http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114050648.html
Local stem cell expertise will
be lost, says expert
By Mark Baker, Herald Correspondent
in Singapore
Sydney Morning Herald August 19 2002
Australia risks being left behind in the race to find cures for cancer and other diseases if the Federal Parliament refuses approval for the expanded use of embryonic tissue, a leading international stem cell researcher has warned.
Lim Bing, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, said Australian researchers had been at the forefront of developing stem cell research technologies, but that advantage - and potential multi-billion-dollar industry spin-offs - could be lost unless regulatory constraints were eased.
"The Australian public should be aware that a huge amount is at stake here, economically and scientifically, and the people should fight very hard to see that this is approved," Dr Lim said.
"Australians must realise how important it is to allow the Australian scientists who have done so much outstanding work to stay in the international playing field. Otherwise you risk losing them and what they have achieved."
Federal Parliament will this week debate legislation that would allow limited use of surplus embryos from IVF programs to grow stem cells for research.
The Malaysian-born Dr Lim has just been recruited to head the stem cell research team at the new Genome Institute of Singapore. The institute is part of an aggressive campaign by the Singapore Government to capture a leading role in the new frontier of science that holds the promise of answers to diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and the possibility of growing replacement limbs and organs.
The Singapore campaign, which involves spending hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities and the recruitment of 250 leading scientists and science managers from around the world, is being built largely on the back of Australian expertise.
The company ES Cell International (ESI), in which the Singapore Government has a majority stake, is expanding research on stem cell lines developed at Melbourne's Monash University - regarded as one of the two most important stem cell incubators in the world.
A team at the National University of Singapore recently achieved a breakthrough seen as critical for eventual transplantation of regrown organs and limbs by cultivating stem cells on embryonic "feeder tissue" instead of the traditional mouse tissue - a process Australian scientists have been unable to explore because of legal restraints.
But many of the Singapore scientists are still travelling to Monash to learn the delicate skills required to grow stems cells. "Singapore is in a dominant position today because of its collaboration with Monash," Dr Lim said.
Many leading stem cell research scientists were being attracted by the support offered in Singapore, which is to open a "Biopolis" with facilities for more than 2000 scientists with private companies to work.
Dr Lim said that if Australia banned the production of stem cells from new embryonic tissue, it would seriously inhibit research in Australia and the country risked seeing its best scientists poached.
Biotechnology companies will have the chance to attract overseas investors to commercialise their research at a conference starting in Melbourne today. The four-day AusBiotech 2002 has attracted 1000 delegates from Australia and overseas.
Peter Macinnis
responded
Out of curiosity, I checked the background of the yank with the sad moustache who is posing as a stem cell researcher here, bobbing up in the press and other places where bottom-feeders abound.Chris Lawson addedI cannot speak for his research, as I could not find any to look at, but he is at Indiana State University -- another of the institutions that I dodge press releases from.
His name is David Prentice, if anybody wants to dig further. His own CV says "Dr. Prentice is an internationally recognized expert on stem cell research, a Founding Member of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics . . ." It is on the Web at
http://mama.indstate.edu/dls/facstaff/prentice.html
Curiously, there is a dearth of stem cell research among his listed publications, if you exclude a booklet published last month, and optimistically labelled "first edition". You would expect an "internationally recognized expert on stem cell research" to have actually done some. Or do dogma pieces in "National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly" count as research? That would be on a par with what I expect from ISU.
He is quoted in http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/scitech/SciTechRepublish_649961.htm:
************
A forum in Brisbane today has heard a procession of speakers condemn the debate on embryonic stem cell research.
The forum which was held in the Queensland Parliament has instead highlighted the merits of adult stem cell research.
Adult stem cell research advocate and Professor of Life Sciences at the Indiana State University, David Prentice, was the keynote speaker.
Professor Prentice says there have been more examples of success through adult stem cells than through embryonic research.
"I didn't think the pure view science, which is scientists using other scientists work, shows any benefits at this point certainly not for patients with the embryonic stem cells whereas the the adult stem cells are already successfully treating thousands of patients," he said.
"Even when we look at the animal studies you've seen a lot more in terms of dead mice versus the live patients for the adult stem cells."
****************
That is just a bit like saying in 1903 that people have flown further in hydrogen balloons than in aeroplanes, so there is no future in aeroplanes.
At 08:36 19/08/02
+1000, Toby Fiander wrote:
>There are also fears that the legislation will be back door means of
>preventing the termination of pregnancy - any pregnancy.
This is the second
time I have heard this conspiracy theory. I have not yet read the
proposed
legislation, but I would have to say that this is extremely unlikely
from
what I have heard of it. Australia is not the US, and even in the US
with
its enormous Bible Belt politics, Bush has not been game to move on Roe
v. Wade as he has obliquely promised in the past. Frankly, even in
Liberal
and National circles there are only a handful of extreme-right
conservative
Christians. There is an unrepresentative lump of them in cabinet at the
moment, but still nowhere near a majority, and even Old Conservative
himself,
John Howard, has never shown the slightest interest in preventing
abortions
(he even said that he thought embryonic stem cell research should be
allowed
as the foetuses were going to be destroyed by abortion anyway, so he
couldn't
see what the great moral problem was; that is, he used the utilitarian
argument much to the dismay of the religious right).
In short, Kevin Andrews, the guy pushing all this, is deluded. I won't call his religious convictions delusory (although that's the way I'm inclined to feel about them), but he is clearly deluded about the democratic process, and even more importantly, he is deluded about the support he will get in Cabinet (let alone the backbench, which is far less conservative) when he tries to push his agenda through. He quite honestly doesn't seem to understand that the vast majority of the population does not agree with him. Or maybe he just feels the need to fight the good fight even though he knows he can't win. Either way, the faintest whiff of banning abortion and this bill will bounce faster than a rubber bullet.
At 20:45 19/08/02
+1000, Peter Macinnis wrote:
>Curiously, there is a dearth of stem cell research among his listedChris Lawson replied:
>publications, if you exclude a booklet published last month, and
>optimistically labelled "first edition". You would expect an
>"internationally recognized expert on stem cell research" to have actually
>done some. Or do dogma pieces in "National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly"
>count as research? That would be on a par with what I expect from ISU.
I am not especially concerned with his lack of publications, although it's not a great sign. I think what disturbs me is that he is one of a long line of religious-right advocates for closing down embryonic stem cells who seem utterly incapable of telling the truth. I don't object to people arguing for their positions. Even the religious right whom I despise have that right. But they don't have the right to lie and distort and slander their opponents, which is exactly what Prentice (and every other of his ilk) does.
His interview for National Review (a notoriously right-wing media outlet) is at
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory022601a.shtml
And one notes that he accuses the letter signed by a whole lot of Nobel Laureates (of whom he is no doubt extremely jealous) of being untruthful. Now I have yet to see in the long history of mass signings by Nobel Laureates, a letter that could fairly be described as untruthful. I don't always agree with letters signed by dozens of Nobel Laureates, but the honesty behind it is in my experience absolute. OTOH, Prentice, after thumping the table about the dreadful shenanigans of these people, lies through his teeth. He states that "studies done with adult stem cells (studies which mirror the ones done with embryonic stem cells) DO show that adult stem cells have the capacity to form essentially any tissue. " A paper in Nature from a few weeks ago made this revolutionary claim, and it has yet to be replicated. When Prentice was interviewed (Feb 2001), this was an outright lie. There was not a single paper that showed adult cells could form "essentially any tissue". Not one. There were papers that were suggestive and hopeful, but Prentice simply lied. This shows how much time these people have for intellectual honesty.
The same thing occurred with an article by Christopher Pearson in The Age that discussed the paper I mentioned above in Nature. Pearson described the two papers in Nature as supporting the supremacy of adult stem cells, when in fact only the one papers I've mentioned favoured adult stem cells, the other favoured embryonic stem cells. NATURE itself called for continuing support for both fields of research. And the paper that seemed to support Pearson's side still involved the implantation of adult stem cells into embryos -- not exactly the breakthrough he described. In other words, Pearson grossly misrepresented the NATURE papers. I won't accuse him of dishonesty because I suspect that what happened was he relied on information from an anti-abortion media release rather than checking i out himself. But it's still not acceptable for someone who gets paid by a major daily newspaper to make such a sloppy mess of his facts just to support his religious convictions.
And if you look through the web, you will see adult stem cell enthusiasts refer to Melissa Holley, a young woman with spinal injuries acquired in a car crash who was cured by adult stem cells. The real story is nothing of the sort. Melissa Holley's father trawled the web and found an Israeli medical research company doing exciting things. He flew her out as soon as he could and she had the magic treatment. She regained some spinal function. Sounds great, right? Here are the problems for the pro-stem cell lobby. Firstly, Melissa Holley was treated so early in her injury that some of her functional recovery could have been due to natural progression of disease. Secondly, she was one of only five people treated, and there is no information on the other patients. Thirdly, the results of this amazing story were first published not in a scientific journal but in the Toronto Globe and Mail. They were the result of the Holleys talking to journalists, and had nothing to do with the company who did the research. So I went and emailed the company (Proneuron in Israel). The Senior VP replied explaining that he could not divulge the answers to all my questions because the information was being submitted to regulatory authorities funding their research. But more importantly, he said that the work DID NOT INVOLVE STEM CELLS. They used macrophages, tweaked them using "our proprietary method" and injected them back into the spine. He promised me that my questions would most liekly be answered in the published paper they are working on but have not yet submitted. In short, Melissa Holley's case does not support adult stem cell therapy and none of the anti-ES activists who use the story have had the slightest intention in giving "all the facts."
My final example: In April, when all this was at its peak in the Oz media, a collective of religious figures and scientists published an open letter as an advertisement in several national newspapers. Some of the signatories include Peter Jenssen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, and Gregory K Pike of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (more on this in a second). Once again, this group seems to epitomise the highest ethical standards. And yet they lie. For instance, they state as an outright fact that ES implants "would not be directly useful...as they would not be compatible with the recipient's tissues." Since successful transplants have been taking place for decades, this is clearly in error and cannot be waved away as a minor oversight. They also claim at the end that adult stem cell research is "alternative, safer, and longer established", when in fact adult stem cell research is much *less* well established, has not yet been tested for safety in humans, and according to most scientists is not even a true alternative as research in both each field cross-fertilises the other. In short, these doyens of morality don't give a damn about telling the truth. But then, what can you expect? The Southern Cross Bioethics Institute describes itself as "independent", when it was founded by a Catholic Order and miraculously *always* finds the correct ethical thing to do is exactly what the Pope says. This is the level of honesty here.
Let me reiterate.
I have nothing against religious groups arguing for their cause. But
the
current crop of conservative religious folk seem to have learned
nothing
from Galileo. If they can't tell the truth, then what right do they
have
to inflict their moral position on everyone else? If they can't tell
the
truth, then what right do they even have to be listened to?
This
topic resumed as Embryonic Stem-cell Research
On 10/8/2004,
Daya Papalkar posted:
An important issue in the
Excerpt from:
< style="font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif;">
Her son has already had a fair crack at
Bush on this and other matters:
***********************************************************************
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_S072704C.shtml
Ron Reagan | Address to Convention Son of Former
President
Ronald Reagan
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic convention. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech, and the topic at hand should not - must not - have anything to do with partisanship.
I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells - cells created using the material of our own bodies - to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more. Millions are afflicted. Every year, every day, tragedy is visited upon families across the country, around the world.
Now, we may be able to put an end to this suffering. We only need to try. Some of you already know what I'm talking about when I say "embryonic stem cell research." Others of you are probably thinking, hmm, that's quite a mouthful, what is this all about?
Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the incredible science involved. Let's say that ten or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.
Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson's patients. And finally, those cells - with your DNA - are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson's disease in the first place.
In other words, you're cured. And another thing, these embryonic stem cells, they could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body. How'd you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine.
By the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.
Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.
But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?
It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings - that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person - a parent, a spouse, a child.
I know a child - well, she must be 13 now - I'd better call her a young woman. She has fingers and toes. She has a mind. She has memories. She has hopes. And she has juvenile diabetes.
Like so many kids with this disease, she has adjusted amazingly well. The insulin pump she wears - she's decorated hers with rhinestones. She can insert her own catheter needle. She has learned to sleep through the blood drawings in the wee hours of the morning. She's very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.
What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?
And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.
No, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer - we owe ourselves - better than that. We are better than that. A wiser people, a finer nation. And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail.
The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.
In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.
Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.
*******************************************************************
See also:
The Case Against George W. Bush
The son of the fortieth president of the
United States takes a hard look at the son of the forty-first and does
not like
what he sees
By Ron Reagan
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html
..."Yet he has
governed from the right
wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base"
that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal
evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and
Medicare,
of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical
Grover
Norquist's phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also
encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots,
and
assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of
them -
"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional
amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to
embryonic-stem-cell
research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian
evolution. It's not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview;
indeed,
it's unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this
president,
who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders
nonetheless in
the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush's former head of
the
Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once told this
magazine,
"What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by
the
political arm." ..........
