WE OWN OUR STEM CELLS – Video
August 19th, 2013 2:43 pm
WE OWN OUR STEM CELLS
short video re: our stem cell being deemed as drugs by the FDA...Let #39;s get petitions going!!!
By: Jayne Thomas
View original post here:
WE OWN OUR STEM CELLS - Video
Stem Cell Tourism (Pause Point Version) – Video
August 19th, 2013 2:43 pm
Stem Cell Tourism (Pause Point Version)
By: Regenx
Excerpt from:
Stem Cell Tourism (Pause Point Version) - Video
Stem Cell Therapy: Where’s the Evidence? – Video
August 19th, 2013 2:40 pm
Stem Cell Therapy: Where #39;s the Evidence?
Dr. Tony Dans of the University of the Philippines College of Medicine discusses dilemmas in research and regulation of stem cell therapy in the Philippines....
By: Antonio Dans
Read the original here:
Stem Cell Therapy: Where's the Evidence? - Video
What’s Stem Cell Therapy Dr Bill Johnson Has Answers – Video
August 19th, 2013 9:40 am
What #39;s Stem Cell Therapy Dr Bill Johnson Has Answers
for more information go to... http://www.innovationstemcellcenter.com More useful info below... Drapeau #39;s theory that Adult Stem Cells are nothing less than the hum...
By: Mark Khan
Read more from the original source:
What's Stem Cell Therapy Dr Bill Johnson Has Answers - Video
FDA hearing on stem cell therapy set on Friday, Aug. 23
August 19th, 2013 9:40 amBy: Jet Villa, InterAksyon.com August 18, 2013 5:02 PM
REUTERS FILE PHOTO
InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5
MANILA, Philippines - The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will conduct on Friday, August 23, a public hearing on the regulation of stem cell therapy in the country.
The FDA said the public hearing is scheduled from 3 p.m. to 5 p,m, at the Audio-Visual Room, 3rd floor, Annex Building, FDA office on Civil Drive in Alabang Muntinlupa.
The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the regulation of stem cell therapy, the stem cell products, and the health facilities that are offering the service in the court, it said.
The FDA also established an online reporting system to document adverse events linked to human cells, tissues, and cellular- and tissue-based products such stem cell therapies acquired in any facility.
The agency said those who experienced any untoward event or side effect or treatment failures after undergoing stem cell procedures can report through FDA website at http://www.fda.gov.ph under eReport and Adverse Drug Reaction, Report section.
E-mails may also be sent toreport@fda.gov.ph.
All consumers are assuredthat all information given will be treated with utmost confidentiality.Contact details are needed in case of a need for follow-up and validation.However, anonymous reports will still be accepted, the FDA added.
Read more here:
FDA hearing on stem cell therapy set on Friday, Aug. 23
BioTime CEO Dr. Michael West to Give Keynote Address at the MSC 2013 Adult Stem Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine …
August 19th, 2013 9:40 amALAMEDA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
BioTime, Inc. (NYSE MKT: BTX), a biotechnology company that develops and markets products in the field of regenerative medicine, announced that Chief Executive Officer Michael D. West, PhD will give the keynote address at the MSC 2013 Adult Stem Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine conference on Monday, August 19, 2013, at 12:15 p.m. EDT in Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. West will discuss the potential use of embryonic mesenchymal progenitor cells, generated using BioTimes PureStemtechnology, in regenerative medicine and will contrast the properties of those cells with adult-derived mesenchymal stem cells. He will also discuss how those cells can be utilized in the search for genes potentially useful in induced tissue regeneration (iTR). The presentation will be available on BioTimes website at http://www.biotimeinc.com/scientific-presentations.
MSC 2013 Adult Stem Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine, August 19-21, 2013, is being held at the Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center and is presented by Case Western Reserve University and the National Center for Regenerative Medicine.
About BioTime, Inc
BioTime is a biotechnology company engaged in research and product development in the field of regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine refers to therapies based on stem cell technology that are designed to rebuild cell and tissue function lost due to degenerative disease or injury. BioTimes focus is on pluripotent stem cell technology based on human embryonic stem (hES) cells and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. hES and iPS cells provide a means of manufacturing every cell type in the human body and therefore show considerable promise for the development of a number of new therapeutic products. BioTimes therapeutic and research products include a wide array of proprietary PureStem progenitors, HyStem hydrogels, culture media, and differentiation kits. BioTime is developing Renevia (a HyStem product) as a biocompatible, implantable hyaluronan and collagen-based matrix for cell delivery in human clinical applications. In addition, BioTime has developed Hextend, a blood plasma volume expander for use in surgery, emergency trauma treatment and other applications. Hextend is manufactured and distributed in the U.S. by Hospira, Inc. and in South Korea by CJ CheilJedang Corporation under exclusive licensing agreements.
BioTime is also developing stem cell and other products for research, therapeutic, and diagnostic use through its subsidiaries:
Additional information about BioTime can be found on the web at http://www.biotimeinc.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
Statements pertaining to future financial and/or operating results, future growth in research, technology, clinical development, and potential opportunities for BioTime and its subsidiaries, along with other statements about the future expectations, beliefs, goals, plans, or prospects expressed by management constitute forward-looking statements. Any statements that are not historical fact (including, but not limited to statements that contain words such as will, believes, plans, anticipates, expects, estimates) should also be considered to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, risks inherent in the development and/or commercialization of potential products, uncertainty in the results of clinical trials or regulatory approvals, need and ability to obtain future capital, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. Actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking statements and as such should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect the business of BioTime and its subsidiaries, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements found in BioTime's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. BioTime disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements.
To receive ongoing BioTime corporate communications, please click on the following link to join our email alert list: http://news.biotimeinc.com.
Original post:
BioTime CEO Dr. Michael West to Give Keynote Address at the MSC 2013 Adult Stem Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine ...
AVN Treatment using Stem Cells – Video
August 18th, 2013 6:42 am
AVN Treatment using Stem Cells
Stem Cells.
By: StemRx BioScience
Continue reading here:
AVN Treatment using Stem Cells - Video
Alternative Treatments for Lung Cancer Stem Cells and HIFU in Bangkok Small and Non-Small Cell – Video
August 18th, 2013 6:42 am
Alternative Treatments for Lung Cancer Stem Cells and HIFU in Bangkok Small and Non-Small Cell
Traditional and Alternative Treatments for Lung Cancer using CyberKnife Stem Cells and HIFU in Bangkok More:http://stemcellthailand.org/services-list/alterna...
By: Stem Cell Regeneration Center of Thailand
Regenerative medicine and Stem cells Partnering Terms and Agreem – Video
August 18th, 2013 6:42 am
Regenerative medicine and Stem cells Partnering Terms and Agreem
To know more : http://www.bharatbook.com/biotechnology-market-research-reports/regenerative-medicine-and-stem-cells-partnering-terms-and-agreements.html The ...
By: Deepa Kamath
More here:
Regenerative medicine and Stem cells Partnering Terms and Agreem - Video
Unhidden Traits: Genomic Data Privacy Debates Heat Up
August 18th, 2013 3:03 amEarlier this year Yaniv Erlich of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at M.I.T. sent bioethicists into a frenzy when he and his team uncovered the names of people whose anonymous genome...
-- Read more on ScientificAmerican.com
http://rss.sciam.com/~r/sciam/topic/gene-therapy/~3/c3dvzwuFAUI/article.cfm
‘Butter and Eggs Money" and a Gubernatorial Veto
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amNancy
Scheper-Hughes, professor of medical anthropology at UC Berkeley and
director of Organs
Watch, is one of the opponents of the legislation that would have
permitted women to sell their eggs for research. Today she filed the
following comment on the “troubling mindset” item on the
California Stem Cell Report.
Scheper-Hughes, professor of medical anthropology at UC Berkeley and
director of Organs
Watch, is one of the opponents of the legislation that would have
permitted women to sell their eggs for research. Today she filed the
following comment on the “troubling mindset” item on the
California Stem Cell Report.
“Jerry Brown's
veto of AB926
which would allow young women to be paid for multiple egg extractions
for scientific research is one for the gals. In western Ireland
women secreted away their 'butter
and eggs'
money in anticipation of hard times. In my day every smart girl had
her 'mad money' to escape a bad situation. Secret cash for young
women is a great idea, but not when it turns on multiple cycles of
pumping powerful hormones associated (in other contexts) with ovarian
cancer into young women's bodies to produce 30 or 60 eggs a month.
That's not promoting gender equity no matter what some of our best
Democratic women leaders have to say. Selling sperm and selling eggs
are a totally different matter. One is pleasurable and safe,
the other is a complicated and invasive procedure. We need good
science and good research and freedom of choice and action. We
also need protection from false advertising. There are no
evidence based, long term studies of the effects of these hormone
injections on women ten or twenty years after the fact. Let's fund
those needed longitudinal and cohort studies and hope for the best.
In the meantime, women had best stick to 'butter and eggs' money. It
doesn't pay a lot, but it's less painful and a heck of a lot safer.”
Source:Bonilla: Veto of Pay-for-Eggs Bill Shows Troubling Mindset
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amA Democratic state legislator today
assailed Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's “mindset” as “particularly
troubling” in his veto of legislation that would have allowed women
to sell their eggs for scientific research.
assailed Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's “mindset” as “particularly
troubling” in his veto of legislation that would have allowed women
to sell their eggs for scientific research.
The statement came from Assemblywoman
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, in response to Brown's action on her
fertility-industry sponsored bill, AB926, which would have removed a
ban on compensation for women who provide eggs for research.
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, in response to Brown's action on her
fertility-industry sponsored bill, AB926, which would have removed a
ban on compensation for women who provide eggs for research.
 |
| Susan Bonilla Photo from California Legislature |
Brown cited health risks and other issues and said in his veto message,
“Not everything in life is for sale
nor should it be.”
Alex Matthews, writing on Capitol
Weekly, quoted Bonilla as saying,
Weekly, quoted Bonilla as saying,
“It (the governor's veto) shows a
glaring inconsistency...The veto statement was very overreaching in
the fact that it was making very broad statements about what women
should be able to do, and while it's not legislation it certainly
goes to a mindset that the governor has that I find particularly
troubling.”
Bonilla continued,
“Market-driven compensation of donors
by donor agencies and prospective parents continues unchecked.”
In a statement on her website, Bonilla
said the governor's veto “is a regressive action that denies
thousands of women the prospect of medical fertility breakthroughs.”
She said,
said the governor's veto “is a regressive action that denies
thousands of women the prospect of medical fertility breakthroughs.”
She said,
“Many women...will be denied hope and
the possibility of giving birth to a child because research on their
behalf has been halted in California.”
Bonilla has argued that women involved
in egg-related research, such as that involving stem cells, should
be compensated, just as men are for their sperm. Women who provide
eggs for fertility purposes can be legally compensated up to any
amount. The current market runs about $10,000 or so per egg cycle but can be much
higher.
in egg-related research, such as that involving stem cells, should
be compensated, just as men are for their sperm. Women who provide
eggs for fertility purposes can be legally compensated up to any
amount. The current market runs about $10,000 or so per egg cycle but can be much
higher.
Bonilla's measure would not have
affected a ban on compensation involving research funded by the $3
billion California stem cell agency. It would have taken a 70 percent
vote of each house to alter that restriction, compared to a simple
majority for Bonilla's bill. The super, super-majority requirement
was written into state law by Proposition 71, the measure that
created the stem cell agency.
affected a ban on compensation involving research funded by the $3
billion California stem cell agency. It would have taken a 70 percent
vote of each house to alter that restriction, compared to a simple
majority for Bonilla's bill. The super, super-majority requirement
was written into state law by Proposition 71, the measure that
created the stem cell agency.
Bonilla did not indicate whether she
would attempt to override the governor's veto, which would require a
2/3 vote of each house.
would attempt to override the governor's veto, which would require a
2/3 vote of each house.
One of the opponents of the bill, the
Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, called the veto a
“welcome development.”
Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, called the veto a
“welcome development.”
Diane Tober, associate executive
director of the center, said,
director of the center, said,
“It would be unconscionable to
expand the commercial market in women’s eggs without obtaining
significantly more information about the risks of retrieving them.”
Here are links to other stories today
on the veto of the bill: Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, an
additional story from late yesterday on Capitol Weekly, TheAssociated Press and National Review.
on the veto of the bill: Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, an
additional story from late yesterday on Capitol Weekly, TheAssociated Press and National Review.
Source:California Gov. Jerry Brown Vetoes Pay-for-Eggs Legislation
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amCalifornia Gov. Jerry Brown today
vetoed a fertility industry-backed measure that would have permitted
women to sell their eggs for the purposes of scientific research.
vetoed a fertility industry-backed measure that would have permitted
women to sell their eggs for the purposes of scientific research.
In his veto message, Brown said,
“Not everything in life is for sale
nor should it be.”
The bill would have repealed a ban on
compensation of women who provide their eggs for scientific purposes.
The measure would not have changed existing law that allows women to
be paid for their eggs for IVF purposes with fees that range up to
$50,000. The bill also would not have affected the ban on compensation for
eggs for research that is financed by the $3 billion California stem
cell agency.
compensation of women who provide their eggs for scientific purposes.
The measure would not have changed existing law that allows women to
be paid for their eggs for IVF purposes with fees that range up to
$50,000. The bill also would not have affected the ban on compensation for
eggs for research that is financed by the $3 billion California stem
cell agency.
The legislation (AB926) by
Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, was sponsored by the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine and easily swept through the Democratic-dominated legislature. Bonilla said the measure would have placed women on an
equal footing with men, who are paid for their sperm contributions
for research. She also said that it would help to encourage more
research into fertility issues.
Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, was sponsored by the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine and easily swept through the Democratic-dominated legislature. Bonilla said the measure would have placed women on an
equal footing with men, who are paid for their sperm contributions
for research. She also said that it would help to encourage more
research into fertility issues.
Some stem cell scientists have
complained that not enough women are willing to donate eggs without
compensation, but stem cell researchers were not publicly involved in
supporting the bill.
complained that not enough women are willing to donate eggs without
compensation, but stem cell researchers were not publicly involved in
supporting the bill.
The fertility industry group had
confidently predicted that Brown, a Democrat like Bonilla, would sign the bill. The governor's
action could be overridden by a 2/3 vote of each house of the
Legislature. It is not clear whether Bonilla will make such an
attempt.
confidently predicted that Brown, a Democrat like Bonilla, would sign the bill. The governor's
action could be overridden by a 2/3 vote of each house of the
Legislature. It is not clear whether Bonilla will make such an
attempt.
Here is the text of Brown's veto
message:
message:
"Not everything in life is for sale
nor should it be."This bill would legalize the payment of
money in exchange for a woman submitting to invasive procedures to
stimulate, extract and harvest her eggs for scientific research."The questions raised here are not
simple; they touch matters that are both personal and philosophical.
"In medical procedures of this kind,
genuinely informed consent is difficult because the long-term risks
are not adequately known. Putting thousands of dollars on the table
only compounds the problem."Six years ago the Legislature, by
near unanimity, enacted the prohibition that this bill now seeks to
reverse. After careful review of the materials which both supporters
and opponents submitted, I do not find sufficient reason to change
course.
"I am returning this bill without my
signature."
Source:Duane Roth: Ecumenical Innovator for San Diego and Biotech
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amThe Xconomy news service today carried
a sterling look at the contributions that Duane Roth, co-vice
chairman of the California stem cell agency, made before his untimely
death as the result of a bicycle accident.
a sterling look at the contributions that Duane Roth, co-vice
chairman of the California stem cell agency, made before his untimely
death as the result of a bicycle accident.
Reporter Bruce Bigelow pulled together
a host of comments concerning Roth's involvement in the San Diego
community, ranging from biotech to action sports companies. The
headline on the piece read, “The Connector Who Wired up a Regional
Innovation Economy.”
a host of comments concerning Roth's involvement in the San Diego
community, ranging from biotech to action sports companies. The
headline on the piece read, “The Connector Who Wired up a Regional
Innovation Economy.”
At the time of his death at the age of
63, Roth was CEO of Connect, a nonprofit organization that supported
technology and innovation and one that he was credited with reviving.
Bigelow also wrote,
63, Roth was CEO of Connect, a nonprofit organization that supported
technology and innovation and one that he was credited with reviving.
Bigelow also wrote,
“Once California voters approved a
2004 ballot proposition that authorized the issuance of $3 billion in
grants for stem cell R&D, (Mary) Walshok (associate vice
chancellor for public programs at UC San Diego) said Roth also played
a key role in bringing together UCSD, Scripps, Salk, and
Sanford-Burnham to create the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative
Medicine. In fact, Walshok doubts whether anyone but Duane Roth could
have brought the four major research centers together.”
Another speaker at the memorial
services Friday attended by about 1,000 persons was Bill Walton, the
former UCLA and NBA great, who grew up in San Diego.
services Friday attended by about 1,000 persons was Bill Walton, the
former UCLA and NBA great, who grew up in San Diego.
Bigelow wrote,
“Walton, the NBA Hall of Famer who
has led San Diego Sports Innovators as a division of Connect since
2010, said Roth became a business mentor to him. In his comments
Friday afternoon, Walton said Roth inspired him to be a better
person, and he counted Roth among the people who had the biggest
influence on his life—a list that included his own father, UCLA
coach John Wooden, sportscaster Chick Hearn, author David Halberstam,
and Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead.”
Bigelow described Roth as an ecumenical
and pragmatic advocate for innovation who could work with persons who
did not always agree with him on all issues. He was a conservative
and active Republican, but his co-vice chair at at the stem cell
agency, Art Torres, former chairman of the state Democratic Party, on
more than one occasion has lauded Roth's ability to work together.
and pragmatic advocate for innovation who could work with persons who
did not always agree with him on all issues. He was a conservative
and active Republican, but his co-vice chair at at the stem cell
agency, Art Torres, former chairman of the state Democratic Party, on
more than one occasion has lauded Roth's ability to work together.
Bigelow wrote about similar remarks
Friday by Don Rosenberg, an executive vice president and general
counsel at Qualcomm.
Friday by Don Rosenberg, an executive vice president and general
counsel at Qualcomm.
“'Duane and I were as different as
two people can be,' Rosenberg said during his eulogy at the Church of
the Immaculata. 'Duane was born in Iowa, baptized in the Mennonite
church, a Republican. And me, raised in Brooklyn, Jewish, a Democrat.
We quickly learned we had more in common. We were kindred spirits. We
liked the same things: Bikes, biking, cars, and people.'”
Source:A $6 Billion Question: Progress of the California Stem Cell Agency
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amThe headlines march like legions across the
Internet and throughout the world.
Internet and throughout the world.
But then there is this extraordinarily
rare headline that sounds a harshly different note:
rare headline that sounds a harshly different note:
All these headlines go to address, in
one form or another, a request/question posed last month by an
anonymous reader of the California Stem Cell Report. The comment came
on an item about the California stem cell agency's $70 million plan
to establish a network of “Alpha” stem cell clinics in
California.
one form or another, a request/question posed last month by an
anonymous reader of the California Stem Cell Report. The comment came
on an item about the California stem cell agency's $70 million plan
to establish a network of “Alpha” stem cell clinics in
California.
The reader said,
“It would be nice to have an overall
update on how much as been spent on California's stem cell research
project and what progress has been made.”
On the surface, the answer is easy. The
agency has given away $1.8 billion. The agency says it has made
tremendous progress and expects to make even more with the about $600
million it has left. The prestigious Institute of Medicine has said the
agency has “achieved many notable results.”
agency has given away $1.8 billion. The agency says it has made
tremendous progress and expects to make even more with the about $600
million it has left. The prestigious Institute of Medicine has said the
agency has “achieved many notable results.”
However, no thorough, rigorous
evaluation has been made of the details of the agency's scientific
contributions, specific grant awards or its impact on the field of
regenerative medicine. No one has attempted to genuinely assess
whether the work of the agency is or will be worth the roughly $6
billion(including interest) that California taxpayers will have paid
for the agency's ambitious efforts.
evaluation has been made of the details of the agency's scientific
contributions, specific grant awards or its impact on the field of
regenerative medicine. No one has attempted to genuinely assess
whether the work of the agency is or will be worth the roughly $6
billion(including interest) that California taxpayers will have paid
for the agency's ambitious efforts.
Then there is the question of “progress
towards what?” Is the progress to be measured against the promises
of the 2004 ballot campaign that resulted in creation of the stem
cell agency or more modest goals that eschew the hype of the
campaign?
towards what?” Is the progress to be measured against the promises
of the 2004 ballot campaign that resulted in creation of the stem
cell agency or more modest goals that eschew the hype of the
campaign?
The stem cell agency is burdened in a way that most science is not. The 2004 campaign
created a sort of contract with voters. They were led to
believe nine years ago that the cures for diseases that the campaign said afflict nearly
one-half of all California families were, in fact, right around the corner. Few,
if any California stem cell researchers were publicly warning that a
hard and long, long slog remained before therapies reached patients.
created a sort of contract with voters. They were led to
believe nine years ago that the cures for diseases that the campaign said afflict nearly
one-half of all California families were, in fact, right around the corner. Few,
if any California stem cell researchers were publicly warning that a
hard and long, long slog remained before therapies reached patients.
Last week, however, Simon Roach of the
British newspapers, The Guardian and Observer, shed some light on the
early, rosy promises of stem cell science compared to the world as it exists
today.
British newspapers, The Guardian and Observer, shed some light on the
early, rosy promises of stem cell science compared to the world as it exists
today.
He wrote that in 1998,
“(B)iomedical engineer Professor
Michael Sefton declared that within 10 years, scientists would have
grown an entire heart, fit for transplant. 'We're shooting big,' he
said. 'Our vision is that we'll be able to pop out a damaged heart
and replace it as easily as you would replace a carburetor in a car.'“Fifteen years on, however, we've had
some liver cells, eye cells, even a lab-grown
burger, but no whole human organs. We could be forgiven for
asking: where's our heart? It does seem strange that a field stoking
so much excitement could be so far off the mark. Speaking last week
about the vision that he and his colleagues outlined in 1998, Sefton
said they had been 'hopelessly naïve.' As time plodded on and an
understanding of the biological complexity increased, the task seemed
bigger and bigger. Even now, a cacophony of headlines later, we are
not much further ahead.
“Chris Mason is a professor of
regenerative medicine at University College London and believes that
concentrating on organ regeneration is missing a trick. 'These organs
are immensely complex,' he said. 'They've got nerves, blood vessels,
in the case of the liver, a bile system – there are huge degrees of
complexity. These things take a long time to grow in humans, let
alone in the lab without all the natural cues that occur in the
growing embryo.'"
The final paragraph in Roach's article
said,
said,
“There's a tension in medical
research between the glory of the big discovery and the
assiduous commitment to real application. 'We're hoping the scope and
possibilities of this project will catch the public's imagination,'
Sefton concluded in 1998. It did, but perhaps the public's
imagination isn't always what science should be vying for.”
Little doubt exists that the California
stem cell agency has made a significant contribution to stem cell
science, although the size of that contribution – beyond dollars –
remains to be measured. For now, the key for the agency and the
public is to focus on activities that will generate the greatest value over the
next few years and advance the science that has already been financed
by the agency.
stem cell agency has made a significant contribution to stem cell
science, although the size of that contribution – beyond dollars –
remains to be measured. For now, the key for the agency and the
public is to focus on activities that will generate the greatest value over the
next few years and advance the science that has already been financed
by the agency.
As the $700,000 Institute of Medicine
report said,
report said,
“The challenge of moving its research
programs closer to the clinic and California’s large biotechnology
sector is certainly on CIRM’s agenda, but substantial achievements
in this arena remain to be made.”
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/O78NzUdZE88/a-6-billion-question-progress-of.html
Stem Cell Agency’s Duane Roth Eulogized at Memorial Services
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amAn estimated 1,000 persons attended
services last week for Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the California
stem cell agency, who died at the age of 63 following a bicycle
accident.
services last week for Duane Roth, co-vice chairman of the California
stem cell agency, who died at the age of 63 following a bicycle
accident.
The San Diego U-T reported,
“A Who’s
Who of San Diego’s technology, business and civic community
gathered Friday to bid farewell to Duane Roth.
The biotech entrepreneur, community leader and director of Connect
died last weekend of injuries sustained in a cycling accident.
“Among
attendees were Gayle and former Gov. Pete
Wilson, who had just celebrated his upcoming 80th birthday
with former colleagues and friends in Sacramento, county
Supervisor Ron Roberts, former
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, Chamber
head Jerry Sanders, Preuss School
benefactors Peggy and Peter
Preuss, SDG&E CEO Jessie Knight,
and many biotech and high-tech leaders. These included Irwin
Jacobs, Ted Waitt and Denny
Sanford.”
Source:‘Paradigm Shift’ — Researchers as Patient Advocates?
August 18th, 2013 3:02 amIt is not easy for a stem cell
scientist to break into “print” in that bastion of American
capitalism, Forbes magazine. Much less one from that perceived
antithesis of free enterprise, Reed College.
scientist to break into “print” in that bastion of American
capitalism, Forbes magazine. Much less one from that perceived
antithesis of free enterprise, Reed College.
But researcher Paul Knoepfler of UC
Davis has done just that.
Davis has done just that.
John Farrell of Forbes wrote about Knoepfler on
Friday in the wake of the announcement Knoepfler will be honored with
a “national advocacy” award by the Genetics Policy Institute.
Friday in the wake of the announcement Knoepfler will be honored with
a “national advocacy” award by the Genetics Policy Institute.
 |
| Paul Knoepfler -- Advocate for a "new ethos" UC Davis photo |
Knoepfler, who received a degree in
English literature from Reed in 1989, is being recognized for his
activities as a stem cell blogger since 2009.
English literature from Reed in 1989, is being recognized for his
activities as a stem cell blogger since 2009.
Farrell quoted Knoepfler as saying in
an email,
an email,
“With many stumbles, face plants,
land mines, and even a few threats of litigation and career
retaliation along the way for the last three and half a years, I
turned my crazy idea into a reality.”
Farrell continued,
“But it was only possible,
(Knoepfler) added, with guidance from many patient advocates and
bloggers in other fields who generously helped him learn the ropes of
blogging.
“'I see this award as a validation of
the notion that advocacy by scientists has become a valued part of
the stem cell field,' he said.
“'My hope is to catalyze a continuing
paradigm shift whereby stem cell scientists and biomedical scientists
more generally have a new ethos that not just accepts, but also
deeply values advocacy.'”
Source:Unhidden Traits: Genomic Data Privacy Debates Heat Up
August 18th, 2013 2:59 amEarlier this year Yaniv Erlich of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at M.I.T. sent bioethicists into a frenzy when he and his team uncovered the names of people whose anonymous genome...
-- Read more on ScientificAmerican.com
http://rss.sciam.com/~r/sciam/topic/gene-therapy/~3/c3dvzwuFAUI/article.cfm
Bonilla: Veto of Pay-for-Eggs Bill Shows Troubling Mindset
August 18th, 2013 2:59 amA Democratic state legislator today
assailed Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's “mindset” as “particularly
troubling” in his veto of legislation that would have allowed women
to sell their eggs for scientific research.
assailed Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's “mindset” as “particularly
troubling” in his veto of legislation that would have allowed women
to sell their eggs for scientific research.
The statement came from Assemblywoman
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, in response to Brown's action on her
fertility-industry sponsored bill, AB926, which would have removed a
ban on compensation for women who provide eggs for research.
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, in response to Brown's action on her
fertility-industry sponsored bill, AB926, which would have removed a
ban on compensation for women who provide eggs for research.
 |
| Susan Bonilla Photo from California Legislature |
Brown cited health risks and other issues and said in his veto message,
“Not everything in life is for sale
nor should it be.”
Alex Matthews, writing on Capitol
Weekly, quoted Bonilla as saying,
Weekly, quoted Bonilla as saying,
“It (the governor's veto) shows a
glaring inconsistency...The veto statement was very overreaching in
the fact that it was making very broad statements about what women
should be able to do, and while it's not legislation it certainly
goes to a mindset that the governor has that I find particularly
troubling.”
Bonilla continued,
“Market-driven compensation of donors
by donor agencies and prospective parents continues unchecked.”
In a statement on her website, Bonilla
said the governor's veto “is a regressive action that denies
thousands of women the prospect of medical fertility breakthroughs.”
She said,
said the governor's veto “is a regressive action that denies
thousands of women the prospect of medical fertility breakthroughs.”
She said,
“Many women...will be denied hope and
the possibility of giving birth to a child because research on their
behalf has been halted in California.”
Bonilla has argued that women involved
in egg-related research, such as that involving stem cells, should
be compensated, just as men are for their sperm. Women who provide
eggs for fertility purposes can be legally compensated up to any
amount. The current market runs about $10,000 or so per egg cycle but can be much
higher.
in egg-related research, such as that involving stem cells, should
be compensated, just as men are for their sperm. Women who provide
eggs for fertility purposes can be legally compensated up to any
amount. The current market runs about $10,000 or so per egg cycle but can be much
higher.
Bonilla's measure would not have
affected a ban on compensation involving research funded by the $3
billion California stem cell agency. It would have taken a 70 percent
vote of each house to alter that restriction, compared to a simple
majority for Bonilla's bill. The super, super-majority requirement
was written into state law by Proposition 71, the measure that
created the stem cell agency.
affected a ban on compensation involving research funded by the $3
billion California stem cell agency. It would have taken a 70 percent
vote of each house to alter that restriction, compared to a simple
majority for Bonilla's bill. The super, super-majority requirement
was written into state law by Proposition 71, the measure that
created the stem cell agency.
Bonilla did not indicate whether she
would attempt to override the governor's veto, which would require a
2/3 vote of each house.
would attempt to override the governor's veto, which would require a
2/3 vote of each house.
One of the opponents of the bill, the
Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, called the veto a
“welcome development.”
Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, called the veto a
“welcome development.”
Diane Tober, associate executive
director of the center, said,
director of the center, said,
“It would be unconscionable to
expand the commercial market in women’s eggs without obtaining
significantly more information about the risks of retrieving them.”
Here are links to other stories today
on the veto of the bill: Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, an
additional story from late yesterday on Capitol Weekly, TheAssociated Press and National Review.
on the veto of the bill: Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, an
additional story from late yesterday on Capitol Weekly, TheAssociated Press and National Review.
Source:‘Butter and Eggs Money” and a Gubernatorial Veto
August 18th, 2013 2:59 amNancy
Scheper-Hughes, professor of medical anthropology at UC Berkeley and
director of Organs
Watch, is one of the opponents of the legislation that would have
permitted women to sell their eggs for research. Today she filed the
following comment on the “troubling mindset” item on the
California Stem Cell Report.
Scheper-Hughes, professor of medical anthropology at UC Berkeley and
director of Organs
Watch, is one of the opponents of the legislation that would have
permitted women to sell their eggs for research. Today she filed the
following comment on the “troubling mindset” item on the
California Stem Cell Report.
“Jerry Brown's
veto of AB926
which would allow young women to be paid for multiple egg extractions
for scientific research is one for the gals. In western Ireland
women secreted away their 'butter
and eggs'
money in anticipation of hard times. In my day every smart girl had
her 'mad money' to escape a bad situation. Secret cash for young
women is a great idea, but not when it turns on multiple cycles of
pumping powerful hormones associated (in other contexts) with ovarian
cancer into young women's bodies to produce 30 or 60 eggs a month.
That's not promoting gender equity no matter what some of our best
Democratic women leaders have to say. Selling sperm and selling eggs
are a totally different matter. One is pleasurable and safe,
the other is a complicated and invasive procedure. We need good
science and good research and freedom of choice and action. We
also need protection from false advertising. There are no
evidence based, long term studies of the effects of these hormone
injections on women ten or twenty years after the fact. Let's fund
those needed longitudinal and cohort studies and hope for the best.
In the meantime, women had best stick to 'butter and eggs' money. It
doesn't pay a lot, but it's less painful and a heck of a lot safer.”
Source: