HFEA acted unlawfully in granting the licence and that the limited information it revealed about the application was "incomplete, misleading and extremely worrying."

Yesterday, David Foster, Mr Voong’s solicitor, said the judicial review only applied to the Newcastle licence granted by the HFEA, but that its outcome could have implications for future decisions, including its ruling on Professor Ian Wilmut, the scientist behind Dolly, the cloned sheep, which is expected today.

But the HFEA’s decision was greeted with anger by churches and pro-life groups.

Julia Millington of the ProLife Alliance welcomed the judicial review.

She said: "Human cloning is profoundly unethical, particularly when the cloned embryos are manufactured for their constituent parts and thereafter destroyed. We believe that this licence does not fulfil the conditions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act."



Read ahead

Monday, February 07, 2005

Lawmakers Wrestle With "Therapeutic Cloning" Ban

For many Missouri legislators, the real question is if cloned embryos created in a petri dish through a procedure known as "therapeutic cloning" constitute human life.

Legislators who consider themselves firmly anti-abortion are torn over banning the procedure because of uncertainty whether the cells (often the size of a pin point) are, in fact, human.

The controversy surrounds a bill that seeks to outlaw therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. In therapeutic cloning, the nucleus of an unfertilized woman's egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of another cell from a human body. The egg is then stimulated to divide, as it would when fertilized by a sperm, and the stem cells are harvested.

Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, who is opposed to abortion, said he supports therapeutic cloning because he does not believe it results in human life because the egg is not fertilized. As the bill stands, Blunt said he likely would veto it.

Sen. Charles Wheeler, a medical doctor, agrees.

"I believe you have to have a sperm fertilize an egg, and in somatic cell nuclear transfer there is no sperm. I feel that you cannot indict a physician for wanting to use a non-sperm structure to produce a heart cell or a brain cell," said Wheeler, D-Kansas City.

But Dr. Robert Onder, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Washington University who supports the ban, testified to a Senate committee that therapeutic cloning creates life. As evidence, he noted that Dolly the cloned sheep was created through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, said he is struggling to decide if therapeutic cloning results in "life or Frankenstein."


news-leader.com



Expand Stem Cell Research

Four years ago, President Bush declared that federal research funds would be available only for embryonic stem cells lines developed before 2001.

Bush tried to compromise between conservatives who oppose stem cell research and patients with life-threatening illnesses who see it as their best hope. But his half-measure no longer satisfies that or any other objective.

In his State of the Union speech, Bush only vaguely referenced the issue. He pledged to work with Congress "to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts."

Bush's restrictive stem cell policy has forced the federal government to surrender its ability to craft national ethical standards for how stem cell lines are derived and used. His State of the Union call for ethical research is thus at odds with the impact of his own policy.

Embryonic stem cell research is politically volatile because it's linked to the right-to-life debate, yet opponents of such studies may not understand how embryonic stem cells fit into the bigger, emerging medical picture. Early in their development, all complex organisms, including humans, come from a handful of cells that look alike, yet these identical building blocks eventually create the body's entire, amazing array of organs and functions. Under some conditions, stem cells can be induced to become specialized, such as the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

Science has learned how to use the few stem cells found in adult humans; bone marrow transplants, for example, can treat some cancers. But adult stem cells don't appear to make the wide variety of tissues that embryonic stem cells can.

Scientists also have extracted stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Still, there may not be enough stem cells in cord blood to do large studies or develop treatments.

Thus embryonic stem cells seem to be the best hope for new medical treatments.


DenverPost.com

Maryland: Debate over Embryonic Stem Cell

Modeled after a successful ballot initiative in California, the legislation calls for Maryland to spend $25 million a year on research that has been restricted by President Bush at the federal level.

Supporters say the state money is needed to maintain Maryland's edge in the biotechnology sector and tout the promise that such research offers for treatment of debilitating conditions.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch, Democrat of Anne Arundel, predicted in an interview that his chamber would pass the bill...

Read ahead

Extensive Testimony on Stem Cell Debate in Missouri

The Missouri Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony Wednesday night, February 03, on a bill to ban cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Testimony began at 7 p.m. and continued past midnight.

Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, said more than 60 people testified, including representatives from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri Right to Life and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation...

Forty-two people spoke in opposition to the bill; 21 spoke in favor. Bartle, sponsor of the measure, said the committee learned a great deal.

"It's always wonderful to hear from the citizens of the state," Bartle said...

Continue reading

Switzerland - Evaluates Stem Cell Research

Switzerland, after having passed a law last year regarding fertilised eggs left over from artificial insemination to be used for research purposes under a series of conditions is back a looking at new laws again.

However, there seem to be quite a few rules, as there are throughout the EU and the rest of Europe.

Switzerland seems to be caught up in the same ethical dilema's that plague the US regarding unlimited research. So essentially in Switzerland the debate rages on with only a slight majority of Swiss voters supporting the research (based on poll data).

Source

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Call for Investment in Stem Cell Research

State House Democratic Whip Mike Veon and state Reps Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, and Babette Josephs, D-Phila., called for a state level commitment to stem cell research in Pennsylvania - removing any prohibitions against using public money, and creating a dedicated half-billion dollar fund and the formation of a council to oversee that fund.

The lawmakers are also proposing that Pennsylvania join with New Jersey and Delaware to create an interstate compact and establish a joint stem cell research center.

The research council would be able to match designated funding with other states in the compact and would be authorized to put up an additional 5 percent over New Jersey's funding as a discretionary supplement if it results in new research facilities and job creation in Pennsylvania.

Read more