Stem Cell Research

[Bowwowmeow]

Stem-Cell Research Foes Get Own Ad


By JIM SALTER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 25, 2006 11:28 AM EDT
ST. LOUIS - Days after actor Michael J. Fox appeared in a TV ad urging Missouri voters to support stem cell research, opponents will unveil their own commercial during the World Series Wednesday night.
The Cardinals' starting pitcher for Game 4, Jeff Suppan, is among several celebrities who appear in the minute-long ad. Others include Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner, Kansas City Royals player Mike Sweeney and two actors - Patricia Heaton of TV's "Everybody Loves Raymond" and Jim Caviezel, who portrayed Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ."
"Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right," Suppan says in the commercial. "Don't be deceived."
Amendment 2 would provide constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. The 30-second spot featuring Fox, 45, who sways uncontrollably in the ad due to his Parkinson's disease, is actually a commercial for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.
But the Senate race and stem cell issue are intertwined - McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent, opposes the stem cell measure.
Fox also has lent his celebrity to Democrats Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, running for the Senate in Maryland, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, who is seeking re-election. Both politicians also back stem cell research.
"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the ad that began airing Saturday during Game 1 of the World Series. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans - Americans like me."
The Fox ad has triggered a backlash, with some criticizing it as exploitive. Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting," though he later apologized.
Dr. John Boockvar, a neurosurgeon and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical Center at New York's Presbyterian Hospital, called Limbaugh's claim "ludicrous." Boockvar said those with Parkinson's have "on" and "off" spells.
"If there is one single disease that has the highest potential for benefit from stem cell research," Boockvar said Tuesday, "it's Parkinson's."
The Missouri ad opposing Amendment 2 was finished Tuesday and was immediately available on the Internet. Missourians Against Human Cloning spokeswoman Cathy Ruse said the ad was already in the works, "but we sped up production after the Michael J. Fox ad came out.
"That ad claims opponents want to criminalize research and prevent the expansion of stem cell research. Those claims are just false and misleading," Ruse said. "Our gripe with Amendment 2 is it creates a right to do human cloning and it creates the right to human egg trafficking for cloning research."
Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a supporter of the amendment, called the ad "a pathetic attempt to distort the facts and mislead voters."
"To believe the claims made in their ad you'd have to believe that over 100 nonprofit patient and medical organizations, including the Missouri State Medical Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, just to name a few, are conspiring to mislead voters," Farrow said. "And that defies commonsense."
Celebrities have a long history of supporting political candidates. But there's no question that Fox, who campaigned for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, is uniquely suited as a spokesman for stem cell research.
Fox, who starred on TV's "Family Ties" and "Spin City" plus the "Back to the Future" films, shakes and rocks as he directly addresses the camera, the effects of his disease clearly apparent.
"The reason that he's powerful is that he's comparatively young," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director for the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "As a result, a lot of people in that age range can look at him and say, `If that can happen to him, it can happen to me.'"
Jamieson noted that the stem cell issue has the potential to be an advantage to Democrats in the November elections since polls have shown the majority of Americans favor some form of stem cell research. Critics say it requires the destruction of a human embryo.
The risk, Jamieson added, is that the ads could appear as using Fox's hopes for a cure for political gain, as some claimed was the case when the paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve lobbied for stem cell research before his death in 2004.
Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder of the central nervous system that leaves patients increasingly unable to control their movements.
Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.
He has since acted sporadically in smaller roles, such as in a several-episode guest appearance earlier this year on ABC's "Boston Legal," playing a business tycoon with cancer.
For that role and others, Fox generally has sought to control his movements, though his illness was evident. He told The Associated Press in January that one long scene was physically taxing and that because of Parkinson's disease, he "can't show up with a game plan."
---
On the Net:
http://www.michaeljfox.org/
Parkinson's Disease Foundation: http://www.pdf.org/
Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures: http://www.missouricures.com
Missouri Right to Life: http://www.missourilife.org
---
AP entertainment writer Jake Coyle in New York contributed to this story.


I have to admit that the idea of human cloning disturbs me, so I can vaguely see where some of these people are coming from, but my feeling has always been that humans should be doing whatever it is they think they need to do TO OTHER HUMANS, not to animals. Animal "research" does nothing to help further knowledge of human health and disease. Animals have emotions and intelligence; cloned stem cells do not. I really don't understand the violent opposition to it. What's wrong with establishing a right to do human egg "trafficking"? If I want to sell my eggs to someone in order to save a few thousand animals from being tortured, why shouldn't I be able to do that? They're my eggs! I have a legal right to abort my unborn child, but not to sell my eggs? And, I wouldn't need to sell them anyway; I'd give 'em away for free if it would stop animal research. :hbang:

Though I have to say, if I were not interested in or even capable of thinking this issue through on my own, I know I would be guided in the correct moral direction by advocating the exact opposite of anything endorsed by Rush Limbaugh! :dunce: :rolleyes2:

[thevegantwins]

You are psychic, Bow. I was just watching Michael J. Fox's ad and reading the accompaning article on the NY Times online. I agree with you, I'm against cloning but if I had stem cells (which I do, we saved the kids' umbilical cord blood which contains stem cells), I have no problem with donating it to science. We pay about $200 a year right now to save the kids' stem cells but its like an insurance policy. There are many illnesses that can be treated utilizing the stem cells which we may or may not develop.

[Gliondrach]

Adult stem cells can be used as well. No possibility of anyone objecting on moral grounds.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=1002059&page=1

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/04/03/engineered.organs/index.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041130235654.htm

The only trouble is that they sometimes practise on non-humans.

[KRITER]

We dont need no cloning going on thats a fact.We dont need another way to make people.Theres way to many people now.And we always coming up with ways to make more.I dont hav no problem with using anykind of human stem cells myself.I hope it wood meen us geting away from using animals for whats been called human benefit without giving a dam about the animals life.If we needing to test drugs or procedures for people then test on people.If we needing parts for people then use human parts.Im hoping this here will get us from abusing critters and leeving them to go on about their bizness.It seems to me a human heart wood work beter in a human then a pigs heart.The humans that donate parts die first, naturally or by accident.The pig is killed.That aint proper.

[Bowwowmeow]

If we needing to test drugs or procedures for people then test on people.If we needing parts for people then use human parts.Im hoping this here will get us from abusing critters and leeving them to go on about their bizness.
That's what I hope, too, KRITER.

[Gliondrach]

Researchers at Newcastle University have made a functioning human liver from umbilical cord stem cells. It is too small to be used for transplant. They hope to be able to make bigger ones within a few years, but it could be used to test drugs instead of testing them on mice and dogs.

It will be great when they can make things from people's own stem cells - such as new arms, eyes, kidneys, lungs, etc. They would probabaly want to test the process on non-humans first but I'm sure that people who needed new parts would be willing test subjects. Better to have your own organs grown from your own cells instead of getting an organ from a donor and then having to take dangerous anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life.

[Keykeypie]

....Thanks for all the posts. I wasn't sure about if I was for stem cell research.....but after reading what you all think I'm sure now I'm for it

As long as it doesn't cause even more testing on the poor animals..

[KRITER]

Thats the main reson Im for it,surenuff.

[Fauxmage]

Mo. Catholics Back Stem Cell Research


From Associated Press
November 05, 2006 2:36 PM EST
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A group of prominent Catholics is challenging church leaders' opposition to stem cell research and to the proposed Constitutional amendment that would protect such research in Missouri.
The group, led by former Sen. Tom Eagleton, e-mailed a letter to fellow Catholics last week explaining its reasons for supporting Amendment 2, which Missourians will vote on Tuesday.
The amendment would ensure that any federally approved stem cell research and treatments would be available in Missouri.
The letter from Catholics for Amendment 2 said the group felt a moral obligation to respond to what it called misinformation, scare tactics and distortions being spread by opponents of the initiative, including the church.
"Some people want to ban all stem cell research," the letter said. "At the other extreme there are those who would like to see research proceed completely unfettered. We believe that Amendment 2 strikes a responsible balance ... (with) clear ethical boundaries and safety guidelines."
The letter challenges Missouri's Catholic bishops, who sent letters last week urging parishioners to vote against Amendment 2. It included a brochure that said the amendment also would divert money from college loans and health care, and prohibit any governor, judge or other officials from regulating or limiting the research.
Bishop Robert Finn of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese wrote that the amendment would enshrine in the state constitution the right to clone human beings.
"This extreme protection of one industry, for something that is inherently and gravely immoral, is unprecedented in any state," Finn wrote.

[Bowwowmeow]

Fox Urges Action on Stem Cells Measure


By DESMOND BUTLER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
November 10, 2006 7:45 PM EST
NEW YORK - Actor Michael J. Fox on Friday urged President Bush and the newly elected Democratic Congress to work together to pass legislation backing stem cell research.
Fox, 45, also called on Bush to reconsider his policy of strict limits on federal funding for the work.
Bush "has acknowledged that the people of America want change, and he has pledged to work with new congressional leaders," Fox said in a statement. "He could take no stronger action than signing legislation that finally expands our nation's commitment to stem cell research."
Fox also thanked Democratic leaders for their willingness to focus on stem cell research "as one of their first priorities."
Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, supports embryonic stem cell research as a possible cure for Parkinson's, as well other diseases.
He drew criticism from some conservatives for a Missouri political ad that showed him visibly shaking while urging viewers to vote yes for stem-cell ballot initiative and for a Democratic Senate candidate over the Republican incumbent. The initiative narrowly passed on Tuesday.
Fox, who starred on TV's "Family Ties" as well as the "Back to the Future" films, was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.


"The initiative narrowly passed on Tuesday."
That's good news. :cheer:

[Bowwowmeow]

Sen. Reid: Ethics, Stem Cells Top Agenda


By NEDRA PICKLER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
November 28, 2006 12:10 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Ethics reform, a higher minimum wage and more money for stem cell research are the top items on the Senate agenda next year, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
Reid said he will tackle those priorities after cleaning up the "financial mess" that the outgoing Republican leadership has left. He was referring to nine long overdue appropriations bills covering 13 Cabinet departments for the budget year that began Oct. 1.
"They're just leaving town, it appears," Reid said from his office in the Capitol. "We hope that's not the case, but it appears that's what they are going to do. And so we're going to have to find a way to fund the government for the next year."
The must-pass legislation totals more than $460 billion and promises to divert time and energy from other items on the Democratic agenda.
Reid also said he's doing away with the "do-nothing Congress" that Democrats campaigned against this year as they ousted the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. The Nevada Democrat, who is wrapping up his final days as Senate minority leader, will take control of the Senate agenda when the new Congress takes the oath of office in January.
"We're going to put in some hours here that haven't been put in in a long time," Reid said. That means "being here more days in the week and we start off this year with seven weeks without a break. That hasn't been done in many, many years here."
Reid said he hopes that President Bush is willing to work with the Democratic congressional leadership, but the early signs have not been encouraging. He said the White House has not reached out to him since his meeting with Bush in the Oval Office on Nov. 10. "Sorry to say," Reid said.
Bush used the only veto of his presidency so far to reject a bill passed by Congress last year that would have expanded embryonic stem cell research through government funding.
Supporters of such research say it could lead to treatments and cures for a wide variety of ailments, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries. Bush and abortion foes, however, have opposed embryonic stem cell research because the embryos die in the process of harvesting the stem cells from them.
Reid said he hoped the president "will relent and see the light" that the research gives hope to Americans struggling with illnesses and injuries. He said the Senate is "not even close" to having the two-thirds vote necessary to override Bush's veto, but he hopes some Republicans will join the Democrats after losing the election this month.
The election came on the heels of several ethical scandals involving lawmakers, and Reid said reform is needed. He said "the first thing we do" will be to try to cut the practice of lawmakers anonymously inserting "earmarks" - narrowly tailored spending that often helps a specific company or project in their district - into bills.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayer watchdog group, said there were 9,963 such projects in the spending bills for the 2006 budget year, costing $29 billion.
The third item at the top of Reid's agenda is increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. The White House has signaled that Bush may be willing to consider the proposal.
---
On the Net:
http://reid.senate.gov



"Bush and abortion foes, however, have opposed embryonic stem cell research because the embryos die in the process of harvesting the stem cells from them."
There are other sources of stem cells, and, though I am not entirely supportive of the idea of abortion, I'd rather see human embryos used than animals, who also die in the process of research, not to mention suffering tremendously before dying. The reality is that abortion is legal in this country (and I wouldn't try to change that) so why not use the embryos? I don't even care about the "ethics" of poor people selling their embryos. At least they have the choice, unlike lab animals, who have none.

We'll probably never be able to stop killing in the name of the quest for cures for disease. So lets at least kill that which causes the least harm. In my mind, that would be human embryos.

[Oracl]

We'll probably never be able to stop killing in the name of the quest for cures for disease. So lets at least kill that which causes the least harm. In my mind, that would be human embryos.
I agree completely, BWM. :agree:

[Gliondrach]

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
Sun Jan 7, 2:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cells nearly as powerful as embryonic stem cells can be found in the amniotic fluid that protects babies in the womb, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

Like embryonic stem cells, they appear to thrive in lab dishes for years, while normal cells, called somatic cells, die after a time.

"They are easier to grow than human embryonic stem cells," Atala added in a telephone interview. And, unlike embryonic stem cells, they do not form a type of benign tumor called a teratoma, he said.

Atala said a bank with 100,000 specimens of the amniotic stem cells theoretically could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with perfect genetic matches for transplants.

Read more at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070107/sc_nm/stemcells_fluid_dc

[Fauxmage]

Wow, that's great news! No more pig hearts, or waiting for someone to die in an accident so you can have their liver. :crossfingers:

[Oracl]

Yes, excellent news! :agree:

[Bowwowmeow]

Here's a petition in support of stem cell research. (http://ga3.org/campaign/stemcell_dogmaticdozen/id3bxwur4tijke8) :yea: :yea: :yea:

[Charmagne]

Sent. Anything that might remotely help our animal friends.:)

[Oracl]

Well I sent it but I had to put that I lived on a 'Minor Outlying Island'. :whistle: Do you think Australia qualifies?! :bhead:

[Keykeypie]

Ha ha ha.....I just got the email asking me to sign but then I wondered....
are "we" FOR this??? so I came here to NV to find out & got my answer
right away......OK.....by the time you read this....my name will be on it too.

[Bowwowmeow]

US House passes bill boosting federal support of embryonic stem cell research


By ANDREW TAYLOR (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
January 11, 2007 8:40 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.
But the 253-174 vote on Thursday fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President George W. Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.
The White House said the bill - the third bill of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda to pass the House - "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."
At stake was whether research on cells taken from human embryos - considered by scientists to be the most promising approach to developing potential treatments or cures for dozens of diseases - should be underwritten with taxpayer funds.
The debate raises passions because the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization. It draws fierce opposition from anti-abortion lawmakers and like-minded constituents who believe their taxes should not fund such research. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway.
"I support stem cell research with only one exception - research that requires killing human life," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican. "Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community."
Democrats countered with Rep. James Langevin, an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager. The research, Langevin said, offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."
Dr. Robert Lanza, a top stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., said that stem cell-based treatments could be just a few years away for eye and spinal cord injuries, but that a decade or more of research is needed before treatments might become available for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.
Polls show most Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the issue played a big role in the Nov. 7 congressional elections that returned their party to the majority in the House and Senate.
But in the House, Democratic gains of 30 seats do not translate into anywhere near that number of new votes for the embryonic stem cell research bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette and Republican Rep. Mike Castle.
If every House member votes, it takes 290 votes to override a veto, and both the House and Senate must override a veto for a bill to become law without a president's signature.
Scientists still say, however, that embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
The legislation would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. Bush's veto of the bill last year was the first veto of his presidency.
Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the existing embryonic stem cell lines, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.
But those 21 stem cell lines have many problems, and researchers say 300 newer lines, culled from fertility clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away, are considered better suited for implantation.
---
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

[Charmagne]

I just can't wait until Bush leaves office.:tantrum: Impeachment would be good!!

[Fauxmage]

Britain to OK Eggs Donated for Research


By MARIA CHENG (AP Medical Writer)
From Associated Press
February 21, 2007 12:50 PM EST
LONDON - The British government on Wednesday approved plans to allow women to donate eggs for stem cell and cloning research - and said they will also be entitled to compensation for costs incurred.
Women undergoing fertility treatment will receive a discount if they donate eggs, authorities said, while others will receive up to 250 pounds (about US$500) for each fertilization cycle to cover costs such as travel or lost work time.
The eggs would be used to create cloned embryos, with the hope of extracting stem cells. Because stem cells have the potential to become any cell in the body, scientists believe studying them could lead to cures for numerous diseases, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or motor neurone diseases.
Some British stem cell experts are concerned that the change in policy - which brings the country in line with several other European nations - will encourage women to donate eggs solely for financial motives.
"It's exploitative because there will be women attracted even by the thought of getting 250 pounds from this," said Dr. Stephen Minger, director of the Stem Cell Laboratory at King's College. London. "I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of selling tissue and body parts."
Other experts accused authorities of downplaying the health risks to potential egg donors.
But the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority - which advised the government - stressed that payment would strictly cover expenses only.
"No one would be handing out money for donated eggs," said Gemma Wilkie, an HFEA spokeswoman. "We are only talking about recompense for costs incurred."
Britain has long permitted a practice known as egg-sharing, in which women get cheaper in-vitro fertilisation treatments for donating eggs to other women hoping to get pregnant - but donated eggs could never before be used for research.
Some experts argued that women should be entitled to more than 250 pounds.
"Eggs are already a highly prized commodity," said Anna Smajdor, a medical ethics researcher at London's Imperial College. "250 pounds fails on all counts: it is enough to entice women from poorer countries while failing to represent the market value of eggs."


:yea: :yea: :yea:
In spite of the few less-than-human folks who insist on hunting foxes, the UK always seems to be one step ahead of the rest of us when it comes to finding ways to help animals.

[Fauxmage]

Senate Approves Embryonic Stem Cell Bill

By DAVID ESPO (AP Special Correspondent)
From Associated Press
April 13, 2007 4:14 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - A stubborn Senate voted Wednesday to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, ignoring President Bush's threat of a second veto on legislation designed to lead to new medical treatments.
The 63-34 vote was shy of the margin that would be needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition, despite gains made by supporters in last fall's elections.
"Not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick," said Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a senator less than 100 days following a tough 2006 campaign in which the stem cell controversy played a particularly prominent role. "It is a noble cause," she added.
"We're going to use federal money, indirectly or directly, to destroy embryos," countered Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., echoing Bush's argument against the measure. Coburn said claims of imminent scientific breakthroughs from embryonic stem cell research are unsubstantiated and that adult stem cells have been shown to be useful in a variety of cases.
The House, which passed similar legislation earlier in the year, is expected to adopt the Senate's version in the next several weeks for Bush's veto.
The Senate bill, Bush said, "is very similar to legislation I vetoed last year. This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it," the president said in a statement after the vote.
Despite the criticism, the bill's chief sponsor urged the president to give the bill another look. "I urge him to reconsider this bill and sign it. Unleash America's scientists," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
Capping two days of debate, the Senate also voted 70-28 to pass a separate measure backed by Republicans. It supported research in adult stem cells.
Bush said this legislation builds on "ethically appropriate research" and he urged Congress to pass the measure "so stem cell science can progress, without ethical and cultural conflict."
The Senate's action was the latest act in a drama that blends science and politics on an issue that affects millions of disease sufferers and their families.
"It's extremely frustrating to go through this Kabuki dance a second time with the president," said Peter Kiernan, head of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which funds research.
"The one thing we know is we will outlast him."
Stem cells are created in the first days after conception. They are typically culled from frozen embryos, which are destroyed in the process. According to the National Institutes of Health Web site, scientists have been able to conduct experiments with embryonic stem cells only since 1998.
The embryonic stem cells have the ability to transform into a "dazzling array of specialized cells," the Web site says - the property that scientists and others say offers the potential for the development of treatment for diseases as varied as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
There was no federal money for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make it available for lines of stem cells that were in existence. Elected with the strong support of abortion foes and other conservatives, he said at the time his decision was designed to balance concerns about "protecting life and improving life."
He also limited the funds to cell lines derived from embryos that were surplus at fertility clinics, and that had been donated from adults who had given informed consent.
Advocates of the veto-threatened legislation argue that the number of stem cell lines available for research is smaller than needed, and that some of the material has become contaminated over time by mouse embryonic skin cells that typically are placed at the bottom of culture dishes used in the research.
The bill would permit funding for research on embryonic stem cells regardless of the date of their creation, so long as they were donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics, they would "otherwise be discarded" and donors gave their approval.
Bush cast the only veto of his presidency on a stem cell bill last year, but public support for the research is strong, and Democrats sought to use that to their advantage in the 2006 election campaigns.
Missouri became a testing ground, McCaskill challenging GOP Sen. Jim Talent, who opposed expanded federally funded research. Michael J. Fox appeared in a television ad advocating greater research, and the visual image was arresting - the 45-year-old actor swaying from his Parkinson's disease.
With federal funding limited, several states and private institutions have moved into the void.
California, New York and New Jersey have programs. Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts recently announced he hoped to overturn restrictions left in place by his Republican predecessor.
"We in Massachusetts increasingly see this as a competitive issue," said Dr. George Daley of Children's Hospital and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said private institutions compete to hire promising scientists drawn to the field.
"I would say it's revolutionized biomedical research," he said. Rebutting claims by critics, he said, "You can't expect a cell which burst on the scene only as recently as 1998 to have found its way into patients yet. I don't know of any biological technology that translates into patients that soon."
But Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family, said that apart from the issue of embryo destruction, the inevitable result of the contested legislation would be to reduce funding available for adult stem cell work, which she said is more advanced.
"To our knowledge there are no clinical trials with human embryonic stem cells under way and there are 1,300 adult stem cell trials," she said, adding, "The destruction of embryos is not necessary for the advancement of regenerative research," she added.

[Gliondrach]

The article is nearly four pages long. I have condensed parts of it.

A Dog's Stem Cell Life
Golden Retriever Shows Quick Improvement After Being Injected With His Own Stem Cells

Meet Hunter, a 9-year-old golden retriever. His big, friendly personality dominates life at home with Frank and Linda Riha in Burbank, Calif.

"This is like our child," Linda said. "I mean he is such an important part of our family."

Whether eating, sleeping or going on his daily walks, Hunter calls the shots.

According to Frank, "life revolves around Hunter." And everybody knows him.

"He's a celebrity on the street," said Linda.

But Hunter has a serious problem: severe arthritis in his left hip is so painful that he can't run or leap like a healthy dog.

Watch the story tonight on "Nightline" at 11:35 p.m. ET

"His leg, it's almost like it's lifeless and it'll drift back," Linda said, referring to Hunter's tendency to favor his right leg.

X-rays show that Hunter has hip dysplasia, a common ailment in purebred dogs that causes the ball of the leg bone to loosen from its socket, causing painful wearing on the joint.

"You can see that the edges of the bone are very worn away. They're not nearly as smooth," said veterinarian Jerry Bausman.

Facing the possibility of a shortened life for Hunter, the Rihas were considering a $10,000 hip replacement when the doctors offered something new, different and much less expensive. For only about $2,500, they could treat Hunter with his own stem cells, the healing and regenerative cells that live in both humans and animals.

"This is an excellent in-between that may mean he may never need a total hip," Bausman said.

Making Strides Without Red Tape
In the race to perfect "regenerative medicine," stem cell therapy for animals is ahead of treatment for humans because it is not so strictly regulated. It's not experimental -- it's here.

And while the debate rages over the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, doctors have made stunning progress with "adult" stem cells recovered from body fat.

They are less powerful than embryonic cells, but they don't require the destruction of an embryo. There are no side effects and no problems with rejection, because the patient is also the cell donor.

"We're kind of reverting the body back to a younger age or a younger stage when we were more of a regenerative stage," said Bausman.

In a fairly easy procedure, Hunter's stem cells will be recovered from his body fat, isolated in a laboratory, and reinjected into his hip in greater concentration than his own body could accomplish.


But is it safe? Francisco thinks so. "I don't see any reason why humans aren't doing it," he said. With so much success in horses, word got around and people started to ask Harman if Vet-Stem could treat their beloved dogs. A Newfoundland named Magic that was nearly crippled by arthritis was one of the earlier patients.

"We just thought, well, it couldn't really hurt her, there was no downside to it, so it was worth a try," Magic's owner Nancy Olenick said.

Magic showed dramatic improvement in about a month. Overall, the treatment has brought significant improvement about 70 percent of the time, allowing veterinarians to be the pioneers in practical use of stem cells.

Stem cells show great promise for healing animal joints, hearts, livers and kidneys … and perhaps, in the future, humans.

Two weeks after the injection it's still early, but Hunter is already a different dog. He's moving easier, and seems happier. His owners are too.

Related Stories
Veterinary Breakthroughs of 2007No Expense Spared on Pets, or VetsPortly Pets: Is Fido's Life in Danger?Horse Slaughter Industry May Be on Its Last Legs Japan researcher proposes stem cell bankFrom Stem Cells to Dinosaur MummiesStem Cells For Beauty?Stem Cells Used to Fix Breast DefectsDogs Bring New Hope to Cancer StudyTop Health stories
Millions Get High Using Common Cold DrugsDriving With Diabetes: Preparation Is KeyFDA Cracks Down on HRT Alternatives
"He jumped up on the bed, which is almost three feet tall, and he hasn't done that in quite a few months, and we kind of freaked out because he's supposed to stay quiet, but he was right up there and ready to go," said Frank.

For Hunter, a dog's life is a very good one on the leading edge of medical science.

ht tp://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4109559&page=1

[Tails4wagging]

Interesting, a form of acceptable vivisection in a way isnt it?.

If it works for a dog within a loving atmosphere, I can accept that.

[my3labs]

That is really great news, Gliondrach. Thank you for posting that.

[my3labs]

Interesting, a form of acceptable vivisection in a way isnt it?.


I'm not following your train of thought on this Tails. Am I missing something? Can you explain?

[1vegan]

I don't see stem cell research as a good thing.

What ever comes from it will be tested on animals, so it leads to more animal testing and experiments with animals.

The final products will be used to make big profits for the pharmaceutical industries, and it will be used to "cure" things that probably can be cured in other ways too.

I doubt that they will be used to cure rare diseases, cause then the profit won't be big enough, so they'll use it to cure common things, like bloodpressure or heart problems.
So, instead of adapting ones ways, like more excersize or eath more healthy, they'll have another "pill" to "cure" the problems.

The only thing Bush has done right imho; to put a ban on this kind of research.

[Gliondrach]

Yes, it will be tested on other animals but when more non-vivisection research is done they will be able to test it on humans directly. I'm sure there would be lots of volunteers. More people are learning that vivisection is dangerous to the people who use the drugs produced by it. One day it will be outlawed. It only continues because the drug companies pay/bribe the politicians and regulators. But a few more disasters will turn public opinion against it.

[Tails4wagging]

The way I see it, by doing it this way, its an acceptable form I suppose, you have your beloved pet cured(hopefully) and they get their answers without vivisecting caged monkeys etc,.

Does that make sense?. I suppose its no different than blood donor dogs, which I also would have reservations.

[my3labs]

I understand now.....
I guess I don't have a problem with it since it's my own dog's stem cells. My understanding is that they take it from their fat reserves or something.

I can see how it could/will be exploited and that concerns me of course. I guess in my little naive mind, I had not thought it through.

Regarding blood donating animals...are there actually animals that are solely dedicated to this, like vivisection animals? I thought that it was purely voluntary. I wouldn't have a problem donating my dogs' blood occasionally. I've even heard that you can have your own dogs' blood stored for future use?

[Tails4wagging]

Its voluntary, not sure about it although I suppose if one of my girls need blood, I would hope someone would help. Difficult one that.

[Fauxmage]

I don't see stem cell research as a good thing.

What ever comes from it will be tested on animals, so it leads to more animal testing and experiments with animals.


That's because you don't understand it. Human stem cells can be used to grow human organs and other human tissues that can be used in research and testing so that animals don't need to be. A person can have a liver or heart grown from cells in their own body and use that instead of using one from some poor pig, or someone who is in a coma with no insurance, and gets his organs "harvested" without his consent before they unplug his life support and use his organs to compensate for his unpaid bills. People whose children need kidneys and livers can have them grown for transplanting instead of watching their children die while on waiting lists for donated organs. It'll solve a lot more problems than it will cause, and no more animals will need to be specially genetically modified so that their organs and other body parts can be used in human bodies for transplantation.

[Gliondrach]

But until they have it all down pat they will test the new advances in mice and rats. It could be argued that those mice and rats would have been used to test drugs that the stem cells would replace. In the early days there's unlikely to be any great lessening of testing - it'll just be shifted from drugs to stem cells. But the effects on the various animals could be less unpleasant. Instead of being poisoned with massive doses of drugs they will be injected with their own stem cells. These might cure them. Or they might cause unpleasant or painful side effects. I hope any side effects would be less than those caused by dangerous drugs. I don't believe they would be any worse. The animals used in early research could still be killed after the experiments to see what was going on inside - unless enough advances had been made in imaging techniques to look into their living bodies with MRI and PET-type scans. They can already be used to look at interactions of drugs with molecules and cells. There are some imaging techniques that can only be used on mice at present because they can only be used with small bodies. So that's a good sign as something like them could be used to see the effects of stem cells in any organs.

[Bowwowmeow]

But until they have it all down pat they will test the new advances in mice and rats. It could be argued that those mice and rats would have been used to test drugs that the stem cells would replace.
But such activity is not inherently necessary to this research. Most testing takes place to verify that huge numbers of people will not be killed by the latest drug, in order to prevent lawsuits. Stem cell treatments can't even be patented, because in order to be "cured" by stem cells, you have to use something that already exists and isn't subject to patenting, much like the herbal and other plant based treatments the FDA would like to ban because they aren't patentable, and therefore are not a source of mega-income to big pharma and payoffs to the FDA to approve products without enough safety checks.

Nothing is perfect in this sick world, but if we do not even allow for the possibility of using human tissue to test drugs on, and human-derived organs grown in test tubes for human transplanting, animals will continue to suffer as they do at present. I strongly feel that this is their only hope to be free in future from vivisection.

[1vegan]

But such activity is not inherently necessary to this research.

Which could also be said about current testing.


Most testing takes place to verify that huge numbers of people will not be killed by the latest drug, in order to prevent lawsuits. Stem cell treatments can't even be patented, because in order to be "cured" by stem cells, you have to use something that already exists and isn't subject to patenting, much like the herbal and other plant based treatments the FDA would like to ban because they aren't patentable

I think the treatments will be patentable, otherwise the companies wouldn't invest in methods to work with it.
The might not be able to patent the raw basics, like the stemcells it self, but the way they work with it will be patented.

Just like something like iron can't be patented, you sure can patent how or what you make with it.



Nothing is perfect in this sick world, but if we do not even allow for the possibility of using human tissue to test drugs on, and human-derived organs grown in test tubes for human transplanting, animals will continue to suffer as they do at present. I strongly feel that this is their only hope to be free in future from vivisection.


I think that the methods that might come out of stemcell research will make the companies big bucks, they won't give those treatments for "free".
Just like it is now in some parts of the world "no money, no cure"

And on a ethical level you could also wonder if all this experimenting, that will involve animals, either in the experimental phase now, or later on when it's a established method, (they might keep using animals as a reference point every few years, just like they now do for food colouring etc).
..if all this is necessary to "make" transplants to compensate for perhaps a problem that could get a solution in another way, like less chemicals in our live, or a healthier life style.

[Gliondrach]

The money that could be made would be a very strong incentive to bribe politicians - which is easy to do - so they would change laws in favour of the drug companies.

We can only hope that there will be some huge shift in public opinion that will make people rise up to confront the drug companies - and all the politicians in their pockets. Some of the modern research methods - microdosing, imaging, the Hurel chip, etc COULD be used without any non-human involvement. But the scum who run things still insist that they be validated and tested by torturing rats and monkeys. Stem cell research COULD be done in universities for the public good if governments weren't so corrupt. Instead of letting the drug pushers sponser the research and profit from it the governments should use tax payers' money to pay for the research - but they get too much money from the drug pushers. Like the Labour Party and the millions of pounds that Mr Sainsbury gave them - in payment for a job as a science minister and a peerage. No doubt, there are millions more from other sources as corrupt politicians don't declare all the money that they are given under the table.

[1vegan]

Interesting, a form of acceptable vivisection in a way isnt it?.

If it works for a dog within a loving atmosphere, I can accept that.

Not meant as an attack, but I'm curious :)

Why is this an acceptabel form of vivisection?

I don't really see why this testing on animals would be so much different from other animal testing.

Would HLS suddenly be less of a problem if they did animal testing for animal drugs?

[Gliondrach]

Although I don't know exactly what Tails meant - and she won't be able to log in here until she has moved house - I suppose she meant that the fat cells were taken from the dog and then injected back into the same dog when the stem cells had been isolated. A bit like using a skin graft from one part of the body, growing it in a dish, and then using it to cover some large wound. The initial discovery will have been tested in rats and mice but now it can be used to treat individual animals without any further testing. The early work was wrong and will have resulted in the torture of rats and mice (even though they could have tested it on human volunteers) but now the process exists and can't be uninvented. If I had severe arthritis I would volunteer as a human test subject.

I think that is what Tails might have meant. I could be wrong. But, given my telepathic powers, I don't think so. :whistle:

[Bowwowmeow]

From The New York Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/business/worldbusiness/20cosmetics.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&adxnnlx=1200632576-yDDsavjoY0O/KEnCh3h9fw)

A New Science, at First Blush

Jean-Claude Coutausse/Bloomberg News

By DOREEN CARVAJAL
Published: November 20, 2007

GRASSE, France — The delicate hybrids thriving in the balmy climes of Provence, southern France’s traditional perfume region, include sweet jasmine, May roses — and fresh layers of artificial human skin.

By 2009, only companies that shun the use of animals in testing will be allowed to sell makeup in Europe.

Scientists here are working feverishly to develop new technologies to test cosmetics before a European Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org) ban on animal testing begins in March 2009.

These advanced materials — including reconstructed eye tissue and tiny circles of skin developed from donor cells harvested from cosmetic operations — are a vital part of the industry’s future as it faces rapidly tightening European regulations, rules that apply to any company wishing to sell in the 27-nation European Union.

The looming European ban is not only forcing multinational companies to adopt new practices. It is also bringing together regulators in Brussels with agencies from the world’s other large cosmetics markets — the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the Ministry of Health in Japan — to harmonize regulation.

Even more surprising, the new standards are pushing longtime secretive rivals to cooperate, grudgingly and sometimes with prodding from regulators and politicians.

The European commissioner for science, Janez Potocnik, appeared this month at a meeting for multinational companies and chided them for slowing the search for alternatives by failing to share information.

The stakes are high: Europe is the world’s leading cosmetics market, and it also exports more than $23.4 billion worth of cosmetics every year. Cosmetics exported from the United States to Europe amount to nearly $2 billion a year, about 7 percent of the European market. After the United States, Japan is the second leading provider of cosmetics to Europe .

“Without question these regulations are having an impact,” said Dr. Alan Goldberg, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “What company is going to want to eliminate 450 million customers by not complying?”

The cosmetics giant L’Oréal has devoted more than $800 million in the last 20 years to the development of alternatives to animal testing, while its American rival, Procter & Gamble, maker of the Cover Girl line, has spent almost $225 million.

“For the cosmetics industry, it’s a race,” said Hervé Groux, 45, a French immunology scientist who presides over a year-old research lab in Grasse that aids smaller companies lacking the resources of titans like L’Oréal and Procter & Gamble. “The rules are pushing everyone to move faster and to put more money into research.”

The European Commission itself is spending almost 25 million euros ($36.5 million) yearly on the search for animal alternatives, while many countries are seeding programs with annual budgets of 15 million to 20 million euros.
Mr. Groux’s lab, Immunosearch, had its official debut party Wednesday in a boxy industrial park, where Mr. Groux and his wife, a molecular biologist, and other newly recruited veteran researchers are striving to shape a new world of beauty research — and at the same time spare the lives of thousands of rabbits, mice, rats and guinea pigs.

As the 2009 deadline approaches, European regulators issue periodic tallies of the number of laboratory animals potentially spared by alternatives to animal tests, across all kinds of industrial uses. Part of the pressure for alternatives also stems from additional legislation, known as Reach, requiring companies to develop safety data on 30,000 chemicals over the next 11 years — research that could raise the prospect of increased animal testing.

In fact, the actual number of animals tested for cosmetics is small compared with medical or educational uses, according to a new European Commission report. But from 2002 to 2005 the tally grew 50 percent in Europe, to 5,571 animals.

Much of that testing was taking place here in France, the country that leads Europe in testing and vigorously fought the ban, ultimately appealing, in vain, to the European Court of Justice.

But it is also in Provence — a region fabled for its fragrances and the professional “noses” who create them — where scientists are gathering to work on alternative testing research in vitro, literally “in the glass.”

In nearby Nice, SkinEthic, a 15-year-old company, is developing and manufacturing a line of cellular tools that includes a wide range of human tissues. Last year, SkinEthic was purchased by L’Oréal, which propelled the parent company into a dominant position in the testing field, with two critical patents on reconstructed skin. SkinEthic produces its own form of reconstructed skin, RHE, while L’Oréal holds the patent to Episkin, which its scientists developed in Lyon.

Episkin was validated this year by European regulators as a test tool that could fully replace animals. Its closest competitor, EpiDerm — developed by MatTek, a company in Ashland, Mass. — received only qualified approval for research use because the artificial skin reacted too sensitively, producing different results than natural skin would.

To make Episkin, donor keratinocyte cells, collected after breast and abdominal plastic surgery, are cultured in tiny wells of collagen gel, immersed in water, amino acids and sugars, and then air-dried for 10 days or aged to mimic mature skin by exposure to ultraviolet light.

Cosmetics are tested by smothering the almost babylike skin with the cosmetic material. The skin is checked for dying cells by adding a yellow chemical, MTT, which turns blue against living tissue, and then checked again for irritation.

“We have finally succeeded in showing that artificial skin can fully replace rabbit testing,” said Thomas Hartung, the head of the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods in Italy.

His agency, which is part of the European Commission, is also in the midst of evaluating 12 methods for testing eye irritation, to replace the classic Draize test on rabbits that dates back to the mid-1940s.

“If there’s a holy grail that we’re searching for, it’s a test for eye irritation,” said Mr. Hartung. “The issue has a very strong emotional factor.”
Other alternatives include using tiny membranes within chicken eggs for testing chemicals, because the blood vessels mimic human eye membranes. The center has also approved the use of cow and chicken eyeballs cast off from slaughterhouses.

The mighty research budgets of the large multinational companies threaten to sweep aside smaller players with limited resources and different needs. But out of necessity, historic rivals in the secretive fragrance industry have joined to back Immunosearch, their homegrown research project, as a “deterrent force” to L’Oréal and P.& G.

Robertet, founded in 1850, and Mane Fils, dating back to the late 19th century, are supporting Immunosearch’s ambition of adapting L’Oréal’s Episkin to be more suitable for testing natural ingredients. Immunosearch is also benefiting from millions of dollars in private investments and government grants, as well as alliances with France’s National Science Research Center, nearby, and its National Institute for Research in Computer Science.

Robertet and Mane Fils, perfume companies run for four generations by rival families, acted out of self-interest. Both said they were alarmed that European regulations would force them to submit complex natural ingredients, like lavender essence, to the same tests intended for chemicals.

“Our industry has poorly defended natural ingredients because our essences have been classified as chemicals,” said Philippe Maubert, president of Robertet. “It’s unfortunate because these ingredients have existed for centuries.”

The companies worry that costly new European testing regulations could spell the end of many essential oils used in perfumery because the substances are a blend rising out of a distillation process that could fail existing chemical tests for safety.

“Those tests were developed to make tests on pure substances with few impurities,” said Eric Angelini, the regulatory affairs manager at Mane. “But our essential oils are a natural blend of materials coming from the plant that is part of the distillation process.”

At the Champagne party on Wednesday to celebrate Immunosearch’s debut, city and regional officials crowded into the pristine laboratory, where kits of artificial skin layers that are sold by the dozen were stocked in a special machine warmed to human body temperature.

Jean-Pierre Leleu, the mayor of Grasse, toasted the future with a reminder that the industry has come full circle.

In the 16th century, Grasse was a leather-tanning town that specialized in perfumed gloves. In the 18th century, the glove makers and perfumers split from the tanners to concentrate on perfumery.

Now, Mr. Leleu said, the industry has turned its attention back to skin, albeit human.
I can't help but see this as an advance for animals used in testing, and it is already under way. Its a small leap from cosmetics to drug testing, and as far as profitability for big pharma, if I lose a kidney, and I can have one cloned from my own remaining kidney instead of asking one of my family members for one of theirs, I won't need to take anti-rejection meds for the rest of my life, resulting in a net loss for the manufacturers of said drugs.

Which is exactly why I think big pharma is against stem cell research. Because if it was for it, it would pay Bush to allow it to take place, which has clearly not happened.

[Bowwowmeow]

I thought I'd better point out that animal stem cell research is already legal and in use. What Bush has banned is research involving human stem cells and embryos. I think this research is essential to eliminating the need for animals in the future of both testing and medical procedures. Why not test on human biological material instead of animals, no matter who profits from it in the long run? Why isn't it better to clone human eyeballs using stem cells and eyeball cells, and pour bleach on them instead of on the eyes of live rabbits? :dizzy: The debate isn't about whether stem cell research should be used at all, because it is. The debate is about why we aren't using human stem cells instead of nonhuman ones.