What Paralyzed People Want

WHAT PARALYZED PEOPLE WANT

By Don C. Reed

Remember the old English legend about the man who had to find out (on pain of death) what every woman wants?

Hold that thought, please…

A few days ago, Gloria and I drove down to a paralysis support group meeting at  Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. An outstanding medical facility (a Center of Excellence in every sense of the word, though always short of funding) SCVM works with paralyzed people, both during treatment and, importantly, afterward.    

As every good meeting should, this one began with pizza. Everybody had two pieces of pizza (well, maybe somebody had more than his share, but nobody tattled on the former pizza-eating champion of Castro Valley High) and then we talked.

Gloria took notes, for which I am indebted. I always start off writing stuff down, but then I get excited and when I start to talk the pencil stops.   

With the exception of us and one or two attendants, everybody in the room was paralyzed. Gloria always says, “Look past the chair”, which is good advice, because it is the spirit of the person which determines him or her, but at this meeting life in a chair was the common denominator, and we were all linked by that experience.

One man, David, was leaving the medical center.

Soft-voiced Richard Patterson called the meeting to order, and then focused on David: asking him, did he have any concerns, or worries about leaving the center? 

I almost choked on my pizza. What a question!  Four months ago, David’s body had been healthy, normal. Then, the accident, and paralysis… But here at least there were nurses and therapists, doctors and friends in chairs, people who understood, and wanted to help. There were ramps, accessible bathrooms and showers.

Now, to leave an environment designed to meet his needs, trading it for a world which basically does not care—did he have any concerns? 

There was a long pause. 

But Richard waited patiently, giving David the interviewer’s gift of silent attention.

At last, David said, as a matter of fact, he did have some questions about flying—what was involved, for a paralyzed person on a commercial airline?

I thought about Roman, and what it took to get him on a plane. For one thing, he had to be lifted by two or three attendants and/or me, from his wheelchair into the narrow aisle chair. Then, for his own protection, they had to strap his legs together, which I hated. He was always cheerful about it, encouraging them as they took on the unfamiliar task. 

Practical tips came from all corners of the room.

The chair itself: make sure it gets on the plane! Single out an individual, get him/her involved, ask if they personally will make sure your only means of transportation gets safely stowed aboard. If the plane arrives without the chair, you are stuck in the airport. Once you are actually on board, ask another steward to go and double-check, make sure the chair was stowed. It must be securely fastened,  tied into place, a high-performance piece of gear must not bounce around loose.  At the far end of the flight, inspect your chair before you transfer into it; if it is damaged, complain immediately.

Toilet needs: plan ahead.  Wheelchair drivers can’t fit into narrow airplane bathrooms. Restrict fluids several hours before. Catheterize (inserting a rubber tube into the urethral canal) right before the trip. If you get caught short on the flight, ask for a blanket for privacy, put it across your lap, and “cath” yourself right there. For those with no hand use, the caregiver must travel in the seat beside yours.

Tonight’s main event speaker was a scientist, who planned to ask the opinions of paralyzed folks about a project he was working on. A great idea—but at the last minute he had to cancel.

Richard went ahead anyway. I got the impression that he was pretty good in emergencies, that he would go ahead with the meeting in the middle of a flood. Sure enough, he passed around copies of brainstorming tips from the scientist, questions about the project.  

Unfortunately– the brainstorming sheet was written in scientific-ese… for me at least, it was indecipherable.

If the scientist had been there to translate, maybe it could have worked—but it was full of sentences like: “MAP study felt to be unrealistic with sample size”.

I knew if Roman was here, (he was coaching his son’s basketball team) he would be asking one particular question—the same one asked every year at “Meet the Scientists Day”, at the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, held at UC Irvine. The scientists explained their projects, and that was fine. But also the scientists were there to listen to the people in chairs.

“If you had control over a scientist, what would you want him or her to work on?”

Richard was kind enough to let me ask that question of the group.

As always, the comments were direct, and stimulating.

“They could develop a personal ultrasound monitor, small enough to take along, let me know when the bladder is full”, someone suggested.

As always, bowel and bladder control was the most prominent concern. No one likes to be tied down by the needs of the body, two hours (and an attendant) just to use the toilet.

Which was more important, walking or gripping? Hand use, by far.

They were of course interested in the project closest to human trials: Dr. Hans Keirstead’s work with embryonic stem cells, differentiated into cells to re-insulate those in the damaged spinal cord. They knew this was only for “acutes” (new injuries, only a few days after the accident) and only for low injuries, broken backs instead of necks. (The latter may be changing, due to new data just presented to the FDA).

They wanted scientists to focus on chronic injuries, those who had been paralyzed for a while. This is crucial. 

Nobody stays acute. Every new injury becomes an old one, and that means chronic.

Suddenly, everything stopped. Above us was a thrum-thrum-thrum-thrum noise—a helicopter approaching. Someone said he hated that sound, because it meant the arrival of a paralyzed person: some one else whose life was now so monumentally challenged.

Like the young man I met here years ago, shot in a drive-by attack. Almost completely paralyze, he told me his goal in life was to be able to direct attendants how to take care of him. He could breathe and talk but that was about all. I wondered how he was doing. Was he still alive? Did he have the money to take care of himself?

The voices rose again.

Spasticity was a major concern: when the legs flail about, uncontrollably. When this happens to Roman, I am never sure what to do. Generally, I do as little as possible. If I was to tackle the legs, the violence of the struggle might pitch him off the chair. On the other hand, we did not want his foot lashing against a doorway or something.  So, was this something scientists should work to prevent, or was it valuable as a form of exercise?

Dysreflexia, when nerve messages blocked by the damaged spine cannot get through, and suddenly a wave of unforeseen consequences happen, perhaps including death.

Sexual function, one person said, and a wave of nods went around the room.

And then somebody said—

Politics.

Now, you cannot say stem cell politics in front of me and expect me to be silent. There are certain topics about which I must speak or explode.   

Naturally, I had to brag about the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. I told the good stuff, like that one billion dollars had already gone out in research, plus the program had already attracted another billion dollars in matching funds.

I pointed them to the website (increasingly powerful) www.cirm.ca.gov, where you could click on the “meetings” tab and find out when the next one was, and join us there.

They would be so welcome. Also necessary, if their views were to advance.

I go to as many of the meetings as I can, which is most of them, and I talk the way I eat pizza, which is to say enthusiastically—but often I am the only public person there.  

This wonderful program, dedicated champions of research working to advance the dream of cure—but the disability community all too often is not there.

“Nothing about us, without us”, a disability advocate once said, and that is a terrific sentiment, words to live by—but it also puts the responsibility on  people in chairs.

Suppose there is a hearing in the State Capitol about stem cell research. Somebody has to speak to the concerns of the enormous disability community.

I will go, of course, and so will Roman and Karen and two or three other stalwarts, when their health and schedule permits—but there should be dozens there, at least.

Roughly one American in five has a disability, either physical or mental—and these folks have families—when you stop and think, that’s pretty much everybody.

If the disability community was ever represented in anything like our true numbers, the government could never ignore us again

This ridiculous fight about health care would have been over before it began—like, duh, public option, that is a middle of the road option, not extreme—of course we will have it!

It took so few people to move a mountain.  If just the people in this room—maybe thirty– worked together, there was no limit to what they could accomplish.

I told them about Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research, (TAMR) and how a group of people no larger than this group had fought back against the anti-research forces—and had done so for years. Texas has a three billion dollar cancer program, and as we get closer to cures, it is only right and proper that some of that money should go to stem cell research. The opposition worked hard to deny that, putting in a clause that no embryonic stem cell research should ever be funded—but TAMR fought back, and left that door open to the future. Texas is still the most conservative state in the nation, probably, but one day they will get tired of denying their community the hope of cure. When they do, it will be because of a few patient advocates, themselves with health problems, but they would not sit home and be left out of the equation.

Everybody here had the paralysis mountain to climb, in addition to all the other problems everyone faces. It is tough—extremely tough—for even the most dedicated wheelchair warrior to travel.

But remember the story of the man who had to find out what every woman wants?

Finally, he met up with an old woman, bent and wrinkled, who said she would tell him the secret—if he promised to marry her. Seeing the alternative was execution, he said yes.

And she whispered the secret in his ear. Every woman wants–

Power. They want the same thing every person wants: control over their own destiny.

It is the same for people in chairs. Nobody wants charity, but everybody wants to control their own life—and that cannot be achieved individually.

Does the opposition fight alone? Never.

And neither should we.

The only way to advance is to organize.

Example: Remember when HIV/AIDS was considered an automatic death sentence?

What if the patients had just accepted what the doctors told them, that there was no hope? Nothing against doctors, of course, but they are mechanics of the body. As with an auto mechanic, there is more for a doctor to know than they can ever learn in a lifetime; they cannot be expected to know what scientists spend their own lives learning as well.

The people with HIV/AIDS got tired of being left alone to die, and so they got vocal. They and friends and family organized, and made noise systematically, until all of a sudden the reaction was: “Oh, no, here they come again—we better do something!”

Today, while there is still as yet no cure for HIV, there are medications available, and our friends have a chance at living– because the HIV/AIDS community got active.

We face huge decisions: like should we put protections of stem cell research into law? If not, what is to prevent an anti-research President (as I believe a President Sarah Palin would be, for instance) from doing damage? When Senator Diane DeGette and Representative Mike Castle come up with their new version of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, (twice vetoed by former President Bush) we must get that passed without delay.

Huge example: the National Institutes for Health  (NIH), is the ultimate source of research funding in our land. If we want the scientists to have the funding to fight for cures, the National Institutes of Health itself must be funded.

President Obama supports the NIH, bigtime. But we need to let him know we back his efforts. If we do not, there is a distinct possibility the NIH funding may be savagely cut. Remember, every leader works on consensus. He/she must balance the competing interests. And who are the competing interests? These are the folks who step up to the table and demand to be heard.  If we do not speak —we will be ignored.

Want something you can do right now? Here is a message from our friends at Research!America, whose sole purpose is to advance the research which will save lives and ease suffering. (They of course have no connection to any of my personal opinions; I just support their work, and so should every American family who wants the best medicine science can provide.)

I clicked on the following, which is set up so you can contact the President: took about 90 seconds to go to the website and send an email they have waiting there for you—so easy!

And vital.

 

Thank President Obama for Reprioritizing Science and Health Urge Him to Fulfill His Commitment to Research During this season of thanks, join advocates nationwide to express your gratitude for the recent revitalization of research. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has invigorated the research community after years of diminishing budgets for the National Institutes of Health. Please contact President Obama now to thank him for his recommitment to science and urge him to continue to make research a priority in Fiscal Year 2011. It is critical to strengthen the scientific and economic momentum generated by ARRA by making NIH’s new research capacity permanent. President Obama will decide what funding to recommend for NIH before the end of the year. Patients, scientists and other research advocates across the U.S. must demonstrate our collective support for his innovation strategy by sending a strong call to robustly invest in NIH.  Write to President Obama today!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska Stands up for Stem Cells– and Scientific Freedom

NEBRASKA STANDS UP FOR SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM!

 By Don C. Reed

 Moments ago, a Nebraskan, University Regent Jim McClurg, struck a blow for scientific freedom. I just had to tell you about it!

 Eight members on the board of regents. Four had authored a resolution to restrict embryonic stem cell research to only those few inadequate cell lines which existed before 2001—in other words to stop the research—at the only place in the state that could do it.

 Consider the pressure. The man’s phone number had been posted publicly by the Religious Right, which urged its membership to call Mr. McClurg, and “politely” (their word) convince him to vote the way the Religious Right demanded.

 But he would not bend. He voted against the resolution. He deserves the respect and appreciation of all who support research for cure.

 He and three other members of the board—thank you, Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons, Bob Whitehouse of Papillion, and Kent Schroeder of Kearney—all voted in favor of research for cure.

 The President of the College J.B. Milliken also spoke out clear and strong, which is extraordinarily difficult politically for a college leader: but he stood up for all of us.   

 Champion scientist Larry Goldstein set aside his crowded schedule, and came to Nebraska to speak with whomever would listen. If you have heard Larry talk, you know you have heard one of our field’s best advocates, and an outstanding human being.

 And fighting every step of the way, were the patient advocates: like my buddy Victoria Kohout—and Sanford M. Goodman, President of the Nebraska Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

 Mr. Sanford was kind enough to credit this column for spreading the word. He said that when he contacted other states to ask for information, they knew about the struggle, because they read it here. If so, I am very glad. If Nebraska wins, everybody wins.

 But this is Sandy Goodman’s moment, when he fought for Nebraska and the future of stem cell research.

 I want you to hear exactly what he said, when everything was hanging in the balance.

Chairman Schroeder and Regents; thank you for the opportunity to address you today.  I am Sanford M. Goodman, President of the Nebraska Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

You have heard that research institutions in six other states have prospered under more severe restrictions than in Nebraska and that the work of international scientific leaders suggests that we should focus all our efforts on iPS, a key premise of the proposed resolution.

Notwithstanding the fact that the state analysis is too simplistic to be meaningful, of the states cited, only Louisiana has research restrictions similar to those being proposed here, and the two stem cell biologists there that I spoke to anticipate building pressure to remove those restrictions.

Iowa and Michigan were listed as having had bans of some sort – and they were both lifted due to the negative impact on those states.  Virginia has a cloning ban but no restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.  Minnesota and Pennsylvania were incorrectly listed as having long-standing bans on the use of embryonic stem cell lines.

As for the international scientific leaders cited, make no mistake about it — none would support the proposed resolution.  Indeed, two who contacted us yesterday are appalled that their names were used in this context.

Two of them were interviewed for a current article, along with Shinya Yamanaka and another scientist, in which they unanimously describe the important, ongoing role for new embryonic stem cell lines in highly regulated, ethical research to alleviate suffering and save lives.  George Daley also emphasized this point in his e-mail to us.

Among others, you have received letters from James Thomson and Sir Ian Wilmut, the International Society for Stem Cell Research, representing thousands of stem cell researchers, and, just yesterday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest multidisciplinary science society, representing the interests of ten million scientists worldwide, and publisher of the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Science.  Every single one of them expressed their support for President Milliken’s position on this issue.

The evidence is overwhelming that the underlying premise of the proposed resolution is entirely without foundation.  It will hinder, not advance, the University’s biomedical research program.

The resolution will harm the university and I urge you to vote it down.

I will close with substantially the same words with which I closed when I first addressed this issue before the regents on September 7, 2001.

I noted then that some see the derivation and use of embryonic stem cells as a devaluation of life.  But everything about embryonic stem cell research is a celebration and affirmation of life.

Parents yearning for a genetic offspring create the embryos in the first place.  Scientists dedicated to the preservation and improvement of life seek the opportunity to apply their skills and efforts to the search for cures with the otherwise to be discarded remains of these excess embryos.  Parents and loved ones of those who suffer want only to see them restored to the full enjoyment of a long life.

I quoted Senator Orin Hatch then as declaring “that this research is consistent with bedrock pro-life, pro-family values.”  Last March he said, “I strongly believe that being pro-life means helping the living by allowing critically important and ethical medical research to go forward.  This research enhances, not diminishes, human life.”

Life is what this work is all about.

So I urge you to make it clear to the dedicated researchers throughout the University of Nebraska system that you recognize their commitment to life and support them in their efforts; that you will stand with them through controversy; that Nebraska will not shrink from its obligation to contribute its talents to this great and promising new era of medical research.

Thank you.”

And thank you, Nebraska.

NEBRASKA DECISION: Resolution to Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

NEBRASKA DECISION: Resolution to Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Friday, November 20^th, Religious Right forces will attempt to impose their beliefs on the state of Nebraska. If they win, embryonic stem cell research will be banned at the University of Nebraska, (NU)— the only place large enough to do the research.

As you know, right to life groups had already agreed to a compromise law: LB 606, signed by every legislator in that state, and which was supposed to have settled the issue.

In exchange for major concessions and advantages given away by the pro-research side (no SCNT or therapeutic cloning, also no new stem cell lines made in the state, even a half-million dollar annual grant given to the Religious Right’s research of choice, adult stem cell research) the religious right groups agreed to back off on further anti-research legislation.

It was a harsh law, very restrictive. But at least it was something (we thought) that would let the researchers work without fear of further harassment.

Unfortunately: as soon the anti-research forces got their law, they immediately shifted their attack– to the only place in the state that could actually do the research.

If they can block embryonic stem cell research at NU, they will have succeeded with their original goal of blocking the research in the entire state, and all this talk of “compromise” will be revealed as an empty joke.

 Technically, they did not break their word. Technically.

 But it reminds me of another joke: remember the one about the Russians and the Americans having an athletic contest?

 According to the story, the Russians had a two-way contest with America, some sports event with only two countries entered. Russia lost; America won.

 But the Russian press release said: “Russian athletes perform brilliantly, finish strong second. American athletes do terribly, finish next to last.”

 That press release was technically accurate. But its planned impact was otherwise.

 Similarly, the Nebraska Religious Right did not break its carefully worded official promise—like a nation which signs a peace treaty, promising to end its war of bow and arrows and then shifts to machine guns instead—but there was a point of honor here.

 The bill (LB 606) was supposed to settle the issue for the state. It was a compromise. It was carefully worked out, with the full involvement of the Religious Right groups in the state. It involved major restrictions on the research—but it could have been lived with.

 It was peace.

 And then the peace was violated by this new assault.

 Personally, although an outsider to the state, I supported LB 606. I thought it was a reasonable compromise, though at the very edge of acceptability–and I backed it. Every great step forward is a compromise, and I supported this one. I felt it might be even be a useful example, an olive branch between two sides.

 People in the middle can shake hands; extremists never can.

 And then this happens?

 Personally, if I were a member of the Religious Right, (which obviously I am not) I would be on the phone right now, recommending that the move against the University of Nebraska be stopped: because it poisons the well for chances for future cooperation.

But of course they are not taking my advice. Here is how they will try to block the research.

They essentially claim ownership of the board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. Before the election, the Right to Life groups passed out a form, detailing their positions. If you wanted their support (which may swing 5% of the votes in a close election), you must agree to their demands. Apparently, a majority signed that political agreement.

 Now, the Religious Right issued their commands:  ordering the board to ban the research—shutting down the research they could not defeat in law.

Four Regents, all of whom received the Right to Life endorsement, wrote the resolution.

Four of eight. One more vote, and they can impose their policy. Who is that one man? 

His name is Jim McClurg. Whatever he decides in the end, he deserves credit for courage. When offered a chance to co-author the resolution (and give it the fifth vote, which would have imposed it on the state) he declined, saying:

“There’s a lot of good people on both sides of this issue who have heartfelt opinions on it. I’ll decide once I’ve heard what everybody has to say.”

—World Herald Bureau, Leslie Reed, “Stem Cells to Face Vote”, November 13, 2009

The religious right is putting enormous pressure on Mr. McClurg. They have publicly posted his name, email, and phone number, and encouraged their members to call him.  This is dirty pool, political bullying of the worst sort.

How would you like to have a bunch of religious enthusiasts calling your home, day and night?

As for the resolution itself, it is two pages of rationalization, trying to put as good a face as possible on the theft of research from a state.

Here is the only part that matters.

“…no research with stem cells derived from human embryos may be conducted unless the stem cell lines used in the research were derived prior to 8 p.m. Central Standard Time, on August 9, 2001….”

In other words, defy the Obama NIH guidelines, and go back the Bush era restrictions.

This is an extremist position: out of touch not only with the beliefs of Nebraskans ( NU President J.B. Milliken estimates that between 2/3 and ¾ of all Nebraskans support embryonic stem cell research) but also with the State’s government, the official state policy, America’s current policy and much more.

If the board obeys the right-to-life command, they will be overriding a carefully worked-out policy signed by all 48 Nebraska state legislators (Democrats and Republicans unanimously voted yes on LB 606, the compromise legislation), and the Governor of the State Dave Heineman, who signed that bill into law. 

The policy also ignores the expert opinion of virtually the entire scientific community.

Do I exaggerate? Let me prove my point, two ways: 

First, remember the national law, HR 3, the  bi-partisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (Castle,DeGette), to allow federal funding for stem cell lines made from left-over blastocysts, which would otherwise have been thrown away after In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedures.

Who was against it? Here is the official list of organizations which opposed this bill.

  GROUPS AGAINST the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act:

The following list was obtained from the RSC Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensnarling, (R-TX), Chairman, 132 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.Legislative Bulletin, January 10, 2007

 “National Right to Life Committee, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition , Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Christian Medical Association, Eagle Forum, Traditional Values Coalition, Southern Baptist Convention, Susan B. Anthony List, Republican National Committee for Life, Cornerstone Policy Research, Culture of Life Foundation, Religious Freedom Coalition, Coral Ridge Ministries, Center For Reclaiming America.”

End quote.

How many scientific groups do you see up there? How many patient groups? How many medical groups, disease advocacy groups, research groups–— there aren’t any. The opposition was entirely conservative religious/ideological political organizations.

And this, I strongly suspect, is what you would find if you made a list of those groups that are trying to kill the research at the college.

Point Two: Which groups support embryonic stem cell research?  That group is huge, far too large to fit comfortable in this small column. A part of it is included at the bottom of the page.

But if you want to really see the vast level of support, here is a website to visit.

Alliance for Stem Cell Research is a group I worked with to help pass Proposition 71, which funds stem cell research in California, the largest source of embryonic stem cell research funding in the world.

If you push control/click on it, and go to “coalition”, you will see the really astonishing levels of American support for embryonic stem cell research.  

If the Nebraska University Board of Regents caves in to the religious right, it will have a long term negative effect on the state. Jobwise, Nebraska will be denied opportunities open to the rest of the country. In humanitarian costs, the nation will be denied Nebraska’s contribution to the advancement of medical science.

But right now, think of just one child, growing up in Nebraska today, maybe dreaming of becoming a scientist, to help heal suffering and save lives through medical research.

If this backwards resolution is passed, the only advice I could give to that child would be:

Leave Nebraska.

Folks, there is a lot more I could say, but time is running short. The decision will be made this Friday, in Lincoln, Nebraska. If you have an opinion, voice it now, or forever hold your peace.

Here is how you can be heard.

Below is a short piece I found on the web, from a champion athlete of Nebraska. (Please note that he has no connection with any of my opinions.)  I am running it without the pictures, to save space.

Protect Research in Nebraska

I’m Rik Bonness and these are our sons, Eric and Beau.

Both of our sons have Type 1 diabetes. They have lived with tens of thousands of finger pricks, insulin shots and constant worry over signs of retina or nerve damage or kidney failure. We believe someday there will be a cure for diabetes.

As an All-American center at the University of Nebraska, I was expected to give 100% every minute of every game.

And that’s what we need to do here in Nebraska when it comes to research. Stemcell research – including embryonic stem cell research – offers hope to our sons and thousands of Nebraskans who suffer from diabetes, Parkinson’s and other devastating diseases.

 For years, it has been the policy of the University of Nebraska to follow the strict, ethical guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health, the federal government and state law. But now the Board of Regents is being pressured to change that policy to ban some of the most promising avenues of research.

 Now, I’m asking you to give 100% for Nebraska.

Please go to www.nebraskacures.com and ask your regent to keep the University’s existing research policy.

 8401 West Dodge Road, Suite 100, Omaha, NE 68114  402-390-2461

www.nebraskacures.com

 P.S. Here is a partial list of the supporters of  California’s stem cell research initiative: compare it to the list of  opponents of  H.R. 8.

 

Home Get the Facts Our Coalition Get Involved About Stem Cells Newsroom Stories of Hope Campaign Updates Video & Audio En Español Contact Us			Coalition Members   A partial list of members. Titles and affiliations are included for identification purposes only. Disease and Patient Advocacy Organizations  Medical Groups and Hospitals Nobel Prize Winners    Medical Doctors Professors, Researchers and Scientists Political Organizations and Leaders Disease and Patient Advocacy Organization Leaders   Women’s Advocacy Groups and Leaders Latino Organizations & Leaders African American Organizations & Leaders Community Organizations and Leaders Faith Organizations and Leaders Business and Labor Groups and Leaders California Elected Officials and Governmental Organizations   Disease and Patient Advocacy Organizations   AIDS Project Los Angeles AIDS Research Alliance ALS Association ALS Therapy Development Foundation Alliance for Aging Research Alzheimer’s Association, California Council American Diabetes Association American Lung Association of California American Parkinson’s Disease Association Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America, Southern California Chapter California Arthritis Foundation Council California Hepatitis C Task Force Californians for Cure Californians for Disability Rights Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation Children’s Neurobiological Solutions The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Comprised of 84 nationally recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific societies, foundations, and individuals. Cure Autism Now Foundation CuresNow Cure Paralysis Now Cure Pulmonary Fibrosis and COPD Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc. Diabetes Research Institute Diabetes Research Institute Foundation Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation Diabetes Coalition of California Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Fair Foundation: Fair Allocations in Research Friends of Cancer Research Hereditary Disease Foundation An international organization committed to the cure of Huntington’s disease. International Society for Stem Cell Research Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation     Late Onset Tay-Sachs Foundation Leeza Gibbons Memory Foundation The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Lupus Foundation of America, Inc. California Chapter Lupus LA Maximum Life Foundation The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research Napa Spinal Cord Injury Network National Association of Hepatitis Task Forces National Brain Tumor Foundation National Coalition for Cancer Research (NCCR) National Medical Association National Parkinson Foundation, Orange County Chapter National Prostate Cancer Coalition The Neuropathy Association Paralysis Project of America Parkinson’s Action Network Parkinson’s Alliance Parkinson’s Disease Foundation The Parkinson’s Institute Peninsula Parkinson’s Support Group, Inc. Peninsula Stroke Association PKIDS Project ALS Prostate Cancer Foundation Research! America Research for Cure A non-profit organization raising funds for cures for spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological diseases. San Francisco AIDS Foundation Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California Stem Cell Action Network Stem Cell Research Foundation Student Society for Stem Cell Research Team Parkinson United Spinal Association Women’s Cancer Research Fund   Medical Groups and Hospitals   AIDS Services Foundation Orange County American Academy of Pediatrics, California District IX American Nurses Association of California American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX American College of Cardiology, California Chapter American Society of Gene Therapy American Society of Hematology American Society for Reproductive Medicine American Society for Neural Transplantation & Repair Association of Northern California Oncologists Auxiliary to the National Medical Association Promotes the interests of physicians and patients of African descent. Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association The Buck Institute for Age Research The Burnham Institute California Academy of Family Physicians California Association of Nurse Practitioners California Biomedical Research Association California Society of Anesthesiologists California Medical Association Comprised of over 35,000 physicians. California Society of Pathologists Cedars-Sinai Health System Central Valley Health Network Providing health care to 98 clinical sites in 19 Central Valley counties.   Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Children’s Oncology Group, California Coalition Cord Blood Options Endocrine Metabolic Medical Center Genetics Policy Institute HealthTech: The Health Technology Center Humboldt-Del Norte County Medical Society Institute of Myeloma and Bone Cancer Research Kern County Medical Society LA Care Health Plan Lifepoint Wellness Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LA BioMed) Marin County Healthcare District Monterey County Medical Association Medical Oncology Association of Southern California Pennington Institute for Health and Wellness San Francisco Medical Society A nonprofit organization consisting of over 1200 physicians that advocate in the interest of public health. San Joaquin Medical Society Sierra Sacramento Valley Medical Society UCLA AIDS Institute Venice Family Clinic     Nobel Prize Winners   Sidney Altman, PhD Sterling Professor of Biology & Chemistry, Yale University Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1989) David Baltimore, PhD President, California Institute of Technology Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1975) Baruj Benacerraf, MD Past President, Sidney Farber Cancer Institute Former Chair of Pathology, Harvard Medical School Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1980) Paul Berg, PhD Professor of Cancer Research Emeritus, Director Emeritus Beckman Center Stanford University Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1980) J. Michael Bishop, MD University Professor and Director, G.W. Hooper Foundation Chancellor, University California, San Francisco Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1989) Paul D. Boyer, PhD Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1997) Sydney Brenner, PhD Distinguished Professor Salk Institute for Biological Sciences Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2002) Renato Dulbecco, MD Distinguished Professor and President Emeritus Salk Institute for Biological Sciences Nobel Prize Physiology or Medicine (1975) Edmond H. Fischer, PhD Biochemistry Professor Emeritus University of Washington Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1992) Walter Gilbert, PhD Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology Harvard Univeristy Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1980) Donald Glaser, PhD Professor of Physics and Neurobiology University California, Berkeley Nobel Prize in Physics (1960) Joseph L. Goldstein, MD Regenetal Professor, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1985) Roger Guillemin, MD, PhD Distinguished Professor Salk Institute for Biological Sciences Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1977) Leland H. Hartwell, PhD President & Director Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2001) Herbert A. Hauptman, PhD President, Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1985) Alan J. Heeger, PhD Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2000) H. Robert Horvitz, PhD Professor of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2002) David Hubel, MD Research Professor of Neurobiology Harvard University Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1981) Eric R. Kandel Director & Professor, Institute for Brian Sciences Columbia University Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2000) Walter Kohn, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Research Professor University of California, Santa Barbara Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1998) Arthur Kornberg, MD Emeritus Pfeiffer Merner Professor of Biochemistry Stanford University Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1959) Herbert Kroemer, PhD Professor of Computer & Electrical Engineering University of California, Santa Barbara Nobel Prize in Physics (2000) Rudy A. Marcus, PhD Arthur Amos Noyes Professor of Chemistry California Institute of Technology Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1992) Paul Nurse President, Rockefeller University Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2001) George A. Olah, PhD Donald P. & Katharine B. Loker Distinguished Professor of Organic Chemistry University of Southern California Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1994) George Palade, MD Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine UCSD School of Medicine Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1974) Martin L. Perl, PhD Professor and Chair of the High-Energy Physics Faculty, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University Nobel Prize in Physics (1995) Stanley Prusiner, MD Professor of Neurology University of California, San Francisco Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1997) Burton Richter, PhD Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University Nobel Prize in Physics (1976) K. Barry Sharpless, PhD Professor of Chemistry Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2001) E. Donnall Thomas, MD Professor Emeritus of Medicine Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1990) Susumu Tonegawa, PhD Director, Picower Center for Learning & Memory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1987) Daniel C. Tsui, PhD Arthur LeGrand Doty Professor of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University Nobel Prize in Physics (1998) Harold E. Varmus, MD President & CEO Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Former Director, National Institutes of Health (1993-1999) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1989) Frank Wilczek, PhD Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nobel Prize in Physics (2004)   Medical Doctors For a more complete list of Medical Doctors who support a YES vote on Prop 71, click here. Karen Aboody, MD Neuroscientist City of Hope National Medical Center Paul J. Cimoch, MD, PhD Director Center for Special Immunology Denard Fobbs, MD Director/Owner Lifepoint Wellness Institute Steve Forman, MD Director of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation City of Hope Thomas Freeman, MD Medical Director Center for Aging and Brain Repair University of South Florida Jon M. Greif, DO, FACS Cancer Surgeon/Researcher Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Hans Gritch, MD Surgical Director University of California, Los Angeles Kevin Kaiserman, MD Medical Director, Clinical Diabetes Center Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Fran Kaufman, MD Division Head of Endocrinology and Metabolism Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles Past President, American Diabetes Association Bertram H. Lubin, MD President and Director of Research, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute Co-Director, Northern California Sickle Cell Center Phyllis Preciado, MD Sequoia Community Health Foundation Fresno Chapter President, CA Latino Medical Association J. Joseph Prendergast, MD President Endocrine Metabolic Center Camillo Ricordi, MD Scientific Director Diabetes Research Institute Stuart Siegel, MD Head, Division of Hematology-Oncology Director, Childrens Center for Cancer & Blood Diseases Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Edwin Tasch, MD Chief, Department of Neurology Kaiser Santa Clara Raymond Weisberg, MD Past President American Cancer Society, California Division   Professors, Researchers and Scientists For a more complete list of Professors, Researchers and Scientists who support a YES vote on Prop 71, click here. Genevieve M. Ames, PhD Professor, Pacific Institute for Research University of California, Berkeley David Anderson, PhD Professor of Molecular, Cellular & Integrative Neuroscience California Institute of Technology Elizabeth Blackburn, PhD Professor of Biology and Physiology University of California, San Francisco California Scientist of the Year, 1999 Jeffrey Bluestone, PhD Director, UCSF Diabetes Center University of California, San Francisco Susan Bryant, PhD Dean, School of Biological Sciences Professor of Developmental & Cell Biology University of California, Irvine Thomas Cesario, MD Dean, College of Medicine University of California, Irvine Orange County Medical Association, Physician of the Year, 2001 Dennis Clegg Professor and Chair Dept of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology University of California, Santa Barbara Roy Curry, PhD Professor and Associate Dean University of California, Davis Kenneth Dorshkind, PhD Professor and Vice-Chair Pathology and Laboratory Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles Caleb E. Finch, PhD Professor, Neurobiology of Aging University of Southern California Fred Gage, PhD Professor, Laboratory of Genetics Salk Institute Robert Gish, MD Medical Director Liver Transplant Program California Pacific Medical Center Lawrence Goldstein, PhD Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Barry Greenberg, MD Professor of Medicine University of California, San Diego Secretary, Heart Failure Society of America David A. Greenberg, MD, PhD Professor and Vice President Special Research Program Buck Institute G. Denman Hammond, MD Founder, National Childhood Cancer Foundation Associate VP of Health Affairs University of Southern California Clark D. Hinderleider, MD, PhD Secretary, Clinician-Scientists for the Public’s Weal Instructor of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery Edward W. Holmes, MD Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences Dean, University of California San Diego School of Medicine Lois Jovanovic, MD Director and CSO Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, Santa Barbara Henry Klassen, MD, PhD Director, Stem Cell Research Children’s Hospital of Orange County Michael Karin, PhD Frank and Else Schilling American Cancer Society Professor Cancer Biology Program University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Hans Kierstead, PhD Assistant Professor, Institute for Aging and Dementia University of California, Irvine Gary Kleiman Executive Director Diabetes Research Institute Foundation Harley Kornblum, MD, PhD Director, Neural Stem Cell Research Center University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine Richard E. Latchaw, MD Professor of Neuroradiology University of California, Davis   Bertram H. Lubin, MD President, Director of Research Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute Co-Director, Northern CA Sickle Cell Center of Oakland Randall W. Maxey, MD, PhD President National Medical Association Richard Murphy, PhD President & CEO Salk Institute Elizabeth Neufeld Professor of Biological Chemistry David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA California Scientist of the Year, 1990 Michael Oldstone Head, Division of Virology Scripps Research Institute Robert Pearlman President and CEO Diabetes Research Institute Foundation Renee Reijo Pera, PhD Associate Professor Co-Director, Stem Cell Program University of California, San Francisco Phil A. Pizzo, MD Dean, Stanford University School of Medicine Vice Chair, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation John C. Reed, MD, PhD President & CEO Burnham Institute Alan Robinson, MD Associate Vice Chancellor Executive Associate Dean David Geffen School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles Paul Sanberg, PhD, DSc Distinguished Professor and Director Center for Aging and Brian Repair University of South Florida Judy Shizuru, MD Assistant Professor Bone Marrow Transplant Division Stanford University School of Medicine Stuart Siegel, MD Professor and Vice-Chair, Department of Pediatrics University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine Director, Children’s Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Evan Snyder, MD, PhD Professor and Director, Stem Cell Program Burnham Institute Oswald Steward, PhD Director, Reeve-Irvine Research Center University of California, Irvine Gary Steinberg, MD, PhD Co-Director, Neuroscience Institute Co-Director, Stroke Center Stanford University Leon Thal, MD Professor and Chairman, Department of Neurosciences Director, Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center University of California, San Diego David Thompson, PhD Professor and Chair of Biology California State University, San Bernadino David Warburton, DSc, MD Professor of Pediatrics and Surgery Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Irving Weissman, MD Director Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine Stanford University California Scientist of the Year, 2002 Phyllis M. Wise, PhD Dean of the Division of Biological Sciences Distinguished Professor of Neurobiology University California, Davis Keith Yamamoto, PhD Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology Executive Vice Dean University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine University of California at San Francisco Jerome A. Zack Professor of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles AIDS Institute Mark Zern, MD Director Transplant Research University of California, Davis   Disease and Patient Advocacy Organization Leaders   Raymond Barglow Bioethicist & Founder Stem Cell Action Network Mary Brown President & CEO Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California L. Natalie Carroll, MD Chair, Institute for the Advancement of Multicultural and Minority Medicine Pamela Freeman Fobbs, JD President Auxiliary to the National Medical Association Paul Carvey President American Society of Neural Transplantation and Repair Richard Darling, DDS Founder Fair Foundation Elizabeth Benson Forer CEO Venice family Clinics Thomas Freeman, MD Past President American Society for Neural Transplantation and Repair Michael Freidman, MD President and CEO City of Hope Maria Fuhrman Vice President Hope for A Cure Guild Thom Gauthier Executive Director International Society for Stem Cell Research Karen Miner Founder, Research for Cure Mary Tyler Moore International Chairman, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Gail Pressberg Chair of Public Affairs Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Don Reed Founder Californians for Cure Bill Remak Chairman CA Hepatitis C Task Force Michael Roanhaus President Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc. Joan Samuelson Founder and President Parkinson’s Action Network Kenneth Trevett, JD President and CEO Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute Carol Walton Executive Director Parkinson Alliance Raymond Weisberg, MD Past President American Cancer Society, California Division Nancy Wexler, PhD President Hereditary Disease Foundation Geoffrey Williams President Lymphoma Research Foundation Ann Winthrop President Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation of Orange County     Women’s Advocacy Groups and Leaders For a more complete list of women’s groups and leaders who support a YES vote on Prop 71, click here. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX American Society for Reproductive Medicine Black Women Organized for Political Action California NOW Catholics for Free Choice Dr. Donnica.com The first name in women’s health Feminist Majority Foundation   Hadassah: Women’s Zionist Organization of America National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) Sapphire Women’s Health Group Westwind Women’s Health Services Women’s Cancer Research Fund Women For: Women for Reform Judaism   Latino Groups and Organizations For a more complete list of Latino organizations and leaders who support a YES vote on Prop 71, click here. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Labor Council for Latin American Advancement La Raza Lawyers Association Latino Business Forum Latino Coalition for a Healthy California National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations African American Groups and Organizations For a more complete list of African American organizations and leaders who support a YES vote on Prop 71, click here. Black Women Organized for Political Action California Black Chamber of Commerce California NAACP FAME: First AME Church Greater LA African American Chamber of Commerce National Medical Association Operation Hope Community Organizations and Leaders   Ashley’s Diabetes Information Center Asian American Donor Program Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Black Women Organized for Political Action California Federation of Teachers California NAACP California National Organization for Women Feminist Majority Foundation LA Gay and Lesbian Center Labor Council for Latin American Advancement La Raza Lawyers Association Latino Coalition for a Healthy California LGBT Greens of Los Angeles Lincoln Club of San Diego Methodist Federation for Social Action National Association of Socially Responsible Organizations National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations Operation HOPE Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) Rock the Vote Women For: Michael Booher Fire Chief Bridgeport Fire Department John Bryant Founder and CEO Operation HOPE       Delaine Eastin Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Charles Gahn Fire Chief Ocotillo Wells Fire Department Jose A. Garcia Executive Director Inquilinos Unidos – United Tenants Elizabeth Benson Forer CEO Venice Family Clinic Robert A. Martinez President Pico Water District Margie Murray Vice President Valley Democrats United Keda Alcala Obledo Executive Director National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations Mario Obledo President National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations Former CA Secretary of Health & Welfare Terry O’Connor Principal Antelope Valley Adult School Lois Rodriguez President California La Raza Lawyers Association Jeff Sheehy Former HIV/AIDS Advisor to Mayor Gavin Newsom Paul Vega Executive Director Young Latino Leaders Daphna E. Ziman Founder and Chairperson Children Uniting Nations   Faith Organizations and Leaders   Catholics for a Free Choice Congregation Beth Am FAME: First AME Church Hadassah Women of Reform Judaism The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring California Church IMPACT Legislative Advocacy Sister Organization of the California Council of Churches Rabbi Camille Shira Angel Congregation Sha’ar Zahav Rabbi Raphael Asher Congregation B’nai Tikvah Rabbi Michael Berk Northern California Regional Director Union for Reform Judaism Rabbi Kenneth Chasen Leo Baeck Temple Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff Rector and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy University of Judaism, Los Angeles Conservative Judaism’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards Rabbi Jacqueline Koch Ellenson Director Women’s Rabbinic Network Rabbi David Ellenson President Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion Rabbi Sheila Goloboy Congregation Beth Israel Rabbi Alan Henkin So Cal Regional Director Union for Reform Judaism Reverend Vern Jones Episcopal Priest Rabbi Stuart Kelman Congregation Netivot Shalom Rabbi Mordecai Kieffer Temple Emet Rabbi Steven Leder Senior Rabbi     Rabbi Michael Lezak Congregation Rodef Sholom Rabbi Susan Lippe Congregation Beth Am Mac McConnel Priest Rabbi Janet Marder President, Central Conference of American Rabbis Senior Rabbi, Congregation Beth-Am Rabbi Shaldon Marder Jewish Home of San Francisco Rabbi Sydney Mintz Congregation Emanu-El Rabbi Michelle Missaghieh Temple Israel of Hollywood Ricki Oleon Western Federation of Temples Sisterhoods Women of Reform Judaism Rabbi Stephen S. Pearce Congregation Emanu-El Rabbi George Schlesinger Congregation Beth Am Santa Rosa Rabbi Jacob Traub Past President Northern California, Board of Rabbis Jan Tuttleman Past President San Diego Women’s Division United Women’s Federation Rabbi Laura Novak Winer Director Youth and Informal Education Union for Reform Judaism Rabbi Rick Winer Congregation Beth Emek Rabbi David Wolpe Sinai Temple Rabbi Koch Wolpe Women’s Rabbinic Network Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie Union for Reform Judaism Rabbi Josh Zweiback Congregation Beth Am   Business and Labor Groups and Leaders   AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Alliance of California Taxpayers BIOCOM Life science industry association representing more than 450 member companies. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) CA/NV Council of Operating Engineers California Healthcare Institute California Black Chamber of Commerce California Chamber of Commerce Central City Association of Los Angeles Contra Costa Council Greater LA African American Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Latino Business Forum Los Angeles Business Council Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Taxpayers Association San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Tri Valley Business Council     United Chambers of Commerce United Farm Workers Valley Industry and Commerce Association West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Steve & Lisa Altman Executive Vice President Qualcomm Incorporated Steven Burrill CEO Burrill & Company Brook Byers Partner Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers John Doerr Partner Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers Lucy Fisher Producer Red Wagon Entertainment Michael Goldberg Managing Director Jasper Capital Steven Krausz Managing Partner US Venture Partners Herbert & Marion Sandler Chairman and CEO Golden West Financial Corporation Executive George Shultz Distinguished Fellow Hoover Institution, Stanford University Former US Secretary of State Richard Ziman Chairman and CEO Arden Realty     Political Organizations and Leaders   Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Berkeley Democratic Club Black Women Organized for Political Action California Democratic Party California National Organization for Women Culver City Democratic Club Democratic Alliance for Action Democratic Club of the High Desert Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley Feminist Majority Foundation FDR Democratic Club Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club Hayward Democratic Club Irish American Democratic Club, San Francisco LA County Democratic Central Committee La Morinda Democratic Club LGBT Greens of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Democratic Party Los Angeles County Young Democrats Noe Valley Democratic Club Placer County Democratic Central Committee Richmond District Democratic Club Rock the Vote San Diego County Democratic Committee San Fernando County Young Democrats San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club Santa Barbara Democratic League Santa Clara County Democratic Party Santa Clara Democratic Party Seal Beach/Leisure World Democratic Club Stonewall Democrats Visalia Democratic Club Margie Murray Vice President Valley Democrats United Jim Wachob President Irish American Democratic Club, San Francisco   California Elected Officials and Governmental Organizations Statewide Constitutional Officers   Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State of California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante State of California Controller Steve Westly State of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer State of California Treasurer Phil Angelides State of California Secretary of State Kevin Shelly State of California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi State of California   Federal Officeholders   President Jimmy Carter United States of America United States Senator Barbara Boxer State of California United States Dianne Feinstein State of California Congressman Xavier Becerra US House of Representatives 31st District of California Congressman Howard Berman US House of Representatives 28dth District of California Congresswoman Lois Capps US House of Representatives 23rd District of California Congressman Dennis Cardoza US House of Representatives 18th District of California Congresswoman Susan Davis US House of Representatives 53rd District of California Congressman Cal Dooley US House of Representatives 20th District of California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo US House of Representatives 14th District of California Congressman Sam Farr US House of Representatives 17th District of California Congressman Bob Filner US House of Representatives 51st District of California Congresswoman Jane Harman US House of Representatives 36th District of California Congressman Tom Lantos US House of Representatives 12th District of California Congresswoman Barbara Lee US House of Representatives 9th District of California   Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren US House of Representatives 16th District of California Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald US House of Representatives 37th District of California Congressman George Miller US House of Representatives 7th District of California Congresswoman Grace Napolitano US House of Representatives 38th District of California Congressman Doug Ose US House of Representatives 3rd District of California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi US House of Representatives 8th District of California Congresswoman Linda T. Sanchez US House of Representatives 39th District of California Congresswoman Hilda Solis US House of Representatives 32nd District of California Congressman Fortney Pete Stark US House of Representatives 13th District of California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher US House of Representatives 10th District of California Congressman Mike Thompson US House of Representatives 1st District of California Congresswoman Diane Watson US House of Representatives 33rd District of California Congressman Henry Waxman US House of Representatives 30th District of California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey US House of Representatives 6th District of California   State Legislators   Senator Richard Alarcon State Senator, 20th Senatorial District Elaine Alquist Candidate for State Senator, District 13 Assemblywoman Patty Berg 1st Assembly District of California Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez 56th Assembly District of California Senator John Burton State Senator, 3rd Senatorial District Senator Gilbert Cedillo State Senator, 22nd Senatorial District Assemblyman Ed Chavez 57th Assembly District of California Senator Wesley Chesbro State Senator, 2nd Senatorial District Assemblywoman Judy Chu 49th Assembly District of California Assemblyman Rebecca Cohn 24th Assembly District of California Assemblywoman Ellen M. Corbett 18th Assembly District of California Jim Costa Former California State Senator Current Congressional Candidate Assemblyman John A. Dutra 20th Assembly District of California Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny State Senator, 40th Senatorial District Assemblyman Mervyn M. Dymally 52nd Assembly District of California Senator Martha Escutia State Senator, 30th Senatorial District Senator Liz Figueroa State Senator, 10th Senatorial District Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh 50th District of California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg 45th Assembly District of California Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson 35th Assembly District of California Assemblymember Christine Kehoe 76th Assembly District of California Senator Sheila Kuehl State Senator, 23rd Senatorial District Assemblyman John Laird 27th Assembly District of California Assemblyman Mark Leno 13th Assembly District of California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber 22nd Assembly District of California Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal 54th Assembly District of California Senator Michael Machado State Senator, 25th Senatorial District Carole Migden Chairwoman, California State Board of Equalization Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez 39th Assembly District of California Assemblywoman Gene Mullin 19th Assembly District of California Assemblyman George Nakano 53rd Assembly District of California Assemblyman Joe Nation 6th Assembly District of California Fabian Nunez Speaker of the Assembly Senator Deborah Ortiz State Senator, 6th Senatorial District Chair, Senate Health and Human Services Committee Senator Don Perata State Senator, 9th Senatorial District Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes 31st Assembly District of California Senator Gloria Romero State Senator, 24th Senatorial District Assemblyman Simon Salinas 28th Assembly District of California Senator Jack Scott State Senator, 21st Senatorial District Senator Byron Sher State Senator, 11th Senatorial District David Silva Assembly Candidate 6th Assembly District of California Assemblyman Joe Simitian 21st Assembly District of California Senator Nell Soto State Senator, 32nd Senatorial District Senator Jackie Speier State Senator, 8th Senatorial District Assemblyman Darrel Steinberg 9th Assembly District of California Senator Tom Torlakson State Senator, 7th Senatorial District Herb Wesson Speaker Emeritus, California State Assembly Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins 7th Assembly District of California Assemblywoman Lois Wolk 8th Assembly District of California   Local Officeholders and Municipalities   Alameda County Board of Supervisors City of Capitola City of Carson Los Angeles City Council Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors City of Malibu Marin County Board of Supervisors City of Oakland City of Orange Cove San Francisco Board of Supervisors Santa Barbara City Council Santa Clara Board of Supervisors West Hollywood City Council Mayor Larry Agran City of Irvine Mayor Paul Albritton City of Sausalito Mayor Irma Anderson City of Richmond Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins City of San Diego Mayor Tom Bates City of Berkeley County Supervisor Hal C. Brown County of Marin County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke County of Los Angeles Mayor Anna Caballero City of Salinas Supervisor Marita Callaway Calaveras County County Supervisor Keith Carson Alameda County Council Member Allen Co City of South El Monte Mayor James Dear City of Carson Supervisor Roger Dickinson Sacramento County Supervisor Bevan Dufty San Francisco County Mayor John Duran City of West Hollywood Council Member Charles England City of Cathedral City Council Member Mike Garcia City of Santa Ana Council Member Maggie Gomez City of Daly City Council Member Joseph Gonzales City of South El Monte Council Member Josie Gonzales City of Fontana Mayor Ron Gonzales City of San Jose Council Member Wendy Greuel City of Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn City of Los Angeles Mayor Harvey Hall City of Bakersfield Council Member Mike Harris City of Petaluma Council Member Olden Henson City of Hayward     Sandra Hernandez Former Director of Health City/County San Francisco Council Member Emily Ishigaki City of El Monte Mayor Marshall Kamena City of Livermore Council Member Judy Kleinberg City of Palo Alto County Supervisor Liz Kniss Santa Clara County, California Council Member Patrick Kolstad City of Santa Clara County Supervisor Gary Lewis Lake County, California Council Member Tom Long City of Rancho Palos Verdes Council Member Susan Lien Longville City of San Bernadino Mayor Victor Lopez City of Orange Cove Mayor Art Madrid City of La Mesa Council Member Thomas Malson City of Galt Council Member Tony Mendoza City of Artesia Mayor Dick Murphy City of San Diego County Supervisor Mike Nevin San Mateo County Mayor Gavin Newsom City of San Francisco Council Member Dan Nguyen-Tan City of Chico Council Member Alex Padilla President Los Angeles City Council Council Member Bernard Parks Los Angeles City Council County Supervisor Peter Parra Kern County Council Member Henry T. Perea Acting Council President Fresno City Council Mayor Tom Pico City of Pleasanton Council Member Jeffrey Prang City of West Hollywood Mayor Miguel Pulido City Santa Ana Council Member Deborah Robertson City of Rialto Council Member Sam Salmon Town of Windsor Council Member Pete Sanchez Suisun City Suisun City Vice Mayor Council Member Margaret J. Smith City of Clear Lake Council Member John M. Solis City of La Puente County Supervisor Gail Steele Alameda County, California Council Member Doug Stern City of Rancho Palos Verdes Council Member Steve Tate City of Morgan Hill City Councilman Jack Weiss City of Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky Los Angeles County   Senior Advocacy Organizations   Congress of California Seniors   Gray Panthers, California Seniors Allied for Biomedical Research
Paid for by YES on 71: Coalition for Stem Cell Research and Cures, #1260661

 

Privacy Policy  |   Site Map  |   Contact Us  |   Search

 

 

 

 

Trial of American Stem Cell Research–Dismissed?

THE TRIAL OF AMERICAN STEM CELL RESEARCH—DISMISSED?

 By Don C. Reed

 As you recall, the lawsuit against America’s new stem cell guidelines (Sherley et al vs. Sebelius et al, filed August 19, 2009) was moving forward;  until resolved, all federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was shut down.

 Research delayed is research denied. Every day the opposition can tie us up in court is a victory for them, and another day for people like my son to remain paralyzed, and my sister suffer cancer, and millions more good folks: their cures delayed, their hopes denied.  

 The plaintiffs had made their case, arguing that embryonic stem cell research should not be funded. Our side (the defendants) responded—asking for the case to be thrown out.  

 Everything depended on “standing”: could those making the complaint show some injury they had received (or would receive) from the new stem cell research guidelines?

 Without legal standing, there can be no case.   

 But there were five sets of plaintiffs; if even one had a legitimate grievance, the suit could go forward, the research funding would remain blocked for the length of the trial—and in California, a similar lawsuit had tied up the funding for our beautiful stem cell research program for two years…   

 So here we go. For each plaintiff I will quote the official description, claim of injury, some court comments, my own views– and the judge’s decision.   

1. Nightlight Christian Adoptions, (Nightlight) “… an adoption agency that helps individuals adopt human embryos that are being stored in fertilization clinics.”

 Looking it up on the web, I found Nightlight is a fee-charging nonprofit, which helps childless couples obtain blastocysts from In Vitro Fertility (IVF) clinics. Nightlight appears to be either part of a company called Snowflakes, or closely associated with them. They are not shy about charging fees.

 Here are some of their cost estimates: 

 “Program fees: Snowflakes Program fee: $8,000;

Nightlight home study fee is $2,600;

Fertility clinic frozen embryo transfer fees $3,000-$5,000.  

Total Fees $12,000–$16,000.” (the possibility of additional charges is made clear.)

 Alleged Injury: “Nightlight alleges that the (new) guidelines will cause a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption.”  

 The court commented: “This alleged injury does not satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement because it is speculative and dependent upon third party conduct. The guidelines do not mandate a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption.  Rather, the guidelines allow funding for hesc research on embryos that were donated “by individuals who sought reproductive treatment,, and who gave voluntary written consent (their emphasis) for the embryos to be used for research purposes.”

 By my non-lawyer understanding, “third party” means someone not named in the lawsuit. This is important because it is the new guidelines that are being sued– and nothing in the guidelines orders a decrease in the number of embryos. The decision (whether the blastocysts shall be frozen and stored, destroyed, given away or donated to research) remains exactly where it should be: with the un-named third party—the donors.  

And the Judge’s official finding?

 “Accordingly, the Court finds that Nightlight lacks standing (emphasis added) because its alleged injury is “mere unadorned speculation as to the existence of a relationship between the guidelines and the third party conduct.” Indeed, if Nightlight suffers any injury at all, it will be because of the choices of third parties not before this court, and not because of the guidelines.”

 If this were baseball, that would be strike one—but it would take five strikes to put the anti-research team out of the game.

 2. Shayne and Tina Nelson, William and Patricia Flynn: “The Nelsons and Flynns are clients of Nightlight who seek to adopt human embryos in the future.”

 These folks had children through the IVF process, with the help of Nightlight, adopting (and implanting) left-over blastocysts. I am glad for them. Most couples want a child. I have two, and they are treasures to me. That is why I will fight to protect them, and that includes not allowing politics to block research for cure.

 Alleged Injury:  “The Nelsons and Flynns, who each have had a child through the adoption of an embryo from Nightlight, allege they are seeking to adopt additional human embryos. They contend the guidelines injure them by “jeopardizing the likelihood that embryos will become available in a timely manner for adoption and implantation.”

 Apparently, the four clients of Nightlight worry that the new guidelines mean they will have less blastocysts to choose from, if they decide to have another child through IVF, with the help of Nightlight. Presently, there are about 450,000 blastocysts frozen in storage.  How many choices are required?   

 “The Court finds that the Nelsons and Flynns have not alleged a concrete and imminent injury… the guidelines do not regulate embryonic adoption… neither the Nelsons nor the Flynns allege…guidelines have erected any barriers to their efforts to adopt an embryo.”

 FINDING:  “Accordingly, the Nelsons and Flynns do not have standing.” (Strike two…)

 3. Embryos “The Embryos consist of all individual human embryos that were created for reproductive purposes, but are no longer needed for those purposes.”  

 Alleged Injury: “The embryos, through Nightlight, contend that their lives will face a recurring risk of destruction as a result of the guidelines.”

 I hardly know where to start: “The embryos…contend…” Talking blastocysts? This is more than just foolishness. This is a subtle attempt at deception, like the anti-research propagandist who talked about embryonic stem cells, while behind him was a huge picture of a baby in the womb. They know the research is about cells, cells, nothing but cells, but they use words which plant a false picture in the minds of the listeners.

 Even the word “embryo” is to my mind prejudicial, because it implies a baby in a womb, which is false; we are talking about bits of tissue smaller than the point of a pin– and not in the woman’s body. No blastocyst can ever become a child, unless it is implanted in the womb. No mother, no child; this is not rocket science.

 And what amazing arrogance in this claim… How could any organization claim the right to decide what is best for every unused IVF embryo in the world?  

 A great deal is at stake here, as the Court noted:

 “This case…concerns whether an embryo qualifies as a person (emphasis added)… The Supreme Court has stated that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons…”

 This is vital. If a blastocyst (the first linkage of microscopic sperm and egg) can be declared a full human under law, the entire field of embryonic stem cell research becomes illegal, as does every woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy—ever. The In Vitro Fertility process would be illegal, and many forms of birth control.

 This is the Religious Right’s personhood concept: their attempt to get every blastocyst declared a legal person, with standing in a court of law. If they win on “personhood”, our hopes and dreams for embryonic stem cell research are gone.  

 But the judge spoke out clear and plain, no translation required: “The Court finds… that the embryos are not “persons” under the law, and thereby do not have standing.”

 We must remember this. We are fighting to save real people’s lives, not potential ones. A droplet of sperm may contain the beginnings of a million lives, but that does not mean each one should be protected under law.

 The exact time when tissue becomes a person has been argued for centuries. Is it viability, when a child can live on its own, outside the womb? That is the official definition, according to American law. Or, as the Catholic Saint Thomas Aquinas opined, does life begin at the “quickening”, when the mother first feels the baby stirring in her womb? Earlier? Later?

  “Personhood” wants humanity declared at the joining of sperm and egg—even in a Petri dish of salt water, outside the womb, when there is no possibility it could become a child.

 What’s next, are we going to say that new life begins at the twinkle in Dad’s eye?

 But while we can argue forever about that definition, there is no debate about the personhood of my son Roman, who is paralyzed, or my sister Barbara, who has cancer. They are full human beings, protected by the law of this land. Their right to life is guaranteed under the Constitution– and must not be jeopardized by political games, which could block research to heal disease or disabilities which blight their lives.

 FINDING: “Accordingly, the Court concludes that the embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law.” (Strike 3 of 5…)

 4. Christian Medical Association, (CMA) a non-profit which “strives to improve the ethical standards of health care in the United States and abroad”.

 Note: The CMA appears to be part of a larger group, the 2,400 member Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA). If that assumption is correct, (I could not find the CMA listed as a separate organization) I am not sure why the CMA sued, while their parent organization did not. Perhaps they disagree; I do not know. (I do know, however, that even some of the nation’s most conservative Christians no longer worry about this issue. A poll was taken at a recent Values Voters Summit, the ultimate conservative gathering, put on by the Family Research Council. When 5,000 values voters were asked to list their issues of concern, less than 1 (one) per cent listed “early embryo research”.)

 Alleged Injury:  “CMA alleges that it will suffer injury because: the guidelines will frustrate CMA’s purpose and require CMA to devote significant resources to address and counteract the grave ethical problems posed by illegal public funding of embryo research.”

 This is an amazing claim, when you think about it. If a “frustration” argument was allowed, it would open the door for lawsuits against probably every law ever passed.  

 The Court stated: “Frustration of purpose is not a sufficient injury to establish standing….allegations that frustrate an organization’s objectives is “an abstract concern that does not impart standing.”

 Finding: “Accordingly, the Court finds that CMA lacks standing.” (Strike 4…)

 5. Drs. James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, adult stem cell researchers.

 “Drs. Sherley and Deisher specialize in adult stem cell research and plan to seek NIH funding for adult stem cell research in the future. In addition, Dr. Sherley has one proposal currently pending.”

 Alleged Injury: Drs. Sherley and Deisher contend that the new guidelines will “result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure their ability to successfully compete for… NIH stem cell research funds.”

 To me, this sounds like they want a monopoly on what type of research gets funded. During the Bush Administration, adult stem cell research was heavily favored; seven times more money given to it than embryonic; even under the Obama Administration, adult stem cell research appears likely to receive triple the funding of embryonic. Personally, I favor a level playing field, where the quality of science will decide.

 “ The Court finds that increased competition for funding is an insufficient injury to impart standing… The guidelines neither prevent nor hinder either doctor’s opportunity to compete for funding. Indeed, Drs. Sherley and Deisher’s proposals for adult stem cell research can receive funding, if they survive the review process all applicants undergo…

 “… the guidelines will not “almost surely cause (Drs. Sherley and Deisher) to lose” funding…  The application process to receive NIH funding is extremely competitive. Only about 22% of applications receive NIH funding… Even if the guidelines did not exist, Drs. Sherley and Deisher are not assured of receiving funding…”

 Finding: “Accordingly the court concludes … that Drs. Sherley and Deisher lack standing.” (Strike 5!)

 “Conclusion: For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that plaintiffs lack standing and will grant defendants Motion 22 to dismiss. A separate order shall issue this date.

 “Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on October 27, 2009”

 So did we win?

 Yes.

 Will they appeal? No way of knowing, of course, but probably they will.

 I am sure they believe in their side as thoroughly as we believe in ours.

 We won’t give up; neither will they.

 Until cures come.

 P.S. Below is the Court’s decision on the case. I two-finger-typed the Judge’s decision below, so you can read as much or as little as you like of it.  It is essentially complete, but I left out document references, etc. You can find the original on the web, just Google it.  (For my two previous articles on this subject, go to www.stemcellbattles.com)

 United States District Court for the District of Columbia

 James Sherley et al, Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al   Cic. No. 1;009-cv-1575 RCL

Memorandum Opinion

 This matter comes before the court on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs brought this suit to enjoin the defendants from taking further actions to implement and apply the guidelines promulgated by the National institute of Health (NIH) that provide for public funding of human embryonic stem cell (hesc) research. Defendants motion states, among other things, that plaintiffs lack standing. This court agrees with defendants and finds that plaintiffs lack standing. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants motion to dismiss.

1. Background

Plaintiffs are Drs. James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, Nightlight Christian Adoptions (Nightlight), Embryos, Shayne and Tina Nelson, William and Patricia Flynn, and Christian Medical Association (CMA), Drs. Sherley and Deisher specialize in adult stem cell research and plan to seek NIH funding for adult stem cell research in the future. In addition, Dr. Sherley has one proposal currently pending. Nightlight is an adoption agency that helps individuals adopt human embryos that are being stored in fertilization clinics. The Embryos consist of all individual human embryos that were created for reproductive purposes, but are no longer needed for those purposes. The Nelsons and Flynns are clients of Nightlight who seek to adopt human embryos in the future. CMA is a non-profit association of doctors that strives to improve the ethical standards of health care in the United States and abroad. Together, plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants “from applying the Guidelines (promulgated by NIH) or otherwise funding research involving the destruction of human embryonic stem cells.”

 On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued Exec. Order (which) removed President Bush’s limitations on hesc research. In addition, the Order directed NIH to issue new guidelines to allow hesc research to the extent permitted by law.

 After a notice and comment period, NIH issued the final guidelines on July 7, 2009. Under the guidelines, for an applicant to conduct research on hESC derived from embryos donated on or after the effective date of the guidelines, the applicant must either limit his or her research to cell lines posted on an NIH registry, or submit an assurance of compliance with part A of the Guidelines (which) ensure that the proposed research involves only hesc that are no longer needed for reproductive purposes and were voluntarily donated to be used for research  purposes. For an applicant to conduct research on hesc derived from embryos donated before the effective date of the guidelines, the applicant must either show compliance with part A of the guidelines, or submit materials  to an advisory committee, which will make recommendations concerning the eligibility for NIH funding.

 Plaintiffs allege that the guidelines, by allowing NIH to fund hesc research , will cause them irreparable harm. Specifically, Drs. Sherley and Deisher contend that the new guidelines will “result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure their ability to scccessfully compete for… NIH stem cell research funds,.” Nightlight alleges that the guidelines will cause a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption.  The embryos, through Nightlight, contend that their lives will face a recurring risk of destruction as a result of the guidelines. The Nelsons and Flynns  maintain that the guidelines will “jeopardize the likelihood that embryos will become available” for them to adopt in the future. Finally, CMA alleges that the guidelines will frustrate its purpose and require it to expend significant resources to combat the ethical problems posed by hESC research.

1. Discussion.

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because subjects do not have standing. Therefore, the Court need not address defendants’ additional arguments.

1. Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. When a defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 (b) 1, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court must accept all the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.  Furthermore the court may consider material outside of the pleadings in its effort to determine whether the court has jurisdiction in the case.

 A court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to establish standing. (“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing.”) To have constitutional standing the plaintiff must demonstrate  1. an injury in fact; 2. causation: and 3. redressability.  An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which (a) concrete and particularized … and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.    (internal citations and quotations omitted)

 “When a plaintiff’s asserted injury arises from the Government’s regulation of a third party that is not before the court, it becomes ‘substantially more difficult ‘ to establish standing ….. The court, however, will not dismiss a complaint  brought by multiple  plaintiffs if one of the plaintiffs has standing.  (the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy articles  III”s case-or-controversy requirement”

1. Plaintiffs lack standing

 CMA:  CMA alleges that it will suffer injury because: the guidelines will frustrate CMA’s purpose and require CMA to devote significant resources to address and counteract the grave ethical problems posed by illegal public funding of embryo research. Frustration of purpose is not a sufficient injury to establish standing…. allegations that frustrate an organization’s objectives is “an abstract concern that does not impart standing.” Indeed, plaintiffs do not argue in their opposition that this injury is sufficient for standing purposes. Accordingly, the Court finds that CMA lacks standing.

 Nightlight:    Nightlight contends that it will suffer injury  because the guidelines will cause a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption. This alleged injury does not satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement because it is speculative and dependent upon third party conduct. The guidelines do not mandate a decrease in the number if embryos available for adoption.  Rather, the guidelines allow funding for hesc research on embryos on embryos that were donated “by individuals who sought reproductive treatment,, and who gave voluntary written consent (their emphasis) for the embryos to be used for research purposes.” Thus, for Nightlight to suffer an injury, potential embryo donors have to choose to donate their embryos for research, and not for adoption.

 The choice, however, is not simply whether to donate embryos for research or for adoption. The donors must choose between continuing to store the embryos, discarding them, donating them for research, or giving them to an adoption agency involved in embryonic adoption.

 Accordingly, the Court finds that Nightlight lacks standing because its alleged injury is “mere unadorned speculation as to the existence of a relationship between the guidelines and the third party conduct.” Indeed, if Nightlight suffers any injury at all, it will be because of the choices of third parties not before this court, and not because of the guidelines.

 Embryos.  Nightlight also seeks to proceed in this complaint on behalf of all embryos created for reproductive purposes that are no longer needed for such purposes. The complaint alleges the embryos face the risk of imminent injury, i.e. destruction, as result of the NIH guidelines. The Court finds, however, that the embryos are not “persons” under the law, and there(by) do not have standing. (my emphasis)

 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Hatch v. Riggs Natl. Bank, 361, F.2d 559, 566 (D.C. Cir. 1966) for the proposition that embryos qualify as persons and should have a guardian ad litem appointed to represent their interest is misplaced. “Hatch” concerned the “interests of unborn and/or otherwise unascertainable beneficiaries of a trust.” An unborn’s legal interest in a trust has been recognized for centuries. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 114, 162, (1973) (noting that historically guardians at litem have been appointed to represent property interests of the unborn that are “contingent upon live birth”). This case, however, does not concern whether an embryo qualifies as a person in order to enforce a trust. Rather, it concerns whether an embryo qualifies as a person in order to assert a liberty interest. The Supreme Court has stated that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense” and that they have no right to life protected under the Fourteenth Amendment…Accordingly, the Court concludes that the embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law…

 The Nelsons and Flynns, who each have had a child through the adoption of an embryo from Nightlight, allege they are seeking to adopt additional human embryos. They contend the guidelines injure them by “jeopardizing the likelihood that embryos will become available in a timely manner for adoption and implantation.”

 The Court finds that the Nelsons and Flynns have not alleged a concrete and imminent injury.  As discussed with Nightlight, the allegation that fewer embryos will be available for adoption is speculative and dependent upon third parties. Moreover, the guidelines do not regulate embryonic adoption, and neither the Nelsons nor the Flynns allege that the guidelines have erected any barriers to their efforts to adopt an embryo. Accordingly, the Nelsons and Flynns do not have standing.

 Drs. Sherley and Deisher allege that the guidelines “will result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure (their) ability to compete successfully for….NIH stem cell research funds. “ The Court finds that increased competition for funding is an insufficient injury to impart standing.

 Drs. Sherley and Deisher contend that they have standing under the “competitor standing” doctrine. Under the competitor standing doctrine, a plaintiff “suffers constitutional injury in fact when agencies lift regulatory restrictions on their competitors or otherwise allow increased competition.”

 The competitor standing doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court has held that the competitor standing doctrine applies only “when the particular statutory provision (or regulation) involved… reflects a legislative purpose to protect a competitive interest.”  Here, Drs. Sherley and Deisher have not demonstrated that they have a protected competitive interest in receiving NIH funding. Their only protected interest is their opportunity to compete with other applicants for limited NIH funding… The guidelines neither prevent nor hinder either doctors opportunity to compete for funding. Indeed, Drs. Sherley and Deisher’s proposals for adult stem cell research can receive funding if they survive the two-tier review process that all applicants undergo.

 In addition, the cases relied upon by Dr. Sherley and Deisher are readily distinguishable. In both cases, the competitor standing doctrine applied where the petitioners were active participants in the strictly regulated economic markets of energy, communication, and banking. … Drs. Sherley and Deisher, however, are not participants in strictly regulated economic markets. They are applicants for research grants… As stated above, Drs. Sherley and Deisher may still receive funding.

 Last, even if the competitive standing doctrine did apply, Drs. Sherley and Deisher would not have standing because the guidelines will not “almost surely cause (Drs. Sherley and Deisher) to lose” funding…The application process to receive NIH funding is extremely competitive. Only about 22% of applications receive NIH funding. Thus, even if the guidelines did not exist, Drs. Sherley and Deisher are not assured of receiving funding for adult stem cell research.

 Accordingly the court concludes that the competitor standing doctrine does not apply and that Drs. Sherley and Deisher lack standing.

1. Conclusion: For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that plaintiffs lack standing and will grant defendants Motion 22 to dismiss. A separate order shall issue this date.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on October 27, 2009

 

 

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