Blindness to be curable in 5 years.

with stem cell treatment.

clipped from www.dailymail.co.uk A revolutionary technique being developed by British scientists could cure blindness in millions of people around the world. The first 45-minute operations could take place within five years and could be as commonplace as cataract surgery in a decade. The improvement is likely to be great enough to transform lives, allowing the blind to regain the ability to carry out everyday tasks such as reading or driving. The pioneering stem cell surgery tackles age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness in the elderly. There are about 300,000 sufferers in this country and the number is expected to treble in the next 25 years to around one million as the population ages.

Branson to launch stem-cell bank

Cord blood contains stem cells

Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson is set to launch a company which will let families bank and store stem cells from their child's umbilical cord.

Some believe the cells may be used in the future to treat conditions such as Parkinson's disease and cancer.

Sir Richard Branson on Virgin's stem-cell bank

A handful of UK companies already offer such a service - but obstetricians and midwives say there is "insufficient evidence" to recommend the practice.

It is thought a few thousand couples have already used stem-cell storage.

The service is sometimes promoted to parents through leaflets provided in GPs surgeries and antenatal clinics and also in pregnancy magazines.

Midwives feel under pressure to engage in an intervention that is not researched or accepted by the profession yet Sue Jacob Q&A: Cord blood banking Send us your comments

Parents can be provided with collection kits which are then taken for processing and storage but some companies send someone to collect the blood.

Virgin says its service is unique because it will offer a charitable element, allowing the NHS to use some of stem cells the company stores.

Sir Richard explained: "We will take an individual's cord blood and we will divide it in two.

"So, part of it will go into a national blood centre that anybody can get access to. And the other half will be put aside for the child."

He said this should help particularly high risk ethnic groups who are prone to conditions that can be treated with stem cells but who may have difficulty finding well-matched cord blood.

NHS services

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it strongly supported the need for an increase in public banks and international accessibility, which the Virgin Health Bank sets as one of its priorities.

But it said a prime concern remained the process of collection of the cord blood and the health of mother and baby.

An RCOG report published last year advised doctors and midwives not to take part in the blood collection as they needed to focus on the welfare of the mother and baby.

They pointed out that the NHS collects up to 2,000 cord blood samples every year for storage in a public bank that can be used by anyone who needs a cord blood cell transplant.

CORD BLOOD STORAGE One-fifth of stem-cell transplants are done in children and young people with leukaemia The chance of an individual using personal cord blood for a blood cell disorder before the age of 20 is estimated to be between 1/20,000 to 1/37,000 The NHS cord blood bank has about 7,000 donations

Cord blood storage is also carried out in families at high risk of a condition - such as Fanconi anaemia - which could be treated with a transplant.

Sue Jacob, from the Royal College of Midwives, said the majority of maternity units did not have a policy for dealing with the collection of cord blood, putting midwives in a difficult position.

Half of 267 midwives questioned in a survey by the college said they had been getting requests for the procedure.

She added: "Midwives feel under pressure to engage in an intervention that is not researched or accepted by the profession yet."

Belinda Phipps of the National Childbirth Trust said: "We are concerned about this new promotion of cord blood stem cells collection. The evidence does not show benefits for the baby.

"The method recommended and used by many commercial companies to collect stem cells risks interrupting the birth process, especially the third stage of labour, which is a particularly critical time for both mother and baby.

"Should parents wish to use such services they need to have access to all the information in order to fully understand the risks involved and make an informed choice."

Introduction to Science Topics

Seed Magazine has some high quality free cribsheets on science topics:

• Cribsheet #1: Stem Cells
• Cribsheet #2: Climate Change
• Cribsheet #3: Avian Flu
• Cribsheet #4: Hybrid Cars
• Cribsheet #5: Nuclear Power
• Cribsheet #6: Hurricanes
• Cribsheet #7: Extinction
• Cribsheet #8: The Elements

reposted from: Seed Magazine.

Stem Cell Promise, Interrupted: How Long Do US Researchers Have to Wait?

reposted from: PlosJournals
my highlights / edits

by Liza Gross Published: January 16, 2007

The summer of 2006 was a heady time for neurologist Douglas Kerr. As Director of the Johns Hopkins Transverse Myelitis Center in Maryland, Kerr studies the mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases in the hope of developing therapies to treat them. He sees patients with transverse myelitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), an inherited disorder that in its most severe form renders newborns limp and “floppy,” unable to suck, swallow, or breathe. Kerr's voice tightens as he describes the fate of these babies, many of whom will die before their second birthday. He's convinced that embryonic stem cells (wikipedia) will one day help people with progressive, motor-neuron-destroying disorders recover control of their movements, and their lives.

For six long years, Kerr's team pursued the elusive elixir that would restore mobility to the paralyzed adult rats he uses to model neurodegeneration in humans. The researchers had cleared two major technical hurdles early on: they managed to derive spinal motor neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells in sufficient numbers to transplant in the rats' spinal cords, and they ensured the transplanted neurons' survival. But they struggled for years to prod the spinal motor neurons to send their axons out of the spinal cord and form functional neuromuscular junctions with the lame muscle.

Finally, in 2005, they hit the mark. Growth factors injected into the spinal cord induced the transplanted motor neurons to form connections with resident neurons. A second set of growth factors overcame inhibitors in myelin (the protective sheath around nerves that blocks axon growth in adult animals), allowing the motor neurons to send their axons out of the spinal cord toward skeletal muscle. And yet another growth factor injected into the muscle stimulated functional connections between the neurons and muscle. Kerr watched his rats—immobilized with a motor-neuron-destroying virus—move hind limbs that had been paralyzed for nearly four months. (Watch before and after videos of the rats on the Johns Hopkins Web site, http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/Mousevideo.html.)

When Kerr and his colleagues reported their results in the June 2006 online version of Annals of Neurology, the work was widely hailed as the first evidence that stem-cell-based therapy could recapitulate early developmental signals and rewire a damaged neural circuit. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funded part of the research, called the work a “remarkable advance” demonstrating the power of stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases. All those years of frustration had finally paid off. But would the technique work in humans?

To find out, Kerr must use motor neurons derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and show that they can establish functional connections with skeletal muscle over the longer distances found in a larger animal. (He's settled on pigs.) He must also show that the treatments are safe. If the pig experiments generate the necessary safety and efficacy data, he will submit his results to the US Food and Drug Administration, seeking approval for a clinical trial to use the hESC-derived motor neurons in babies with fatal SMA.

Douglas Kerr explores the promise of embryonic stem cells to treat neurodegenerative disorders

Kerr chose babies with SMA for the first clinical trials, he explains, because infants have less myelin to inhibit axon growth, so the chance of re-innervation is greater. Their neurons need travel just a short distance compared to adults, and the developmental cues that guide axon growth toward their appropriate targets are still in place. And because no treatment or cure exists for these babies, an experimental treatment represents their only hope. Kerr had planned to use federally approved hESCs until he found out that the federal lines could not reliably yield motor neurons with anywhere near the efficiency of newer lines generated with private funds. (In the rat experiments, each animal had 60,000 motor neurons transplanted into their spinal cord.)

Still, Kerr watched hopefully as a bipartisan bill authorizing expanded federal financing of hESC research passed the US House of Representatives in 2005 and then the Senate last year. In addition to allowing federally funded researchers to derive new hESC lines from embryos awaiting destruction in fertility clinics, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would lift the ban on lines derived after August 2001. But President George W. Bush vetoed the bill in July 2006, and “put a real chill on things,” Kerr says. Now Kerr is worried that if he acquires the pigs and prepares them for the stem cell therapy, he'll run into a brick wall when the time comes to get the hESCs he needs for the transplantation experiments.

Even though Maryland passed a measure in 2006 to spend $15 million on hESC research, Kerr says that's just a one-time appropriation. Working with live animals costs several million dollars. “What am I going to do next year when I've got all those animals?” he asks.

Kerr won't qualify for federal funding if he uses non-approved lines, but he's not willing to risk the potential problems with the federally sanctioned lines. And adult stem cells aren't an option. He tried to generate spinal motor neurons from adult stem cells and cells isolated from umbilical cord blood, but decided that programming a blank slate—hESCs—is far more efficient than deprogramming specialized cells and redirecting them toward a different fate. He put everything on hold, pending the outcome of the November midterm elections.

A Political Straitjacket

The use of federal funds to create or destroy human embryos for research was outlawed in the US by Congress in 1997. On August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision to allow federal funding to support hESC research only on lines already derived—because “the life and death decision has already been made”—scientists were just learning what the cells needed to thrive and maintain their “stemness,” the ability to self-renew and differentiate into any cell type of the body (called pluripotency). Methods used to derive these early hESC lines were technically demanding and labor-intensive, requiring the artful touch of a highly skilled technician to tease apart cells with a glass needle to propagate the cell lines (a technique called mechanical passaging). The lines were also grown on mouse fibroblasts—cells that act as “feeder” layers to maintain the stem cells in an undifferentiated state—increasing the risk that the human cells would absorb mouse molecules and trigger rejection by the immune system if used in clinical trials.

Scientists have since figured out how to wean the human cells off the mouse feeder cells, but the process is time-consuming. A team of researchers working in Miodrag Stojkovic's lab at the University of Newcastle, UK, developed a method of deriving hESCs that eliminates the risk of contamination from both mice and human donors. In their “autogenic” feeder system, a parental hESC line gives rise to a subset of differentiated fibroblasts that sustain the parental line. While Stojkovic's lines were grown on medium containing animal products, he says that this approach demonstrates how researchers can generate clinical-grade hESC lines that would meet the Federal Drug Administration's Good Manufacturing Practices safety requirements. Last July, the Singapore biotech company ESI announced that it had derived four safe lines of hESCs for clinical use. And the Hadassah Medical Organization in Israel recently developed animal-free methods for isolating pluripotent stem cells from human embryos (obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics) and deriving new clinical-grade hESC lines. These are just the types of cells Kerr could use for his pig experiments—if he were free to use any lines he wanted.

Kerr had planned to use federally approved hESCs until he found out that the federal lines could not reliably yield motor neurons with anywhere near the efficiency of newer lines generated with private funds.

Carol Ware, Director of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Core Laboratory at the University of Washington School of Medicine, has been working to characterize the available NIH-approved hESC lines. So far, Ware and her colleagues have tested 14 of the 22 available lines (a 15th line arrived at the lab contaminated with mycoplasma) for growth efficiency, genomic stability, appropriate gene expression during self-renewal and differentiation, and other NIH criteria.

The team found considerable variation among the lines. Some lines had a propensity to develop chromosomal abnormalities over time, and others were hard to grow. “Certain lines are very difficult to thaw,” Ware says, “so you may only get one or two cells.” Not a great return for cell lines that cost between $2,500 and $6,000.

Complicating matters further, the cells seem to prefer the culture conditions in which they were derived. All of the lines were originally derived through mechanical passage. And though some were eventually converted to enzymatic passage—a speedy, less onerous technique that has become the standard method for expanding hESC lines—it's not possible to predict which lines can convert to enzymatic passage, further compromising their utility.

Mechanically passaging lines is “a real pain in the neck,” says Larry Goldstein, Director of the University of San Diego Stem Cell Program, likening the technique to early versions of a software program that still need debugging. Goldstein's lab has been exploring the properties of some of the federal lines, and still uses one of the approved lines in experiments. “It's been okay in some areas, and a little tougher in others,” he says. “Others use it and are happy with it.”

The lines “certainly aren't useless,” he adds, but he's found them clumsy to handle. “For our experiments, we need cell lines that grow well for more than just the most-skilled tissue person. If only one person in the lab is sufficiently skilled to grow them, you're not going to get much done.” Goldstein plans to investigate non-approved lines with private or state funding.

Ware found that lines also varied in their ability to form different tissues, suggesting that each line may possess unique capabilities. This variable behavior may arise from differences in the way the lines were derived or in the inherent properties of the cells themselves, the team reported online on August 17, 2006, in Stem Cells. Either way, they concluded, it underscores the need to derive and study additional hESC lines.

Harvard researcher Doug Melton came to the same conclusion even before the Bush administration restrictions were put in place, when he began looking for hESCs for his work on type I diabetes in the late 1990s. Disappointed with what he found, he decided to generate his own lines, and in 2004, Melton and his team announced that they had derived 17 new hESC lines, using funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Melton's team used enzymatic passaging to make the lines more user-friendly, allowing far more labs to handle the cells, provided they find state or private funding. The Harvard lines, as they're known, are also available free of charge.

Ware believes the federal lines will become historical lines, as technological advances have already made the older lines seem outdated. “We're understanding culture techniques so much better now, and as you understand more and more what the cells want, you're going to get better lines.”

States and Private Donors Step In

US advocates of stem cell research read the 2006 midterm election results as a sign that embryonic stem cell research has gained widespread bipartisan support. They point to Missouri as the bellwether state. For the past five years, Missouri lawmakers tried to pass a measure to criminalize stem cell research in the state. But last November, voters not only approved a state constitutional amendment protecting stem cell research, but ousted incumbent US Senator Jim Talent, who called stem cell research “morally reprehensible,” in favor of Claire McCaskill, a vocal supporter of hESC research. Stem cell research figured prominently in six US Senate races; in each case, the candidate who supported stem cells won.

“The political dynamic in the 110th Congress is going to be a lot different than it was in the 109th,” says Sean Tipton, President of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a stem cell advocacy group. Tipton thinks the new Congress will be even more supportive than the 109th, which passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with strong bipartisan support.

Douglas Kerr goes even further. He's confident the bill will pass this year with a veto-proof majority, and that “we'll have federal funding in 2007.”

But what the next year holds is unclear. Nancy Pelosi, who will preside over the House of Representatives as Speaker when the new Congress convenes in January, has pledged to “promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases” in Congress's first 100 hours. But an analysis based on the stated stem cell positions of the newly constituted House and Senate by The Chronicle of Higher Education found that if the stem cell act were reintroduced, votes in the House would fall short of a veto-proof majority. And few doubt that Bush would exercise his veto prerogative.

While the federal prospects remain uncertain, states are increasingly filling the void. A 2006 Congressional Research Service report to Congress lists 12 states as actively encouraging or funding stem cell research, with Wisconsin and California leading the way. The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), created to oversee the $3 billion stem cell research program authorized by voters in 2004, awarded $12 million in training grants last April and expects to award over 55 research grants totaling over $100 million in early 2007. Grant allocations were initially stalled by lawsuits filed by pro-life and anti-tax groups, until Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped in with a $150 million state loan, and private donors and foundations pledged $45 million in loans against the bond to get the ball rolling.

All this support from states and private donors puts more scientists to work, says Dale Carlson, Chief Communications Officer for CIRM. With the uncertainty at the federal level, he says, it's important that the states and private donors are stepping in, “instead of scientists stepping back and waiting till the policy changes.”

While senior scientists acknowledge the difficulty of recruiting the best young minds to a field so mired in controversy, those hot on the trail of potential cures using stem cells are not about to sit idly by while Washington fiddles. Kerr is hoping for the best in 2007, but he and his California collaborator, Hans Keirstead, are pursuing nonfederal funding “while we await changes in D. C.” Both are appealing to private philanthropy groups for bridge funding to make sure their work continues.

Ware and her colleagues have tested 14 of the 22 available NIH lines for growth efficiency, genomic stability, appropriate gene expression during self-renewal and differentiation, and other NIH criteria, and found considerable variation among the lines.

In November, CIRM received 70 applications for comprehensive research grants totaling $80 million. University of California San Diego's Goldstein was among the applicants, voicing frustration with the limitations on scientific freedom imposed by the federal restrictions. “Bush's policy hasn't spared any frozen embryos as far as I know,” he says. “The biggest destruction of human blastocysts happens in IVF clinics and that hasn't changed.”

Meanwhile the research moves ahead without the centralized control and oversight of the federal government. The lack of federal support means that US researchers—who led the way in setting standards for genetic testing and genome sequencing—cannot do the same for embryonic stem cell research. Although CIRM and the National Academy of Sciences are setting research guidelines for state-funded researchers, if US researchers aren't at the forefront of the field, they can't lead by example.

But scarce research dollars, some researchers believe, is an even bigger problem. In an era of shrinking NIH budgets and heightened competition for federal grants, restricting grantees to the less tractable NIH-approved lines means the federal government is spending less money on stem cell research, and spending it less efficiently. “As a scientist you want to have the maximum number of tools available because the research problems are hard enough, even when the lines behave well,” Goldstein says. “And these aren't just theoretical problems. We're trying to figure out what's gone wrong with these terrible diseases that afflict large numbers of people.” The federal restrictions, he says, have forced the community to work with one hand tied behind its back.

US advocates of stem cell research read the 2006 midterm election results as a sign that embryonic stem cell research has gained widespread bipartisan support.

That means that if a US researcher who has access to ten or 15 federally approved hESC lines is working on the same question as a researcher in Singapore, for example, who may have access to 100 lines, the US researcher can't hope to compete. With reports that some lines appear genetically predisposed to behave one way or another, therapeutic applications may require creating stem cell lines that are genetically identical to the patient, to prevent immune rejection. That's a question that researchers like Douglas Kerr can't ask if they're restricted to the limited diversity of ten hard-to-grow stem cell lines.

With the right cells in hand, Kerr would first seek proof of principle that his neuroregenerative stem cell therapy can work in pigs, and then move on to see if it can help babies with SMA—a path he's charting in a grant right now. If the results showed that the researchers were on the right track, they would move on to test this type of therapy in patients with the more complex lesions found in transverse myelitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and traumatic spinal cord injury. Aside from a political sea change that lifts the federal restriction on stem cell research—a shift that may have arrived with the 110th Congress, or may still come up a few votes short—what does Kerr's group need to move forward? “If we got ten good lines that were genetically normal, and had not come into contact with other species, and could become motor neurons,” he says, “we'd be set.”

Introduction to Stem Cells - podcast & transcript by Nature

http://www.nature.com/podcast/stemcells/naturestemcells.mp3
40 minutes podcast.

Podcast Transcript: http://www.nature.com/podcast/stemcells/index.html

Stem Cells Discovered in Amniotic Fluid

reposted from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070108-stem-cells_2.html
my highlights / edits

Stem Cells Discovered in Amniotic Fluid, Scientists Announce

Scott Norris
for National Geographic News

January 8, 2007

Stem cells have been discovered in amniotic fluid, the liquid that surrounds a fetus during pregnancy, scientists have announced.

The cells appear to rival embryonic cells in their ability to give rise to all of the major tissue types present in the human body.

Enlarge Photo

RELATED

• Stem Cell Breakthrough: No More Need to Destroy Embryos? (August 23, 2005)
• Stem Cell Advances Offer Hope to Back Up the Hype (December 6, 2006)
• Photo Gallery: The Stem Cell Divide

Researchers at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, used the amniotic stem cells to form bone, muscle, nerve, fat, blood vessel, and liver cells.

The report by Anthony Atala and colleagues appears in yesterday's edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The finding raises new hope for advances in tissue repair and organ regeneration without the ethical objections that have surrounded embryonic stem cell research.

Such objections arise because embryonic stem cells must be harvested from a fertilized human egg, which is destroyed in the process.

In contrast, amniotic stem cells can be collected during a routine medical procedure that draws fluid from the womb without harming the developing fetus. The cells can also be taken from the placenta that is expelled after delivery.

In a teleconference Friday, Atala said that while it is too soon to know their full therapeutic potential, the new stem cells have advantages over other stem cell types because they are so potent and fast growing.

"I don't think these cells are going to replace [human embryonic stem cells], but they provide another choice and are more readily available," Atala said.

Engineering Organs

Amniotic fluid is known to be rich in fetal cells of various types, and physicians have already used some of these to clone "patches" of connective or muscle tissue for repairing certain birth defects.

Atala said the cells his group isolated are unique in their ability to form a range of cell types, while also possessing characteristics of adult stem cells that generate only a single type.

The researchers used special chemicals to coax the amniotic stem cells to develop different specialized structures and functions.

Cloned lines of the cells grew readily in the laboratory, with populations doubling every 36 hours.

Like embryonic stem cells, the amniotic cells retained their genetic makeup and showed no signs of aging over multiple generations.

After being grown in culture dishes, the human cells continued to grow and take on specialized functions when implanted into living mouse tissue.

Bone cells produced bony tissue in mice, for example, and nerve cells became established in areas of mice brains that had been damaged by disease.

"It's a very encouraging and hopeful discovery," said Roger De Filippo, a stem cell researcher at the University of Southern California.

"The fact that these cells can grow in standard culture dishes to very large numbers is a huge advantage for building organs."

But Arnold Kriegstein, director of the Institute for Regeneration Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, sounded a more cautious note.

"Some of the cell types they described were really not well developed," Kriegstein said. "We don't know yet what the true potential of these cells might be."

Potency and Potential

By harnessing the remarkable generative properties of stem cells, scientists hope to find new treatments for neurological injuries and degenerative diseases.

Controversy over embryonic stem cells led many researchers to focus on developing therapeutic techniques using adult stem cells.

(See a National Geographic magazine feature on the stem cell controversy.)

Scientists are also working to develop techniques for harvesting embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.

(Read "Stem Cells Can Be Collected Without Destroying Embryos, Scientists Show" [August 23, 2006].)

Other studies have tried to find alternative sources of stem cells with similar properties.

(Read "Mouse Testicles Yield Promising Stem Cells" [March 24, 2006].)

If techniques for engineering a range of tissue types from amniotic stem cells can be fully developed, the effects would be far reaching.

Atala suggests that banks of amniotic fluid could one day serve the medical needs of the general population.

"Theoretically speaking, if one had a bank of 100,000 specimens, one could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with a perfect genetic match [of engineered tissues or organs] for transplantation," Atala said.

Ronald Green is a bioethicist at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. He called the new development "very promising—if the science pans out."

"We are very much in need of 'ethically universal' lines [of stem cells] that anyone can use, regardless of their views on the moral status of the human embryo," Green said.

"Every step toward alternatives that don't involve the destruction of human embryos is welcome."

Senate is expected to follow suit, but President Bush has threatened a veto

reposted from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=136DF302-E7F2-99DF-3BF5B9305033A069&ref=rss
House Okays Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research Senate is expected to follow suit, but President Bush has threatened a veto By Lisa Stein
Culminating an emotional debate in Washington D.C. on January 11, the new Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved legislation that would provide federal funding for more embryonic stem cell research by a margin of 253 to 174. The Senate is expected to okay the measure, but President Bush has vowed to veto it--and it is questionable whether congressional advocates can muster the two thirds majority required to override a veto.

The legislation would free up federal funds to conduct research on cells taken from human embryos, which are considered by scientists to be the most promising source of potential new treatments for spinal cord injuries and degenerative diseases including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cancer

Bush last year vetoed a similar bill and limited federally funded research to 21 lines of embryonic cells created before 2001, some of which scientists say have been compromised or corrupted.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would pay for research on stem cells extracted only from embryos slated to be discarded by in vitro fertility clinics annually and only with the consent of the donors of those embryos. It sets up ethical and reporting guidelines.

"Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer wreak havoc on lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this pain, but only if we free science to find the keys," Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said during the debate. "Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating diseases. Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of darkness."

Opponents charge that it is immoral and unethical to fund research that involves destroying embryos.

In threatening a renewed veto, Bush says that the bill "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a major backer of the measure, says he believes supporters have the 67 votes needed in the Senate to override a presidential veto.

RELATED LINKS: Mother of All Cells The Stem Cell Challenge New Source of Stem Cells: Amniotic Fluid Viable Skin Cells Prove Difficult to Derive from Embryonic Stem Cells New Stem Cell Lines Spare Embryo Genes Governing Embryonic Stem Cell "Immortality" Discovered

US House backs stem cell research - Bush threatens to veto

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6254039.stm

US House backs stem cell research

Opponents refuse to condone the destruction of any embryo

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill backing embryonic stem cell research, marking a major challenge to President George W Bush.

The stem cell bill was among the top priorities for the Democrats, who took control of Congress last week, but Mr Bush has vowed to veto it.

Advocates of stem cell research say it could lead to cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Mr Bush says the research would destroy human life in the name of science.

The bill was passed by 253 to 174, but fell short of a two-thirds majority needed to overcome the veto.

"Today, by passing legislation to expand stem cell research, the House gave voice to the hopes of more than 100 million Americans and their families," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"With today's strong bipartisan vote, we now challenge President Bush to join members from both sides of the aisle in supporting the hope of stem cell research."

Presidential veto

Mr Bush used his presidential veto to overturn a similar judgement by the Republican-controlled Congress last year.

It was the first time in his presidency that Mr Bush refused to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

Polls suggest most Americans back the research.

Opponents of the bill say their taxes should not fund research which involves the destruction of embryos.

Its supporters maintain that the embryos used for research, that come from multiple embryos generated by couples trying to produce a pregnancy using in vitro fertilisation, would otherwise be discarded.

Research in Biology and Medicine Will Provide the First Effective Treatments for Many Diseases

Reposted from: http://edge.org/q2007/q07_14.html
my highlights in blue

IAN WILMUT
Biologist; Cloning Researcher; Roslin Institute, Edinburgh; Coauthor, The Second Creation


Research in Biology and Medicine Will Provide the First Effective Treatments for Many Diseases

I am optimistic that during this new century research in biology and medicine will provide the first effective treatments for many diseases, although we cannot predict when they will become available and in some cases it may take several decades.

A greater number of new treatments may well be developed than was introduced during the twentieth century. I make this judgment not only on the basis of a simple extrapolation from developments in the past, but also on a consideration of the new understanding that is being established at present and of the revolutionary techniques that are emerging. Consider as examples the potential value of the genome mapping projects, stem cells and the techniques to assess many thousand small molecules for their ability to have desired effects upon human cells in laboratory test systems. All of this is underpinned by rapidly advancing molecular biology providing essential understanding of the mechanisms that regulate cell function.

Entirely new opportunities are being provided by the mapping of the genomes of people, other mammals and a variety of infectious agents that cause human diseases such as malaria. Although we now know the entire genetic sequence of a small number of people and have new estimates of the number of genes in the human genome, we have a great deal to learn about the role of specific gene products and the mechanisms that ensure appropriate functioning of the genes. Those actively involved in this aspect of research believe that this stage in the development of human genetics will be far more demanding and take far longer than the mere mechanical reading of the sequence. However, it will in the end be very rewarding.

It has been appreciated for sometime that some human diseases result directly from differences in DNA sequence, but despite considerable research efforts only a small number of causative mutations have been identified. Modern, rapid sequencing techniques will greatly facilitate these analyses in the future. However, it is likely that in a far greater number of cases sequence differences make people comparatively vulnerable to disease, but are not directly causative of that disease. These associations will only be revealed by large-scale studies in which the genomes of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are determined while also monitoring the incidence of diseases in that population. This may make it possible to provide accurate warnings to people that they are vulnerable to specific diseases, while also offering advice on life style and medication to reduce that risk.

In time information of this kind may also greatly increase the accuracy of selection of appropriate medication for particular patients. At present an adverse response to medicines is a major cause of death or the need for hospital treatment, even if the medicine is appropriately prescribed and taken. This is because of differences between people in the response to drugs. It is probably fanciful to think of tailoring medications for each person, because this implies a full knowledge for every person of their likely response to and metabolism of every compound that might be considered as a medicine. However, it does seem likely that understanding of these mechanisms will lead to improved design and selection of new compounds.

A great deal has been made of the potential use of stem cells or their derivatives to replace those lost in degenerative diseases that reflect the death or malfunctioning of specific cell populations. Diseases that are considered suitable for treatment in this way include Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injury, liver damage resulting from hepatitis or solvent abuse. In their haste to consider this use of stem cells, the potential benefit of using such cells for drug discovery and toxicology studies is overlooked. Drug assessment will be markedly more accurate as cells become available that are representative of the critical tissues of a variety of different people.

In some cases, the cells will be genetically identical to those of patients with an overt inherited condition. There are a number of potential sources of such cells, but at present the most likely seem to be embryo stem cells because they are known to have two key characteristics. They have the ability to form all of the different tissues of an adult and they are able to multiply almost indefinitely in the laboratory. In practice this means that researchers will have the opportunity to study genetically identical cell populations again and again over a period of years and to examine their response to potential drugs.

This is not known to be the case for any cells taken from adults. The gene sequence known to be associated with a specific disease may be introduced into existing cell lines to create a population of cells that would be expected to exhibit the characteristics of the disease. Alternatively, it may be possible to use somatic cell nuclear transfer from a patient with an inherited disease to obtain embryo stem cell lines having that characteristic even if the causative mutation is not known.

In some cases similar research may be provide an understanding of the molecular mechanisms that regulate the function of stem cells in a tissue. In time, this may make it possible to stimulate the replacement of damaged or lost cells from endogenous stem cell populations in the patient. There would be many practical advantages in being able to use this drug-based approach to cell therapy. The alternative will be to produce cells of the required type from embryo stem cells, in sufficient number that they can replace the lost cells. When they have reached the appropriate stage of their maturation these must then be inserted into the damaged tissues in such a way that they are able to integrate fully into that tissue and restore normal function. While it is likely that each approach to cell therapy will be used for some diseases, there are clearly many potential benefits to a drug based therapy.

I am optimistic that research has the potential to provide these new opportunities, and many more not described. However, I am concerned that society tends to be frightened by innovations while taking for granted the treatments that are available. We would make the most rapid progress if we recognized that it was earlier research that led to the present treatments and if we were excited by the challenges and opportunities that will arise from new research.

Optimism about Climate Change & Stem Cells

Reposted from: http://edge.org/q2007/q07_13.html
my highlights in blue

COLIN BLAKEMORE
Chief Executive, Medical Research Council;Waynflete Professor of Physiology, University of Oxford


Things will—er—get better

I'm hugely optimistic that things will be better in 2007 than they have been in 2006. What things, you might ask. Well, lots of things. Let's take a couple of things that are on the minds of many scientists—climate change and stem cells. In both cases, the imperative for action on the basis of scientific evidence is clear. But in both cases, other forces have intervened to frustrate progress.

For climate change, the obstacles are short-sighted commercial interests and short-term political interests—let's call them myopeconomics and myopolitics. Many businessmen still judge that their own fortunes and those of their shareholders are best served by ignoring the doom-mongers and pumping out the carbon dioxide to make money. A few politicians—one in particular—still think that their own political standing, and their place in history, are favoured by denying the growingly obvious. But the consequences of climate change are accruing non-linearly. A point must come at which the impact of change will fall within the near-point of those refractory industrialists and politicians. When that happens, the rules will suddenly reverse. Both business and politics will be better served by response than denial. I predict that the tipping point will come in 2007. Political skeptics will become passionate converts, eager to claim the historical credit for recognising the inevitable. The burners will become preservers.

I should make it clear that what I am optimistic about here is the likelihood of a change in attitude; not, alas, about the probability of rapid success in the monstrous task of reversing the effects of a century of profligacy. We are going to have to live with the consequences of our parents' actions, and our children with the consequences of ours. The issue is whether our children's children will inherit a world worth living in.

For stem cells—or, to be more specific, human embryonic stem cells—the barriers to progress are not economic but moral. On the one hand, biomedical science offers the hope of cellular immortality—the prospect of repairing a damaged brain, heart or pancreas, just as grazed skin or a bitten tongue already mends itself. On the other hand, a substantial cohort of politicians and religious leaders (more exactly Catholic and fundamental Protestant leaders), especially in the United States and some European countries, fiercely oppose the taking of life in the interests of other lives. Although the balance of arguments seems quite different from that for climate change, interestingly, the crux of the problem is again the power of intuition over the cold rationality of science. I have heard a ‘pro-life' lobbyist describe the collection of stem cells from 10-day-old embryos, surplus to the requirements of in-vitro fertilization, as "the evisceration of little babies". Life, it is argued, begins at the moment of conception.

Most scientists would surely argue that a pre-implantation embryo, smaller than the point of a needle, without a single nerve cell, let alone any viscera, cannot possibly be considered a person. Defining the starting point of life is not a matter of dogma but of social consensus. As my friend, Nobel Laureate, Eric Kandel put it: "Life begins when the kids are all through College and the dog dies"!

Then, given these absolutist arguments, why should I be optimistic about a change in attitude to stem cell research in 2007? Because morality is, for all but the most stubbornly impervious to practical evidence, a matter of utilitarian dialectic. Yesterday's moral outrage has a way of becoming today's necessary evil and tomorrow's common good. Just as with climate change, what will cause a swing of attitude is the turning point of a mathematical function; in this case the shifting ratio of perceived benefit to theoretical cost.

Just a few weeks ago, a team of scientists from the Institute of Ophthalmology, the Institute of Child Health and Moorfields Eye Hospital in London (supported, I'm delighted to say, by the Medical Research Council) reported that they had restored sight to considerably more than Three Blind Mice, by transplanting into their eyes immature photoreceptor cells (midway between stem cells and fully formed rods and cones). Rats that have suffered strokes have been vastly improved by the transplantation of nerve-making cells into their brains. The first attempts will soon begin at repairing severed human spinal cords with the help of transplanted stem cells. The evidence of likely benefit is growing fast. No miracles yet, but a trickle of hope, which is likely to become a steady stream in 2007. I predict that the immorality of not helping the undeniably-living sick will soon outweigh the good of protecting the never-to-be-born. Just as with climate change, the angels might switch in 2007.

There we are. That's what I'm optimistic about. The problem is that I'm by nature an optimist. I see the world through those legendary rose-tinted spectacles. My glass is forever half-full. Interesting, isn't it, how many clichés there are for being optimistic. Doesn't that suggest that optimism-pessimism is as much a fundamental dimension of human nature as extraversion-introversion, happiness-sadness, energy-slothfulness? Being optimistic about a particular eventuality is more a comment on the believer than the belief. So, what I'm really optimistic about is that that I won't be devastated even if my predictions are less than perfect.

Stem Cell Research - The 'untouchables' of US science

my edits in bold.

Stem cell research

---

When George Bush banned funding he effectively put researchers into quarantine

Ed Pilkington in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Friday December 29, 2006
The Guardian


Ampoules containing a medium for stem cell storage. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Reuters

A bridge next to Kevin Eggan's laboratory overlooks one of the most concentrated square miles of scientific fire power in the world: North Yard, the science hub of Harvard. The bridge, a recent construction in glass and steel, was intended to facilitate collaboration between two research teams.

On one side is the lab run by Dr Eggan, an assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology who specialises in human embryonic stem cell research; on the other is the Bauer Centre for Genome Research, which focuses on genes.

Working together, the teams started devising projects to analyse the genetics of human embryonic stem cells, with Dr Eggan's team generating the cells on one side of the bridge and their DNA being analysed on the other side.

But on August 9 2001 a metaphorical shutter came down that closed the bridge as effectively as if it had been bricked up. George Bush issued a presidential decree banning the use of federal funds for research on new human embryonic stem cell lines.

He delighted anti-abortionists and the Christian right, who oppose what they see as scientists making life and death decisions. This is despite the fact that most stem cell lines derive from surplus fertilised eggs from IVF treatment that would be destroyed in any case.

Dr Eggan and his team were able to carry on their work only because Harvard was committed to it and wealthy enough to fund it privately. But overnight, the ban turned them into the equivalent of dogs suspected of carrying rabies. Everything they did or touched, from high-tech equipment down to paperclips and the electricity used in the building, had to be quarantined from federally funded labs around them.

The joint project between the Eggan lab and the Bauer Centre was an immediate casualty. It was suspended to avoid "contamination" with the centre, which does receive federal funds.

Kafkaesque

Over the past five years the imperative of segregating all stem cell research has created a jumble of red tape. This has allowed collaboration to restart, but at a price. In the Eggan lab each piece of equipment is marked with a sticker: green for privately funded machines that can be freely used; red for those bought by the National Institutes of Health, the federal funding body, which must not be used in stem cell research.

The most Kafkaesque is the yellow sticker. This is applied to equipment that is federally owned but where a deal has been reached: whenever a scientist uses the machine they record it in a book and the NIH is reimbursed.

In one room there are two cryostats, used to prepare tissue for the microscope, standing side by side. One has a green sticker, the other red. Someone has put a label above the red machine, showing Mr Bush pointing straight out and saying: "You there! No human ES cell sectioning on this machine!"

For Dr Eggan, a young scientist of 32 who is itching to get on with research, the result has been agony and frustration: "I've spent the last three years of my life trying to get this sorted. At least a third of my time is still spent keeping the accounts and equipment separate."

No one yet knows where stem cell studies might lead, but most experts in the field believe there is huge potential for discovering new ways of treating diseases including diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, or the cruel wasting disease spinal muscular atrophy.

Embryonic stem cells are the basic building blocks created when an egg is fertilised. About 100 cells cluster to form a ball known as a blastocyst, and at this stage each cell is capable of turning into any organ or tissue of the body. In Dr Eggan's laboratory, the computers show stem cells that have just transformed themselves into heart cells, pulsating under the microscope.

The Holy Grail for researchers is to control that process so that cells can be instructed to turn into different parts of the body. That could allow more accurate and humane ways of testing drugs on diseased cells grown in Petri dishes rather than on patients, and pave the way for a new generation of medicines.

None of this can be realised, scientists say, unless there is concerted and collaborative effort, with the US as the world's research engine. "This work is so hard and so in its infancy that to be counting paperclips because of a federal injunction is, to put it politely, unfortunate," said Susan Solomon, chief executive of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, a privately funded research body.

The Bush administration has sought to disarm criticism by allowing experiments to go ahead on supplies of cells created before the decree was issued in 2001. But, beside what some scientists point to as questionable logic, several of these "presidential lines" have proved faulty or been contaminated by being grown in animal culture. As a result, stem cell research in the US is now largely confined to a small number of prestigious establishments such as Harvard and the New York foundation, which can pull in sufficient private money to generate their own lines.

Other institutions, more dependent on federal funding, have been dissuaded from entering the field.

Paul Nurse is the president of the Rockefeller University in New York, which has seven Nobel laureates. Like Harvard it has the private funds to support stem cell research, but he is aware of several institutions unable to take the risk. "In theory if we used one plastic test-tube bought with just one cent of federal money for stem cell research we could jeopardise our entire research programme of $100m (£52m). That has created a climate of fear," he said.

The worst effect of the ban, he believes, is that it is pushing away a generation of young scientists. He knows people who have been inhibited from taking on stem cell research because of the bureaucracy.

Scientists' hopes are focused on the incoming Democrats who take control of Congress in January. But with a majority of two-thirds needed to overturn a presidential decree, Mr Bush is likely to be able to block any attempt to lift the ban. Few expect any change until he leaves the White House in two years' time. Until then Dr Eggan and his colleagues will carry on wrestling with their stickers and double accounting.

Explainer: Gains could be huge

Stem cells can divide to produce a variety of cell types, such as those in the blood or brain. The most useful to scientists are embryonic stem cells, from human embryos that are a few days old. These cells go on to produce every cell and tissue type in the body.

It is this ability that has scientists so excited. Already adult stem cells are used in, for example, bone marrow transplants for leukaemia, and if the power of stem cells to grow new tissues can be harnessed, doctors might be able to treat diseases such as Alzheimer's by using stem cells to replace missing structures in the brain. One day it might even be possible to regrow limbs or organs.

These clinical applications are a long way off. In the short term, studying embryonic cells will help scientists understand how structures in the body are formed and how congenital diseases develop. That could lead to treatments. Drugs will be tested on stem cells that mimic features of genetic diseases, so fewer animals will be used.

Progress is being made. A recent study published in the journal Nature successfully tested a stem cell treatment for muscular dystrophy in dogs. The researchers are next moving on to human trials.
James Randerson

Related articles
25.07.2006: US faces science brain drain after Europe backs stem cell funding
24.07.2006: EU reaches deal on stem cell research
20.07.2006: Bush vetoes stem cell funding
08.07.2006: Cardinal's stem cell comment sparks anger
01.06.2006: US 'falling behind' in stem cell research

Hwang Woo-suk
20.01.2006: Journal backs verification of cloning work in wake of scandal
12.01.2006: Disgraced stem cell scientist blames researchers
24.12.2005: Rise and fall of clone king who doctored stem-cell research
23.12.2005: Korean scientist resigns over fake stem cell research

Comment and analysis
13.01.2006: Richard Horton: The cloning fraud case is a scientific success story
01.01.2006: Justin McCurry: Disgrace
21.05.2005: The challenge of the biotech century
20.05.2005: A new medical frontier
13.02.2004: Why we shouldn't fear human cloning

The issue explained
08.02.2005: Q&A: stem cells
View our interactive guide to stem cells

Australia lifts ban on cloning human embryos for stem cell research

I reviewed Stem Cells - The Basics in November.

Australia's parliament has lifted a ban on cloning human embryos for stem cell research.

It clears the way for researchers to engage in therapeutic cloning.
Scientists hope stem cell research will lead to treatments for conditions including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, as well as spinal cord injuries.

Australia's first laws on stem cell research were passed in 2002, allowing scientists to extract stem cells from embryos left over from IVF programmes, but banning cell cloning.

The new legislation will allow therapeutic cloning - the splicing of skin cells with eggs to produce an embryo from which stem cells (capable of forming human tissues) can be taken. The cloned embryos cannot be implanted in a womb and must be destroyed within 14 days.

Stem Cells - The Basics

Stem Cells - Learn more about the promise and the controversy in New Scientist cutting edge special report .

Fast-forward to the end of the 21^st Century: surgeons can create new organs to order, regrow crippled spines and hearts and reverse the damage of Parkinson's disease or diabetes with ease. Immune rejection and waiting lists for replacement organs are consigned to history.....

More from New Scientist ... or from Wikipedia or from the BBC