More on the Obama Transition Team

Many of the coordinators of the Agency Review Teams and the Working group members have already been reviewed by Daily KOS-er "joehoevah," here. This is not my usual referral, and he doesn't look for the connection to Podesta, but I couldn't demonstrate the left-leaning nature of this team nearly as well. (Let me know if the page disappears, I've archived the information.)

I use the political terms because of the need for balance in the appointments to medical, scientific and bioethics jobs and advisory committees. When all of the OTT have worked for "progressives" and such pro-abortion men as Daschle, Gebhardt, Waxman, and/or are credited with claiming that Senator McCain cannot send an e-mail (Pfeiffer), their politics are more than relevant.


There are several famous (on Google) Lisa Browns, including a State Senator from Washington and an actress. This one is a former Clinton Staffer who's spent the last few years at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, teaching lawyers and law students to oppose "an activist conservative legal movement [which] has gained influence - eroding these enduring values and presenting the law as a series of sterile abstractions. This new orthodoxy, which threatens to dominate our courts and our laws, does a grave injustice to the American vision."


Here's Lisa Brown on a youtube video, introducing a briefing by the American Constitution Society on the 2nd Amendment.

And from the 2nd page of my "progressive" Google search:

"The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is composed of law students, lawyers, scholars, judges, policymakers, activists and other concerned individuals who are working to ensure that the fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality and access to justice are in their rightful, central place in American law.

"This conference provides an extraordinary opportunity to engage and energize members of the moderate and progressive legal community as we begin a concerted effort to reclaim the Constitution and ensure that our laws and public policy reflect our nation's founding values," said ACS Executive Director Lisa Brown."

Myths on Myths about stem cells

There's a new Public Broadcasting System (your tax dollars at work) television show on "stem cells," "Mapping Stem Cell Research: Terra Incognita."

You don't have to go any farther than the top of the home page, with its picture of a girl in a wheelchair and this quote,

"Some people consider stem cell biology to be the Holy Grail of Regenerative Medicine, while others view embryonic stem cell use as morally wrong."

to see that it's propaganda for embryonic stem cell research and cloning for embryonic stem cells. The authors immediately begin the pattern of using the term "stem cells" for both of the two basic kinds of stem cells: those that require the destruction of a human life and those that don't.

Here are the first three points from the "Myths and Realities" page, with my comments in Bold after each.

MYTH
Stem cell research uses aborted fetuses.
REALITY
Stem cells can be totipotent (a fertilized egg with the “total potential” to give rise to all different types of cells in the body), multipotent (stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types), or pluripotent (stem cells that can give rise to any type of cells in the body except those that are needed to develop a fetus). While pluripotent stem cells could be developed from fetal tissue or even adults, they are best derived from early-stage embryos, a mass of cells that is only a few days old—not aborted fetuses.

The authors skip over the significance of the fact that embryronic stem cells come from destroyed human embryos in the lab, it is true that most stem cell research does not use tissues obtained from abortions. Nowadays, however, the term "fetus" is too often used by the media (and even researchers who ought to know better) for all pre-born human beings. The proper definition of human embryo is the organism from fertilization or the beginning of the first cell division to 7-8 weeks of age. The term "fetus" in humans is properly used from 8 weeks until birth.

More on the claims about what is the "best" source of stem cells and about "embryonic-like stem cells," below.

MYTH
Somatic cell nuclear transfer using human cells involves the use of fertilized eggs.
REALITY
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process in which the nucleus from an adult cell is removed and then transferred to an egg whose nucleus has been removed, is the first step in cloning and can be used to create an embryonic stem cell line. However, an egg cell does not need to be fertilized to be used in this procedure—an unfertilized egg cell can be used.

Here, the authors avoid using "embryo" and throw around the terms "unfertilized egg" and "fertilized egg." An embryo is not a "fertilized egg" - once an egg is fertilized, it becomes an embryo. In Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (cloning), the embryo is produced artificially by inserting the DNA of a donor cell and stimulating division and organized development that occurs with natural reproduction. When human DNA is used to produce human embryonic cells in an organized embryo, there can be no doubt that what we are talking about is a human embryo. No matter how he or she is created - or produced - or how severely handicapped by the intentions and actions of the producers, a human embryo is a very young human being.

MYTH
Researchers can use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Other treatments using adult stem cells are available to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries.
REALITY
Adult stem cells lack the versatility and flexibility of embryonic stem cells, making them less likely to lead to medical breakthroughs. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater developmental potential and are more likely to be pluripotent, while adult stem cells are thought to be merely multipotent, or restricted to only certain cell types.

In November 2007, Japanese and American research teams reported new ways to obtain stem cells that behaved like embryonic stem cells from human skin cells—without having to use human embryos. This breakthrough holds great promise in solving the ethical dilemmas of stem cell research, but scientists currently still face technical hurdles and the challenge of finding ways to use these stem cells successfully in medical treatments and therapies.

The biggest lie of all is that embryonic stem cells are more useful in treatments for human beings. Just ask the 20,000 plus in the US alone who have been treated with adult and umbilical cord stem cells or go looking for even one human who has been treated with embryonic stem cells.

While it is true that most ethical, adult stem cells are not "pluripotent," there are many kinds of "multipotent" stem cells and precursor cells in the body. In fact, these are the cells that we probably will use in the future, because they are the cells the body uses to repair itself and because they are less likely to grow out of control or cause tumors.

We are also learning that the desired development of stem cells and precursor cells is influenced by the environment and all sorts of "factors," or chemical and physical signals present in the part of the body where they grow into cells, tissues and organs. The key to future treatment for most disease will probably come from learning to stimulate these conditions and factors.

Besides the ethical dilemma of destroying early human life, embryonic stem cell research has every problem or hurdle that could be cited for adult stem cells: they are difficult to grow, found in small numbers, the cultures may be contaminated with different, undesirable cell lines, and are difficult to control to produce for the exact stem cell line that is needed.

Moreover, no one wants to transplant embryonic stem cells into people. What we want is to produce adult stem cells for treatments.

The last paragraph mentions embryonic-like stem cells. There are several ways to produce stem cells that behave in every way that the unethical stem cells do.

These cells are being used in research to replace the unethical cells produced by destruction of embryos.

The goal of all stem cell research is to have a source of "patient-specific" stem cells from the patient or to find ways to stimulate stem cell production in the body of the patient, when and where they are needed.

The producers of this program are advocating for outdated research methods.While researchers have learned a lot from human embryo research in the past, most of what we use has been developed from research in animal models. The production of new embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos and from cloning is no longer necessary to carry out this research.


(Thanks to Janet, of the Bedford County Citizens Concerned for Human Life, for sending me the link to the website on the show.)

Government Health: Intervention, Restrictions, and Penalties

What do Massachusetts and Great Britain have in common? Mandated health coverage.

Today is the last day that citizens of the State of Massachusetts may buy health insurance or risk penalties on their State income tax.

The BBC News from Britain reports that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics proposes that the government do more to protect the people from themselves and their choices:

The government should intervene more with public health measures Government ministers should shrug off media accusations that they are running a nanny state and introduce tougher public health measures, experts say.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the time had come to consider a whole host of interventions in the UK after the introduction of a smoking ban.

Its proposes raising alcohol prices, restricting pub opening hours and better food labelling to fight obesity.

The government said it was taking steps to protect public health.

The report by the panel of experts, which include scientists, lawyers and philosophers, said there was a balance to be struck between individual freedom and wider public protection.

*****
"But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices." (emphasis mine, BBN)

Of course, the UK doesn't have our Declaration of Independence, with its insistence that each of us is endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and that the government receives its power from the consent of the governed. Massachusetts ought to know better.

However, I'm afraid that the bioethicists and bureaucrats go to the same schools.

While I appreciate that the Massachusetts plan calls for each person or family to buy individual health insurance if they don't have it through their employer, and I recognize that people would be healthier if they follow the recommendations of the UK bioethicists, I would prefer a tax deduction for compliance, rather than a penalty. Rewards seem to work better than punishments for behavior that other people decide is "for your own good."

The statement from Lord John Krebs about restrictions for the common good, however, is the most worrisome. Remember that some in the public health community believe that in times of crisis, the community interests must trump those of individuals due to the scarcity of resource and public funding of relief and rescue. (Never mind that the courts are paid for by community funds, also have limited resources and yet, no one would dare suggest suspension of individual rights in criminal cases.)

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.

WhyVille - Virtual Biotech for Children

According to the San Antonio Express News, the Texas Workforce is helping to teach children to handle credit and the importance of developing vaccines:

n Texas, Whyville recently received grants totaling $440,000 from the Texas Workforce Commission to build Whyville Biotech and Whyville Advanced Manufacturing Center.

The site's designers created Whyville Biotech to teach kids how to develop vaccines against WhyPox, a flu-like epidemic that erupts each year. WhyPox causes kids' avatars — their virtual characters — to break out with red spots on their faces. Last fall, during real-world flu season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention virtually vaccinated 134,000 kids in Whyville.

Through the Texas grant, kids also will learn about drug design and discovery, as well as new techniques in computational biology, Bower said.

Eventually, Whyville citizens will build biotechnology companies in Whyville, Bower said.

"From a work-force standpoint, this is huge," he said. "We have a 'cool' factor, but we're also doing something very useful for these industries."