Bob,

Please give my best to your wife.   I am a pilgrim on my path.  She is a
survivor!

I congratulate the people and the House of Lords of the UKfor their
foresight.  I am impressed with their view of the future and their realistic
approach to the potential fortune ahead.  Please include me when you share
the final results to xxii.
E of the headdress


From: "Bob Martone" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: House of Lords conclusions and recommendations 2/27/2002


> Conclusions and recommendations
> The Committee's detailed conclusions and recommendations are
> as follows:
>
> stem cell research
>
>   (i)  Stem cells appear to have great therapeutic potential
> for the treatment of many disorders that are both common and
> serious and for the repair of damaged tissue.
>   (ii)  Until recently most research on stem cells has
> focussed on ES cells from animals and the derivation of ES
> cell lines from them; cell lines from human ES cells have
> the potential to provide a basis for a wide range of
> therapies.
>
>   (iii)  Recent research on adult stem cells, including stem
> cells from the placenta and umbilical cord, also holds
> promise of therapies; and research on them should be
> strongly encouraged by funding bodies and the Government.
>
>   (iv)  To ensure maximum medical benefit it is necessary to
> keep both routes to therapy open at present since neither
> alone is likely to meet all therapeutic needs.
>
>   (v)  For the full therapeutic potential of stem cells,
> both adult and ES, to be realised, fundamental research on
> ES cells is necessary, particularly to understand the
> processes of cell differentiation and dedifferentiation.
>
>   (vi)  Future developments might eventually make further
> research on ES cells unnecessary. This is unlikely in the
> foreseeable future; in the meantime there is a strong
> scientific and medical case for continued research on human
> ES cells. (i-vi paragraph 3.22)
>
> status of the early embryo
>
>   (vii)  Whilst respecting the deeply held views of those
> who regard any research involving the destruction of a human
> embryo as wrong and having weighed the ethical arguments
> carefully, the Committee is not persuaded, especially in the
> context of the current law and social attitudes, that all
> research on early human embryos should be prohibited
> (paragraph 4.21).
>   (viii)  Fourteen days should remain the limit for research
> on early embryos. (paragraph 4.22)
>
>   (ix)  Embryos should not be created specifically for
> research purposes unless there is a demonstrable and
> exceptional need which cannot be met by the use of surplus
> embryos. (paragraph 4.28)
>
> cell nuclear replacement and cloning
>
>   (x)  Basic research is a necessary step to developing
> treatments and facilitating the potential use of adult stem
> cells and should be permitted under the Regulations in the
> same way as more directly applied research to which it is
> designed to lead, provided that it is subject to strict
> regulation. (paragraph 5.4)
>   (xi)  Although there is a clear distinction between an IVF
> embryo and an embryo produced by CNR (or other methods) in
> their method of production, the Committee does not see any
> ethical difference in their use for research purposes up to
> the 14 days limit. (paragraph 5.13)
>
>   (xii)  Even if CNR is not itself used directly for many
> stem cell-based therapies, there is still a powerful case
> for its use, subject to strict regulation by the HFEA, as a
> research tool to enable other cell-based therapies to be
> developed. However, as with embryos created by IVF for
> research, CNR embryos should not be created for research
> purposes unless there is a demonstrable and exceptional need
> which cannot be met by the use of surplus embryos.
> (paragraph 5.14)
>
>   (xiii)  If CNR is permitted in certain limited
> circumstances, oocyte nucleus transfer should also be
> allowed for research purposes. (paragraph 5.20)
>
>   (xiv)  Given the high risk of abnormalities the scientific
> objections to human reproductive cloning are currently
> overwhelming. (paragraph 5.21)
>
>   (xv)  There are further strong ethical objections in
> addition to those based on the risk of abnormalities,
> although not all the arguments deployed against reproductive
> cloning are equally valid. The most powerful are the
> unacceptability of experimenting on a human being and the
> familial and child welfare considerations arising from the
> ambiguity of the cloned child's relationships. (paragraph
> 5.21)
>
>   (xvi)  The Committee unreservedly endorses the legislative
> prohibition on reproductive cloning now contained in the
> Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001. (paragraph 5.21)
>
>   (xvii)  The HFEA has an excellent record in ensuring that
> IVF clinics comply with the law, and we are satisfied that
> its regulatory powers, now reinforced by a specific
> statutory prohibition, provide sufficient protection against
> the development of CNR leading to reproductive cloning in
> the United Kingdom. (paragraph 5.24)
>
>   (xviii)  The Government should take an active part in any
> move to negotiate an international ban on human reproductive
> cloning. (paragraph 7.22)
>
> legislation and regulation
>
>   (xix)  At an appropriate time, perhaps towards the end of
> the decade, the Government should undertake a further review
> of scientific developments, particularly of the progress of
> adult stem cell research and therapies, and of the
> development of stem cell banks, with a view to determining
> whether research on human embryos is still necessary.
> (paragraph 8.4)
>
>   (xx)  The Government should keep the funding of the HFEA
> under review and ensure that its resources are commensurate
> with its increased responsibilities. (paragraph 8.5)
>
>   (xxi)  The HFEA and the Department of Health should
> consider how a review of the outcomes of research licensed
> under the Act might be undertaken and updated on a regular
> basis (paragraph 8.6)
>
>   (xxii)  The Department of Health should examine with the
> HFEA the possibility of drawing up indicative guidance as to
> what constitutes serious disease (paragraph 8.9)
>
>   (xxiii)  When the Government bring forward legislation
> they should consider making express provision for such basic
> research as is necessary as a precursor for the development
> of cell-based therapies (paragraph 8.15)
>
>   (xxiv)  The separation of clinical and research roles
> should be standard practice for donation of eggs or embryos.
> The prohibition in the United Kingdom of payment to donors
> for gametes has been an important element in preventing
> undesirable commercialisation of this aspect of assisted
> reproduction and should be strictly maintained (paragraph
> 8.21)
>
>   (xxv)  The Department of Health should consider either
> establishing a body similar to the Gene Therapy Advisory
> Committee with oversight of clinical studies involving stem
> cells, or extending the membership and remit of GTAC to
> achieve the same ends. The Committee sees no other special
> need at present for additional regulation of the use of stem
> cells in the treatment of patients (paragraph 8.23)
>
>   (xxvi)  The Department of Health's proposals to establish
> a stem cell bank overseen by a steering committee,
> responsible for the custody of stem cell lines, ensuring
> their purity and provenance and monitoring their use, are
> endorsed. As a condition of granting a research licence, the
> HFEA should require that any ES cell line generated in the
> United Kingdom in the course of that research is deposited
> in the bank. Before granting any new licence to establish
> human ES cell lines, the HFEA should satisfy itself that
> there are no existing ES cell lines in the bank suitable for
> the proposed research. (paragraph 8.29)
>
>
>   (xxvii)  The HFEA should ensure that the implications
> arising from the "immortality" of stem cell lines are fully
> covered in obtaining informed consent from donors giving
> embryos for the potential establishment of ES cell lines for
> research. To prevent future restrictions in using ES cell
> lines (and therefore minimise the need to generate new ES
> cell lines) the HFEA should not permit ES cell lines be
> generated from donated embryos unless informed consent
> places no specific constraint on their future use. Where
> parents wish to restrict the type of research which can be
> undertaken, for example specifically for reproductive
> purposes, the embryos donated should be used for purposes
> other than the generation of ES cell lines. (paragraph 8.33)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
>
>
>
> Bob Martone
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.samlink.com/~bmartone
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

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