US behind on regulation of reproductive technology

After hearing/reading for the last 8 years that there is too much regulation of research, there's now a call from the Jonathan Moreno and the "Progressives"(at the website that grew out the Center for American Progress, originally founded by John Podesta, Obama's advisor) for regulation of reproductive technology. See this post at the "Science Progress" blog.

Scroll down to the middle of the blog post on regulation to see a fantastic interactive map of regulation across the world.

Unfortunately, the regulation may not be easy to come by, or what those of us who are pro-life might wish for. The progressives mock those of us who believe that even embryonic humans have the right not to be intentionally killed or enslaved. See the comments in this review of Yuval Levine's book, Imagining the Future.

Science in Obama's Administration

After lots of 'Net speculation on science and medicine advisory councils and committees in addition to mine of this morning, we find out that the Obama leader for the transition team on the President's Council on Bioethics Review Team will be Jonathan Moreno the associate at the bioethics arms of the Center for American Progress, founded by co-chair of the Obama "office of the President-Elect" transitionist John Podesta.

And Moreno and Podesta are not the only "Progressives" on the transition team. Note the names Tom Perez (that's a Word document), Anthony Brown, Pam Gilbert ( a .pdf from the Center for American Progress online book, "Change for America"), Nicole Lurie, (former Clinton HUD appointee, lesbian rights attorney and San Francisco Supervisor) Roberta Achtenberg, Bruce Katz, Jim Roosevelt.

And that's just one sub-committee and only the top lines of the result of their Google searches.

Among the chatterers are the authors of Science Progress, an online newsletter and blog (with a biannual print edition) for the Center for American Progress. Jonathan Moreno is the Editor - - which is not mentioned at all in the Moreno biography linked above - - and all the usual suspects are on the advisory board. If you like the "match game" we used to play as kids, compare the names on Science Progress' advisory board with the Clinton National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

Those virtual pages contain advice from Moreno, Weiss, and Bernard Lo on what sort of scientists ought to be appointed by President-elect Obama and his minions and to which offices.

While Moreno advocates for the return of the science adviser to Presidential Cabinet meetings, Lo wants a National Bioethics Advisory Commission (the name that the Clinton appointed group used in the '90's) that not only will advise the President and the Administration by answering their specific questions, he wants the new NBAC to act:

"the Council should be addressing the nation. The Council should reach out to the American people, for example, by inviting testimony from community organizations and patient and public advocacy groups, soliciting public comments on draft proposals, and responding to criticisms by explaining the reasons why suggestions were not accepted. Further, a new council could approach communication with the public as a two-way street. Rick Borchelt and Kathy Hudson have argued here on Science Progress, “the end game of public engagement should be empowerment: creating a real and meaningful mechanism for public input to be heard far enough upstream in science and technology policymaking and program development to influence decisions.”"

Professor Lo is the co-author of one of the popular textbooks on Bioethics, Resolving Ethical Dilemmas. (Although not pro-life or based on a Christian worldview, the principles in use for clinical ethics are covered fairly well. In fact, it was the text assigned in my clinical ethics class at Trinity International University, as part of the Bioethics Masters Degree program.)

I don't believe that Professor Lo actually wishes to have a trickle up scientific policy from the citizens to direct science and ethics or public policy about either. Science cannot give empirical evidence, conduct controlled experiments or make an argument for one or the other approach to determining public policy. However, I believe that Lo, along with so many of the progressives, prefer to have scientists and academics decide science policy for the public and government, and to have carte blanche, without regard to the pro-life, religious or cultural beliefs of others. And that, in my opinion, is just as influential as money and careers in the opposition to the Bush science policy and bioethics appointees.

Science Magazine contains at least one more comment on the upcoming Obama administration appointees (Subscription only, I'm afraid.)

Gregory A. Good's review of Zuoyue Wang's book, In Sputnik's Shadow, completely ignores the inclusion of many men and women who belie his description of the President Bush as only appointing "advisers who told [President Bush] what he wanted to hear." He should at least be aware of examples such as the service of Michael Gazzaniga on the President's Council on Bioethics, Paul Wolpe as NASA's ethicist, even Jonathan Moreno as an adviser for the Department of Health and Human Services during the Bush Administration.

Of course, most of the discussion is about representation and money for research. However, if you enjoyed the match game above, take a look at the actual "incumbents" who are paid governmental appointees under President Bush, available in an online book available for free, here. There's more information here on jobs and volunteer science and technology advisory committees. Compare those names and backgrounds to the authors of a similar report from 2005, here. Now, take a look at the names on the advisory boards of Science Progress, Nature, Science Magazine, and (again, of course) the American Journal of Bioethics and at the people featured on the "Science Debate 2008" webpage videos.


Where does the balance fall between the right and the left, between the pro-life and the pro-choice?

(As one of the thousands of appointees by the Bush Administration, I am deeply offended that Good would imply that anyone who served did not do so with "the best interests of the country at heart." Is this projection on his part? Good will soon leave the History Department of West Virginia University for the American Institute of Physics - a society of societies that must have too much money to come begging to the government if they have a budget for a Center for the History of Physics, but you can e-mail him at greg.good@mail.wvu.edu through the end of the year.)

Buy "Yamanaka StemCell Factors"

No, Really!!! Your "Plasmid Cart" is empty!

I'm studying up to be able to answer some very tough questions by Lydia from an earlier post.

While "Googling" "Oct 3/4," I found this ad, for "Yamanaka StemCell Factors." as sold by "www.addgene.com."

Addgene.com is selling the plasmids mentioned in Takahashi and Yamanaka's "Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors."

Previous review Texas Cancer and stem cell research

Here's a link to a post from last January on HB 14, and House Joint Resolution 90, the Bills which became Proposition 15, the Legislation for $3 billion in cancer research bonds and the Texas Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

The original article is no longer available on the Austin American Statesman site, but here's another article on the debate:

From the San Antonio Express-News, November 3, 2007,

Unlike the California initiative, which was enmeshed in controversy — and litigation — over potential conflicts in its governing board, Proposition 15 would create a new entity — the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas — that would operate with two advisory boards. A scientific group would decide which research ideas merit funding, while a panel of 11 political appointees would provide oversight.

Political appointees would be restricted from decisions about institutions to which they have ties. And they could overrule the scientists on individual grants only with a two-thirds majority vote. The governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House each would appoint threepanel members. The other two would be the governor and state comptroller, or their delegates.

Local communities have been moving to put together lists of local candidates in the event the measure passes, believing the panel would make sure the money is distributed fairly across the state, rather than simply handing most of it over to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center — Texas' 600-pound gorilla of cancer research. The Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce's health care and bioscience committee would recommend John Kerr, president of the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research; and Phyllis Browning, CEO of Phyllis Browning Co.; as well as a slate of top local cancer experts for the scientific panel, said Ron Tefteller, who chairs the committee.

Local cancer researchers acknowledge that even with all that, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage with their neighbors to the east — as well as other Texas research institutions with a richer pool of benefactors. The law would require that researchers find matching funds equal to half the amount of the grant they're seeking under the program — "skin in the game," Nelson calls it.

Bioethics on the Ballot

Texas approved Billions in bond debt, some $3 Billion of which will fund the new Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. There is already private funding of embryonic and fetal tissue research in Texas already.(See this report on the Brown Institute in Houston.) While Texas is a leader in ethical stem cell research and public cord blood banking, there are no limits on State tax funds for research that would limit any sort of destructive research on unborn humans, including cloning, embryonic stem cell research and fetal research. As long as none of the subjects are able to hire a lawyer, it's open season in Texas. The prolife community in Texas is hoping - and has already begun the fight - to ensure that the oversight board will be able to control the use of the money for ethical means.

New Jersey, on the other hand, rejected funding for embryonic stem cells! Hooray!

New President of California Stem Cell Institute

Alan Trounson, PhD, the researcher responsible for the first in vitro (IVF) birth in Australia, who once had to apologize for misleading the Australian Parliament after showing them a video that he claimed showed a mouse that walked after human embryonic stem cell treatment for spinal cord injury (in fact, they were fetal cells from aborted babies), and the man who was recently hired as President of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is not under investigation . But the people at his last project are, for discrepancies in reporting at his old lung regeneration project.

The $1 Million (Australian) grant required reports on progress each 3 months. It seems that there were questions not only about the lack of results in the project, but doubts about whether someone falsified one of the reports.

The Herald Sun, "Australia's largest newspaper," reported on October 13th that

World-renowned Melbourne scientist Alan Trounson's $1m stem cell research project is under investigation after it was scrapped for delivering highly doubtful results.

Monash University is examining anomalies in interim findings from the lung regeneration research conducted in its labs with public money.

Prof Trounson -- a doctor of philosophy who was headhunted to run the world's richest stem cell outfit in the US next year -- was the project's principal investigator.

The research was done by a team of about 13 scientists, including postgraduate students, to see how stem cells might help slow lung disease in cystic fibrosis sufferers.

It was stopped in February when the Australian Stem Cell Centre cut funding after a three-week investigation found inconsistencies in multiple progress reports.

The Herald Sun has learned the reports were signed by Prof Trounson and a senior researcher.

Another investigator in the lab is the main focus of the investigation, however. (Warning to all Ph.D. candidates - and you thought it was dangerous enough when choosing your sponsor.)

As of 10 PM CDT, there's no reports in US news sources.

CIRM: Another one bites the dust

They just can't get good help - a scientist is leaving, just after the resignation of the temporary president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. Could it be that everyone who works for CIRM sees failure down the road?

From this week's Bioedge 263, a weekly newsletter on biotechnology out of Australia:

CALIFORNIA STEM CELL INSTITUTE SHAKEN BY RESIGNATION

Like Gulliver, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, has been pinned down by countless pygmies equipped with lawsuits. The lengthy delay in launching its ambitious US$3 billion research program, with a focus on embryonic stem cells, appears to be taking its toll. Its president, Zach Hall, resigned in April, and now its chief scientist, Arlene Chiu, has announced that she will be leaving. Several other executives have also left in recent months.

Wired.com bloggers are talking about the difficulty of finding a permanent president, after years of fignting litigation over the funding passed by the California voters:

Insiders suspect Chiu's resignation is at least partly related to frustration over the difficulty the agency has had in finding a permanent president. After an unsuccessful seven-month search for a permanent replacement for former president Zach Hall, CIRM hired Richard Murphy as interim president earlier this month.

UPDATE: Dale Carson, the communications director at CIRM just sent a statement from Zach Hall that makes it even more clear what a big loss Chiu is:

Persuading Dr. Arlene Chiu to come to CIRM from NIH was one of the most important accomplishments of my presidency. As the senior CIRM scientist during its first three years - a time of constrained resources, Arlene recruited, mentored and led the scientific team responsible for awarding the first $200 M in grants for stem cell research in California - a remarkable legacy. She has a deep understanding of stem cell research, expert knowledge of grants administration, and extraordinary personal qualities of integrity, grace and a passion for the mission of CIRM. Arlene has left her mark on the DNA of CIRM. She will be hard to replace.

-- 

Prolonged culture of embryos, stem cells and more Free Stuff

This week's (June 27) Nature.com "Advance Online Publication" contains two "Letters" describing the production of embryonic stem cells from "epiblast" cells, one in mice and rats, one focusing on mice.

Full content is restricted to subscription-only, but you can listen to a discussion about the studies on the free podcast from Nature, here, and the first paragraph of each is available for free, here and here. I believe you can also download the pdf of the Supplementary material for the articles here and here. You can find old podcasts and the English transcripts of previous podcasts, here.

One point that I find interesting is the statement on the Podcast that "what we thought were mouse eS Cells (embryonic stem cells), probably weren't." The second is that, beyond the obvious concerns about increased interest in growing human embryos to a later stage, this research was carried out in human embryos before moving on to mice and rats. From the first reference:

We initially determined that prolonged culture of human ES cells in chemically defined medium (CDM) containing activin A and FGF2 (CDM/AF) maintained their fundamental characteristics (See Supplementary Data). We then tested similar conditions for derivation of pluripotent cells from pre- and post-implantation rodent embryos.

The good news is that the scientists are convinced that these "EpiSC's" - or Epiblast stem cells - will be useful as models for the study of embryonic development and substitute for the human embryonic stem cells, without the limits on US Federal funding. (I'm always fascinated by the interest that British publications have in our US funding schemes and politics.)

If I'm correct in interpreting the importance of this information, scientists should find it easier to do experiments that they've been wanting to do by using rodent embryonic stem cells, now that they know how to find the actual cells, themselves. We will also hear more advocacy for the "culture" of human embryos longer than the previous 3 to 5 days, in order to harvest truly pluripotent eSC's, from what one article calls the "embryo proper" or the body of the would-have-been-born individual. One researcher tells us on the Podcast that these cells from embryos at the stage when the embryo would naturally implant are the "universal stem cells" that scientists have been searching for.

Pay for embryo destruction added to Senate Bill

Senators Specter and Harkin, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, have added funding for research on embryos destroyed in research between the August 9, 2001 cutoff point and June 15, 2007 to "a must-pass bill for the Labor and Health and Human Services".

The Bill must make it through the Senate, the House and the possible "conference committees" (where compromises between the two bodies are worked out) before it can be sent to the President.

From the Houston Chronicle:

The pushback began Thursday. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a must-pass bill for the Labor and Health and Human Services departments that includes permission to use federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines derived after Bush in 2001 banned taxpayer dollars from being used on new studies of that kind. Voting no were Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

The provision, proposed by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, would allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to June 15, 2007 — moving the date of Bush's August 2001 ban on public funding for such research up by nearly six years. The overall bill now moves to the full Senate for debate later this year.

Research on stem cell lines derived in the interim would be eligible for federal funding. The new provision also would add ethical standards to be used for selecting embryos to be studied using federal funds.

The research funds are not in anyway necessary. The creation and destruction of embryonic humans for their parts is unjust.

Take a listen to some of the poorest reasoning I've ever heard for Federal funding at National Public Radio. R. Alta Charo, who works for Planned Parenthood and calls "neocons" part of the "endarkenment," believes that the Feds will"dwarf" the $3 Billion that California has budgeted for destructive embryo research!

"Sneaky" Texas Legislator

Perhaps this article, written by an Associated Press writer, should be receive the Yellow Brick Award. (Should I put "copyrighted" here? No, there's others, although most - like the award for finishing the obstacle course at Quantico - are awards for achieving the impossible, not for misdirection.)

Someone is practicing distraction and projection by calling a vote in the Texas House State Affairs Committee a "Sneak attack."

Friday's vote came after a committee meeting that began Thursday and lasted through the night. Critics said the vote came hours after testimony concluded and while the committee was focused on an unrelated bill.

"Those of us who rely on the hope stem cell research holds, and anyone who cares about an open public dialogue, should be outraged at the manner in which the vote was taken on Friday afternoon — without discussion and while two members opposed to the bill were absent," said Judy Haley, president of Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research.

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, called the vote's timing a "sneak attack."

"It's a shameful case of putting politics ahead of science as well as patients and their families," she said.

The bill, HB 225 by Ken Paxton (R - District 70, McKinney)reads as follows:

By: Paxton, Olivo, Christian, Chisum, Parker, H.B. No. 225 et al.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
relating to prohibiting the use of state money for certain
biomedical research.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subtitle H, Title 2, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Chapter 169 to read as follows:

CHAPTER 169. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
Sec. 169.001. PROHIBITION ON USE OF STATE MONEY FOR CERTAIN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. A person may not use state money for biomedical research if federal law prohibits the use of federal money for that research on January 1, 2007.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

For those of us who object to embryonic stem cell research, the bill serves the purpose of preventing our tax dollars from being used to destroy embryos whether from existing in vitro embryos or from purposeful creation of new embryos for the purpose of research, including cloning or parthenogenesis.

And for the fiscally responsible, the bill ensures that any research we pay for will be eligible for additional Federal research funds, and/or we won't spend money on redundant labs and equipment.

The House was in session until nearly midnight last Thursday, and began hearing testimony on HB 225 about 1 AM. They were in session, hearing about stem cells and cloning, until 5:30. (I had to work on Friday, so I went home at 1, and didn't get to testify.) The Committee met again on Friday: for a few minutes at 8 AM and again after the House adjourned for the day. The Chair, Representative David Swinford (R- 87th District, Amarillo), was a little punch drunk from being up all night - the maximum amount of sleep he could have gotten if he'd stayed at the Capitol would have been about 2 hours.

Representative Swinford made an effort to make sure that the members were present, and all were at certain points. However, the Committee members came and went both Thursday night and Friday. In fact, Representative Farrar (D-148, Houston) didn't attend Thursday's meeting at all, and Chairman Swinford reminded her on Friday that she probably wanted to "vote against this bill."

It's possible to watch both Committee meetings on line.

The Best Misdirection on Stem Cell Research

This guy deserves some sort of note/notoriety:

From the "News" section of the online Worcestershire (Massachusetts) Telegram & Gazette:

Apr 12, 2007

Stem-cell reversal

Scrap Romney restrictions on legitimate research


Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s effort to reverse restrictions on stem-cell research imposed by his predecessor is most welcome.

The restrictions, adopted by the state Public Health Council, are in direct opposition to 2005 legislation, enacted over former Gov. Mitt Romney’s veto, that permits human embryonic stem-cell research in the state. The former governor was opposed to the provision in the law that allowed for “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” The technique gives researchers a new way to study the development of a particular disease because the stem cells are created from the DNA of patients who suffer from that disease. Just this week, researchers reported that 13 young diabetics in Brazil being treated with their own stem cells are living insulin-free, some for as long as three years.

Make no mistake: Exacting and consistent guidelines must apply to research using stem cells. Human cloning already is banned in Massachusetts, a prohibition enforced by strong criminal and civil penalties. The law passed in 2005 also limits to two weeks of development the time during which embryonic stem cells could be harvested for research or treatment of patients. (Emphasis mine)

First this is an editorial, not news.

Second, Human cloning is not banned in Massachusetts. There is an attempt to redefine cloning as implanting a cloned human embryo, and a mandate to kill those clones by the time they are 14 days old.

However, the greatest fraud is the last sentence of the first paragraph: plopping a report of adult stem cell success into a story about embryonic stem cells, as though the latter were a ". . . a new way to study the development of a particular disease because the stem cells are created from the DNA of patients who suffer from that disease."

Don't bet on cloning to cure

Ian Wilmut says that if he had "to bet money," he'd bet on reprogramming adult - the patient's own stem cells.

Joining the cloning experts in the race are scientists who are looking for new ways to "reprogram" DNA, or make it young again without fusing it into an egg. They think it may be possible, for example, to bathe adult cells in the right chemicals and produce stem cells.

"In my view, it is difficult to predict which will come first but I think we need to try both," Wilmut said Tuesday. "If I had to bet money, I would probably bet on reprogramming" rather than cloning.

The science of reprogramming, he said, is moving quickly, and scientists working in the field don't have to deal with the myriad obstacles facing cloning.

The statement was made in Connecticut, at "StemCONN 07," an appropriate name that has more to do with the unethical cloning and destruction of human embryos than with the name of the State hosting the conference. Press releases, so far, attempt to focus on therapies from embryonic stem cell research - which, of course, can only benefit patients if their own cloned twin is used and destroyed in the process.

In another article in the Harford, Connecticut Courant, cloning is described as a goal, evidently, in spite of it's futility:

Wilmut and other scientists want to obtain personalized embryonic cells by fusing DNA from, say, a skin cell into an egg with its own nucleus removed. The resulting cells could be used to study a host of difficult-to-research diseases and in theory could be used to repair damaged tissue in many ailments.

However, a third article on the convention points out that

Researchers who received Connecticut's first batch of stem cell grants were among the scientists who presented their work at StemConn07.

Some of that work involves reprogramming the DNA of adult cells to produce embryonic stem cells tailored to a particular organism. This would have potentially huge implications for using a patient's own cells to repair damaged tissue without fear of rejection.

Success would quiet ethical objections to research that creates and/or destroys human embryos. Questions surrounding these techniques have resulted in a freeze on federal funding for work on stem cells created after Aug. 9, 2001.

Well, if tax money is to be used on stem cell research, they're betting a limited supply of funds in the hope of achieving cures and treatments for Texans. I agree with Dr. Wilmut in this case - the best bet is not cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). It's research into non-embryonic stem cells, in order to reprogram them to make the cells each of us might need, when and where we need them.

The Courant reporter doesn't quite "get it," though. He seems to believe that the goal of "reprogramming" is to use "generic embryonic stem cells" to produce the necessary cells. The research that has been published so far indicates that the most significant factor in regeneration of stem cells from more differentiated or specialized cells is the "factors," environmental cues and conditions that stimulate and recruit the patient's own latent or limited stem cells.

Umbilical Cord Blood Saves Lives

Today, the Texas House State Affairs Committee heard from a young man who was born with sickle cell disease. Young Joseph, Jr. told the Representatives that his baby brother saved his life. And now, he doesn't have to take medicine or get shots any more. (The oblivious hero slept through the hearing.)

And of course, I told about my granddaughter who received cord blood stem cells at 15 months old from an unrelated, anonymous little boy to cure her Kostmann's nutripenia. That's her with me, last August when we testified to the Senate State Affairs Committee.

You can watch the video at the Texas Legislature Online website archived files from 3/12/07, here, beginning around 25 minutes in. (Don't miss the earlier testimony in favor of legislation to protect embryos and embryo adoption. Joseph and his family testify at 45 to 47 minutes.)

Representative Robert Puente (D- 119) presented his House Bill 709 was before the Committee and is a perfect example of the "common ground" that is possible for those of us looking for ethical ways to further (ethical, non-embryonic) stem cell research.

The Bill would require the State Department of Health Services to develop and distribute a brochure to educate expectant parents about donating and banking cord blood. We heard that there are free opportunities for all mothers and fathers to donate their child's cord blood, if they have time to make the arrangements.

We also were privileged to hear from David Harris, Ph.D., of The University of Arizona. (His testimony begins at 30 minutes on that video) Dr. Davis began the first cord blood bank, and he told us that his children were the first to have their cord blood banked at birth.

I learned quite a bit, including that there are out of State public banks that will accept cord blood stem cells from Texas, and that there is a procedure to donate blood from a private, "family" bank to the public bank.


Here's a few sites with more information:

The Texas Cord Blood Bank

The MD Anderson Cord Blood Bank

HealthBanks (a commercial health information site)

Do not look behind the curtain! (again, with the magic tricks)

I'd say the man who said this needs both a heart and a brain:

"Ultimately, human hearts, human brains, and human kidneys and human pancreas will be re-created in their entirety from human embryonic stem cells or some combination of adult and embryonic stem cells," Willerson said.

He's certainly got enough nerve.

Tell me what happens when you get a new brain, in its "entirety," Doctor.

On the other hand, there's this brilliant man who's using the brain and heart he's got:

Dr. Karel Dicke, an oncologist at the Arlington Cancer Center, uses stem cells found in patients' bone marrow to ease their recovery from high-dose chemotherapy.

Dicke, who has conducted research into adult stem cells for more than 40 years, said he opposes the use of public funds for embryonic stem-cell research because it doesn't have enough public support. He echoed statements from opponents of such research in noting that the field may not be as promising as some have predicted.

"It is not that far along yet," Dicke said. "Scientists are making political statements."

Of course, it's really all about the money. As I've said before - stem cell therapy of the future will not depend on the destruction of embryos. The goal will be to use the patients' own stem cells in site, when and where they are needed. Umbilical cord and placental cells are plentiful and have shown themselves plastic enough to provide the tissues and organs that we will need. (Where the repair cannot be made in situ. Edited, March 19, 2007. BBN)

Researchers in Minnesota have produced beating heart muscle from stem cells taken from the hearts of rats. In humans, they say they are using muscle from the legs to heal hearts in place.

Have a look at more stem cell advances in this article.

Dr. Anthony Atala's group at Wake Forest University grew nerve stem cells that homed in to the areas of the brain where they were needed. Last year, Zurich researchers reported work to develop heart valves for babies from their amniotic stem cells, even before they were born.

We don't need the smoke and mirrors, Doctor Willerson. You and others have already shown us that we already have a future without embryonic stem cells.

Cow-Monkey blastocyst research

The truth about the goal of researchers seeking to make chimeras and clones is in the news, today. (A big "yuk" factor, here.)

I'm convinced that the future is in stimulating and recruiting the patient's own stem cells and regenerative potential, in site, where and when it's needed.

Animal research is acceptable, but once they start manipulating human DNA, we're dealing with humans until proven differently.

The (South) Korean Times reports on work in the lab of Koo Deog-bon:

The team, headed by Koo Deog-bon at the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, said Friday they had established a monkey blastocyst, the source of stem cells, last month via interspecies nuclear transfer.

``We started the task of infusing monkey somatic cells into cow ova, from which the nuclei had been removed, last November. After hundreds of failures, we made a blastocyst in January,'' Koo said.

``It failed to thrive. But we became sure of the potential of interspecies research _ creating a blastocyst and extracting stem cell batches from it,'' the 41-year-old senior researcher said.

A blastocyst is an embryonic form at a stage where it consists of 128 cells. With its inner cells still undifferentiated, the blastocyst is the most important source of embryonic stem cells.

Scientists have made monkey blastocysts through intra-species nuclear transfer _ implanting monkey somatic cells into enucleated monkey ova. But this is the first time that a blastocyst has been established while using non-monkey ova.

``We will generate more monkey blastocysts to achieve our goals of culturing stem cell lines with them earlier than our competitors,'' said Koo at the state-backed institute.

Developing cloned non-human primate stem cells is significant in speeding up futuristic therapy by evaluating the pre-clinical safety and immune-tolerance of stem cell transplantation.

``If we are successful, we will be able to apply the technologies to humans _ making stem cells with animal ova _ if society allows such an idea,'' Koo said.

As Koo pointed out, the interspecies experiments can in part solve some of the ethical debates surrounding the making of cloned human embryonic stem cells because they don't use human eggs.

We've heard this (stem cell) story before

Stanford scientists are working on a "stem cell treatment" to cure hearing loss due to lost nerves.

The Science Guy at the Houston Chronicle references a Wired News article, that links to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the San Francisco Gate and an interview with Stefan Heller.

Here's a slightly better review from Medical News Today.

I believe that reading about the evolution of Heller's research will give us some indication about future treatments that result from "stem cell treatments."

Dr. Heller found stem cells in the hearing and balance systems in the ear of humans and mice.

He found that the hearing, inner-ear adult stem cells of mice don't grow and divide much after birth, but that the balance nerve cells, the vestibular hair cells are "pluripotent" ("can give rise to a variety of cell types in vitro and in vivo, including cells representative of ectodermal, endodermal and mesodermal lineages") and can be induced to form either the vestibular, balance cells or the hearing sensory cells.

Then, Heller's team discovered (free abstract, here)that human bone marrow stem cells can become progenitor cells - or the dedicated adult stem cells - that can repair damaged hearing sensory nerve cells.

[Editing note: I had the url of that abstract wrong. Also, I many have the timeline wrong, since a closer look at the abstract shows that it was only published in January, 2007.]

However, Heller and his team ignored the bone marrow cell findings and began focusing on embryonic stem cells. Why would he leave a field of inquiry that would allow each of us to have access to genetically matched cells to repair our own hearing?

Nevertheless, it turns out that the goal is to regenerate the patient's own stem cells to repair damage where it's needed in the body, when it's needed.

From the January 29, 2007 San Francisco Gate article:

On this day he is finally starting his first experiment -- growing inner ear cells in a culture dish, to test the new equipment -- and already people in the medical school are asking, "When are the first transplantations taking place?" he says. "I'm a little careful of that, because we have to do animals first."

He wouldn't be here answering this question at all if he hadn't found stem cells in the vestibular organ, which controls balance. Both balance and hearing are controlled by hair cells. When the hearing cells are damaged by illness or noise, they die off and don't come back. A University of Virginia study 15 years ago found that cells in the vestibule have shown a small and limited ability to regenerate. Heller took that further and within these cells was able to isolate stem cells that continuously multiply. In culture dishes, these regenerative balance cells can be engineered to produce hearing cells.

The logical next step would be to transplant these into the auditory canal. "The problem with any surgical approach to the ear is you have the potential of doing more damage than you can do any good," he says. "So I don't think this will be successful any time soon."

That means 10 years and 10,000 mice, maybe more of each. The immediate future is drugs.

They can be tested directly on embryonic inner ear cells to see if any lead to over-production of hair cells. If a drug could be found that stimulates enough productivity within the damaged ear, this drug could be applied to a deaf ear. These can then be tested on animals, starting in a year or so.

$17.9 Million plus for Texas: ethical stem cells

The UT Austin Daily Texan has the only report that I can find in the news about Wednesday's announcement that the University of Texas Health Center in Houston is the recipient of $17.9 million for stem cell research on treatments for heart disease.

The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute granted $17.9 million for the research of stem-cell treatments for cardiovascular disease to the UT School of Public Health Coordinated Center for Clinical Trials.

The school was established in 1967 as part of the UT Health Science Center in Houston.

The new funding will bring the institution to the forefront of stem-cell, cardiovascular research. Charged with coordinating the network's participating centers, the school will serve as the hub for the Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network.

"This research will examine the promise of approved stem-cell research of cardiovascular disease," Dr. Lemuel A. Moye said.

The network's centers include the University of Florida, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Minnesota, the Texas Heart Institute and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Lemuel A. Moye, biostatistics professor and principal investigator of the program at the UT School of Public Health, was excited that the institution was selected to coordinate the other centers.

"It was a pleasant surprise," he said.

I wonder whether this grant will help one of the Houston Health Center Hospitals begin collecting cord blood?

Or will the docs at the UT School of Public Health work with Dr. Willerson and Dr. Perin at the Texas Heart Institute, who are testing a system to select progenitor cells to repair heart tissue, using a commercial product, Aldagen?

Hopefully there's a coordinating board somewhere that's watching over the efficiency of these different research groups.

Immune Privileged Cord Blood Stem Cells

Pluristem is one of the companies focusing on the commercial development of stem cells. There are two or three names which have been regularly sending out press releases concerning their research and development (besides ACT, of course).

In this case, it's a company that's marketing selected umbilical cord blood cells or placental cells. If the product turns out to be what they say it is - a population of adult or fetal cells that can be harvested from the placenta after a child is safely born, isolated by the company's secret method, and transplanted to replace or supplement diseased bone marrow - then the complication of rejection may soon be a thing of the past:

Pluristem Announces Evidence That PLX-I Cells Are Immune Privileged

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan 29, 2007 - Pluristem Life Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:PLRS), a cell therapy company dedicated to the commercialization of stem cell products, today announced evidence that its PLX-I cells have proven to be immune privileged. PLX-I cells are Pluristem's first potential product dedicated to resolving the global shortfall of matched tissue for bone marrow transplantation by improving the engraftment of umbilical cord blood. PLX-I cells are mesenchymal stems cells obtained from the placenta and expanded by using Pluristem's proprietary 3D PluriX(TM) technology.

"Immune privileged" is defined as the absence or diminution of rejection when implanted into unmatched recipients. Being immune privileged, the PLX-1 cells carry significant positive implications in the development of Company products for a variety of degenerative, malignant and immune diseases. Additionally, this immune modulating property could prove important in treating or preventing immune reactions associated with transplantation.

Ora Burger PhD. V.P. of R&D at Pluristem states: "Our PLX-I cells possess immune privileged characteristics that can be used in the future for other applications involving transplantations. PLX-I cells posses[s] these immune privileged characteristics without carrying the associated social stigmata of embryonic stem cells because PLX-I cells come from the placenta."

William R. Prather RPh, MD, Sr. V.P. Corporate Development notes: "Mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into a range of different tissues types associated with the musculoskeletal system such as bone, cartilage, fat, muscle, tendon and ligament. Consequently, mesenchymal stem cells are considered to be multipotent. Additionally, some reports provide evidence of these cells plasticity or the ability of mesenchymal stem cells to traverse tissue boundaries and give rise to cells of a different non-musculoskeletal tissue, such as brain or liver cells. If this is the case, mesenchymal stem cells may be used to help treat a broad range of tissues affected by damage or disease. Allogeneic transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells between different individuals may also be possible as these cells appear to be immune privileged in that they are not necessarily rejected when implanted into unmatched recipients. The characteristic of these cells being immune privileged may enable Pluristem to be involved with new clinical applications with PLX-I."

Book Review: Michael Crichton's NEXT

"Stroke Damage May Help Smokers Kick the Habit: The insula, an area of the brain largely ignored by researchers, may hold the key to breaking harmful addictions" (Scientific American Science and Technology News, January 25, 2007)

"Fresh light thrown on tragic drug trial: Animal tests may have missed danger because monkeys 'too clean'." (news@nature.com online, January 25, 2007)

"Preparing cloning for market: Ranchers are getting set, but are consumers ready?" (Boston Globe, January 26, 2007)

"Biomed firm commercializes stem-cell sales" (UPI Business Newstrack)

"New WARF Stem Cell Rules To Benefit Biotech Research" (BioWorld Headlines, AHC Media, LLC, January 25, 2007)

"Crunch time for multiple-gene tests: Sophisticated new genetic tests face an uncertain future — unless they can win clear-cut approval from regulators, insurers and, most importantly, doctors. Virginia Gewin reports." (Nature News, premium access only)

"Stem Cell Debate Rages: Effective Treatements "Decades Away" Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience" (Beaumont College Alumni News, as reported in NEXT, 2006)

Only that last headline is fictional, from Michael Crichton's newest book, NEXT.

I'm just a bit more than half-way through the book, but the fact is that I had to "Google" the fake news report to convince myself that it wasn't a very real article from some past news source. After my sureal experience of researching today's news and having to remind myself that the Google stuff was "real," I was spurred to give y'all a heads up.

Dr. Crichton is the author of The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and The Terminal Man. His science fiction is heavy on science and he has always seemed to be drawing on tomorrow's news stories - probably (I'd like to believe) because of his medical training.

This book is not very flattering to doctors. Or the media, research scientists, regulatory agencies, public policy makers or politicians. I had nearly decided that the author was stretching reality and coincidence in order to build his story, but then I opened my e-mail this morning and there were the Google News search alerts I've cited above - some of which are more fantastic than anything in the book so far.

In that "fake" news piece above, the reporter quotes a fictional professor of biology as he describes the hype that's surrounded stem cell research, including a thorough history of the human cloning scandals by Korea's Hwang Wu Suk. The "doc" continues,

". . . First, in a media-saturated world, persisitent hype lends unwarranted credulity to the wildest claims. For years the media have touted stem cell research as the coming miracle. So when somebody announced that the miracle had arrived, he was believed. Does that imply there is a danger in media hype? You bet. Because not only does it raise cruel hopes among the ill, it affects scientiest, too. They start to believe the miracle is around the corner - even thought they shourld know better.
"What can we do about media hype? It would stop in a week, if scientific institutions want that. They don't. They love the hype. They know it brings grants. So that won't change. Yale, Stanfor, and Jons Hopkins promote hype just as much as Exxon or Ford. So whenever you hear a scientist claim that his statements have been exaggerated, or taken out of context, just ask him if he has written a letter of protest to the editor. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he hasn't."
. . .
"Next lesson: Peer review. All of Hwang's papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Whang made extraordianry claims. He did not provide extraordinary evidence. many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn't work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, "This paper was peer-reviewed,' or 'This paper was not peer-reviewed,' as if that meant something. It doesn't.
"Next, the journals themselves. Where was the firm hand of the editor of Science? Remember that the journal Science is a big enterprise - 115 people work on that magazine. Yet gross fraud, including photographs altered with Adobe Photoshop, were not detected. And Photoshop is widely known as a major tool of scientific fraud. Yet the magazine had no way to detect it."
. . .
"The ultimate lesson is that science isn't special - at lest not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It's no longer a calling, it's a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren't saints, they're human beings, and they do what human beings do - lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That's human nature. It isn't going to change."

Crichton also slams the patents on human genes and on cells that have been removed from patients in the course of medical treatment - patents that become property and make people near-property of universities and then private corporations.

(He also tweeks people like me, who love to give references in the form of urls or internet addresses in support of their points. One of the characters invents pages of "Google" references in just a few hours in order to hide her own secret. Lesson: Watch your sources, verify and then verify, again.)

Crichton is one of the writers that I recommend for what I call "ethics lessons we don't have to learn the hard way." Science fiction, which long-time Astounding Science Fiction - now Analog Science Fiction and Fact - editor John Campbell called "future fiction," often explores the "why's" and "why not's" of science, medicine and research, and the feelings that characters experience in what are (usually) novel situations that strain everyday ethics. Just as we study classical and contemporary fiction to learn more about the human condition, we can learn from science fiction authors' and their characters' reaction to what is fantastic today (but may not be tomorrow, in a few minutes, or in an "alternate history"), as well as our reaction to their reactions.

I recommend the NEXT to other SF fans and bioethics nuts. I also recently read and recommend Prey and I'm listening to State of Fear on Audiobooks. My favorites are still The Andromeda Strain and The Terminal Man, but Congo is worth reading, too.

The future of stem cells, Texas and politics

The Friday, January 26, 2007 Austin American Statesman editorial, “Stem cell opposition could steer research away from Texas,” flatly states that Governor Rick Perry’s $3 Billion dollar cancer research initiative won't help at all if it doesn't include funding for embryonic stem cell research. The Statesman editors doubt that there will be any scientists to spend the money on.

The editorial is ridiculous – and, as the editors admit, political - in light of daily strides in ethical stem cell research and Texas’ strong research community.

Texas hospitals were among the first in the nation to offer umbilical cord blood transplants. Cooperation between Texas universities, medical schools, NASA and foreign researchers led to technology which allowed the development of embryonic-like stem cells and liver cells from umbilical cord stem cells.

Texas is already enough of a leader in ethical stem cell research to lure the President of the International Society of Stem Cell Researchers, Paul Simmons, Ph.D., away from Australia to the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston.

We also have Diego Castrillon, MD, PhD., who moved from Massachusetts to the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center. Dr. Castrillon is credited with research into the "Fox O's." These are "transcription factors," or local proteins that cause the expression of certain genes. They promote the health of adult stem cells and suppress cancer cells.

This month’s issue of the journal, Cell, will include a report on further research on FoxO’s. From a press release at "Newswise"

The FoxO1, O3, and O4 transcription factors regulate genes in the complicated cell signaling network known as PI3K-AKT, or simply PI3K. Scientists have discovered that PI3K signaling is intimately involved in fundamental cell processes such as metabolism, aging, and protecting the body against cancer. The PI3K circuit has been found to be disrupted in many forms of cancer, making it a hot topic in cancer research labs and drug company boardrooms.

Based on previous work in his laboratory, DePinho, working with Diego Castrillon, MD, PhD, (who is now at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center), determined that the three FoxOs had redundant, overlapping functions: To uncover those functions, it would be necessary to engineer mice that lacked all three FoxO transcription factors.

To make the task even more difficult, mice lacking FoxO1 die in the womb. DePinho and Castrillon had to engineer mice whose FoxO genes would function normally during development, but would contain a mechanism allowing them to be switched off in adulthood at the scientists’ will. It took DePinho’s team about two years to get the system to work, which Gilliland hailed as a “true tour-de-force of mouse genetics.”

Mutant FoxOs have been implicated in leukemia, and for Gilliland, who studies blood cancers, the triple-knockout mice were an opportunity to dig deeper into the issue. Unexpectedly, however, deletion of FoxO1, 03, and 04 caused blood cell abnormalities but not outright leukemia. A bigger surprise was that the blood stem cells “were really in trouble without those transcription factors,” he said, dividing too rapidly, losing their ability to renew themselves, and dying out. “This means that FoxOs contribute to the longevity of stem cells, and if you take them away, you dramatically shorten stem cells’ lives.”

Looking further, Gilliland and his colleagues found that the damage was being caused by reactive oxygen species, or ROS, a toxic byproduct of cells’ energy production. When the mice were treated with anti-oxidants, the stem cells regained health and longevity. “So, the FoxOs are acting as natural antioxidants,” said Gilliland. Conceivably, he added, drugs could be developed to manipulate the FoxO pathway and extend the lives of stem cells beyond their natural limits, which could aid their use in repairing diseased body tissues.

Texas' limited research funds should be spent on supporting the State's cord blood bank system and continuing research that will give us real cures for Texas' patients.

Note: First paragraph edited for grammar at 10:25 AM CST.

WARF relaxes embryonic stem cell fees and rules

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation holds the patents on virtually all embryonic stem cells that have ever been produced, that ever will be produced, and of all the technological and medical results of that research. At least according to them, and at least in the United States.

And they've been sued by other researchers because of those patents - and not only because of the money involved.

However, early this week the Foundation announced that they will relax some of their earlier restrictions and that they will not charge some researchers for licensing fees. According to the Sacramento Bee,

The Wisconsin foundation that holds patents covering U.S. embryonic stem cell research will waive some of its fees to encourage more industry-sponsored research.

The changes follow criticism from scientists who said the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's fees and its licensing system were driving some investment overseas.

Scientists around the country hailed the policy changes, which will let researchers share their cells for free and allow companies to sponsor research at universities without having to obtain licenses that cost up to $400,000.

"The notion of reducing fees and sharing cell lines and enabling companies to sponsor research at academic institutions is a good thing and should help push the research forward," said Brock Reeve, executive director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

The Wisconsin foundation controls three patents covering research by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist James Thomson, who in 1998 became the first to grow and isolate human embryonic stem cells. The patents are broadly written to cover the cells and research techniques used by many American scientists.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit will not be dropped, according to SignOn San Diego, by the Union Tribune

But despite the policy changes, the patent challenge will not be dropped, said Loring and John Simpson, of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer rights, one of the groups challenging the patents.

“A change in licensing policy of the human ES cell patents doesn't solve the fundamental problem that the patents should not have been issued in the first place,” Simpson said. “The right thing for WARF to do is admit that it doesn't deserve the patents and abandon them in their entirety.”

Nanofiber Scaffolds for Neural Stem Cells (and some truth)

Johns Hopkins researchers report that they have developed "nanofibers" impregnated with special proteins which allow them to grow neural stem cells from embryonic stem cells without "requiring high concentrations of growth factors."

One of the researchers, Neuroscientist Hongjun Song, comments on the immediate results of the research, which will not include actual patient therapy:

“Eventually, stem cells will be very important for treating disease using cell replacement therapy, but more immediately stem cells offer the opportunity to model human disease and find ways to screen for therapeutic drugs to treat the disease.”

Song is a member of the body which oversees stem cell research at Johns Hopkins, the "Stem Cell Policy and Ethics Program." This means that even though he has a vested interest in maintaining his own lab and promoting his research, he is among those at Johns Hopkins who determine how to follow the institution's mission:

• Facilitate the ability of the public to benefit from advances in cell engineering in morally responsible ways;
  
  
• Anticipate moral and policy challenges in stem cell science and cell engineering; and


• Provide opportunity for careful and interdisciplinary analysis of these challenges that will be of assistance to both policymakers and the public.

The inclusion of Song in justifying and lobbying for his own work under the guise of "ethics" is a serious conflict of interest and can not be called "morally responsible."

The good news is that some people see an end to the use of embryo destruction. From the article posted earlier today on trading eggs for in vitro fertilization fees:

In any case, the need for eggs may only be temporary.

They are, in fact, only a tool to reprogram the inserted DNA so that it will drive the development of an early embryo. Scientists hope to learn enough about that reprogramming process to let them take an ordinary cell from a person and use it to produce other kinds of cells, perhaps without going through an embryo stage. That might happen in 10 years, Murdoch estimated.

And then they wouldn't need eggs any more.

Trading eggs for fertility treatment

Women who are desperatly trying to get pregnant, but who cannot afford to pay $5,000 - $6,000 for in vitro fertilization may be offered lower IVF fees in exchange for donation of some of their oocytes for research in the UK. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority approved the trades for one lab last July, but are now seeking public comment, according to an Associated Press article.

The limiting factor for embryonic stem cell research has never been the restrictions placed on US Federal funding. The problem is obtaining eggs from women.

So far, the track record for altruistic donations is mixed. On one hand, hundreds of women volunteered to donate eggs in South Korea for research by the now-disgraced scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who fraudulently claimed success in therapeutic cloning.

But Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. of Alameda, Calif., said he has given up trying to get donations without compensation. After more than a year of pursuing that strategy and about 100 advertisements, ACT was able to get only one woman to donate eggs, he said in an e-mail.

And Kevin Eggan of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who's been seeking eggs since May in return for reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, said recently that the effort had generated some calls but no donors yet. The approach must be given more time to work, he said.

Murdoch, who also directs a fertility treatment center in Newcastle upon Tyne, said that when her lab asked fertility-clinic patients to donate eggs, it received only 66 over seven months. That's just not enough, she said.

In contrast, if her new plan attracts two women a week — chosen because they appear likely to produce lots of eggs — it would provide 20 eggs each week. That's still not a lot, but the supply should be steady, she said.

Her "egg-sharing" plan resembles an arrangement that's used occasionally at fertility clinics. In that plan, a woman shares her eggs and treatment costs with another woman who wants a baby.

Murdoch's group has permission from Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to set up the arrangement for stem cell research. Now it's a question of raising money to finance it. Murdoch said she hopes to start offering the deal to British women in a few months, and that she has already heard from dozens of women eager to participate.

Though the HFEA approved Murdoch's plans in July, it has since started gathering public and expert opinions on whether egg sharing should be permitted. "If the consensus is that this is not a good idea, we can change the policy, and rescind the license," said John Paul Maytum, an HFEA spokesman.

Proof there's no stem cell "ban"

Wesley Smith, at his blog Secondhand Smoke, notes that American Cell Technology has received a grant from the National Institute of Health for research on embryonic stem cells. He also points out what should be obvious: ACT must have received this funding for research on the stem cell lines that are authorized under President Bush's August, 2001 policy.

(In case you can't remember who ACT is, they're the organization that claimed to have cloned human embryos back in 2001, and who claimed to have found a way to produce embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo when in fact they killed every one of those human embryos they used. The company is one of the best examples of the sort of ethics that make people like me think of "ethics for sale." ACT has employed ethicists Art Caplan and Glenn McGee and is very closely associated with Geron, WARF (the research foundation at the University of Wisconsin).

So much for the myth that these cells can't be used or that there is any sort of "ban."

The focus of the research is basic research on how Embryonic Stem Cells divide and differentiate.

From the Washington Business Journal:

The money will support an ongoing collaboration between Alameda-based Advanced Cell (OTCBB: ACTC) and The Burnham Institute of Medical Research in La Jolla.
Researchers are investigating the genetic mechanisms and proteins believed to control how basic embryonic stem cells develop and differentiate. That understanding is essential in harnessing the regenerative powers of stem cells in medical applications, the company says.

This is very basic research, not an actual attempt to produce cells for use in treatments. Hopefully, the added knowledge will point to ethical, non-destructive ways to obtain stem cells for treatment in actual patients.

The business of adult stem cells

Since Mr. Reed has urged us to follow the money trail, and after my talk with the banker last week, I was pleased to see that others are looking at ethical stem cells as an investment.

The business journal, Bloomberg, reported on several companies that are involved in ethical stem cell research. Evidently, these companies received a boost in their ratings after the news of amniotic stem cells broke over the weekend.

(HT to Rush Limbaugh)