Search Immortality Topics:

Page 450«..1020..449450451452..460470..»


Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

Stem Cell Miracles and Campaign Promises : Thomas-Trounson vs. Hiltzik of the Times


The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

Specifically did the campaign promise
miracles?
The story begins with a column May 27
by Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times about the
"Son of CIRM" initiative, Proposition 29, on the June ballot. It
seeks to fund more medical research with $800 million handed out by
an organization patterned after the stem cell agency.
In the column, Hiltzik did not speak
well of the agency and said the 2004 campaign promised miracles.
In a letter today in the Times, J.T,
Thomas, chairman of CIRM, and Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM, said the campaign did not promise "miraculous cures."
Hiltzik filed a riposte this afternoon
on his blog, quoting from TV campaign ads featuring Christopher
Reeve and Michael J. Fox. Hiltzik also wrote,

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem Cell Miracles and Campaign Promises : Thomas-Trounson vs. Hiltzik of the Times

California Stem Cell Agency Fires Back at LA Times Columnist


The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Michael
Hiltzik mentioned California's $3 billion stem cell effort in a piece
May 27 about Proposition 29 on the June ballot. The "Son of CIRM" initiative,
tailored after the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency
in 2004, would provide $800 million annually for research into
tobacco-related illnesses. The money would be derived from a $1
dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes.
Among other things, Hiltzik said,

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

The reponse from J.T. Thomas, chairman
of the CIRM board and a Los Angeles bond financier, and CIRM
President Alan Trounson came in the form of a letter to the editor.
The letter was only four paragraphs long and may have been cut prior
to publication, which is common practice for letters to the editor.
We have asked CIRM about whether there is more to the letter. (Following publication of this item, CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said the complete text was published by the Times, which has a 150-word limit on letters. The CIRM letter was 148.)
Here is the full text as published.

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on California Stem Cell Agency Fires Back at LA Times Columnist

The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research


As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.
Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta. He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

The Market's Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research


As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.
Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta. He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on The Market's Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

California Stem Cell Hoopdedoo Over Rick Perry: Strange Bedfellows and Education of Politicians


A onetime aspirant to become the leader
of the free world was in California recently touring the lab of a
stem cell researcher in La Jolla.
The visit was somewhat unusual. The
visitor was Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who campaigned
unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president and who is
a strong opponent of hESC research. The lab is run by Scripps' Jeanne
Loring, who engages in hESC research among other things.
The event – if you can call it that –
also led to a video on YouTube of Perry at the lab, three blog
items by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and
responses from Loring and Michael Thorsnes,  who put up
the video and who has what he modestly describes as
"significant political experience" in the Democratic party.
Thorsnes, a retired San Diego lawyer and now a photographer, raised about $5.4 million for John Kerry's and Al Gore's
presidential efforts as well as other Democrats.
Issues raised in all the hoopdedoo include
consorting with the enemy, openness, exploitation of scientists for
political gain, public education and education of political leaders,
promotion of patient causes, rushing to judgment and even strange
bedfellows.
As far as we can tell, Perry's visit
received no attention in mainstream media, but Thorsnes, a key figure
in arranging the visit, put up a video of it on the Internet.
Knoepfler, who is the rare stem cell scientist with a blog, saw the
video and on May 21 raised what he now calls "a big stink"
in a blog posting. Subsequently Knoepfler toned down the language in
that item because of what he says was its "overly extreme
verbiage."
For several years now, Knoepfler has
been writing a fine blog that deals mostly with stem cell science but
also public policy, biotech business and more. Unfortunately,
however, his original item is no longer available, but our
recollection is that Knoepler's item was strong, indicating that
Loring should not have allowed the visit because it would bolster the
political fortunes of an enemy of science or at least hESC science.
Knoepfler cited what he called the campaign-style video as evidence
of exploitation. 
On May 24, after a related May 22 item dealing with Rick Perry, Knoepfler said he rewrote the original item to temper his comments as a result of learning more
about what led up to the visit.   That included more information from Thorsnes, who is chair of the executive advisory board of the
Parkinson’s Disease Association of San Diego. 
Loring was quoted in original item as
saying, 

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

The California Stem Cell Report
queried Loring about any additional comments she had on the subject.
She replied,

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Our take: Perry is first and foremost a
politician with large ambitions. It is more than legitimate to think
about how such a visit might be used or misused. Nonetheless,
foregoing the opportunity to educate political leaders, who control
research spending in this country, means isolation of the scientific
community and less understanding on the part of lawmakers. As far as
Perry's possible political gain is concerned, it is conceivable that
the visit could backfire on Perry should a political opponent
characterize the Loring lab tour as some sort of endorsement by him
of hESC research.
Everybody's particular interests were
at work in this episode: Thorsnes' desire for support for his cause,
Perry's political schmoozing and his own special interest in stem
cells – pro adult and con hESC, and Loring's desire to promote
scientific research in general and to educate a major political
figure.
As for the video, Knoepfler now says he
would allow a lab visit by Perry but no video. But in this digital
age, that condition could kill a likely visit. If researchers want to
talk to politicians – and they should -- risks are always involved,
but that is the price of relying on public funding and building
public enthusiasm for continued support.
One final note: Earlier in this item,
we said it was unfortunate that the original Knoepfler post is not
available. Without being able to read the original, it is difficult
to completely understand the subsequent string of events. On the
California Stem Cell Report, when corrections or other changes are
made, we always retain something to show what the original item said
and note where changes are made and why. It keeps the record straight
and provides a necessary paper trail. All in all, however, from
Perry's visit to today, it has been a robust and healthy exchange for
the stem cell community and beyond.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on California Stem Cell Hoopdedoo Over Rick Perry: Strange Bedfellows and Education of Politicians

CIRM Board Member Prieto Endorses Proposition 29


One of the members of the governing
board of the California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has
commented on the item yesterday dealing with California's Proposition 29, which
would create a CIRM-like agency to fund research into tobacco-related
illness.
Prieto, who is a Sacramento physician
and president of the Sacramento Sierra Chapter of the American
Diabetes Association, said in an email,

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in Stem Cell Therapy, Stem Cells | Comments Off on CIRM Board Member Prieto Endorses Proposition 29