Greta, Dr. Atala of Wake Forest himself sent a letter to the sponsors of HR3 that amniotic stem cells were no substitute for embryonic stem cells. But the impression remains that there are
substitutes, not complements, like
ASCs
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:09 PM
Subject: Wake Forest School of Medicine
Hello!
I am very upset about the two latest Sunrise stories and have started to write about it, but I am very tired. I came into my e-mail a few minutes ago and found the article about Stem Cells. And I am so angry. So, I vented on the Wake Forrest School of Medicine's web site.
It might be helpful if you too wrote a note to that School. Thank you if you do and thank you for posting that on the board.
Good night!
Greta
I just received the following e-mail from somebody in my Internet Parkinson's support group:
"Scientists protest 'Misrepresentation' as Senate Vote Looms" by Constance Holden in which she says that:
"As part of that effort, the White House Domestic Policy Council issued a new report on 10 January to promote methods of getting stem cells that don't harm embryos. The report, Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life, suggests that a variety of "non-embryo-destructive" approaches may prove capable of creating cell lines with all the potential of ES cell lines. It repeatedly mentions a new study by scientists at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who reported in the January issue of Nature Biotechnology that stem cells found in human amniotic fluid have many of the same qualities as ES cells (Science, 12 January, p. 170). The White House report also touts adult stem cells, saying some "may be pluripotent," and suggests that these could be adequate to treat Parkinson's disease and other conditions for which ES cells have been held up as the great hope. Also put forth are potential alternative sources for pluripotent ES-like cells, advanced in the past by the President's Council on Bioethics, which include the possibility of getting viable cells from dead embryos or through somatic cell "de-differentiation."
Scientists have already reacted strongly to some of the material in the report."
Is it true that you have written such a report? If so, shame on you.
Inasmuch as my nephews and my niece are alumni of your University, I am dismayed that you put out such a report. My husband (their uncle) died of Parkinson's on November 15, 2006. I will of course post this e-mail on the Board of my support group.
Greta Swinnen Crais
Full text follows:
Scientists Protest 'Misrepresentation' as Senate Vote Looms
Constance Holden
Several leading scientists are charging that the White House has
misrepresented their research in an attempt to influence the ongoing stem
cell debate in Congress.
On 11 January, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to
expand the number of human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines available to
federally funded researchers. The bill, designated H.R. 3 and considered a
top priority in the new Democrat-controlled Congress, passed 253 to 174--a
significant jump in support from May 2005 when the same bill passed by 238
to 194. But it still falls more than 30 votes short of the two-thirds
needed to override a presidential veto.
With the Senate expected to vote on the same measure next month, the stage
is set for a replay of the veto dealt by President George W. Bush last
July. The White House has rebuffed attempts by the bill's sponsors to meet
with the president, and it's fighting hard to cast the debate in its own
terms.
As part of that effort, the White House Domestic Policy Council issued a
new report on 10 January to promote methods of getting stem cells that
don't harm embryos. The report, Advancing Stem Cell Science Without
Destroying Human Life, suggests that a variety of "non-embryo-destructive"
approaches may prove capable of creating cell lines with all the potential
of ES cell lines. It repeatedly mentions a new study by scientists at Wake
Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who reported in the
January issue of Nature Biotechnology that stem cells found in human
amniotic fluid have many of the same qualities as ES cells (Science, 12
January, p. 170). The White House report also touts adult stem cells,
saying some "may be pluripotent," and suggests that these could be
adequate to treat Parkinson's disease and other conditions for which ES
cells have been held up as the great hope. Also put forth are potential
alternative sources for pluripotent ES-like cells, advanced in the past by
the President's Council on Bioethics, which include the possibility of
getting viable cells from dead embryos or through somatic cell
"de-differentiation."
Scientists have already reacted strongly to some of the material in the
report. Three Harvard stem cell researchers--Kevin Eggan, Chad Cowan, and
Douglas Melton--wrote to the sponsors of H.R. 3 complaining of the "clear
misrepresentation of our work" in the document, which heavily cites Eggan
and Cowan. "We are surprised to see our work on reprogramming adult stem
cells used to support arguments that research involving human embryonic
stem cells is unnecessary," they wrote. "Our work directly involves the
use of human embryonic stem cells … [and] is precisely the type of
research that is currently being harmed by" the president's policy.
Anthony Atala, lead author of the amniotic cell paper, also feels that his
work is being misinterpreted. Opponents of H.R. 3 have seized upon the
report, which appeared on the eve of the House debate, and are citing it
as further evidence that noncontroversial cell types can substitute for ES
cells. Atala wrote a letter to the bill's sponsors emphasizing that that
is not the case.
More friction may be in store: According to The Wall Street Journal,
presidential aides are drafting a possible executive order favoring
alternative sources, although a White House spokesperson says they have
nothing to announce at present.
The focus of the debate now turns to the Senate, which passed the same
bill (now labeled S. 5) in the last Congress by a vote of 63 to 37. Many
estimates put the count at 66 in favor--one vote short of a veto override.
But the bill's advocates think there might be a chance of avoiding a veto,
because Senate rules will allow for amendments. Certain changes could make
the bill more palatable to the president--such as adding provisions for
more ethical oversight; a program to promote embryo adoption; or even a
new, later deadline for cells that are eligible for federal funding.
(Currently, cells have to have been derived by 9 August 2001 to qualify.)
Still, many see another veto as the likely outcome. But stem cell
advocates are convinced that public opinion is increasingly on their side.
"This is an issue that will not go away," says one of the bill's sponsors,
Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO). Until it becomes law, "we intend to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
introduce it over and over."
