New Stem Cells not enough

[rayilynlee <rayilynlee@xxxxxxx>]

NEW STEM CELLS NOT ENOUGH: expert testimonies.

Dear Friend of Stem Cell Research:

As you know, scientists recently reprogrammed adult skin cells into what
they call "embryonic-like" stem cells. On this issue, politically, the
future of the research hangs.

The new method, Induced Pluripotentiary Stem (iPS) cell research, may turn
out to be hugely important-or maybe not. As the months and years of testing
begin, everyone-- inventors Shinya Yamanaka, Junying Yu, Jamie Thomson, the
scientific world, and sufferers of chronic disease-- is eager to find out.
Ideological groups, however, are trying to use the new method as an excuse
to block embryonic stem research-while giving credit to opponents of
research, as if their attempted censorship was actually a help to
scientists.
For example, President George Bush twice vetoed the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act. He supports legislation to actually put scientists in jail
for nuclear transfer research.
But this same Mr. Bush is now being praised by conservatives-- for having
somehow inspired the new discovery. Typical was the Discovery Institute's
Wesley Smith:
"So thank you for your courageous leadership, Mr. President. .we now have
the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem-cell medicine
and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate,
our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human
life."-National Review, "Bush Bears Fruit", 11/20/2007
The Catholic Conference of Bishops has called upon the state of New York to
transfer all its embryonic stem cell (ESCR) research funding to the new
method.  Several states are now considering legislation which would
essentially ban embryonic stem cell research-claiming that it has now been
proven "unnecessary"..
Are they right? Following is a 10-page collection of SHORT statements by
experts.
Note: the whole thing can be read in about 30 minutes. It has a little table
of contents, and could be printed out, maybe even put in a binder, for
reference.

Does your Senator, or Representative understand this issue sufficiently?
Consider giving the following to him or her-and if you really want to make
an impact, call their office, ask for the legislative aide in charge of
health issues, and send it to him or her .
PLEASE FORWARD TO FRIENDS: thanks, so much. -- Don

WHY THE NEW STEM CELLS ARE NOT ENOUGH: Table of Contents
Page 3: A POLITICAL TOOL TO OBSTRUCT STEM CELL PROGRESS?
Alan I. Leshner, James Thomson, Susan Solomon, Zach Hall, James Thomson,
editorial staff of the San Jose Mercury-News, and Senator Arlen Specter.
Page 4: IPS INVENTOR CRITIQUES OWN RESEARCH: SUPPORTS ESCR
Dr. Shinya Yamanaka points out weakness in his invention, says iPS is not
enough.
Page 5: "WE SHOULD NOT GAMBLE THEIR LIVES"
Irv Weissman, Richard Murphy, Story Landis. the BBC,Robin Lovel-Badge,
the editorial staff of the Michigan Daily, Rudy Jaenisch
Page 6: CANCER RISK AND OTHER CAUTIONS
International Society of Stem Cell Research's I. Hyun, New York Stem Cell
Foundation's Kevin Eggan, Science News Online, Konrad Hochedlinger
Page 7: MICHAEL J. FOX
The renowned Parkinson's advocate makes a simple but inarguable point.
Page 8: EMBRYONIC LIKE, OR EMBRYONIC LITE?  What if, ten years from now, the
new research has turned out to be a dud?
Evan Snyder, Hadley Leggett, Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology,
William Brinkley of Baylor University, Rayilyn Brown, Parkinson's Advocate;
New CAMR President Amy Comstock Rick
Page 10: SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY
Stem cell research's longtime champion sums up the issue in a few words
Page 10: DON'T THROW OUT THE TOOLBOX --Don C. Reed
Page 11: OPEN LETTER FROM CAMR
The 100-plus group organization supports full stem cell research.
Tab One: "A Political Tool to Obstruct Process".
"STANDING IN THE WAY OF STEM CELL RESEARCH.."
"We are disappointed that what should be used as a hopeful step forward for
the over 100 million patients with incurable diseases and conditions is
being used as a political tool to obstruct progress.  (emphasis added) .it
is short-sighted  and misleading to claim that (the) work obviates the need
for further research.  . these discoveries provide the most compelling
reason to date for the overturn of the Presidential veto and enactment of
the widely supported Stem Cell Research Act. we don't really know what all
the capabilities of embryonic stem cells are yet, so saying reprogrammed
cells have those capabilities is premature."
--Alan I. Leshner, chief executive, American Association for Advancement of
Science, and  James A. Thomson, pioneering stem cell researcher. Washington
Post, Dec. 8, 2007
WAS GEORGE BUSH RIGHT?
(An article claimed that) "George Bush was right, that we have now found a
way to create 'a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or
liver' without using human embryos.
"It is not true. (emphasis added) It is not even close to true.
"The greatest loss of all would be if these exciting new discoveries were
allowed to create the false belief that research opposed by the Bush
administration-research involving.embryonic stem cells.from frozen embryos
that would otherwise have been discarded-was no longer necessary.
"The only voices saying that these new discoveries have made the debate over
stem cell research moot are the voices that were opposed to (the) research
all along."
--Susan L. Solomon, CEO, New York Stem Cell Foundation, and Zach W. Hall,
former President, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Huffington
Post, 11/30/07
BUSH POLICY DELAYS STEM CELL ADVANCE?
"My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back about four
or five years." (Bush's funding limits) "represented very bad public policy
as far as I'm concerned. The field has been much slower taking off than it
would have been otherwise."
--Dr. James Thomson, generally considered the founder of embryonic stem cell
research, and a co-author of the iP stem cell procedure. Chicago Tribune,
November 21, 2007
PLAYING POLITICS WITH STEM CELL RESEARCH?
".Opponents of embryonic stem cell research, including President Bush, are
already arguing that the skin cell advance should end the use of stem cells
derived from human embryos. That would be shortsighted...  Scientists are
years away from knowing if human skin cells will actually work as a
substitute.
"President Bush's stem cell strategy is to deny federal funding for research
because it destroys human embryos. But his moral objection doesn't apply to
hundreds of thousands of human embryos discarded every year in the name of
in vitro fertilization.
".the President and others (have been) playing politics with stem cell
research.
-editorial, San Jose Mercury News, 11/27/2007
POLITICAL "CREDIT" FOR OPPONENTS OF RESEARCH?
"I really don't think anybody ought to take credit in light of the six-year
delay (emphasis added) we've had.My own view is that science ought to be
unfettered and that every possible alternative ought to be explored..if we
can find something which is certifiably equivalent to embryonic stem cells,
fine. But we are not there yet."---
Senator Arlen Specter, (R-PA) NY Times, 11/21/07
Tab Two:  IPS INVENTOR CRITIQUES HIS OWN RESEARCH:  SUPPORTS EMBRYONIC
One of two principle investigators of the new method, Shinya Yamanaka of
Japan,  said:
"New Advances in IPS cell research do not obviate the need for Human
Embryonic Stem Cells .it would be a serious mistake to conclude that recent
developments in IPS cell research.avert the need for ongoing research on hES
(human embryonic stem) cells. Research on IPS cells has barely begun.
".tumorigenicity (cancer-causing properties--dr) and safety are major
concerns.
"..we hold that research into all avenues of human stem cell research must
proceed together. Society deserves to have the full commitment of scientific
inquiry at its service.
"...inspiration for IPS cell research came from an earlier stem cell
study... with hES cells.
. the recent advancements in IPS cell research would not be possible if not
it were not for.years of dedicated hES cell research that preceded them. We
cannot support that notion that IPS cell research can advance without hES
research."
Cell Stem Cell 1, October 2007, Elsevier Inc.
Tab Three:  "WE SHOULD NOT GAMBLE THEIR LIVES."
"Because we cannot decide in advance which method will get us there first,
and because the lives of these patients must be paramount, we should not
gamble their lives on one.method."
--Irv Weissman is Director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer/Stem Cell
Biology and Medicine-quoted in USA Today, 11/25/07
IS THE NEW RESEARCH ALL WE NEED?
"Dr. Yamanaka's work.further emphasizes the critical need we have to
continue working with naturally occurring human embryonic stem cells, which
remain the gold standard (emphasis added) against which all alternative
sources of human pluripotent stem cells must be tested.."
--Dr. Richard Murphy, interim President of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine.
HEAD OF NIH STEM CELL TASK FORCE WEIGHS IN
".the head of the National Institutes of Health stem cell task force said it
would be a mistake for scientists to back away from research on embryonic
cells. (emphasis added)  Dr. Story Landis said the breakthrough with mature
cells was possible in part because of earlier work with embryonic cells.
"This does not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cell research",
Landis said.
To be able to compare results from the two types of research "is critical",
she added.
--Los Angeles Times, Ricardo Alonzo-Zaldivar, November 21, 2007
DOESN'T SHOW WHICH IS BETTER
"The latest research doesn't show which is better, so it would be foolish to
abandon SCNT-derived embryonic stem cells," says Robin Lovell-Badge, of he
National Institute for Medical Research in London.
--New Scientist.com news service, 12/06/07
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DRAG OUR FEET
"Restricting research. and pushing researchers toward. techniques not fully
understood only serves to delay the considerable medical benefits that could
lead to cures to some of the most debilitating diseases of our time. With
cancer alone killing half a million Americans every year. we don't have time
to drag our feet.
--The Michigan Daily, 11/27/07
".ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAD EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS TO WORK WITH."
"(Dr. Rudy) Jaenisch said the success with iPS cells does not mean that
research on human embryonic stem cells should be dropped, as some opponents
of the work have asserted.
"All the progress in this field was only possible because we had embryonic
stem cells to work with.," Jaenisch said,  "We need to make more embryonic
cells and really define which are going to be the best ones for different
applications."
--Washington Post, 12/07/07
Tab Four: CANCER RISK AND OTHER CAUTIONS:  DIFFICULTIES AND DANGERS
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF STEM CELL RESEARCH POINTS TO CANCER RISK, NEED FOR
MORE RESEARCH ON OTHER TECHNIQUES
"The process uses retroviruses to insert genes into somatic cells, and in
some cases genes that can cause cancer. Furthermore, the use of viruses to
transport the reprogramming genes into the adult human cells causes
mutations that predisposes these cells to cancer.
"It is premature to suggest that this approach can replace the derivation of
embryonic stem cells from embryos or by nuclear transfer. We believe that
research on human embryonic stem cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer and
"adult" or tissue-specific stem cells needs to continue in parallel. All are
part of a research effort that seeks to expand our knowledge of how cells
function, what fails in the disease process, and how the first stages of
human development occur.  It is this general knowledge that will ultimately
generate safe and effective therapies.
--ISSCR Statement on New Advances in Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research,
Dr. I. Hyun, Chair of the ISSCR Ethics and Public Policy
NEW YORK STEM CELL FOUNDATION SEES OBJECTIONS
".the research uses known cancer-causing genes to reprogram cells and return
them to an embryonic-like state," said Dr. Kevin Eggan, NYSCF Scientific
Director, "The retroviruses used to introduce these additional genes often
turn on cancer genes that are already present. It remains to be determined
whether reprogramming can be achieved without using cancer-causing genes.
"We must also be certain that the resulting pluripotent stem cells are
entirely equivalent to embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Eggan.
--NYSCF, November 20, 2007
'WOULDN'T BE SUITABLE FOR MEDICAL THERAPIES".
"The new technique wouldn't be suitable for medical therapies because it
uses viruses to inject genes into the cells' DNA. Such viruses insert the
genes at random locations, sometimes causing mutations."
-Science news Online, Nov. 24, 2007
ENGLAND: CAUTION REQUIRED
"Experts stressed more safety work was needed. (citing) potential to cause
dangerous side effects.. Retroviruses, (used to) insert therapeutic genes
into the DNA of these cells.have the ability to make random changes to DNA
elsewhere in the body, which could lead to complications, such as cancer.
(note: in one experiment, roughly 20% of the lab mice died of cancer-dr)
"Retroviruses can disrupt genes that should not be disrupted or activate
genes that should not be activated", Professor Azim Surani of University of
Cambridge said: "in addition to safety concerns, we have to be cautious
about extrapolating from mosue studies to humans.  The mouse iPS cells are
not identical to human iPS cells. We need more research."
-BBC, MMVII, 12/07/07
HOCHEDLINGER AND HARVARD
"We know little about how to direct an embryonic-like stem cell into.the
tissues they need, such as a pancreas cell instead of a nerve cell."
--Konrad Hochedlinger, Ph.D, assistant Professor, Harvard Stem Cell
Institute
Tab Five: MICHAEL J. FOX
PARKINSON'S ADVOCATE MICHAEL J. FOX ON THE NEW RESEARCH
Michael J. Fox said Friday he's excited by recent news that.skin cells have
been reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells, but lamented the energy
and resources being put into this and other alternative approaches.
"The irony is that every big development in this area in the past few years
has involved efforts to mimic embryonic stem cells,".With research that had
gone into recreating what everyone agrees is the gold standard, who's to say
how close we might be to new treatment now if we had been pressing forward
with (embryonic) stem cells the whole time."
Tab Six: Embryonic-LIKE, or Embryonic-LITE?
SCIENTISTS "CAN GET JOBS AT MCDONALDS"--??
"Every time we get a headline like this, some policy makers say, "OK, now we
can stop funding embryonic research, and you guys can get jobs at
McDonalds," said Dr. Evan Snyder, director of the stem cell research center
at the Burnham Institute in California,
(adding that).the genes used to produce (the embryonic-like) cells were
discovered through working with natural embryonic stem cells.
"What we find is that each (form of research-dr) informs the other," Snyder
said.. "they need to be tested head-to-head in the exact same animal model
to see which is most useful in a particular disease.You may need one type of
cell for one disease, and another type of cell for another disease.
"Snyder said Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research actually
retarded the breakthrough.perhaps by five years."
--Chicago Tribune, 21 November, 2007, also excerpt from Bradley Fikes North
County Times, 11-22-07
ONE THOUSAND DIFFERENCES.
".although they closely resemble embryonic stem cells, there are some
differences-over a thousand of them, in fact, according to microarray
analysis. .1,267 genes showed a greater than 5-fold difference in expression
between iPS cells and embryonic stem cells."-Synapse, Hadley Leggett,
12/06/07 (UCSF, site of Dr. Yamanaka's laboratory)
"A SERIES OF BIG IFS."
"The bright future (of iPS cells) depends on a series of big ifs.
"First of all, the function of the reprogrammed cells will have to be
compared closely with the function of actual embryonic stem cells. "I'd be
surprised if these cells do all the same tricks as stem cells derived from
embryos. Also, in both experiments, the for-gene recipe was added to the
skin cells using a virus as a delivery package.  The FDA (Food and Drug
Administration) would never allow us to use .virus-identified cells in
patients.
"Bottom line: there are very serious hurdles left to overcome. It could
still take years to get this to work in humans in a way that could be used
clinically."
--Robert Lanza, Advanced Cell Technology, MSNBC.com, 11/20/07, and USA
Today, 11/25/07
"IRRESPONSIBLE, UNREASONABLE, AND PREMATURE"
".Choosing to focus on only one avenue of research or type of cell source,
would.be irresponsible, unreasonable, and premature. (emphasis added)
"Promising and successful research exploring human stem cells should be
supplemented with-not supplanted by-new and potentially exciting approaches,
with all forms of research moving forward along multiple independent paths.
".no one knows what important discoveries would be missed if we were to.
'place all of our eggs in one new basket,' especially if that decision were
largely driven by emotional and political expediency."
-William Brinkley, dean of Graduate School of Biomedical Science at Baylor
College of Medicine: Houston Chronicle, 11/24/07
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
"It would be foolish to declare "Mission Accomplished" at this point. We
just don't know yet whether or not "embryo-like" cells are as good as the
real thing. Let us hope that scientists are allowed to find out."
--Rayilyn Brown, Board Member, Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's
Foundation
NEW CAMR PRESIDENT SPEAKS OUT
"Amy Comstock Rick, chief executive of the Parkinson's Action Network, (and
incoming President of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research-dr) said research on embryonic stem cells was much more advanced.
"Unless something has been shown to fail, it should not be taken off the
table-and embryonic stem cell research has shown great promise."-Los Angeles
Times, November 21, 2007
Tab Seven:  SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY
"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) hailed the new reports as "extraordinary
scientific breakthroughs", but said embryonic stem cell research must
continue. "Instead of aiding that fight, the Bush administration is
hampering it through needless restrictions on stem cell research and by
denying NIH the funds it needs to capitalize on new advances."
-Washington Post, November 21, 2007
Tab Eight: DON'T THROW OUT THE TOOLBOX: One Father's Perspective
My son, Roman Reed, is paralyzed: he is one of America's one hundred million
incurably ill or injured citizens: people who have been told, "there is no
hope".   Today, thanks to embryonic stem cell research, we do have hope.
On March 1, 2002, in the Reeve-Irvine Research Center, UC Irvine, I held in
my hands a laboratory rat which had been paralyzed, but which walked again.
California had passed a law, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act
of 1999, which funded Dr. Hans Keirstead's groundbreaking embryonic stem
cell experiments.
That experiment succeeded, using human embryonic stem cells to re-insulate
damaged spinal nerves, and restore function. It has since been replicated by
other scientists.
In 2008, Geron Corporation will take that experiment forward to human
trials.
Think what that means: for a paralyzed person to have a chance to walk
again?
The late paralyzed Superman, Christopher Reeve, sent my family a letter,
saying:
"One day, Roman and I will stand up from our wheelchairs, and walk away from
them forever."
Cure did not come in time for our great champion, but his dream lives on:
the flame of his faith still lights our way.
As patient advocates, we support full stem cell research: adult, embryonic,
nuclear transfer, and the new iPS procedures: but none to the exclusion of
the others.
As a tool for research, the induced Pluripotentiary Stem cell derivation
method is exciting news. We all wish success for iPS: that it may ease
suffering, and save lives.
But we do not know its full strength, nor its limitations. Safety is a
problem-- twenty percent of the lab mice died of cancer from the
experiments.
           Ideologues must not be allowed to use iPS as an excuse to block
other already-proven forms of stem cell research. As in everyday life, no
one tool can do everything; even the best wrench does not take away the need
for screw drivers, hammers, and saws. IPS may turn out to be great for blood
disease, for example, but not for nerve disorders.
An untried tool can seem wonderful indeed-- but we must not throw out the
toolbox.
--Don C. Reed , www.stemcellbattles.com
TAB NINE: Open letter from Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research --December 7, 2007

Dear Member of Congress:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Coalition for the Advancement of
Medical Research (CAMR). Our collective membership is comprised of the broad
and diverse community that supports the promise of embryonic stem cell
research and regenerative medicine to end disease and suffering.

Recent important discoveries in this field have reenergized the debate
regarding the continued need for full federal funding, especially for
embryonic stem cell research. We assert that these discoveries provide the
most compelling reason to date for the overturn of the presidential veto and
enactment of the widely supported Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

The similar studies of Drs. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin and
Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University, published nearly simultaneously the
week of November 19, 2007, both offer a new approach for developing what
appear to be pluripotent cells. The cells are called "iPS," or
induced pluripotent stem cells. Because the studies use adult skin cells and
do not require a human egg or embryo, the discovery has been heralded as an
end to the federal stem cell debate.

While we join with the research and medical community in commending Drs.
Thomson and Yamanaka, we believe it is short sighted and misleading to claim
that their work obviates the need for further research.

Dr. Thomson recently asserted in a Washington Post editorial jointly
authored by Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, that it is more important than ever to provide
unrestricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

We are disappointed that what should be viewed as a hopeful step forward for
the over 100 million patients with incurable diseases and conditions is
being used as political tool to obstruct scientific progress. We urge you
and your colleagues to look beyond the ill-informed arguments that are
attempting to divert support for what scientists continue to hail as one of
the most promising avenues of biomedical research. On behalf of CAMR and our
entire membership, let me assure you that we are united both in our praise
to Drs. Thompson and Yamanaka for their incredible discovery and for our
continued support for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. We
will continue to work to enact the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Sincerely,

Sean Tipton, President

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is the nation's
leading bipartisan pro-cures coalition. CAMR is comprised of over 100
nationally recognized patient organizations, universities, scientific
societies, and foundations advocating for the advancement of breakthrough
research and technologies in regenerative medicine. CAMR's advocacy and
education outreach focuses on stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear
transfer, and related research fields in which the mission is to develop
treatments and cures for individuals with life-threatening illnesses and
disorders.

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com
Don C. Reed is co-chair (with Karen Miner) of Californians for Cures, and
writes for their web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com. Reed was citizen-sponsor
for California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999, named
after his paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for California's
Senator Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an
executive board member for Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for
Research and Cures Act, and is director of policy outreach for Americans for
Cures. The retired schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty
magazine articles, and has received the National Press Award.
Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
rbrown@xxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn