FOUR HORRORS: Stroke, Diabetes, Blindness, ALS– and How Embryonic Stem Cell Research May Defeat Them

 

 

FOUR HORRORS: Stroke, Diabetes, Blindness, ALS—and How Embryonic Stem Cell Research May Defeat Them

By Don C. Reed

 Before I met the monster on the road, I had been on my way South to Los Angeles for the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC). This was an especially important meeting at which the big disease team grants would be decided, as much as $20 million each, loans or grants. Some projects would go forward, others would die.

 My cell phone rang. 

 Pulling off the freeway and fumbling through my suitcase (keep ringing, keep ringing!), I found the phone, opened it, recognized the numbers on the screen.

 Dr. Hans Keirstead…. I dreaded what the voice might say.

 He had a project in question: a way to use embryonic stem cells to fight Spinal Muscular Atrophy: important not only to the children who suffer and die from this terrible condition, but to the entire field of research. Some of the problems he was taking on in this project would affect everyone.

 But the funding had been turned down.

 The problem, as I saw it, was procedural:  the official cutoff deadline for new project information was April… Since the cutoff date, Dr. Keirstead had gotten a ton of new information, some 9,000 pages of it, including the results of animal testing, and much correspondence with the FDA: important stuff which I felt sure would change the opinions of the reviewers—but they had not seen it.

 There was a process for appeal, and I had been encouraging him to use that process to try and overturn the denial of funding.  

 As a member of the public I have a First Amendment right to talk to just about anyone, (including state employees like the ICOC, who enjoy the equally valid right to ignore me) and I had spoken with about half of the 29-member board who would be making the final decision. (I emailed first, asking if we could talk. Those who did not object strongly enough got a phone call.) Most of them said the same thing, that it was an uphill battle, (like everything else in this business) but they would listen at the meeting with an open mind. That was all anybody could ask.

 Could the potentially game-changing new information be included?

 I believe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has ways that late-breaking news can be added to proposals, and we should consider incorporating those procedures into our own bylaws. But in the meantime we had the “extraordinary appeals” process, and if the scientist was willing–

 “I decided not to go forward with the appeals process”, said Hans Keirstead.

 Internally I said something unprintable. I had invested maybe seventy hours in the struggle to understand and defend this one project, and was loaded for bear.  But–

 “I understand their decision,” he said, “If I had been a reviewer, and only got what I was able to give them in April, I would probably have done the same thing…”

 And so, on a technicality of timing, a grant would not be given: what might have been a hugely important embryonic stem cell project would not be funded by us.

 Well. Adjusting to the new reality, the fight that would not happen, I pulled back out onto the empty stretches of Highway I-5, just past Bakersfield, before the L.A. grapevine. Since gas prices skyrocketed, there are far fewer vehicles driving: I was almost alone on the road.

 In the distance was a blur across the road. I paid it no mind, thinking it some object that would soon be gone, went back to my day-dreaming,now my mind was free to wander.

 The ground in that area is desolate, barren. A huge road-side sign blamed it on the government—“this dustbowl brought you by Congress”—apparently the same people who put up the sign, “where water flows, food grows” beside the canal.

 Translation: Southern California wants more of Northern California’s water.

 I thought about the movie, CHINATOWN, based on a true story, the multi-gazillion dollar consequences of a water rights decision, made by a government board…. (You can read about it in “Rivers in the Desert: William Mulholland and the Invention of Los Angeles”, by Margaret Leslie Davis.)

 The real culprit was also at the side of the road—cotton…. raw material for underwear, cotton is a robber of water, thieving moisture more greedily from the soil than any other crop.

 The blur in the distance grew, into something huge and dark across the freeway.

 A vast wall of dirt, suspended in the air.

 Bizarre and ugly tendrils reached out from it, coiling and extending, like a special effects monster, creature of darkness, snatched from the ground…

 There was no way around, no time to think, just step on the brakes as hard as I could without losing control, reducing speed from 70 to 30, entering the wall…

 Whooooshshshsh…. Darkness. I could only hope the road went straight ahead, because I could see nothing…

 Then, the other side, my car emerging filthy, windshield wipers scraping dirt, brown sky ahead, the sun glaring palely.

 It being almost Halloween that day, thoughts of monsters entered my mind, Godzilla coming to stomp some poor city again.  

 But real-life horrors come at us every day, rearing up out of the unexpected, coming to destroy our lives.

 Consider just the financial costs of four horrible—and presently incurable– medical conditions:  Stroke. Diabetes. Blindness. ALS.  

 In one year, stroke costs America $56 billion in medical costs.

 Diabetes–$174 billion. 

 Vision problems (of which macular degeneration is a huge component)– $51.4 billion. 

 ALS—I cannot find an overall figure, but it may cost two hundred thousand dollars–for one patient, per year.   My rough guess (based on 20,000 patients) would be $4 billion.

 Add that up:  $285 billion a year—for just four medical conditions. 

 We spend so little fighting back against these real-life horrors: as if Godzilla attacked New York– and the military got a nickel for a slingshot to fight it.

 Opponents complain about the expense of California’s entire stem cell program– which has a budget of only $295 million a year—roughly  one one/thousandth of the cost of just those four conditions. If we can help alleviate or cure even one of those devastating conditions, it would be the greatest bargain in medical history.

 

 Fast forward to the meeting.

 Two dozen leaders of the ICOC sitting at a square of four tables. Champions all. People like Ed Penhoet, just chosen to be a special biomedicine adviser to the President. (Dr. Alta Charo, one of our advisors, was also recently honored by being selected to advise the FDA!) Bob Klein was recently honored by Research!for America, receiving the Gordon and Llura Gund Award for medical research advocacy. Over there was Television’s Leeza Gibbons, head of her own organization to fight Alzheimer’s, and to her right was Sherry Lansing, former President of Paramount Motion Pictures, battling for cancer research—a book could be written about just the members of this board. Not a political hack among them. 

 Today, they would be deciding the biggest medical research grants in our history.

 Before the meeting began, $210 million had been set aside (with a buffer of an additional $30 million) for the disease team grants.

 To my amazement, the review board (a separate panel made of scientists from different states and nations, none from California) had recommended cautiously—$189 million.

 What? We were not going to spend the money budgeted to fight disease?

Naturally, being of an age when everything reminds me of something else, I had to step up to the microphone and give my two cents worth, telling a true story which seemed applicable.

 A settler in old West times was found dead after an Indian attack. Arrows were stuck all through him—and, clutched uselessly in his hands, a single-shot rifle, its one bullet unfired…

 I would have fired that bullet, I said. After that, I like to think, I would have swung the  rifle as a club until it broke, and then looked around for rocks to throw. 

 We are here to fight terrible diseases and conditions. We have the money, let’s go for it.

 “But only when the science is first-rate,” Bob Klein put in quickly.

 At the end of two days careful consideration, the ICOC approved the expenditure of just shy of $230 million.

 Our money was on the table, the bets were made. Fourteen grants…   

 Here came something ironic.

 Guess which got more money– embryonic or adult stem cell research?

 Prop 71 was designed to be sure the best science was funded, at a time when President George Bush’s ideological convictions were blocking the advance of embryonic and other advanced forms of stem cell research.

 Today, adult stem cell research (often combined with gene therapy) got the bulk of the funding. The opposition of course is playing this up for all they can, trumpeting this as “proof” that they were right all along, and there is no need for hESC research.

 Let’s look a little closer.

 These are grants for team projects which had the best chance to advance—in just four years– to a phase one clinical trial for an “incurable” disease or disability.

 Remember all the advantages adult stem cell research has had: a fifty year head start, massively preferential funding from Washington, zero political harassment—contrast that with the virulent opposition from the religious right and its allies in state and national capitols, not to mention near strangulation of funding– it would be natural to assume that all of these ready-to-go grants would be for some form of adult stem cell research.

 But that is not quite how it worked out.

 Remember the four “monsters” mentioned earlier– stroke, diabetes, ALS, and macular degenerative blindness?

 Naturally, being California, we are going after all four– and the weapon of choice to fight them?

 Embryonic stem cell research.

 With every option available, California chose embryonic stem cell research for these four horrific conditions. Why?

 Because California is going for the best method to find a cure. Adult, embryonic, iPS—we seek to save lives and ease suffering. Unlike our opponents, we do not select medical research by its political acceptability.

 Personally, I believe that embryonic or the embryonic-like reprogramming (or SCNT, which has a lot more potential still to be explored) will be the way to go: that projects based on adult stem cells will eventually need to be re-done with the more powerful hESC or reprogramming approach.

 Even so, one of the projects I spoke up most vigorously in favor of was an adult stem cell project, Dr. Irv Weissman’s attack on leukemia.

 Why? Because not only do I (and the scientific community!) have enormous respect for Dr. Weissman, but also because I know I can be wrong. If an adult stem cell approach turns out to the best way to help people, of course I’m for it.

 That’s what medical research advocacy is about: to find out—and fund—the best.

 Take a quick look at the four embryonic stem cell projects.  This information comes from the website of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine website:  www.cirm.ca.gov. The reports are also available through the clickable list at the bottom.

 I have shortened them (thirty-some pages down to 3), for ease of reading. Other than that (and parenthetical insertions like this one) these are the actual words.

 STROKE

 Description: stroke occurs when a blood clot blocks a blood vessel in the brain, and cuts off blood flow. Brain cells begin to die…(which) can cause permanent loss of motor control, movement and cognitive abilities… (imagine being paralyzed, losing the ability to speak, perhaps even unable to think properly—dr)

 Quick Fact: Stroke causes more serious long term disabilities than any other disease.

 Disease Team Award: The Stanford University-led team (Primary Investigator Dr. Gary Steinberg) plans to use cells derived from human embryonic stem cells… to improve recovery in the weeks and months following a stroke.

 The team will be…(turning) embryonic stem cells into neural (nerve) stem cells…normally found in the brain. When these…cells are transplanted into the brains of mice or rats one week after a stroke, the animals are able to regain strength in their limbs.

 Based on these findings, the Stanford-led team proposes to further develop these neural stem cells into a clinical development program for stroke in humans…. 

 MACULAR DEGENERATION BLINDNESS

 Description: Macular degeneration (a disease of aging) gradually destroys sharp central vision, making it impossible to see faces, to read, or to drive… deterioration of the retina… 

 Underlying (the retina) is a single layer of cells (retinal epithelial cells, RPEs)… that provide support, protection and nutrition…to the retina.  Degeneration of (these support cells) leads to … vision loss.

 Quick fact: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects more than 1.75 million Americans. There is currently no cure….

 Disease Team Award:  Led by researchers at the University of Southern California, (the team will) …use human embryonic stem cells to replace dysfunctional or destroyed (RPE) cells to slow or reverse the disease. They plan to coax human embryonic stem cells to differentiate into… (RPE) cells that can be transplanted into the eye.

 The replacement cells will function normally to support to and protect the…retina and prevent further degeneration and vision loss.

 

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS)

 Description: ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive disease that involves the death of motor neurons (which are) cells in the brain…and spinal cord that connect directly to muscle. As these cells die, signals from the brain to the muscle are cut off and patients lose motor control…(leading to) paralysis…and death. …. People with spontaneous ALS (one of two kinds of the disease) have higher levels of… glutamate in the spinal fluid… Scientists suspect glutamate may be involved in (the cause of) ALS…

 Quick Fact: There is no cure for ALS, but there is a drug, called riluzole, that extends life by a number of months(3-6).  Riluzole decreases… glutamate, and in turn, decreases damage to neurons…

 Disease Team Award: The team at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies plans to protect surviving neurons from further degeneration in people diagnosed with ALS. The strategy involved targeting (astrocyte) cells which…surround and protect neurons. (Astrocytes regulate glutamate.)

 The team intends to grow human embryonic stem cell-derived astrocyte precursors that will be transplanted… into the spinal cord environment to prevent further…degeneration caused by ALS. The work…should be effective in (both varieties of) ALS.

TYPE 1 DIABETES

 Description: People with type 1 diabetes, known as juvenile diabetes, cannot produce insulin… which (normally) helps take up sugar from the blood. … Although it is possible to replace missing insulin with injected insulin, people with diabetes still tend to have higher than average blood sugar levels. This excess sugar damages the retina, nerves, kidney and blood vessels. Because of this damage, people with diabetes often have cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, blindness, and (may) need amputations due to wounds that can’t heal.

 Quick Fact: (approximately) 15,000 youths in the Unites States (are) newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes annually.

 Disease Team Award: Dr. Jeffery Bluestone and the Novocell, Inc-led team has developed methods to make large-scale batches of replacement beta cells from human embryonic stem cells (hESC).

 … these hESC-derived beta cells cure experimental disease in mice and rats. ..The team now plans to complete the manufacturing, efficacy, safety testing required to generate the necessary data for FDA approval to test in Phase 1 clinical trials.”

End of quoted materials.

 

So. Despite the enormous advantages given to the field of adult stem cell research by the previous administration (which favored it over embryonic more than 7-1 in terms of grant money), and although adult stem cell research has been around since the middle of the last century, compared to embryonic which was isolated just 11 years ago—even so, hESCr was chosen to attack these four horrific incurables.

 I think it was Dr. Kevin Eggan of Harvard who came up with a great line recently. He was asked if there was still a need for human embryonic stem cell research, (hESCr) since there were other options,  like iPS, the skin cell reprogramming, which he helped develop.

 Eggan answered, (if memory serves) that of course we still needed human embryonic stem cell research, because everything else was an imitation—and hESCr was the real thing.

 So what we do we need next?

 How about an RFA (Request For Applications) for a major grant to fund actual clinical trials? Before any cures can reach people, they must be tested, and this can cost a bunch of money—so far, Geron (back on track for human trials next year, btw) has spent about $45 million, and will probably spend that much again—we need a way to support these crucial tests—maybe matching grants?–so good ideas will not stay locked up in the labs.

 And if Dr. Keirstead’s SMA work finds enough funding elsewhere, (which I am confident it will, although slower than if we had been able to fund it through CIRM), maybe his project will be eligible for that one…

 At the two-day meeting, there was far too much to talk about—the international advances alone have far too much substance to be summed up in a short article.

 For me, there was one moment when it all came together, and it happened right before the meeting official begins.

 CIRM person Melissa King led the pledge of allegiance. She began it as she always does: “please stand, if you are able”.

 I never hear those words without getting a little misty-eyed: not only in pride for my state and our nation, which make possible this magnificent effort: but also reminding me why we are here.

 Below is the official write-up from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which I lifted from their website. (They of course have no connection to my opinions.)  Under that is a clickable list of the 14 projects funded, in case you want an up-close look. (I underlined and bold-printed the word “human embryonic stem cells” on the title of the four hESCr projects I talked about.)

 Oh, good news, the lawsuit against America’s embryonic stem cell research program was thrown out!  More to follow soon. It is an important decision, which may (IMHO) affect anti-research legislation across the country…

 Stay tuned!

 best,

 Don C. Reed

CIRM, the UK and Canada Award more than $250 Million to Accelerate the Pace of Bringing Stem Cell Therapies to the Clinic

October 28, 2009

ImageIMCE: 

 

Novel funding mechanism speeds the path of research

Los Angeles, Calif., October 28, 2009 – The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state stem cell agency, and two international partners awarded more than $250 million to 14 multidisciplinary teams of researchers in California, the UK and Canada to develop stem cell-based therapies for 11 diseases. The Disease Team Research Awards include approximately $8 million from the Medical Research Council, UK, and approximately $35 million from the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium, Canada, to fund the international portions of the collaborations.

CIRM’s 29-member Governing Board voted to approve funding for the four-year grants, which mark the first CIRM funding explicitly expected to result in a filing with the FDA to begin a clinical trial. The Disease Team Research Awards fund research teams that include basic scientists and clinicians from both academia and industry. These collaborations speed the process of establishing clinical trials by insuring that clinically relevant issues are considered early and avoiding potential safety issues being discovered late in the process.

CIRM President Alan Trounson said the pace of the Disease Team projects stands in contrast to the decade or more that’s usually required to reach clinical trials. “Scientists have talked for years about the need to find ways to speed the pace of discovery. By encouraging applicants to form teams composed of the best researchers from around the world we think CIRM will set a new standard for how translational research should be funded,” he said.

Each team will be actively managed by CIRM and the agency’s international partners for those teams with cross-border collaborations. Decisions to move forward with the project will be made at key points in the development cycle.

“This unique partnership is another opportunity for the people of California to lead the way in this important research and advance potentially life-saving science,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “These grants will help unite some of the best scientists throughout the world, including right here in California, to find new therapies and cures for people suffering from chronic and life-debilitating diseases. I am proud California remains at the forefront of this innovative research and I look forward to the results of this international collaboration.”

“This initiative is bringing together the leading minds in cancer and stem cell research from Canada and California,” said Dr. Morag Park, Scientific Director of the Institute of Cancer Research, part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Government of Canada’s health research agency. “CIHR, in conjunction with Genome Canada and through the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium, is proud to fund Canadian Scientists in this cross-border collaboration that will engage scientists from many disciplines, combine resources, technologies and knowledge to find more effective treatments for leukemia and solid cell tumours.”

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council: “The partnerships that have been established between the UK and CIRM have brought us closer to delivering the promise of stem cell treatments for debilitating conditions. We hope these projects will accelerate treatments to early clinical trials, eventually leading to a direct benefit for people suffering from age-related macular degeneration, which up until now has been regarded as incurable and also acute myeloid leukaemia. The MRC has led the way for UK translational researchers and together with our partners at CIRM we look forward to realising the full potential of stem cell research”

Other diseases being targeted by the teams include HIV/AIDS, type 1 diabetes, damage from heart attack, sickle cell anemia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and epidermolysis bullosa, a hereditary life-threatening condition of the skin’s connective layer. The 14 awards will go to seven not-for-profit institutions and one for-profit institution. The award to the one for-profit grantee will take the form of a loan.

“CIRM’s loan program will recycle money back into future awards and leverage the voter’s commitment to the field,” said Robert Klein, Chair of the CIRM Governing Board. “In providing stem cell funding in the form of loans, CIRM is able to fund more science and make a more significant impact on the speed of bringing new stem cell-based therapies to the people of California and the world.”

Other ICOC Business

The board also voted to approve an update to CIRM’s on-going strategic plan. The current plan, approved in 2006, anticipated a slower pace of research toward potential clinical applications. The revision proposes an increased emphasis on moving safety tested candidate therapeutics to the clinic and encourages closer ties to industry and national and international collaborators to meet those goals.

Approved Disease Team projects:

(See the Disease Team media materials for more information about the funded teams.) 

Grant number	Investigator	Institution	Intl. Collaborator	Total CIRM Funding
DR1-01421	Karen Aboody	City of Hope National Medical Center		$18,015,429
	Co-PIs: Jana Portnow	City of Hope National Medical Center
	Larry Couture	City of Hope National Medical Center
	The group proposes to treat brain tumors using neural stem cells that are genetically modified to carry a tumor-killing drug.
DR1-01423	Emmanuel Baetge	Novocell, Inc		$19,999,937
	Co-PI: Jeffrey Bluestone	University of California, San Francisco
	The group proposes to treat people with type 1 diabetes by implanting insulin-producing cells generated from human embryonic stem cells.
DR1-01426	Mitchel Berger	University of California, San Francisco		$19,162,435
	Co-PIs: Webster Cavenee	Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
	Evan Snyder	Burnham Institute for Medical Research
	The group proposes to treat brain tumors using neural stem cells that are genetically modified to carry a tumor-killing drug.
DR1-01430	Dennis Carson	University of California, San Diego	Canada	$19,999,826
	Co-PI: Catriona Jamieson	University of California, San Diego
	International Partner: John Dick	University Health Network
	The group intends to develop six drugs – three monoclonal antibodies and three small molecules – to destroy leukemia stem cells.
DR1-01431	Irvin Chen	University of California, Los Angeles		$19,999,580
	Co-PI: Geoff Symonds	Calimmune, Inc
	This group proposes to treat HIV/AIDS using an RNA interference approach to modify the patient’s blood-forming stem celis. When transplanted back, those cells will produce T cells that are resistant to HIV infection.
DR1-01444	Mark Humayun	University of Southern California	MRC	$15,904,916
	Co-PIs: David Hinton	University of Southern California
	Dennis Clegg	University of California, Santa Barbara
	International Partner: Peter Coffey	University College London-Institute of Ophthalmology
	The group intends to treat macular degeneration using transplant retinal cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.
DR1-01452	Donald Kohn	University of California, Los Angeles		$9,212,365
	Co-PIs: Thomas Coates	Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles
	Victor Marder	University of California, Los Angeles
	The group proposes to treat sickle cells disease using a gene therapy approach to modify the patient’s blood-forming stem cell so that they produce normal red blood cells.
DR1-01454	Alfred Lane	Stanford University		$11,709,574
	Co-PIs: Anthony Oro	Stanford University
	Marius Wernig	Stanford University
	The group proposes to treat the skin disease epidermolysis bullosa using genetically modified iPS cells created from the patient’s own skin cells.
DR1-01461	Eduardo Marban	Cedars-Sinai Medical Center		$5,560,232
	The group intends to repair heart tissue damaged by heart attack using stem cells taken from the patient’s own heart.
DR1-01471	Samuel Pfaff	The Salk Institute for Biological Studies		$15,644,881
	Co-PIs: Lawrence Goldstein	University of California, San Diego
	Don Cleveland	Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
	The group intends to treat people with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis by implanting precursor astrocyte cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.
DR1-01477	Dennis Slamon	University of California, Los Angeles	Canada	$19,979,660
	Co-PIs: Garry Nolan	Stanford University
	Michael Press	University of Southern California
	International Partner: Tak Wah Mak	University Health Network
	The group proposes to develop drugs that destroy the cancer stem cells in solid tumors.
DR1-01480	Gary Steinberg	Stanford University		$20,000,000
	Co-PI: Stanley Carmichael	University of California, Los Angeles
	The group intends to treat stroke using implanted neural stem cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.
DR1-01485	Irving Weissman	Stanford University	MRC	$19,999,996
	Co-PIs: Ravindra Majeti	Stanford University
	Beverly Mitchell	Stanford University
	International Partner: Paresh Vyas	Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford University
	The group intends to generate a monoclonal antibody that destroys leukemia stem cells.
DR1-01490	John Zaia	City of Hope National Medical Center		$14,583,187
	Co-PIs: Paula Cannon	University of Southern California
	David DiGiusto	Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope
	This group proposes to treat HIV/AiDS using a gene therapy approach to modify the patient’s blood-forming stem celis. When transplanted back, those cells will produce T cells that are resistant to HIV infection.
Total funding				$229,772,018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO SAVE A CHILD:  Why the ICOC Should Reconsider Grant Proposal DR1-01449

 

from Don C. Reed

 The most eagerly anticipated grants of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine are the disease team grants: major funding, as much as $20,000,000 each.

 The posted results of the new grants offers an opportunity for public involvement.

 I disagree with one of the projects’ placements, and am speaking up about it.

 First, a little background.

 The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has a board of directors, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC). They decide what research projects get funded. A board of reviewers, all from outside the state, studies the proposals and offers opinions, but that is all they are: opinions. By law, the ICOC makes the final decision.  This is a vital part of the program, only the California board may decide.

One grant I was positive would get funded was a project to use embryonic stem cells (after differentiating them, of course!) to fight Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) type one. This condition is almost unbelievably cruel:  SMA kills infants, often before they reach one year of age.

 To my knowledge, there has to date been no funding of research for this terrible problem; that alone was in its favor, a reason to strongly consider any reasonable proposal.

 There was also the approach itself to be considered—and, perhaps most important, who was doing it. Was the scientist in charge someone worthy of the public trust?

 Now, the application process is a mix of public and private. The scientists apply privately, and then the results are posted (without their names) on the CIRM website.

 But after you hang around the field for a while, you get to know who the players are, and there are not that many at the very top.

 Certainly, anyone who follows stem cell research closely would recognize the work of Dr. Hans  Keirstead,  who is to embryonic stem cell therapeutics roughly what Edison was to lightbulbs. It was public knowledge he had been working several years on a SMA project, and would be applying for a CIRM grant to advance the effort.  I figured, well, this was one grant proposal that was practically guaranteed. 

 But when I read the results, to my dismay, the Keirstead SMA project was not recommended for funding—it was listed dead last!

I read the reviewers’ objections on the public page, and was staggered. What was going on here?

 “Insufficient preliminary data”… was the key objection, though there were others, some general, some very specific: even one on the way the stem cells would be injected, with reviewers saying it should not be done with a hand-held syringe.

 Then I remembered: this is how it has been for Keirstead, all throughout his career. He is a pioneer, taking giant leaps into the unknown; often he is the key source of preliminary data—precisely because he goes first…

 Naturally, I wanted to help– hopefully without making things worse!

 First, I called up a friend at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, to ask if it was legal for me to contact the scientist, and also the ICOC.

 I was informed I had a First Amendment right to do so– and they had an equally valid right to ignore me—but the ICOC were state officials, so being contacted by the public was not without precedent.

 I tried to reach Dr. Keirstead, to ask him if he would want to use the system developed by the CIRM, to make what is called an “extraordinary petition”, where he objected to the rejection of his project: would he be willing to fight for the grant.

 Getting in touch with Keirstead is not easy. Basically, you (or I, anyway) have to be willing to make about a dozen calls, day after day. Also, he has an assistant, Michelle, who is politely savage about guarding access to the scientist’s time. Naturally, I approve of such protection—except when it comes to me, of course!

 But at last we connected, and I asked him if he wanted to speak up about the decision on his funding.

 He said yes.

 I took the reviewers’ objections from the public document, broke them into ten pieces, gave them to him as questions. His answers (hopefully I understood them correctly) are in caps.

 OBJECTIONS FROM REVIEWERS:

1.     Reviewers cited lack of preliminary data demonstrating
disease-modifying activity of hMNPs.

KEIRSTEAD NOW HAS A GREAT DEAL OF SUCH DATA. THERE SHOULD BE A MECHANISM TO SUBMIT NEW DATA IN THESE DISEASE TEAM APPLICATIONS, AS THE PACE  OF PROGRESS IS FAR FASTER THAN CONVENTIONAL RESEARCH.

2.     They felt an IND filing in 18 months would be premature.

IN A FORMAL PRE-IND MEETING, THE FDA RULED OTHERWISE. THEY AGREED TO ACCEPT KEIRSTEAD’S IND WITHIN MONTHS.

3.     Transplanted cells must replace dying motor neurons, also extend
axons that exit the spinal cord, find target, innervate muscles. Distance is
great.

THIS IS INCORRECT. THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF ACTION IS NURSING, AND KEIRSTEAD HAS MUCH DATA TO SUPPORT A NURSING ROLE. A FETAL STEM CELL BASED CLINIAL TRIAL WAS JUST APPROVED FOR ALS ON THE BASIS OF NURSING, PROVIDING PRECEDENT FOR THIS APPROACH.

4.     No evidence provided of efficacy of therapy in animal model?

KEIRSTEAD NOW HAS A GREAT DEAL OF SUCH DATA; THAT DATA WAS REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING

5.     transplanted hMNPs may not rescue when disease damage done before
birth.

THIS IS INCORRECT. THE RATIONALE FOR TRANSPLANTING 2-6 MONTHS AFTER  BIRTH IS TO TREAT THE ENDOGENOUS MOTOR NEURONS BEFORE THEY DIE.

6.     full spinal cord motor neuron replacement may not be feasible;
incomplete rescue of motor neuron function may not give positive outcome.

KEIRSTEAD’S DATA CLEARLY INDICATES FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY IN PRE-CLINICAL ANIMALS MODELS WITH THIS APPROACH. THIS DATA AND THIS APPROACH WERE REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING

7.     concern that much data was in vitro, may not apply to in vivo.

KEIRSTEAD NOW HAS A GREAT DEAL OF ANIMAL DATA, AND THIS DATA WAS REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING

8.     safety data described, but not presented, making difficult to
evaluate.

SAFETY DATA IS NOW COMPLETE, AND THIS DATA WAS REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING

9.     data needed on lot variability of  hMNPs, and safety with dead cells,
which may result in infection.

LOT VARIABILITY DATA IS NOW COMPLETE, AS IS ALL SAFETY DATA REQUIRED BY THE FDA. THIS DATA WAS REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING

10. objections raised to hand-held syringe

SUCH OBJECTIONS ARE UNFOUNDED. THIS APPROACH WAS REVIEWED BY THE FDA IN KEIRSTEAD’S RECENT PRE-IND MEETING, AND DEEMED SUFFICIENT

11. suggests need for ethics member to address infant participation

AGREED. ETHICS REVIEW HAS BEEN ADDED.

12.  recommend pediatrician inclusion on  research team.

AGREED. PEDIATRICIAN HAS BEEN ADDED.

 Next,  I contacted friends in the SMA community, (I didn’t have any, so I had to reach out) and fortunately they were patient with this stranger calling them up–  hopefully at least one will be able to come to the meeting and speak,  and another will provide written testimony.

 I also plan to speak, and (if allowed) here is roughly what I will say:

 “Honored members of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee:

 As you know, I am not a scientist. But in the past fifteen years, since my son Roman Reed became paralyzed in a college football accident, I have been on a personal quest to find a cure. The only way that will happen, is for the entire field of regenerative medicine to move forward.

 Grant proposal DR1-01449 is just such a pivotal project.

 Here are ten reasons why it deserves funding. 

1. The project has an unparalleled urgency. The condition to be fought is Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a terrible condition which literally strangles children, weakening and destroying the motor neurons which control all movement, including breathing and swallowing.

 2. The goal of the project is to heal the ravages of SMA with an infusion of new and healthy motor neurons: replacing damaged cells with new. This approach is a cornerstone of embryonic stem cell therapy: to replace cells that do not function, or which have died, with cells that are healthy, vibrant, alive.  Also, those new cells bring with them neurotrophins and other nourishments to strengthen and save the cells remaining, and help new ones develop.

 3. A successful outcome to this battle would not only offer hope to agonized parents of children with SMA, but could benefit our entire field of regenerative medicine.  Among the benefits of this project could be: the means to produce large volumes of high purity cells; the restoration of motor nerves; the successful outcome of large animal studies, requested by so many critics; and answer the question of whether transplanted cells can not only survive, but go where they are supposed to go, and link up correctly, and function.  

 4. Numerous other neurological conditions would benefit from a success, including spinal cord injury, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), polio, and other forms of SMA.

 5. While the investigator’s name was carefully redacted from the proposal, anyone who follows the field can recognize the work of Dr. Hans Keirstead. This is the man whose work gave Proposition 71 its one and only success to build around; this was the experiment highlighted on 60 MINUTES TV and featured in our campaign ads. He a recognized leader in the field.

 6. The criticism is made that he lacks sufficient preliminary data to justify the risk of funds. Similar reviewer objections of insufficient preliminary data have been made against researcher’s work throughout his career, because of the pioneering nature of the efforts: however, when he has been funded, he has succeeded. One of his projects, as you know, is now close to human trials: the world’s first.

 7. The ICOC has established a policy allowing “extraordinary petitions” so that researchers can have the opportunity to as for a special review of their case when unique situations arise; this is a crystal-clear validation of that policy. 

 8. Due to positive response from FDA, applicant now has multiples of increased documentation, previously unavailable for reviewers.  Documentation has flooded in; exceeds 9,000 pages.  

 9. Financial bargain: because team has been preparing for 3 years, will not require 4 years of support, but only 18 months.

 10. The scientist has already has completed steps toward FDA approval, including: production of motor neuron manufacturing facility to make cells required; small animal proof of concept studies; FDA-reviewed safety studies, showing no adverse effects.

 So that part was ready.

 Next I emailed several members of the ICOC board, (after all these years I do know some as individuals, and have their emails) asking if we could talk. Several said they would be willing to talk to me, though it was a long shot. Two individuals I specifically did not reach out to were Dr. Susan Bryant and Dr. Os Steward of UC Irvine, both of whom work closely with Hans. I felt it would be unfair of me to ask their help. But I was able to make contact with about eight of the board’s 29 members. Some I have talked to already, the rest I will hopefully speak with today, Monday.

 Responses so far include:

 1. Success this year not likely;

1. Scientist should try again next year for the next disease team grant cycle;
2. Keirstead should try for a different kind of grant, a translational grant;
3. Keep fighting: this is a public process, and we have every right to be part of it;
4. Sounds promising, we will keep an open mind at Wednesday’s meeting!

 So that is where we are right now. I will keep working on this issue, advancing it every way I can think of.

 Will we succeed Wednesday? I don’t know.  In the past decade and a half I have been shot down too many times to not recognize the possibility of defeat.

 But I read the testimony from a parent, who buried two children due to SMA.

 There really is no fallback position, when faced with a threat like that.

We must prevail.

Re-Impose Bush Ban? Research Opponents Hope to Turn Back the Clock

RE-IMPOSE BUSH BAN? Research Opponents Hope to Turn Back the Clock

 

By Don C. Reed

 

Using a variety of approaches, anti-research forces are attempting to turn back the clock: either to the days of the Bush Presidency, or perhaps even all the way back to those happy times known as the Dark Ages, when the Church dictated science policy. 

 

Do I exaggerate? Here are three examples: one national, two from the states.

 

First: remember the lawsuit (Sherley et al v. Sebelius et al) filed by the Christian Medical Association and others against the Federal Government in an attempt to stop federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? (Go to www.stemcellbattles.com, click on September, scroll down for two articles: one, a summary of the case, and the second, the Government’s response.)

 

Here is a shocking update..

 

“… a hearing was held Wednesday, October 14 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on a preliminary injunction to block implementation and federal funding under the NIH guidelines. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth listened to oral arguments, and will likely issue a decision by November 1 (in the meantime, NIH has indicated that it will not permit the expenditure of any funds for human embryonic stem cell research before that date.)” (emphasis added, DR)

 

–David Prentice, Family Research Council Blog, October 15, 2009 (Yes, that is the same Dr. David Prentice and Family Research Council that always opposes our research.)

 

 

Another article put it more bluntly, but with the same result:

“Case seeks to reinstate Bush administration ban on using taxpayer dollars for research on human embryos. (and)… overturn Obama’s decision to fund embryonic stem cell research. 

 

“…A hearing was held Wednesday to reinstate a ban on taxpayer funds being used for embryonic stem cell research. The case, Sherley et al. v. Sebelius et al., was filed in federal court, Aug. 19, and seeks to overturn guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, which allows for federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

 

“(The) hearing resulted in a temporary suspension of the ability to allocate federal taxpayer dollars to embryonic stem cell research…” (emphasis added, DR)

–Holly Smith, Kansas Liberty: 16 October 2009

Assuming these reports are accurate, (I have a call in to the Health and Human Service Department to verify) consider what is really happening here: 

The Religious Right’s goal is to block the research. Since funding is the lifeblood of all research, if the funding is suspended, even for an hour, for that amount of time, they have won. By shutting it off, they have stopped the research.

Maybe the suspension will be for a few days—or maybe it will drag on for years, as the case is appealed through all the various levels of court, up to and  including the U.S. Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, one of the most conservative in American history.  

Should the research funding be stopped– on the basis that it is being challenged in court?

That was done in California, denying us our stem cell program’s rightful funding for two years.  I felt that suspension of funding was wrong then, and this newest suspension is wrong as well.

This is like being found guilty—and penalized—by reason of being sued.

 

That’s from the national front: now let’s take a look at two state assaults, Nebraska and Michigan.

 Nebraska hinges on something as simple as a broken promise.

Remember the Cornhusker state’s nine-month struggle to find a compromise between their scientists and the Religious Right?

A law was passed (LB 606) which everyone seemed able to live with. It imposed stringent restrictions on embryonic stem cell research funding in the state—no new lines to be created by state dollars– and banned public funding of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer altogether. It even provided funding for adult stem cell research, $500,000 a year, (zero for embryonic) giving the conservatively-approved methods a head start.

What did the pro-research side gain, in exchange for giving up so much? Only one thing. The state law would allow the scientists to do their work without fear of political harassment. They could do embryonic stem cell research, within careful guidelines.

There was even a sidebar agreement that neither side would advance legislation, either in support of, or opposition to, stem cell research.   This was signed by every major right to life group in the state.

I thought, well,  the scientists have to work with one hand tied behind their backs, but at least they will be allowed to work without further harassment.

Unfortunately…

Having achieved everything they could get through law, the Religious Right put political pressure against the only place in Nebraska big enough to actually do the research.  (The only similarly-sized facility large enough is Creighton University– a Catholic school.)

The University of Nebraska (NU) is a top-notch research center— but it has a board of directors, called Regents—and they, like everyone, are susceptible to political pressure.

The board is being pressured to limit embryonic stem cell research to only lines made before 2001—reverting to the old Bush policy, which banned government funding to all new stem cell lines. This is like limiting the aircraft industry to planes existing before the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk.

Because those lines are so old as to be virtually useless, this attempt to turn back the clock amounts to a banning of the research.

The next meeting of the Board of Regents is this Friday, the 23^rd. We already know the anti-research folks are advertising a picket effort outside the Regents board meeting. They will also be inside the meeting (as is their right) and will be actively participating.

This is not small. Everybody knew what was at stake. The scientists would agree to accept a series of restrictions on their work, in exchange for which they would be allowed to work in peace.

That promise was utterly broken, and it is a shame. Here was a chance for bitter opponents to work together, and it seemed like it was happening.

But the “pro-life” groups took as much as they could from this one area, seemingly making whatever promises it took to get what they wanted– and then turned around and tried to shut down the research again.

 

Finally, Michigan faces a series of 6 connected laws to squelch embryonic stem cell research in that state.

These laws are brought to us by Senator Tom George, (R-Kalamazoo), co-chair of MiCAUSE (Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation), the official opposition to loosening stem cell restrictions in the Wolverine State.

Now, this is interesting.

Remember that a citizen’s initative, Proposal 2, was offered: it would allow stem cell research that was permissible nationally to be allowed in the Wolverine State as well.

During that campaign, the opposition, MiCAUSE, backed primarily by the Catholic Church, repeatedly claimed that if Proposal 2 passed, it would be impossible—even illegal– to regulate the research at all. It would be, they implied, just mad scientists running around doing whatever they wanted. They even paid for a commercial showing an actor in a cow costume, raising its hoof in objection to animal-human hybrids!

Here is their key argument, taken from the Michigan Catholic Conference publication, Focus, Volume 36, Number 3, October, 2008.

In giant letters splashed across the page.

“Proposal 2: Unregulated Embryo Destruction”

“…If Proposal 2 were to pass, how would embryo research be regulated?

 “It wouldn’t. In fact, it would be illegal to place any regulations or restrictions (emphasis added) on human embryo research in Michigan. If Proposal 2 were to pass, human embryo destruction and research would become the first industry to be completely immune from any local or state laws.”—October, 2008. 

Hmm.

If Senator George’s group honestly believed it would be “illegal to place any regulations or restrictions” on the research, why is he trying to do exactly that right now?

Representative George is not breaking the law. (I disagree with the six laws he proposes—Senate Bills 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, and 652 are apparently designed to kill the research by massive over-regulation– but they are not illegal.)

I suspect his side was just making propaganda again, part of their endless series of unfounded assertions, which it is our job as advocates to point out.

AND—October 17^th—House Joint Resolution II (HJR II) was introduced in the Michigan Congress.

This is one of those poisonous “personhood” bills. 

Some of it is written in dark ink and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, like shouting:

“Article 1, Sec. 28. (1)  EVERY HUMAN PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE, WHICH IS THE PARAMOUNT AND MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GURANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE…THE WORD “PERSON” APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS…FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING FERTILIZATION…”

It sounds okay at first, until you think about it. 

Why do they want to redefine a “human person” from its present definition (a viable baby that can live on his or her own after having been born) way back to a microscopic union of sperm and egg, including frozen blastocysts , or a dot in a dish of salt water?

Because this new definition of personhood may let them overturn Roe v. Wade, and criminalize all abortions. This is part of a multi-decade effort, the central goal of the right-to-life establishment.

And they have a point.

Who really is in favor of abortions? Are they not an act of desperation?

If there was a way to eliminate the need for abortions– to make every baby planned, and wanted, and safe, and provided for—who could be against that?

But a personhood law? Disaster.

By giving sperm and egg unions legal standing in a court of law, personhood bills like HJR II will not only strip away every woman’s right to choose, making reproductive freedoms a thing of the past, but would also end forever all embryonic stem cell research, (criminalizing it as an act of murder), ban the entire In Vitro Fertility method of helping childless couples have a baby—and also make most forms of birth control illegal.

A personhood bill is like cleaning your home with a nuclear bomb: when the blast is done, and the mushroom cloud blows away, everything is clean beyond clean, absolutely sterile; the bugs are gone, the germs are gone—but so is the house, and the neighborhood.

 

Someday, (and may that day come soon) you and I will not have to be involved in the struggle to protect and advance medical research.

The cures will be many: the results evident and undeniable. The opposition (already a narrow minority, though powerful) will look around, realize they have marginalized themselves. They will declare victory, and look for something else to attack.

Regenerative medicine will be taken for granted.

But that time is not now. Right now, we are needed. Too much is at stake. If we are strong, and help each other, the world will benefit in ways we only dimly glimpse for now, like international cooperation: already Germany and Israel, formerly bitter enemies, are working together on embryonic stem cell research. And just a couple days ago, China and the California stem cell program announced they will be working together—and think about jobs.  Instead of the frustration of too many shoes pounding the pavement in search of fewer and fewer jobs, by attacking chronic illness we find the source of endless work and a new economy.

Things are going to change, and for the better, if we just hang on.

Not long ago, I met a lawyer friend in the halls of our state capitol. We were talking about the next big legislative attack on the California stem cell program, which will probably come in about ten months.

In a burst of optimism, I said maybe this one would be the last. I had a momentary flash of happy fantasy where I imagined hanging up my advocate’s hat, and settling back to watching kung fu movies on TV, and writing books about the sea.

But my lawyer friend smiled, and said probably not: most likely we would see each other in the halls next year too, because there would be another legislative battle to be fought, sure as the coming of Spring.

And baseball.

2009 World Stem Cell Summit Exceeds All Expectations

2009 WORLD STEM CELL SUMMIT EXCEEDS ALL EXPECTATIONS 

By Don C. Reed

“Breathes there a man with soul so dead, that never to himself hath said, “this is my own, my native land…?”—Sir Walter Scott.

High on the side of the Hilton Hotel is a glass-walled bridge connecting to the Baltimore Convention Center: crossing it was like walking on plush carpets through the sky.

The 2009 World Stem Cell Summit was housed in three ballrooms, each big enough to host its own convention. High ceilings? You could buzz a plane around in there! 

Surrounding  the ballrooms was a collection of stem cell displays: biomed companies, exhibits from colleges, states, nations—and a changing set of science posters, each one deserving of a conversation with the scientist standing beside it.

Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, greeted us on opening day. Movie-star handsome and a superb speaker, Governor O’Malley announced that Maryland and California would be cooperating on stem cell research: because “healing people is our American pride!”. He reminded us that stem cells are “weapons of mass salvation”; that “Maryland has spent $56 million on stem cell research in the last three years”; that with only 2% of the nation’s population, Maryland controls 8% of America’s biotech; “Maryland has always fought above our weight class!” 

Bernie Siegel of the Genetics Policy Institute (primary sponsor of the event) had a special advocacy award to honor the Governor—who then returned the favor by giving Bernie one as well! 

This is the fifth such Summit, and the best. The only problem was an embarrassment of riches: literally too much to choose from: a three-ring circus jammed with activity. 

For example: how could I, as a medical research advocate, choose between the following three panels?

1. Business models for successful stem cell companies– and Innovative Funding Mechanisms;
2. Stem Cells in Clinical Treatments and medical tourism;
3. Stem cell research progress report: Parkinson’s/ ALS /Neurological disorders. 

I really needed to attend all three.   

 “Hey, Jeannie Fontana is speaking!” said Melissa King, stalwart staff leader at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. That settled it. Dr. Fontana is not only a dedicated scientist, but also a down-to-earth friend.    

So, come with us into that room, and see what happens next.

Four people with only microphones between them and a crowded auditorium–  

And controversy! By far the most heated (Bernie would say “lively”) discussion came on this issue: “stem cell tourism.” 

Think what that means. 

Stem cell tourism is going to another country and trying a stem cell treatment not available—or not allowed– in your own nation.

Would you do it? Imagine if doctors told you there was nothing they could do to alleviate your condition, or your loved one’s? Would you go abroad, try a perhaps untested medical treatment?  Would you spend your life savings on it?  

When my son Roman was first injured, paralyzed from the shoulders down, after a college football accident, I would have done anything (still would) to ease his suffering. But back then, if someone in a lab coat had told me eating dirt was a treatment, I might have leaped for a shovel. Today, I would ask for the mud to be analyzed.

I have had fifteen years of education in a subject no one would want to know. I have learned to respect the enormity of the challenge, and been forced to accept the long patience, because that is the only chance we have to win.

But the emotion of needing cure– like air when you are choking—that never goes away.

When customers are desperate, snake oil salesmen can get away with a lot.

On the other hand, what if there was a genuine cure, and another country found it first, and only politics was in the way? 

And how are we supposed to know what is going on anyway, when scientists are so hard to understand?   

Those are the questions: here are the panelists.

Grant Albrecht has a golden voice and an actor’s face and presence—but it hurt to watch him stagger from chair to podium. He spoke of the grim reality of Transverse Meyelitis, a debilitating neurological disease. (Dr. Fontana describes it as “a progressive spinal cord injury, without the injury itself”.)  Grant had to give up a starring role in a Broadway play, when his legs would no longer support him. He began a search around the world, hunting for a cure. $50,000 went to one company, $25,000 to another. He would have considered almost any method, feeling that he was on his “last legs”. One comment from Grant seemed particularly important: 

“We have a problem like a five-alarm fire, and the government is giving a drip-drip-drip response.” 

And now, the central figure: Alex Moffett, CEO, Beike Holdings. Beike, headquartered in Thailand and China, is one of the world’s largest stem cell tourism destinations.

Mr. Moffett said his company has 400 employees, 8 Ph.D’s, 100 MDs.   His voice was soft, almost hypnotic:  a charming unflusterable personality. He stated that his company, has treated 6,100 patients with adult stem cells. (Only adult or cordblood cells, no embryonic or iPS.) Mr. Moffett acknowledges “mistakes were made” in early years, but now he wants to go ahead and do things right. 

He tried to make a distinction between good and bad stem cell tourism: calling it bad when cures are promised, and physicians not properly trained; but good when there was oversight, top quality labs, and transparency.

Some of his company’s centers were in China, he said, and that nation has just passed stringent new guidelines. The clear implication was that if Beike was not legitimate, they would not be allowed to practice in China. 

The next speaker. Doug Sipp, immediately stated that China is “handsomely paid” by Beike, implying at least the possibility of conflict of interest. He reminded us that even though China is an unquestioned superpower, it also faces great money problems.

(I hasten to add that I have enormous respect for China’s scientific efforts. I spend an hour a day struggling to learn Mandarin, so I can at least show respect when talking to Chinese scientists, who are making an enormous contribution to regenerative medicine.)

Mr. Sipp worked four years (2005-2009) for the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), and is also Secretary-Treasurer of the Asia-Pacific  Developmental Biotechnology Society and other international groups.

He  asked: if what Beike does is legitimate, than why not share their data, if that data does exist? He cited the need for “appropriately-designed experiments with proper peer review”.  He also noted that Beike’s website had originally claimed treatments for 26 diseases, but now only claimed 12. 

He suggested anyone in the audience considering stem cell tourism should first visit the ISSCR website for a free “PATIENTS HANDBOOK”, with points to consider before allowing yourself to become a research subject.

Someone (from the audience?) mentioned a website: www.Quackwatch.com.  

The third member of the panel was the aforementioned Jeanne Fontana, M.D., Ph.D, who serves on the California stem cell board as a substitute for Dr. John Reed, of Burnham Institute. Dr. Fontana has a sunny disposition, a personality that engenders good feelings. 

But she was not smiling today.

Dr. Fontana lost her mother to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS), Lou Gehrig’s disease. This is a deadly serious matter to her. When her mom was diagnosed in the late nineties, Dr. Fontana did a world-wide literature search, and found no cure.  Now, there might be as many as 170 offshore clinics offering “stem cell treatments”—were they for real?

She spoke about the need for independent testing for treatments, not just in America but everywhere—and that testing should be done by someone without a financial connection. 

She had two main questions for Beike: 1. Do patients improve after the treatments offered?  2. Is there data, and if so, why not share it?   

This need for accurate data was echoed by what seemed most of the audience: if Beike is for real, it should gather and share its results. 

Some audience speakers expressed polite skepticism; others seemed angry.

I tried to listen dispassionately, to hear both sides. 

However, I felt my teeth grinding together when I heard that Beike treats patients with spinal cord injury paralysis.

It has been a decade and a half since my son was paralyzed, and I have been alert for a cure ever since. “Roman’s Law”, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Research Act, has funded (directly and with matching grants from the NIH, etc.) more than $62 million in research toward that goal.

 If there was a substantive treatment, I am reasonably certain I would know about it.

I know people who have gone overseas to have the Olfactory Epithelial Glia (OEG) treatment, where a surgeon reaches a scalpel up through the patients’s nose, scrapes off part of his or her brain (this sometimes removes the ability to smell) the only part of the central nervous system that regenerates itself—and spreads it like jelly on the injured spine—for maybe $40,000– and, in my opinion,  it does not work.

One audience member rose to say a positive word on behalf of Beike. She stated that her loved one had gone there, been given an undescribed treatment, and did recover some function. (This was a blindness issue, and the excitement was that the patient reportedly could see, at least somewhat, afterwards.) However, she added, there was no follow-up.

“Why was follow-up so important?” I asked Dr. Fontana later.

“Because the treatments themselves may have negative consequences.”

For example, her mother was given “glutathion, an anti-oxidant, a very mainstream alternative medication”. As a side effect, it gave her mom diarrhea. For most folks, that would be only a minor inconvenience. But for ALS sufferers (who may lose their ability to swallow) the inability to retain fluids is life-threatening.  Dr. Fontana was able to get her mother the attention she needed, a nasogastric tube for feeding, and an IV insertion, but even so “there was a drop in function after that, from which she never recovered.”

Even something as seemingly innocuous as cord blood (used by some of the clinics which offer “stem cell treatments”) has the possibility of negative consequences. There must be follow-up, so we can know exactly what happened, good or bad. 

Remember Celebrex, the pain-reliever? One of its side effects was apparently heart attack—we need to know these things.

Someone commented that the anecdotal stories from patients and their families are not always reliable, their judgments clouded, because they (we) want so badly to have hope. 

Linda Powers of Toucan Industries stood up, and made an impassioned plea for respect for Beike’s representative, saying she was “staggered by the savagery of the criticism”, and the “sweeping generalities” of the comments from audience and panelists. 

I did not feel anyone was being rude, but there was definitely tension, and her point was important; courtesy is an essential ingredient for reasoned discourse.

Dr. Jeanne Loring stepped to the mike. This top-notch scientist is always on the alert for anything which might help or hurt our endeavor. 

She stated that she has analyzed hundreds of stem cell samples and had a standing offer to analyze cells for any patient who is considering an overseas procedure: she asked Dr. Moffett if Beike would provide her with samples of the  stem cells they use in  patients.

And Alex Moffett, CEO of Beike, gave a one-word response. He said: “Yes”.

It will be interesting to see what happens next….

In a private conversation several days later, Dr. Loring told me: “I am always suspicious of any kind of clinical use of stem cells that does not have oversight—an independent agency’s verification of the results.” 

She also stated that her analysis of the stem cells should in no way be construed as an endorsement, but merely a service for the patients. “I offer this as a free service on behalf of patients and I will not endorse any company’s approach. This is the principle of caveat emptor—the buyer deserves to know what he or she is buying.”

I also emailed a representative of Beike, told him I was writing an article, and asked him what were the spinal cord injury treatments given there.

He replied: “For spinal cord injury we provide cord mesenchymal stem cells and sometimes we provide mesenchymal stem cells from the patient’s own bone marrow. This is delivered by injections into the spinal cord fluid and at least one IV.”

—Steven Marshank, personal communication.

So—would I take my paralyzed son to Beike?

No.

First, while I am neither scientist nor doctor, I do not believe that adult or cord blood stem cells have the power of embryonic, SCNT, or iPScells. Among the latter three is where I believe the main answers will be found.  

Second, I cannot recommend any treatment that has not been systematically documented, tested, and proven.

I have faith in the carefully documented grueling years of hard work put in by scientists like Drs. Hans Keirstead and Thomas Okarma of Geron, battling their way toward human trials with embryonic stem cells. Their struggle is long, slow, arduous and frustrating, (more than seven years work, and 22,500 pages of documentation,  enough for 50 books!) but it will be worth it in the long run, because we will know exactly where we stand. If it succeeds, we know what was done right, and will be able to do it again, reliably. If not, we can find the mistakes in the documentation.

Will I still listen to what companies like Beike have to say?

Of course.

As moderator Bernie Siegel put it, while the Summit does not endorse any stem cell treatment companies or organizations, the conversation itself is vital. 

The lines of communication must remain open. 

And that is where we must leave it for now.

Three days, jammed with memorable moments.

If you blinked, you missed something.

For example, Mike West, founder of Geron and now Biotime. This great scientist and businessman pretty much began the biomedical field, bringing together  ace scientists Jamie Thomson and John Gearhart to form Geron.  I looked forward so much to hearing whatever he wanted to say.

But I had to miss his speech!

I was invited to appear on a National Public Radio Show—side by side with Dr. John McDonald– Christopher Reeve’s neurologist.

It was great to hear Dr. McDonald talk—I was there as a father of a paralyzed young man and an advocate for research; he was a champion of focused rehabilitation. He cited the crucial importance of “in-home exercise”, therapy that can be done without needing to travel to an exercise center.

They introduced us with a joke, saying “The doctors are in the house!”—I appreciated the promotion, but had to make clear there was only one physician present: the Director of the International Center for Spinal Cord Injury at Kennedy Krieger, he is also Associate Professor of Neurology at Johns Hopkins.

You can hear the interview, if you like: Google it: look up Maryland public radio: Midday with Dan Rodricks, Tuesday September 22, noon to 1.

I was able to use my favorite statistic, that chronic disease and disability costs America $2.3 trillion a year, more than all federal income taxes ($1.8 trillion) combined—and of that mountain of money, 75% goes to treat chronic (incurable) ailments– which is why no medical health program can succeed without an element of cure.

And I tried to express the emotion that united us…

The future of stem cell science is like the first sight of land in the middle of the ocean—you see the tops of trees on the horizon, a patch of green that is a new land, waiting…

And then we hurried back to the Summit!

So many amazing individuals to meet, old friends, and new, everybody special!

Like Dr. Fanyi Zeng, the Secretary-General of the Chinese Society for Stem Cell Research. This tiny vigorous exclamation point of a person reminded me so much of the famous actress Zhang Ziyi, star of Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania , Dr. Zeng’s English is perfect, but she went through a lot of science, very fast: my pen and brain had trouble keeping up.

Her subject was the comparison between the new kind of stem cells taken from skin, (Induced Pluripotentiary Stem Cells, iPS) and the embryonic standard.

She spoke about mouse induced Pluripotent  stem cells, which resemble mouse embryonic stem cells. She wanted to ask, how alike are they?  She used a rigorous test, (the scientists in the room were nodding vigorously) and found them indistinguishable.

This is of course hugely important. If we can get the same results from iPS cells that we achieve with hESCs, then we can move forward faster on the research– without the endless opposition of the religious right.

Dr. Jeanne Loring spoke. Director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, she was looking at human cells with a molecular analysis, studying the machinery that makes one cell type function differently from another. She also found that the two types of stem cell were essentially indistinguishable. She cautioned, however, that we have ten years of experience with embryonic stem cells, and only two years with the new iPS cells.

As she said later, “We need to test them in many different ways, compare them to hESCs, find out if they have the same credentials. Only then can we feel comfortable about developing therapies using iPSCs.” 

Always dapper and elegant, looking like he just stepped off the cover of GQ magazine, Dr. Jose Cibelli spoke on the same subject, with what appeared to me to be very similar conclusions: that iPSCs look much like hESCs. That means a lot, coming from an SCNT expert. (Personally, I feel we have not even begun to fully understand the possibilities of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, SCNT, of which Dr. Cibelli was one of the earliest proponents.) That is a lot of letters, but they matter.

And as one of Michigan’s champion scientists spoke, I worried about his state.

Michigan fought a terrific battle to overturn some of the nation’s most  cruelly restrictive research laws—an effort supported by many volunteer organizations across the country– and we won.

But, the opponents of research are trying to bring the restrictions back, one way or another. This year, not one but six connected laws will be thrown at the Michigan scientists, trying to give the research (in my opinion) the death of a thousand cuts, making it incredibly complicated and frightening—and scare off any research in that state.

Internationally renowned, Dr. Cibelli is also the Associate Scientific Director of the Program for Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine of Andalusia, Spain.

A native of Andalusia, Dr. Natividad Cuenda spoke. She discussed agency’s work on cellular reprogramming. Her goals are to translate into useful forms the results obtained in three research programs: cell therapy and regenerative medicine, clinical genetics and genomic medicine, and nanomedicine. Andalusia has multiple tissue banks available to their scientists: spinal fluid bank, stem cell bank, tumor bank, and a DNA bank. As Executive Director, she directs the agency to plan governmental resources, to incorporate the stakeholders, as well as working on how to share knowledge, facilitate cooperative research, and help to sponsor non-commercial clinical trials with advanced therapies…

I am glad Dr. Cuenda is on our side—but I am not entirely certain she sleeps!

And speaking of internationalism, Canada has spent $80 million on a Stem Cell Network, to develop standardized methods for stem cell researchers. 

“Investment in research is an answer to our moral obligations: an act of faith as well as reason”, Canadian spokesperson Drew Ryall said.

Canada also initiated an exciting symbolic step forward, a linking of arms for research.

They want people to visit their website, and put their name in support of stem cell research. It is easy. I did it myself, and I am computer-challenged. Just click on the link, go there, and see if you like it as much as I do.

I got so excited about this idea, I emailed the Canadians after the event, asking for a paragraph of explanation—and here it is, including the link:

“The World Stem Cell Summit marked the release of the Stem Cell Charter, a major global outreach initiative. Released by the Canadian Stem Cell Foundation, and backed by several international organizations, such as the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) and the Stem Cell Network (SCN), the Charter is a one-page, interactive, web-based document that outlines a framework to move stem cell science forward responsibly. The Foundation aims to create an international grassroots community of scientists, business people, policy makers, patient advocates and members of the public who believe in the importance of stem cell science and will lend their time, voice and other resources to moving the field forward. We’re asking everyone to visit stemcellcharter.org (hyperlink: http://stemcellcharter.org), read and sign the Charter and send it to friends, family and colleagues. While you’re on the site, check out “Rock Star Scientists” and mini videos about different areas of stem cell science.”

Michael Werner spoke about the newest effort to bring the stem cell world together, through the new Alliance for Regenerative Medicine. This is going to be big, folks.

I want to do a separate article about it, after I have a chance to talk to Mr. Werner. I have put in a couple of calls, but we have not connected yet, and I did not want to discuss it without checking with him first.

Former Congressman Jim Greenwood spoke. He is now the leader of BIO, the Biotech Industrial Organization. Representing more than 900 companies, BIO works to give the emerging industry a voice. This is a crucially important organization, although understaffed and overworked. I know the primary folks involved, stellar advocates Tricia Brooks and Patrick Kelly. Tricia, long-term fighter for the cause, famously interrupted her honeymoon to visit the government of Costa Rica– to ask them to reconsider their stance on stem cell research. Patrick Kelly is the state efforts man, great person to talk to if you have a question on a state stem cell effort.

“We need public policy environment conducive to growth” said Mr. Greenwood. Even now, when the Bush limitations have been largely repealed, there is reason to fear “mischievous amendments”. 

“Proactive leadership must drive the research, not merely permit it”, the former Congressman said.

Dean Tozer, representing Advanced Biohealing, spoke about something called a Dermagraft, a healing “skin” for diabetic skin lesion, which costs $1,425 each. Expensive—but then I thought about pressure sores paralyzed people get, like ulcers on heels or hips, which can rot flesh to the bone, and keep a person bedridden for months. It was complications from a pressure sore which, I believe, led to the death of the great champion Christopher Reeve.

Biospherix offered a new kind of “clean room”, the Xvivo Workstation, to allow perfectly sterile environments—and it appears to be separable, for ease of different projects. I have no idea if it is any good or not, having no expertise in that field, but it looked like it was something valuable, less cumbersome and space-consuming. 

Alain Vertes of Roche, the gigantic pharmaceutical company, spoke about his company’s recent purchase of Genentech, the biomed company. Roche has “prudent optimism” about regenerative medicine, he said. I had a chance to speak with Dr. Vertes later, and found out he has a son whose name, Romain, is very like my son’s, Roman. I told him our sons shared a name– and we shared a dream. 

It was interesting to me that Roche worries not so much about losing money by making a wrong investment, but the bigger fear is the loss of momentum, going in a wrong direction.

Devyn Smith of Pfizer spoke. He wrote a fascinating article in the book of the Summit, called “Creating Partnerships with Large Pharma?” which I read three times.

Dr. Smith stated that Large Pharma (and you don’t get much larger than Pfizer) needs to cooperate with the regenerative medicine movement for a very simple reason: it is in its best interests. This was important; people have suggested that the drug manufacturers might not want us to succeed, because they make tons of money selling medicines, whereas regenerative medicine is to fix people, not just maintain them in their misery. 

However… for the first time in decades, large Pharma is losing money….. a loss of 1-3% this year, if I understand correctly– why? Their time of patent exclusivity is expiring.

They need to find new ways to heal people… I recommend the article strongly. 

Representative Michael Castle (R-DE) was there! This dedicated man has been irreplaceable in the struggle to advance stem cell research. With Diana DeGette, Congressman Castle co-authored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, twice passed by Congress and the Senate– and twice vetoed by President Bush.

I was delighted to have the chance to say thank you to him publicly: when my son rises from his wheelchair and walks again, I will feel that Congressman Castle (R-DE) personally gave him a helping hand.  

Bob Klein, the Chairman of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee, (ICOC) was up next. Due to the nature of California’s stem cell program, (many public meetings!) I can often hear Bob speak, sometimes a couple times a week, but I never miss the chance; he always has something new to say.

Bob mentioned a recent press article claiming that a small number (perhaps 5%) of research buildings funded by CIRM might not be able to meet their construction schedules.  The article, said Bob, had it backward:

“In today’s economic climate, a 95% success rate is phenomenal!”

Did you know that in the past 2 years CIRM scientists have published 330 scientific articles in reputable journals? These are additions to stem cell knowledge, the scientific dialogue that must occur if we are to win.

Now some things about our stem cell program I have to hear several times before I can understand–over and over, until suddenly there is a sort of click when things fit together—like, oh, that’s what that means.

Recently, Bob has been talked a lot about the importance of stability of funding.

Usually, when he talks about bonds or money, it makes my eyes glaze over…

But this was different.

Remember when the CIRM provided $272 million for buildings, and donors contributed an additional $880 million…

“Why did those big donations happen now?”, Bob asked.

“That money was out there, waiting to be donated, perhaps sitting there for decades—why was it donated right now?” Bob asked.

Because, he said, for the first time, our stem cell program provided reliable funding:  a long-term commitment. Donors contributed so hugely because they wanted to be part of something lasting, that could make a difference.

Our research program will provide reliable funding for at least ten or twelve more years; it may even become a permanent institution. That was why the big-buck donors stepped up, because California’s program was not something that would vanish in the next budget battle. We have proved our staying power, and our funding source is reliable.

Maybe something similar should be done for the national government, making a reliable funding stream for regenerative medicine, not subject to the whims of politics…

New York’s stem cell program is also cause for pride.

The Empire State’s investment in stem cells is already paying off. New York scientists have developed what may be the world’s first patient-specific ALS cell line, a huge breakthrough in Lou Gehrig’s disease, so the progress of the disease can be followed in a Petri dish instead of a terminally ill person.

I thought of Jeannie Fontana’s mom, and my friend Jon Ames, who lost his son David to the terrible disease. Jon had taken his son all around the world, trying everything that looked even reasonably feasible: to no avail. Now, New York has brought us closer to the day when ALS will no longer be a death sentence.

New York also created a similar stem cell model of type 1 diabetes—and there are 26 million diabetics in America.

Think what this means, in money terms alone, if we found a cure! A person with type one diabetes faces annual medical costs of roughly $13,243. Without diabetes, that same person only pays about $2,540—by finding a cure, we save eleven thousand dollars per person—every year!  Nothing cuts costs like cures.

Susan Solomon of the New York Stem Cell program spoke on their decision to pay women who donate eggs.

Bravo, New York!

This is truly wonderful. When a woman donates eggs to help another couple have a child, she can be paid a significant amount of money, as much as $50,000. But if she wants to donate eggs to help save lives and ease suffering, she cannot be paid? That does not make sense to me. 

Rumor has it that Brooke Ellison (the paralyzed young woman Christopher Reeve made a movie about) worked hard on that issue, supporting New York’s courageous and principled stand. (Bernie, by the way, mentioned Brooke’s speech to the convention two years ago as the most moving advocate testimony he had ever heard.) I kept looking around for Brooke, but she could not make it this year.

Cure is for everyone, but no one deserves it more than those whose bodies have been crippled in service to the country: our soldiers.

An important panel discussion was held on Regenerative Medicine for Wounded Soldiers and Civilians—what happens to our brave young men and women when they are carried home wounded from the battlefield? What if there was a way to make them whole again, to re-grow their arms or legs? It is my understanding that the Defense Department has a $250 million dollar grant to try to regenerate limbs—but they are only allowed to use adult stem cells! This was begun under the Bush Administration, and I hope will be adjusted.

How is the rest of the world doing?

Linda Powers of Toucan Enterprises took us on a whirlwind tour of World Biomed.  When the website (www.worldstemcellsummit.com) has everything together, it would be valuable to look up her presentation, which shows you the other countries’ progress.  But in person her material was too interesting, and went by too quickly for me to capture it.

One speaker pointed out that Germany gets stem cell assistance from Israel. Is that not wonderful, that former enemies are now working together for the good of their people?

Germany also announced an official cooperation with the California stem cell program.  

Cancer researcher Dr. Curt Civin of Maryland was a pleasant surprise to me: plain-spoken and brilliant: he provided well-thought-out material, completely understandable.  Best known for his 1984 discovery of a way to isolate stem cells from blood, (for which he won the 1999 National Inventor of the Year Award) he reminded us of a crucial fact: the NIH funds 90% of all  biomedical research in the United States .

He pointed out the vital necessity of also keeping track of state efforts: quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “The states are laboratories of democracy”. He noted that 20 states have new stem cell laws under consideration, either positive or negative… 

JDRF received a richly deserved award. Every American owes a debt of gratitude to this hardworking organization; their advocacy underlines that we can only win as a field; that research funding and academic freedom benefits all, not just those with one condition. 

For grassroots advocacy, Danny Heumann accepted an award on behalf of Cure Michigan and Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures.  Michigan has worked so hard for its freedoms, and cheerful Danny was just the right person to share the joy.

Stanford’s Dr. Irv Weissman, bearded and burly, gave off a friendly warmth, like a woodstove stove in Winter. Often called the father of adult stem cell research, he is a tremendous advocate for scientific freedom.

Wise Young pointed out serious shortcomings in the Obama stem cell research funding policy—like that SCNT and parthenogenesis were not eligible for funding.

 “We must raise our voices, tell Congress and the President.  There is no law which prevents our funding…parthenogenesis, but the NIH is restricting itself…”

If a method of deriving stem cells is not effective, science will figure that out. But why should the NIH block something from funding—a political decision, not a scientific one? 

So much: so many good people, everywhere you looked, champions across the hall:  like Amy Comstock-Rick, President of CAMR, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research—and a dedicated advocate for Parkinson’s Action Network.

Dr. Jane Lebkowski of Geron had the unenviable task of speaking on a day when we were all dying to know what was going to happen with her company and the FDA and the spinal cord injury human trials of embryonic stem cells. She could not, of course, tell us what was going on; nothing must be allowed to jeopardize this great leap forward. But her excitement was clear, and her detailed knowledge of the subject and the field was exactly what was needed. My personal reading of the situation is that everything is moving forward exactly as it should: carefully, but expeditiously.

Peter Kiernan (of Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation) gave us the inside story of how the Christopher Reeve Act finally passed–hidden inside a land use bill! How sad, that something so wonderful had to be essentially tricked into being.

Kiernan also spoke on the CDRF’s important survey, revealing a staggering undercount of spinal cord injury—not two hundred fifty thousand people paralyzed with an SCI — but one million two hundred fifty thousand! That’s right. The previous estimate was literally short by a million people…

He spoke about the opposition, which he dubbed the “armies of the night”, better organized than we, and that advocates should learn to speak with a united voice.

He cited scientific progress—nerves have now been connected to muscle, which was once thought impossible, but now we are doing it—as embryonic stem cell research allows us to study spinal cord injury in a dish of saltwater, instead of a patient.   

Josh Basile is a soft-spoken new power in the advocate arena. Josh said a ocean accident paralyzed him, and took his voice– but he got it back through advocacy.

Sabrina Cohen brought a spark of glamour to the plain grinding hard work of raising funds for research. Her outfit recently raised $25,000 for Dr. Hans Keirstead, for example, targeted and effective funding. For more info, check out her organization at www.sabrinacohenfoundation.org. 

Maryland Patient Advocate John Kellerman, Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission, was fighting both Parkinson’s and cancer. His beautiful daughter stood beside him as he expressed a simple dream, that he might one day be able to dance at her wedding.

Lunch conversations with experts let the conversation continue on an up-close and personal basis—making friends and swapping business cards. (Hint: if you don’t have a card, get one made; you can do it cheaply on the internet, and you really need some.)

How about a World Premiere? The Summit was indeed the global premier of BioBusiness.TV, a ten-part series, “Stem Cell Review” starring top names in our field.

Passing in the hall was Dr. Steven Bauer, Chief of the Cellular and Tissue Therapy Branch of the FDA.  This is the man who oversaw the committee which decided if embryonic research was ready to go ahead.  As I had been concerned about what seemed to me unreasonable holdups on the stem cell human trials, I called up his office, and he was kind enough to spend time on the phone, patiently answering questions. We did not always agree, of course, (and he could not discuss the Geron project at all, which was appropriate)– but he is a genuine scientist, and a caring and dedicated public servant.

NIH’s Ann Hardy was present as an expert on health surveying and epidemiology, so we can know more precisely the nature of the diseases we are up against.

I had the privilege of speaking on an advocates’ panel—talk about great co-workers!

Ellen Arnold is one of the amazing Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research: working with TAMR, she volunteers so much time, people sometimes forget she is an actual lobbyist, supposed to be making a living at this. But if you spend a little time with her, you understand the depth of her commitment. Ms. Arnold spoke about the avalanche of anti-research legislation Texans have had to contend with for years.

Mary Wooley, President of Research!America, said much that resonated with the room; you could feel that tingle when speaker and audience connect.

We need to raise the overall awareness of science in America, she said. If you ask a citizen to name a scientist, they will usually think of Einstein, but after that…usually no one. How many movie stars, athletes, politicians can we name? Dozens. But folks whose work saves lives and eases suffering? We need to bring scientists into the public eye, as the fascinating people they are.

She spoke about the “Starbucks Test”. If you were to meet your Congressional Representative in Starbucks, drinking coffee–would he or she recognize you? Would they know what your issues are? As advocates, we need to be in such close contact with those who represent us, that they recognize us instantly

The third member of our panel was Howard Zucker, who served as an Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organization. An astonishing individual, as a college student he designed neurological experiments which were performed during astronaut trips to outer space. Several years ago, Dr. Zucker wrote a paper for the  Federal Working Group on Regenerative Medicine: Bernie Siegel regards  it as a blueprint for the emerging biomed industry. Now at last, it seems to be gathering the attention it deserves

When it was my turn to speak, I had fun, and hope the audience did not suffer too much.

I told how a line in the 1931 movie classic “Dracula” helped me sway some religiously fundamentalist relatives: “The blood is the life” is the line from the movie, but it originally comes from the Bible, Leviticus, Chapter 17, verses 11 and 14. We were at a big family reunion, and there came a deep hush when the subject of stem cell research came up. So, I did for them my Bela Lugosi Dracula imitation, ending with “the blood is the life…”—and then got serious, pointing out that there is no blood at all in stem cell research—no implantation in the womb, nor any child at all—and one interpretation of the Good Book verses is that, life begins when the blood flows in the veins. Since that does not happen until about the third week inside the mother, stem cell research would not be against Biblical teachings, because it does not take place in the womb. That argument worked with that audience. They looked it up in the nearest available Bible, verifying according to different translations—and that was it. 

I spoke about the need to support biomed, to encourage the new industry with governmental support and tax shelters, exactly as we did with the computer industry, which now employs millions

Biomed must think of itself as a new Defense Department, for it saves lives just as soldiers do—and it is the foundation of a new and permanent economy.

At Bernie’s request, I spoke on both “zero-budget” campaigns for stem cell legislation, (Roman’s law, which funded Dr. Hans Keirstead’s  work, now brought to human trials by Geron)  and a professionally-funded campaign (Proposition 71, California’s six billion dollar effort), which is of course far better– providing you can find the funding. There is, unfortunately, only one Bob Klein, to give his life savings to fund a campaign, and then work almost five years free as the new program’s chair.

Of course I spoke about Christopher Reeve, our movement’s champion. Not a day goes by, that I do not take strength from his courage and his wisdom. I read the line from his letter to our family: that one day he and Roman would “rise up from their wheelchairs, and walk away from them forever”.

Change did not come in time for Christopher. Our champion has fallen but the flame of his faith still lights our way; America—and the world– has taken up the torch.

In the question and answer period, Dr. Mark Noble stood up from the audience. White-haired and muscular, he looks more like a retired football player than the pioneer of stem cell research which he is. In 1983, he co-discovered the first precursor cell isolated from the Central Nervous System. In 26 years since, he has not only lived in the lab more than the average two scientists, but has often taken a stand politically, defending our research.

When he said he had a “difficult question”, I got a little nervous. After fifteen years listening to scientists, I can keep up if they talk slow—but a difficult question? I was wishing Dr. John McDonald was sitting up there beside me, so I could pass it off to him!

Then came the question: what can scientists do better, to assist advocates?

“Keep doing what you are doing”, I said: “As advocates, we support scientists, so you can do what we cannot.” Scientists are doing the impossible with the invisible, using microscopes to find ways to fight incurable disease.

But– there are also chores no scientist wants, but which must be done nonetheless.

First:  be involved politically; otherwise, those who know nothing will be making the decisions– like whether or not to allow research funding– or if it can be done at all.  For example, it bothers me to so often be the only member of the public to attend our California stem cell program meetings. Where are the scientists, at meetings which may decide the destination of literally hundreds of millions of dollars?

Second: talk small. People process new information at about an 8^th grade level: Junior High School level. If you are talking at the Doctoral level—maybe the equivalent of a 20^th grade education—we will not understand you. The finest idea in the world cannot be supported, if it is not clear. Grab your local teenager, and explain your project to him or her. If they run out of the room, that is a clue; your presentation might need work.

Three, we must help each other. Ellen Arnold was kind enough to mention a small favor I was able to help with: on a crucial Texas stem cell vote, she asked me to locate ten scientists who could “talk people” and who would make phone calls to Lone Star lawmakers. I was able to hook her up with scientists, and one of them—the great Dr. Larry Goldstein of San Diego—was so amazingly kind that he actually flew to Texas, and spent time with a key legislator. That legislator’s vote meant the difference; a cruel and short-sighted law was defeated.

Texas is still free. The research we support is still not funded—not yet—but because of the work of Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research, the opposition has not been able to criminalize it. People like Joe and Nina Brown, literally breaking their own health, fighting for research which will benefit others. They will prevail.

One day, Texas will be a center of world biomedicine, and it will be, in large part, because of TAMR.

I want to close with a story about Bernie Siegel’s wife. Lovely Sheryl is a dear person, always with a smile to share. I thanked her once for sharing Bernie with the world, because it has to be difficult sometimes, Bernie being so involved with all the endless chores he does. She just smiled and said, “You’re welcome!”

But this particular incident happened at the awards ceremony dinner, when we were all leaning back, our bellies full of good food, our minds jammed with more information than we could process at the moment. I was just looking around to see I could wangle an extra dessert… (no, I didn’t get it; they were wise to me).

Sheryl walked up to the microphone, tapped it to make sure it was working.  She said that several months ago (March, I think) she had wanted to have a birthday party for Bernie– who had declined.  

“How can I have a party?,” he said, “My friends live all over the world, who could I not invite?” 

Which is of course perfectly true. International Bernie lives on a plane more and more these days, speaking, networking, making friends for the cause wherever he goes.

So Bernie put his foot down, and said no. As any good wife would do, Sheryl ignored him—and brought a little cake with candles to the stage.

 “This is Bernie’s birthday party,” she said, holding up the cake; “You are his friends.”  

The ruckus we raised let her know she had that right.

The World Stem Cell Summit was indeed a party—and a wonderful way to celebrate Stem Cell Awareness Day.

And,  there is a present waiting for you—the  entire conference will soon be available online, free, at:  www.worldstemcellsummit.com. 

P.S. A special advocate shout-out to Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, who was just named a Nobel Prize winner for her work with telomeres, the basis of embryonic stem cell research. Readers of this column will remember her as the member of the Bush Presidential Bioethics Commission, who was removed from that body, apparently for her continuing strong support of research not favored by that President.

Thank you so much, Dr. Blackburn, and congratulations from the millions of people who will benefit from your work.

Did You Forget Stem Cell Awareness Day?

DID YOU MISS IT?   DID YOU FORGET STEMCELL AWARENESS DAY?

 

Don’t worry, it’s not too late—September 23^rd  has not happened yet, you still have a couple days to get ready—to join America, Canada, Germany, Spain, Australia and many more states and nations in  celebrating one of the greatest hopes for happiness in the course of human history.

 

When a hero saves a life—a drowning child, let’s say—the world cheers. 

 

But stem cell research may save the lives of millions.

 

That is worth noticing!

 

Do this, please: send a note to stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov, and tell them how you celebrated Stem Cell Awareness Day. Want some suggestions how to mark it?

 

Maybe, make a phone call to a loved one who is ill; we all owe a phone call or two in that area—that not only warms their hearts, but also keeps fresh in our minds the reason we fight, so every family may have access to the best medical treatment science can develop.

 

Or donate to a favorite patient advocacy group, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, or the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, or another group which supports stem cell research? (My friend Karen Miner’s group, Research for Cure, will be having their annual fundraiser on the 26^th, btw, if you are in the Sacramento area, drop by—Google Research for Cure for details—this worthy group supports spinal cord injury research for cure at UC Irvine.)

 

Invite some friends over for snacks and make a big sign, SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, put it someplace prominent to start the conversation.

 

Or maybe just visit the CIRM website—or the brandnew CIRM Flickr newsfeed—or hunt for CIRM on Youtube….

 

But in some way, large or small, consider taking note of stem cell research.

 

Last year was the first celebration—let’s make this one bigger…..

 

Here is some of the latest news on how the world is coming together on this vital issue–  and there are rumors of much more!  (WWW.STEMCELLDAY.COM)

 

Also, you can always visit the CIRM website (www.cirm.ca.gov) to keep in touch—but first, breaking news that still another nation, Germany, will be celebrating stem cell awareness by linking arms with California, working together to find cures.

 

 

“San Francisco, Ca., September 17, 2009—The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the state’s stem cell agency, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) announced today an agreement to collaborate on stem cell research. 

The agreement was signed today at CIRM headquarters here by BMBF State Secretary Frieder Meyer-Krahmer and Alan Trounson, president of CIRM.

CIRM and the German ministry are laying the foundation for joint research projects to advance stem cell therapies for treatment of some of today’s most debilitating diseases.  Late last year, a group of Californian and German researchers met in San Francisco to discuss various areas of mutual interest. The exchanges at that meeting suggested that collaborative work in a number of areas could be particularly fruitful, including the study of immunology. With today’s agreement, the initial avenue for collaboration is likely to be the CIRM Stem Cell Transplantation and Immunology request for applications, which will be posted in November.

…The agreement will make it easier for researchers in California and Germany to obtain joint funding to broaden the potential pool of expertise that can be applied toward research in a specific area.  It is expected that researchers in both jurisdictions will be invited to form teams that will apply jointly for funding through a process that builds upon routine CIRM and BMBF procedures. For those that are approved, CIRM will fund the California researchers and BMBF will fund the German researchers.

“The survival of many patients with severe diseases has been facilitated by the great progress in medical technology in organ transplantations as well as in specific replacement of cell, tissue and organ functions based on innovations of regenerative medicine. Increasing demand in this area is foreseeable. Intensive work is therefore required on further innovative development in regeneration” said Germany’s State Secretary Meyer-Krahmer.

“California was the first state in the nation to support and fund stem cell research, and now we are expanding our commitment to finding therapies for chronic diseases with yet another international partnership,” said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “There are brilliant minds all over the world, especially here in California, and with collaborations like this we can help ensure that potentially life-saving breakthroughs can come more quickly and more often.”

The long-term objective of the collaborative research is to better understand the mechanisms of regenerative processes in order to develop improved therapies and to clarify the potential risks of using stem cells or their derivatives as therapy. Research in this area is of course only possible within the corresponding national legislation depending on the funding body and location where the research is carried out. In the future, these newly developed therapies will enable a more comprehensive biological replacement of organ function, in particular in areas where transplantation is currently not possible.

CIRM and BMBF are discussing other potential collaborative activities including workshops, symposia, exchange of researchers, and young scientist training opportunities.

Germany’s science and industry sector takes a leading position internationally in regenerative medicine. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Science Foundation (DFG) prepared the ground for this by investing 230 million Euros since 1990 in research in this field.

 “Germany is a world leader in biomedical research,” noted Robert Klein, chairman of the CIRM governing board. “Germany will now join five other nations—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Spain and Japan—as a partner with California in accelerating critical stem cell research to relieve the suffering of patients and families throughout the world.” 

CIRM currently has similar agreements with the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium of Canada, the State of Victoria in Australia, the JST in Japan, the MICINN in Spain and the MRC in the United Kingdom.

 

And—a message on Stem Cell Awareness Day from CIRM President Dr. Alan Trounson:

 

Mon, 09/14/2009

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., September 14, 2009 – On September 23, The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state stem cell agency (CIRM) will mark Stem Cell Awareness Day in partnership with research institutions, patient groups and educators around the world.

In a statement urging people to mark the day, CIRM president Dr. Alan Trounson declared “Stem cell science is advancing at as fast a pace as it is in large part because of pressure from grass roots campaigns that have created momentum to secure government funds for research and challenged researchers to think differently about the pace of bringing basic discoveries to the clinic. Stem Cell Awareness Day was created as a way to spread information and excitement about this field and to fertilize those grass roots to keep the pressure on everyone to further accelerate the field.”—Dr. Alan Trounson, President, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

 To mark Stem Cell Awareness Day in California, CIRM grantees are visiting some 40 high school science classrooms throughout the state as guest lecturers. More than 2,500 high school students are anticipated to participate in presentations by stem cell scientists on September 23. High school life science teachers in California who are interested in having a stem cell researcher visit their classroom as a guest lecturer on September 23, should contact CIRM at stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov.

 CIRM is also sponsoring a Stem Cell Awareness Day poetry contest. Entries are welcome from anywhere in the world. The winner (or winners) will receive a framed stem cell image of their choice from those on the CIRM Flickr photostream. The winning poem(s) will also be posted on the Stem Cell Awareness Day and CIRM Websites and may be printed in the CIRM annual report. Poems of 250 words or less that relate to the subject of stem cell science should be submitted by September 15th to stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov.

 

Stem Cell Awareness Day Activities

In addition to activities being organized by CIRM, numerous activities and events are planned for the day that aim to foster greater understanding about stem cell research and the range of potential applications for disease and injury. Please visit www.stemcellday.com for the most current list of activities. Planned activities include.

The World Stem Cell Summit is taking place in Baltimore September 21-23 and will note Stem Cell Day on the 23rd.

Monash University, Australia, is hosting a Webcast linking international stem cell scientists. Video seminars and live Q&A by leaders in the field addressing a wide range of topics related to stem cell science and clinical advances. For more information, visit: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/miscl/scad09.html

NYSTEM, New York State Stem Cell Science is sponsoring a stem cell image contest and a public screening of “Terra Incognita: Mapping Stem Cell Research. Visit http://stemcell.ny.gov/ for more information.

 
The Canadian Stem Cell Foundation and Canada’s Stem Cell Network is launching The Stem Cell Charter, a major global outreach initiative to build a grassroots following of stem cell science supporters, on Stem Cell Awareness Day. Sign the Charter – Renew the World: The Stem Cell Charter is an interactive, web-based document that affirms the importance of stem cell science to all humanity. It forms the basis of a growing community of scientists, community leaders and the public who believe in the importance of stem cell science, and are lending their voice, time or other resources to champion the stem cell cause. Sign the Charter at stemcellcharter.org Choose and personalize your very own cell, and tell the world why you support this vital area of research. Watch the Rock Star Scientists video as well as mini videos about research that’s going on in the field.

The Parkinson’s Institute, Sunnyvale, CA (www.thepi.org) – is hosting a public talk on Parkinson’s disease. Learn about the latest developments in Stem Cell Research from leading authorities in the field, and how these developments are helping us understand Parkinson’s disease. Contact: mchavez@thepi.org or 408.734.2800

UC Davis, Davis, CA – is hosting Huntington’s Disease and Stem Cell Research Presentations from 5:30 to 6 p.m. at the UC Davis Institute for Regenerative Cures facility tour, presented by: Dr. Jan Nolta and featuring patient advocate testimonies. A tour of the UC Davis Institute for Regenerative Cures will follow, beginning at 6:00 p.m. followed by a hands-on tour of Dr. Nolta’s lab, beginning at 7:15 p.m.; Contact: Charles Casey (916) 734-9048

The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA – is hosting an open house lab tour (reservations are required) of the Stem Cell Shared Laboratory and Training Center. 1:30 – 5:00 PM. Space is limited, please contact: suzanne@scripps.edu (619) 804-3620 to reserve a spot.

UC Irvine, Irvine, CA – The UC Irvine Sue and Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center.
Open House for K – 12 Educators, 4:00 – 6:00 PM – Meet UC Irvine scientists and listen to a panel discussion on cutting edge stem cell research in Aging and Alzheimer’s disease. A tour of the stem cell research laboratory will follow. 101 Theory, Irvine, CA. Contact Lila at stemcell@uci.edu for more information.

About CIRM CIRM was established in November, 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. To date, the CIRM governing board has approved 307 research and facility grants totaling more than $781 million, making CIRM the largest source of funding for human embryonic stem cell research in the world. For more information, please visit www.cirm.ca.gov. 

 

And now, folks, I have to get ready to go back to the World Stem Cell Summit—it will be sooooooo much fun—and we will of course be celebrating Stem Cell Awareness Day!

Happy Stem Cell Awareness Day!

 

 

America Steps Up: anti-stem cell suit to be dismissed?

AMERICA STEPS UP—MOVE TO DISMISS ANTI-STEM CELL LAWSUIT?

 By Don C. Reed

 As you know, a lawsuit was recently filed to block our country’s national stem cell program, to deny federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.  

 Yesterday, September 14, America responded to that lawsuit.

 A motion was just filed to dismiss the case of James L. Sherley, et al, versus Kathleen Sebelius, et al. If the judge in charge agrees with the motion, the lawsuit is gone.

 The request for dismissal is 67 pages long, and I have only read it twice. But first impressions are that it is solid.  

 Personally, I intend to hope for the best, and plan for the worst: to stay informed.

 Here are a few scattered quotes* from the request for dismissal:

 (regarding plaintiffs’ claim that the Guidelines are contrary to law, as per the Dickey Wicker Amendment) “In the Guidelines, NIH explained that, consistent with the definition of “embryo” in the Amendment, stem cells are not embryos.” (emphasis added-dr)

 “…The plaintiffs…(who are suing to block the research on grounds that they suffered irreparable damage by the new stem cell Guidelines) are unable to allege any concrete injury that any of them has suffered or would suffer from the issuance of the Guidelines, relying instead on speculative predictions of potential indirect effects…on the behavior of third parties…”

 “…public funding of (human embryonic) stem cell research was first authorized by President Bush in 2001, has been occurring now for almost a decade….”

 “…(Plaintiff) is foreclosed by existing case law from raising the rights of the class of embryos that it seeks to represent, as “embryos” do not have enforceable rights as “persons” under the law…”

 (regarding the alleged preference for embryonic over adult stem cell research) “..NIH remains committed to the funding of adult stem cell research at a very high level. NIH estimates that funding for non-embryonic stem cell research will continue to increase through 2010 to approximately $311 million, over three times that of the projected total for hESC funding…”

 “Ultimately, plaintiffs (adult stem cell researchers) Sherley and Deisher ask this court to grant them standing based on their desire for a partial economic monopoly (emphasis added—dr) over competition for federal funding of stem cell research…”

 “Had Congress intended to prohibit all funding for research involving hESCs… it could have done so expressly…”

 “If the term “research” must be read to include all acts that necessarily preceded the hESC rsearch project for which federal funding is sought, or research that might ultimately flow from the project, then it is hard to see where the dividing line might be. Science is a continuum, where past advances in cell biology made derivation of stem cells possible, and where new advances might alter those techniques.  The plaintiffs’ broad reading of the term “research” in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment suggests that all such research should therefore also be prohibited, a result that should not be entertained by this court.”

 “Congress has expressly interpreted Dickey-Wicker to permit federal funding for stem cell research that is “dependent upon” the destruction of embryos…. (“The Committee continues a provision to prohibit the use of funds… concerning research involving human embryos. However, this language should not be construed to limit federal support for research involving human embryonic stem cells…”

 “…There are a multitude of parties who would be substantially injured if the Guidelines were to be enjoined. Millions of people suffer from serious ailments, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and type 1 diabetes, for whom hESC research holds out the promise of treatment. These people have waited years for federal restrictions to be lifted for research into potentially life-sustaining treatment….”

 “There is a strong public interest that “artificial limitations on scientific inquiry” be removed, in order “to enhance the contribution of America’s scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind….”

 “Defendants respectfully move to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)1 and 12(b)6….

 “Respectfully submitted,

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,

Channing D. Phillips, Acting United States Attorney,

Sheila M. Lieber, IL Bar No. 1567038, Deputy Director…

United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

 We do not know the outcome yet. Merely because our side has presented a strong case for dismissal does not mean we are going to win.

 But for me, what sums up our side up best was an email I received from a friend.

 Kavitha B. has a son, Pranav, with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. SMA is a condition generally fatal before the child turns three. Pranav is four. Every time he has a cold, his mom sits in a chair beside his bed all night, literally fighting for her son’s life, trying to keep him alive.

 This mother of a suffering child was angered that blastocysts are called (in the lawsuit) “minor persons”, with rights taking precedence over real-world children needing cure.

 She said: “”They (the plaintiffs) are all welcome to come to my house and see for themselves, and compare those “minor persons” lives to that of my child. They should live in his shoes (or rather lie in his bed because that is what he does all day as he is paralyzed) and then talk about the rights of blastocysts…”

 But the truth is on our side. As Christopher Reeve always said, we will “go forward”, despite all obstacles.

 And we will prevail.

 *all quotes from: Case 1:09-cv-01575-RCL Document 22-2  Filed 09/14/2009

AMERICA’S STEM CELL PROGRAM THREATENED BY LAWSUIT

AMERICA’S STEM CELL PROGRAM THREATENED BY LAWSUIT

 By Don C. Reed

 A lawsuit is being brought against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as well as the NIH and HHS as public agencies.

 The suit attempts to block the new stem cell research Guidelines, and to end federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

 Here is my layman’s understanding of the case.

 First, the Plaintiffs, and why they feel they have “suffered irreparable damage” by the new Guidelines, and claim standing in the case: 

 Dr. James L. Sherley and Dr. Theresa Deisher are adult stem cell researchers, who allege they will be injured financially if limited federal dollars are diverted to embryonic stem cell research, resulting in less funding for their area of specialization.

 Nightlight Christian Adoptions describes itself as a non-profit which “protects human embryos conceived through In Vitro Fertility procedure”. They claim injury through decreased number of embryos available for “adoption” from the new stem cell guidelines; they claim guardianship of Plaintiff Embryos, (some portion of roughly 440,000 in storage at present, plus more in future), describing said blastocysts as “minor persons”.

 Shayne and Tina Nelson, William and Patricia Flynn, are clients of Nightlight; guidelines would allegedly jeopardize the likelihood of embryos being available for their adoption.

 The Christian Medical Association is a group “opposed to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and (which) expends approximately $300,000 a year…”(opposing the research). They claim potential financial injury, that the Guidelines would require them to spend “significant resources” to continue their efforts to oppose “illegal public funding of embryo research.”

 Behind the suit are various conservative religious lobbying organizations, including the Alliance Defense Fund.

 Plaintiff’s law firms include: GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, and Law of Life Project, Advocates International, Springfield, Virginia.

 Defendants:  Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the HHS: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, and the NIH.

 Personal Opinion: Among the unnamed defendants should be every American family with a child or adult suffering a disease or disability the research might alleviate.*

 Claim: Plaintiffs allege that the NIH embryonic stem cell research guidelines should be blocked, and federal funding denied, because, in their view:

 1. The Guidelines violate the Dickey Wicker Amendment because the research “requires the destruction of living embryos.” The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is found in the Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009, an annually attached rider.

 2. Violations are claimed of the Administrations Procedures Act, charging prejudicial treatment of issues involved during the public comment period for the new Guidelines; plaintiffs claim insufficient time allowed for comment; further, their belief that neither consideration for, nor adequate response to, said comments was provided. They claim the NIH “abdicated its duty to exercise reasoned decision making and issue fair and informed rules.”

 3. Plaintiffs charge “arbitrary and capricious action”, because they feel the NIH dismissed the value of research which claimed superiority of adult stem cells (ASC) and induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs) over human embryonic stem cells (HESCs).  ”

 4. Plaintiffs feel the guidelines fail to properly inform potential blastocyst donors of the alleged superiority of non-embryonic stem cell research, nor of the opportunities to put un-needed blastocysts up for “adoption”, nor of the states which oppose embryonic stem cell research, (which may place donors in violation of the law) and how these laws may be undermined by the new regulations. Plaintiffs question whether donors may have the legal right donate blastocysts to “hazardous biomedical experiments.”

5. Plaintiffs claim conflict of interest between fertility clinics and scientists, stating the latter may be able to manipulate the donation process by encouraging a donor to have more eggs fertilized than necessary, thereby benefiting the researcher.

 Goal of Lawsuit: Plaintiffs seek an order declaring: the new guidelines are contrary to law, were promulgated without proper legal procedures, and constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action. They seek to block the promulgation of the Guidelines—and prevent the United States government from funding embryonic stem cell research.**

 *For example, my paralyzed son Roman Reed and I are among the many millions of families directly affected by the outcome of this suit. If research which could alleviate my son’s condition is delayed, he suffers; and as someone who helps provide my son’s home health care needs, I am also affected. We would both suffer irreparable damage if research toward a potential cure for paralysis was blocked.

 **Section VII, PRAYER FOR RELIEF, Paragraph 79, section c: “Enjoining Defendants and their officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Guidelines, or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells…” (emphasis added—DR)

 There it is, folks.  As you can imagine, this will be vigorously contested. With an estimated one hundred million Americans suffering chronic illness or injury, what may well be the greatest medical advance in history is not going to casually be denied research funding.

 I am not responding to the suit yet, other than to raise awareness of its existence, because I hope to be allowed to provide testimony in the case. There are answers to every charge the plaintiffs make, but the timing of the answers may be important. If I can help within the case, I will be glad. If not, I will do as I have always done, and report on the action to you, the family of advocates, through this small column. 

 By for now, and don’t forget—September 23^rd is Stem Cell Awareness Day!  (Read earlier weblog entry for details.)

Hugs to all, and I hope to see some new friends and old at the World Stem Cell Summit, one week from today!

 Best,

 Don C. Reed

On Disassembling the Eiffel Tower– and the California Stem Cell Program

 

 

ON DISASSEMBLING THE EIFFEL TOWER– AND  THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM?

By Don C. Reed

On a subway to the Eiffel Tower, I had my wallet lifted.

It was Gloria’s and my 40^th anniversary, and we were celebrating it in Paris.   

It was our last day of the 5-day trip, and we were exhausted, financially, physically and emotionally; our credit cards whimpered, knees ached, brains were overloaded with beauty.

We had seen so much. Monet’s gardens, lily ponds so lovely, I got lost and almost missed the tourbus; the Louvre museum, five football fields long of art treasure including Napoleon crowning his wife as the Pope sits by ignored and infuriated; the Musee du Branlee, with its amazing exhibit on Tarzan of the Apes; a sidewalk café by a gold-plated statue of Joan of Arc, the shimmering visual ecstasy of Hall of Mirrors.

But Gloria wanted one more present for the grandkids, and  I wanted one more look at that incredible Tower, built by Augustus Gustave Eiffel, in 1887.  

The train was jammed. Gloria got the last seat. Standing, I somehow became surrounded by four beautiful dark-skinned women, who seemed to know each other, although they did not speak. The smallest one of them smiled shyly… The jolt of the train pushed her closer to me, so that we almost touched.

I studied the tourist booklet.

Both the Eiffel Tower and the California stem cell program had begun as temporary.

The Tower was built for the 1887 World’s Fair, after which it was to be destroyed. A condition in its contract was that it must be easily disassembled.

Some Parisians hated the tower. It was physically taller than the churches, and some called it anti-religion. Artists dubbed it a “tragically-designed lamp post”, or “an odious column, whose shadow blots our fair city.”

A campaign was launched to destroy it, backed by Alexandre Dumas, author of the Three Musketeers. Another great writer, Guy de Maupassant, hated the tower so much, he reportedly ate lunch there every day—because, he said, because it was the one place in Paris where he would not have to look at the eyesore.

The tower would have to come down– but the designer had looked ahead. Mr. Eiffel hunted continuously for ways to show the Tower’s practicality. The monument was saved because the new science of radio-telegraphy. What was then the tallest building in the world made a wonderful radio transmitter.

And then– World War I.

The Germans were closing in on Paris. Relief soldiers had to be gotten to the front, quickly—radio signals from the Tower coordinated a wave of taxi cabs. That single action prevented a quick victory for the enemy.

The war devastated France. Almost an entire generation of young men, was wiped out in a single horrific encounter, Verdun, called the most terrible single battle of all time.

And when the second World War arrived, it burst upon a still-weakened France.

Once more the Eiffel Tower became a symbol of defiance. Their country overrun by the Nazis, resistance fighters cut the cables to the elevators, denying Adolph Hitler his moment of triumph at the top of the tower. And when the Nazis did manage to hang their odious flag from the symbol of Paris, a brave resistance fighter climbed the tower, and tore that swastika down, replacing it with the French flag.  

In 1944, frustrated Adolph Hitler ordered the Tower (and indeed all of Paris) to be destroyed, but a Nazi General, Dietrich von Choltitz, to his everlasting glory, refused…

 

I felt the strangest itch, a tingling at the front of my left thigh, where my wallet resided.

I pivoted, saw a small brown hand jerk back from my pocket, disappearing up a   voluminous sleeve, like a gopher returning to its hole. My billfold, luckily, had been jammed crosswise in the pocket, and was still there.

What to do? I bore them no ill will. How miserable a life must be, if the only way you could get by was to steal from other people.  Besides, I had seen on TV that if you did make a big fuss, the thieves were ready for that and would scream and yell right back, embarrassing me more than I would them.  

So I called to my wife Gloria, waited till she was looking at me, then raised my hand above the crowd, pointing a finger toward each of the four. 

“Remember their faces,” I said.

The women glanced at each other.

The doors hissed open; they were gone.

Suddenly, there it was, the Eiffel Tower, dark brown in color, earthtones, reaching upward, soaring to the sky.

And halfway up the side, a tiny bump which was a person, mountain-climbing the Tower. We took his/her picture, and Gloria shopped, while I just stared, up and up and up.

An architectural marvel. Nervous that the wind might bend it, the government had charged Eiffel with full responsibility. If a piece fell off… he would have to pay for it. But the Tower was designed, “to takes the shape of the wind itself”, its maker said, and it merely swayed, adjusting, not warping.

Superbly strong, but delicate, a lacework of metal; if you melted it, the entire 1000 foot high creation would make a puddle no wider than the base—and just three inches thick.

 Six million people a year visit this most romantic structure.

I could not help thinking: what if the Eiffel Tower had been destroyed, according to the terms of the original contract?

What a loss that would have been. In financial terms alone, more than two hundred million paid admissions since then, all gone, and  the accompanying tourist dollars.

And its value in beauty, how it lifts the soul of humanity? That cannot be measured.

Like the Eiffel tower, the California stem cell program was originally built to be temporary, to last  only as long as its $3 billion dollars of its funding: its bond sales.  When the money ran out, so would the program.

At two hundred ninety-five million a year, the life of the program would be about fourteen years: with the addition of the loan program, maybe seventeen.

Or–? Is there to make this a legacy for California?  

Bob Klein, chair of the program, recently said that our state might wish to fund another round of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the CIRM.

What do you think about that? Maybe ten years from now, go for another three billion?

Or is there a way to maintain or increase the funding we have right now?

Remember matching funds? When institutions wanted some of our money to make a stem cell building, they had to provide part of the money themselves.

We (California) got almost an extra billion dollars that way: $880 million.

Could we do something similar for all our grants from here on?  Set up some kind of  a matching grant requirement for anybody wanting money?

We would not want to make it too burdensome on the scientists. The idea of the CIRM is to help them, not to make their lives more difficult.

But if everybody wanting a grant from the CIRM had to dig up some money to contribute to (let’s call it) the “Longevity Pool”, matching grant funds might help keep the program going on a permanent basis, so it could benefit California forever.  

Now I don’t pretend to understand money.

But I can recognize something wonderful, and the CIRM is that.

We know, for certain, that the problem it was built to fight has not gone away.

Chronic disease and disability is bankrupting America. The inability to pay health care costs is cited as the number one reason for home foreclosure. We spent more last year on medical costs than we brought in from all federal income taxes combined. ($2.3 trillion medical costs versus $1.8 trillion total collections from federal income taxes.)

One in three Americans suffer chronic illness or injury, the modern equivalent of the Black Plague, which devastated Europe in the Dark Ages.

In America alone, we lose four thousand citizens every day to chronic disease:  the quiet equivalent of the September eleven massacre—every day.

Our people are dying, or suffering permanent injury, as surely as if they were in war; should we not defend them?

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is our way to win: a focused defense against chronic ailments: to ease suffering, save lives, and re-invigorate the economy. 

To let the CIRM end would be like disassembling the Eiffel Tower.

Great International Stem Cell Poetry Contest

THE GREAT INTERNATIONAL… STEM CELL DAY POETRY CONTEST!

By Don C. Reed, www.stemcellbattles.com

Dear Stem Cell Research Supporter:

First, consider sending this notice to everyone on your e-list. You’ll see why in a minute.

How are you going to celebrate the second annual Stem Cell Awareness Day, September 23rd.? (Hint: even if it is just that you wished your loved one a “Happy Stem Cell Awareness Day!”, be sure to send a note saying that to: stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov).

Folks, Stem Cell Awareness Day is our holiday; it is brand-new, only our second year. Last year, we celebrated only in two nations, America and Australia. This year we need to grow it, across the country, across the world.

Where? Everywhere. In every state or nation with people who might benefit from the healing powers of regenerative medicine—there is where we should raise attention to our cause.

In a moment, fifteen ways to celebrate: but first…

The Great International Stem Cell Day Poetry Contest!

This is something we are organizing here at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Don Gibbons and Ellen Rose are heading up the effort at CIRM; I am the enthusiastic volunteer.

What does that have to do with you? First, you support stem cell research. Second,
anyone who scribbles can throw a rhyme together—why not make one up to celebrate Stem Cell Awareness Day?

The THEME is: “What stem cell research means to me”. That is pretty broad: covers just about anything. Your poem could be fun, or serious. It could be about the agony of illness, the heroism of those who struggle on no matter what, and it definitely could be on the shining hope of cure.

LENGTH: It could be short as a couplet (two rhyming phrases) or as long as a page: (no longer, 250 words max, and only one poem per person, please.) Also, it should rhyme.

ATTITUDE: It must not be malicious, salacious or litigious — but a poem can let you say things you may have kept bottled up for a while, like:

“A pox on the enemies of research on stem cells,
May they get massive headaches, and have both their ankles swell!”

Um, well, moving right along…

Who can enter? Everybody. Patient advocates, family members, people who never thought about writing a poem, anyone who wants to try. Shakespeare is safe, we are not trying for literary masterpieces here.

And everybody will win. How so?

First, Don Gibbons, the indefatigable press agent for CIRM, says: “If we get a fair number of submissions from both scientists and patient advocates, there could be winners in multiple categories”.

AND—there will be prizes…nothing expensive, of course, just something small you will enjoy, and the very best poems will be printed in a CIRM official document, maybe posted on the web.

AND—you are guaranteed a place in our official stem cell endless poem!

Here’s how the “endless poem” works.

Everyone who sends in any poem will have something in our official endless poem. Maybe it will be a line from his/her poem, a phrase, a word, and/or their name, depending on the number of responses.

As official volunteer, I get to cobble representative phrases and/or author names into one loooooooong poem. (As a former English teacher, I have done this before, and it is perhaps not a literary achievement—okay, sometimes it is awful– but it is fun, and it can say something.

So, crank up your literary engines, and send your poem to: stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov.

Now. How else can we mark our holiday?

We want things easy, and doable. Think of the 4th of July. People have picnics, politicians make speeches. We can certainly do that!

Nothing spectacular: nobody has any money. (If you want spectacle, of course, go to the World Stem Cell Summit, September 21-23; Bernie Siegel has been working all year to make that event a standout; and it is still not too late to sign up; just google World Stem Cell Summit and you will find it at once.) Yet we must mark this day, in ways large and small, to rally awareness to the cause of cure—almost anything is better than silence.

Here are fifteen suggestions.

1. What about a Stem Cell Awareness Day backyard barbeque for friends? Everybody brings some food, sit around, gossip about whoever is not present. If you want to get fancy, hand out some one-page easy-reading fliers about the good news of stem cell research? (If everybody chips in a dollar, you just had a fund-raiser—and you could send the $10 or whatever it is to the group of your choice—they will be glad for donations of any size.)

2. What about a Stem Cell Awareness Block Party? Same as suggestion one, but with a couple home-made posters. (WANT MORE INFO ON STEM CELLS? Go to www.cirm.ca.gov, lot of good stuff there, plus if you go to Youtube and look up CIRM stem cells you will find plenty of visuals. Try: http://www.youtube.com/cirmtv

3. If you are a SCIENTIST, how about visiting your local high school, give a brief talk in a science class: nothing elaborate, just what you do, and your hopes for the future? Contact the principal of the school, ask him or her. Chances are, they will be delighted to have you speak!

4. Contact your local paper. Ask if they know that September 23rd is Stem Cell Awareness Day. They will say no. Then, ask if you could send them some materials– see below for your handy-dandy home-made press newsrelease!* They will almost certainly say yes. They might do an article on it—at very least, they can list the celebration of Stem Cell Awareness Day in their Announcements calendar.

5. Call your State Representative, or Senator, or Governor, ask him or her to issue a statement supporting Stem Cell Awareness Day, celebrating September 23rd official SCAD for your state. (They do this all the time, by the way, for industries important to their constituencies: there is Spinach appreciation day, etc. And it can vary year by year, so don’t worry about all the good days being taken).

6. Call your local college, ask if they have a stem cell science program, and if not, why not? Plant a seed!

7. Google “biomedicine” in your state, see how many companies there are in the Life Sciences in your area. Find a biomedical company (many of them are small right now, Mom and Pop companies, just starting off), ask if they give tours, or literature, find out a little about what they are doing. Stem cells are not only good, but good business too!

8. Join a patient advocacy group, one related to a condition whose cure you support. If you already belong to a group, ask the leadership to send an E-blast to everyone, reminding them that September 23rd is Stem Cell Awareness Day.

9. Help your newspaper write a story about your family member’s (or your) medical condition and your hopes for regenerative medicine. That is easily done. Make up the news release (see below), call the news desk, ask who does feature stories, talk a little bit, ask if you can send them a newsrelease—they are almost guaranteed to say yes (remember 70% of all newspaper stories are planted by someone outside, who calls up and requests the article.)

10. Write a one-page (250 words) family letter to the local newspaper, about your hopes for stem cell research—and reminding everyone that September 23rd is Stem Cell Awareness Day. And– SEND THAT MESSAGE (and this one, too, please) TO YOUR E-LIST.

11. Call your local radio talk show host, and make a comment on stem cell awareness. Ask them to do a show on stem cell research.

12. Contact the White House comment call number: (Comments: 202-456-1111) and remind President Obama that September 23 is Stem Cell Awareness Day—and thank him for keeping his campaign promise to reverse the Bush stem cell restrictions.

13. Paint a Stem Cells for Hope picture and send an electronic copy to CIRM.

14. Purchase a book about stem cells—nothing sends a message to publishers faster than a bought book—we need to encourage the sharing of stem cell information in every way.

15. Participate in the Great International Stem Cell Poetry Contest!

P.S. Here is a special message from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

Stem Cell Awareness day is about outreach and education. The purpose of Stem Cell Awareness Day is to:

• Deliver information to the public about the science of stem cell research
• Raise awareness of the current state of research across all types of stem cell science
• Convey the future promise that stem cell science holds for a wide variety of therapies and diagnostic applications

Events being planned include:

In California: For Students:
On Stem Cell Awareness Day, CIRM will facilitate approximately 50 high school classroom presentations throughout the state by CIRM-funded stem cell researchers.

For the Public:
CIRM is working with stem cell researchers who have received Early Translational grants and patient advocacy groups to organize several public education events. These events will focus on specific applications of stem cells in treating disease.

Internationally: CIRM is working with the countries and organizations it collaborates with to organize additional activities for Stem Cell Awareness Day. This can include a range of activities such as: Public proclamations, symposia and workshops, outreach events, patient advocacy events.

CIRM is developing and hosting a Web site for Stem Cell Awareness Day –
www.stemcellday.com Please contact us at stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov to have activities added to the site.

*SAMPLE NEWSRELEASE

Headline: STEM CELL AWARENESS DAY CELEBRATED BY LOCAL FAMILY

Contact info: Your name, phone number, email

Event: The ________family has a special reason for celebrating the second annual STEM CELL AWARENESS DAY on September 23rd. That reason is hope.

Background: (briefly state your personal reason for supporting stem cell research, in my case, I am the father of a paralyzed young man.)

Reason the article is important: Last year America spent $2.3 trillion on health care costs; 75% of that mountain of medical expense was due to chronic (incurable) illness. Nothing lowers medical costs like curing a disease.

Last year, for the first time, Stem Cell Awareness Day was celebrated in Australia and America. The ________ family hopes everyone who believes in the possibilities of regenerative medicine will consider celebrating Stem Cell Awareness Day.

The __________ hopes the special day will revitalize all families whose loved ones suffer, and who deserve access to the best medical treatment American science can provide.

For more information on Stem Cell Awareness Day, email stemcellday@cirm.ca.gov.

WHY WE FIGHT: Drew McPherson, and this Sunday

WHY WE FIGHT: Drew McPherson, and This Sunday

http://www.transplantfund.org/Restricted/patient-detail.cfm?pat_id=1725&CFID=9437781&CFTOKEN=54613637

If you click on the above, you will see a picture of my friend Drew McPherson.

Drew is intelligent, friendly, cheerful, determined, athletic— –and paralyzed.

He dived into a river, and struck his head on something underwater.

Just like that. Like turning off a lightswitch. One instant he was a young athlete, capable of anything physical, running, leaping, diving: the next, his neck was broken, the spine was damaged, and his body could not obey his commands anymore.

Suddenly, so many things he took for granted—dressing, showering, the bathroom—are not simple anymore.

But Drew is tough. He is exercising, continuing his college (trigonometry!) with a perfect 4.0 GPA; he is not sitting back waiting for a miracle. He is going on with his life.

Unfortunately, insurance will not cover his therapy, nor the equipment he needs to drive.

In a perfect world, this would be taken care of; but it’s not.

So, Drew is involved with a fund-raiser, a walk-a-thon. It is this Sunday. It is a professionally done affair, with the cooperation of the NTAF Southwest Spinal Cord Injury Fund, in honor of Drew McPherson.

No notice, I know. Also, we are all feeling the pinch financially.

But if you can chip in ten bucks, I will too. If you go to the website, you can click on the donate now button.

Or, send a check to his Aunt, Marsha Joyce, 7250 Walnut Drive, Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (Make the check out to her.)

Until there is a cure, there must be care. If we stick together, we are strong.

P.S. Here is a note from Andrew.

Update and second annual ice cream social and walk-it-off-a-thon august 9th

Dear family and friends

Some of you I have spoken to recently and others of you I am sorry to say I have not, though I have been thinking of many of you. Given this fact let me start by giving you all a brief update on the past year.
Last fall I increased my class load at American River College by taking trigonometry, public speaking, weight training, and practicing rugby Thursday nights and some Saturdays. Our rugby team attended our first tournament in Reno were we got destroyed but it was fun and we learned a lot. I was pretty stoked too because I won my room fair back with a dollar in the penny slots. On top of school I continued going down to SCI-FIT in Pleasanton on Wednesday. I have been riding down with Matt, a good friend from the rugby team and fellow shake a leg participant, which has been quite convenient. We have spent many long car rides reminiscing about how great “shake” was. Sadly the program had to close given the economic climate. I have also been working with Cody, a physical therapy assistant, on most Saturdays and Sundays to supplement the rest of my workout regime.
Our family spent a quiet Christmas at home which was a relief after a hectic fall schedule. When January came around I chose to further increase my class schedule which totaled 14 units. My schedule included pre-calculus, intro to US government, advanced composition and critical thinking, weight training, and a one-on-one program with an English professor working on writing and study skills. Rugby also continued and we held our first annual sacrament rugby tournament in January. The tenement was a lot of fun and we won our first game. I also have continued working out at SCI-FIT in Pleasanton and with Cody weekly. With this schedule it seemed that between working out and school I never left my room for studying, but it paid off in the end because I’ve been able to maintain my 4.0 GPA thus far in my college career.
By working out like a madman all year I have seen my overall strength improve which has enabled me to do more things for myself leading to my ultimate goal of independence. But in the last month I have seen a decrease which baffles both me and the doctors. Hopefully this will not be much of a setback in the long run. One goal that I spoke about last year which has not manifested as of yet is driving though I’ve made innumerable phone calls and gone to Chico to get a preliminary assessment for the van. I was told that to get the van setup so that I could drive, it would cost upwards of $16,000 which is down from $40,000. This is an additional reason why I have worked so hard to increase my strength to reduce the equipment I need and thus the cost for me to drive.
This brings me to the reason why I am writing you, to ask for your continued support as well as a sincere desire to let you know how I am doing and stay in touch with all of you who have so kindly supported me and my family through this journey. For this reason I am pleased to announce our second annual ice cream social and walk-it-off-a-thon. It will be held august 9th in Hagan Park, Rancho Cordova (the same place as last year but a more accessible site). There will also be a golden raffle with a grand prize of one weeks vacation acomidation to vertualy anywhere like mexico, hawaii palm springs. Flyers should be coming soon with more details so keep your eye out. I will be attempting to put this on on my own this year so if you are interested in helping, have ideas or suggestions please let me know.

Please pass this on to anyone you think might be interested.

Thank you for all your support.

Sincerely

Drew McPherson