Search


 
 
Blog : Displaying 972-975 of 1137


LA Times Calls for Proposition 71 Overhaul

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 12th, 2007


Today, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times called for the California Legislature to modify Proposition 71, which created the state's stem cell research agency:

[T]he Legislature could help by reconfiguring the governing board, making it smaller and balancing it with a strong contingent of elected officials and consumer watchdogs. Any change will take a 70% vote, usually a political impossibility. But the problems are nagging enough, and the stakes high enough, that the Legislature must overcome party divisions to create a leaner, more accountable institution.

These are powerful words. Not only is the Times the state's most widely-circulated paper, but its editorial board strongly endorsed the 2004 initiative.





Biotech Stem Cell Spin

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 12th, 2007


Spin Cycle quilt by Miriam Nathan-Roberts

Like politicians, pundits, and advocates, biotech entrepreneurs are also contemplating how to react to the recent advances in deriving stem cells from ordinary skin cells - particularly if the developments make their products less appealing. NeoStem was an already dubious company, founded by a Long Island "bagel baron," which stores adult bone marrow stem cells for a mere $7,500 fee. As with some other start ups, this one attempts to capitalize on stem cell hype.

Fortunately, some observers are not mincing words. Thomas Murray of the Hastings Center said, "The kindest thing one can say about this kind of activity is that it may not harm anyone. There is, at best, a faint prospect that it will benefit anyone except the people collecting the fees." I doubt that is reassuring to its investors, who have sunk in more than $10 million only to watch the company's stock lose 80% of its value in the last year.

The company's founder is trying to make PR lemonade out of the scientific lemons which recently made his services even less relevant: "In our opinion ... [the recent findings are] helpful in the sense that it's important to be able to move the entire stem cell field forward."

That's also the motivation behind a press release sent by Cascade Life Sciences, whose only asset appears to be a license to use new primate cloning and stem cell techniques. While those briefly seemed like a critical development, induced pluripotent stem cells (IPs) are patient-specific cells, and have already been obtained from humans without the need for eggs or cloning. Not surprisingly, Cascade's press statement tries to ride coattails by using language that brings to mind IPs instead of cloning:

Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Ph.D., and Oregon Health & Science University have made a major breakthrough in the reprogramming of primate skin cells into stem cells....

Notably, both approaches are capable of generating pluripotent embryonic stem cells without the use or need for fertilized embryos as a starting material. [italics mine]

Calling somatic cell nuclear transfer a method of reprogramming skin cells without a fertilized embryo, while technically accurate, is quite a rhetorical stretch. But the statement even attempts to recast cloning-based stem cell research, which has largely been unsuccessful after years of work, as superior to IPs:

Not only do we no longer need embryos as a starting material, the technology appears to address the issue of transplant rejection in the therapeutic setting and, moreover, does not require the use of retroviral transvection of additional DNA, such as transgenes, oncogenes, etc., to create pluripotent stem cells

Obviously, pointing out the shortcomings of a more successful competitor does not make cloning-based stem cell treatments any closer to reality.





Yet More Meddling at CIRM

Posted by Jesse Reynolds on December 7th, 2007


New revelations of improper interference in grant applications by board members of the California stem cell agency surfaced today. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that four members of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) board, who are also deans of medical schools in the state, have written letters of support for recent grant applications from researchers at their own institutions. This appears to violate Proposition 71, which prohibits board members from trying to influence applications from their institutions.

Coupled with recent news that one such inherently-conflicted board member tried to salvage a rejected grant to his institution - at the suggestion of board chair and Proposition 71 author Robert Klein - this suggests a board culture that does not take conflicts of interest seriously. The picture seems even sharper in light of CIRM board members' personal financial interests in companies that are invested in stem cell research, documented in a CGS report in April 2005.

The current situation developed after applicants for CIRM grants were instructed to obtain letters of support from their department chairs or deans, without mentioning that conflict-of-interest considerations would rule out letters from deans who are also CIRM board members. But these board members, who are executives at heavyweight institutions - UCSF, UCLA, UCS­D, and USC - should know better. It would have been a simple matter for them to refer the applicants to assistant deans or department chairs.

Both in this case and in the one involving Robert Klein and board member John Reed, CIRM staff should be praised for catching and rejecting the inappropriate interference.

Credit or blame aside, this meddling is symptomatic of the deep flaws of Proposition 71, which created CIRM. It mandates that the CIRM board be dominated by high-ranking representatives of the institutions vying to maximize their slice of the public funding pie. These developments should stimulate the California legislature to alter the law to reform the board structure, and more.­

­



The New York Times’ New Hitman

Posted by Osagie Obasogie on December 5th, 2007


John Tierney has been writing for the New York Times for quite a while. But his most recent beat has entailed covering science and technology, where he has drunken the biohype kool-aid that's apparently on tap at the Times' watercooler.

Tierney's most recent example of reporting while intoxicated can be seen in his article on religion and cloning, where he not so subtly suggests that only Western religious zealots find fault with the idea of cloning human beings. His proof? The Far East. If people in Asia (who are largely non-Christian) don't have a problem with reproductive or research cloning, then, as Tierney's shoddy armchair sociology leads him to conclude, religion must be the key variable. And, the argument goes, since religion is by definition irrational, so too is any opposition to cloning a human. Tierney lays out his full manifesto in a blog post on the Times' website entitled "Who's Afraid of Soulless Scientism?"

This strawman argument pitting religion and science as irredeemably feuding entities both overestimates religion's role in how people think about reproductive cloning and underestimates the very real social harms that may come from it. One need not resort to a belief in God to think that human cloning is a bad idea.

First, any effort to clone a person is nothing short of unethical human experimentation. Reproductive cloning in animals typically leads to scores of stillborn and deformed clones before a viable one is born. And their surrogates often don't fare much better. Subjecting humans to this would be barbaric. Second, like research cloning, reproductive cloning relies heavily upon women's eggs and endangers those who undergo egg extraction - a painful and dangerous endeavor that has lead to serious complications and even some deaths. Third, reproductive cloning doesn't serve any reasonable medical purpose. Cloning a dead or living person might intrigue some, but this twisted fantasy is certainly outweighed by other dangers.

Thus, the problem isn't necessarily that science might lack a soul. It's that advocates like Tierney often lead it to lack decency.





Displaying 972-975 of 1137  
< Prev  Next >> 
« First Page Last Page » 
« Show Complete List » 

 


ESPAÑOL | PORTUGUÊS | Русский

home | overview | blog | publications | about us | donate | newsletter | press room | privacy policy

CGS • 1936 University Ave, Suite 350, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA • • (p) 1.510.625.0819 • (F) 1.510.665.8760