Will stem cell funding decisions be based on the scientific evidence or
on what the media chooses to cover?
If this upsets you --- please call your Representative's and Senator's
office tomorrow and ask for them to co-sponsor  H.CON.RES.17 (in the
House)
 and  S. 723 (in the Senate)  in support of stem cell research funding.
Linda

  Advances in Stem Cells, Cloning Renew Controversy
  ---   Scientists Say Embryo Research
  Is Needed Despite Fat Finding
  By Antonio Regalado

  04/27/2001
  The Wall Street Journal
  Page B1
   Grass-roots organizer Molly Naylor supports research into embryonic
  stem cells, hoping that it may lead to a cure for the juvenile
  diabetes that afflicts her son. But when she called the White House to
  support stem-cell studies, she was surprised to hear that the
  embryonic research might not be necessary.

  She says the White House told her about a widely publicized study
  showing that human fat may also contain stem cells.

  From the beginning, science has collided with politics over stem-cell
  research, which uses tissues derived from human embryos. But
  supporters of stem-cell research are now concerned that science is
  being bent for political ends. In missives being circulated on Capitol
  Hill, anti-abortion activists are touting the fat report as evidence
  that embryo research isn't needed. To scientists who support embryonic
  research, the study, published in an obscure journal, seems largely
  inconclusive.

  Embryonic stem cells are capable of forming any type of human tissue,
  a characteristic that has led the medical community to hail their
  discovery as a once-in-a-century boon to transplant medicine. But to
  obtain them, they must be harvested from embryos left over from
  fertility treatments or early-stage aborted fetuses. Now, the need for
  embryonic stem cells is being challenged by arguments -- including the
  fat study -- that certain cells present in adults may possess similar
  properties.

  For opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, so-called adult stem
  cells have become "the keystone in our public relations battle,"
  according to Scott Weinberg, a spokesman for the American Life League.
  The anti-abortion group has vigorously opposed research on embryonic
  stem cells since they were first isolated in 1998, calling the work
  illegal, immoral and unnecessary. With adult stem-cell studies winning
  national media coverage, those talking points have gotten a major
  boost. "It's really helping out," says a cheerful Mr. Weinberg.

  For advocates of embryonic stem-cell research -- who include dozens of
  Nobel Laureates and university presidents -- the play given to the fat
  story is a worrisome sign that their cause could be losing momentum at
  a critical juncture. Plans by the National Institutes of Health to
  begin funding studies of embryonic stem cells are on hold. The Bush
  administration is reviewing a decision reached last August by the
  Department of Health and Human Services that the cells weren't covered
  by a pre-existing ban on federal support for embryo research.

  Critics allege that the fat study, which was published in the journal
  Tissue Engineering, is being given far more weight than it deserves.
  The authors of the paper, led by plastic surgeon Marc H. Hedrick of
  the University of California, Los Angeles, showed that human fat
  contained cells capable of giving rise to a variety of tissue types,
  including bone and muscle. But because they started with a mixture of
  cells, it remains unclear whether the effect was actually the work of
  a fat stem cell or perhaps was due to contamination by bone-marrow
  stem cells, which have been closely studied for more than a decade.
  "If I said, `Point to the stem cell,' they wouldn't know what it is.
  So they are not even close," says Harvard University embryologist Doug
  Melton.

  Although definitions vary, most scientists agree that a stem cell has
  to meet two basic criteria: It must be able to reproduce itself, and
  it must be able to make more than one type of specialized daughter
  cell. Jeff Gimble, a research executive at Artecel Sciences Inc., a
  biotechnology company based in Durham, N.C., says his company's work
  on fat supports Dr. Hedrick's findings, but he doesn't believe that
  fat tissue can meet the strictest scientific criteria for a stem cell.

  But the story of getting useful cells from hated love handles quickly
  took on a life of its own. "I knew it had the potential of being a
  blockbuster story, but the press that we got went even beyond our
  expectations," says Dan Page, the UCLA media-relations officer who
  coordinated coverage that included segments on all three TV nightly
  network newscasts.

  Mr. Page says he and Dr. Hedrick were unaware that Albert Carnesale,
  UCLA's chancellor, had just weeks earlier joined 111 other top
  university officials in sending a letter to the Bush administration
  cautioning that evidence for adult stem cells was in most cases
  incomplete. The officials wrote that the evidence was far too
  uncertain to be the basis for a sound policy decision.

  Yet even as some research has come under fire, evidence is mounting
  that certain adult cells are indeed able to turn into other types of
  tissue. Studies have shown bone-marrow cells turning into liver, and
  brain cells becoming blood. "The basic result, never mind the
  politics, is that there is an astonishing plasticity in these cells,"
  says Ron McKay, a biologist at the National Institutes of Health who
  recently helped show that bone-marrow cells could repair the hearts of
  mice. "Bone marrow is not supposed to regenerate heart, but here it is
  doing it in a few days." And because a patient could be treated with
  his or her own cells, in many cases adult stem cells may offer a
  quicker route to practical treatment.

  But Dr. McKay also notes that only the embryonic cell has been shown
  to form all tissue types, and it is more easily grown in the lab,
  another critical factor for developing cell-based treatments. Most
  scientists believe both types of research hold promise, and both ought
  to continue.

  Advocates for embryonic stem-cell research hope that President Bush
  will adopt that view. Writing today in the journal Science, California
  Institute of Technology President David Baltimore and Stanford
  University immunologist Irving Weissman again argue that adult stem
  cells are largely unproven. According to Dr. Baltimore, "there is
  tremendous pressure being put on those in power to adopt a narrow
  religious view of when life begins. I don't think that is how we
  should be making policy in the U.S."

  It won't be an easy decision, and no one is more familiar with the
  trade-offs than Dr. Hedrick, the author of the fat study. A practicing
  Presbyterian, Dr. Hedrick describes himself as "very pro-life. I
  believe abortion is wrong." Yet as a surgical fellow at the University
  of California, San Francisco, he performed life-saving fetal surgeries
  that in some cases used tissues from abortions. "It's a `greater good'
  argument," says Dr. Hedrick. "I am uncomfortable using human fetal
  tissue, but I have used it in the past to save a life."

   ---

                   Tissue Building Blocks

    Stem cells have been indentified in a variety of human tissues,
  including:

    -- Embryo: Stem cells found here have the potential to form any
  tissue in the human body

    -- Bone marrow: `Hematopoetic' stem cells sustain the blood and
  immune systems of adults

    -- Nerves: Stem cells isolated from fetal and adult brains may one
  day treat Parkinson's disease

    -- Connective tissue: Scientists are studying cells capable of
  forming bone, cartilage and muscle

    -- Liver: Scientists are looking for the cell which accounts for the
  liver's power of regeneration; could help those waiting for a
  transplant

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn