 |
 |
President Obama's rescinding of the ban has indeed reinvigorated the opponents of ESCR. Indeed, the struggles in the states do not make for a very good research environment regardless of the outcome. Even California, which moved several years ago to fund ESCR, has been a battleground (Mary Scott Doe case is one example). I have no doubt that eventually science will win, but we underestimate the opposition at our own peril. They have made sure that nothing will help us in our lifetimes. THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BAN THIS RESEARCH AND WILL LIE OUTRAGEOUSLY TO DO IT. EVERY DAY I READ ABOUT HOW ESCR KILLS BABIES FOR THEIR PARTS AND HOW SUCCESSFUL ASCR IS IN TREATING PARKINSON'S. I COULD JUST SCREAM. I have my doubts about any kind of cell replacement helping us, but what I can't understand is why in the 21st century these nuts decide what kind of research should be done. Maybe we must still rely on the Brits or Israelis. Ray Rayilyn Brown Director AZNPF Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation [log in to unmask] -------------------------------------------------- From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:38 PM To: <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: States move to ban ESCR > These news articles are very discouraging. We lobbied for 8 years, trying > to get Congress to overide Pres. Bush's veto of the stem cell bills > passed by Congress. The number of votes fell short. Hope was renewed with > the election of Pres. Obama and his executive order lifting Bush's limits > on federal funding for ESCR. Obama has said he would like to ohave > positive stem cell legislation passsed as well . Scientists felt their > hands were finally untied to move the research forward. Some talked for > the first time about how much time had been lost during the Bush years. > But new state bills are once again limiting funding and the ability of > scientists to use ESCs in their research. They build new roadblocks to > medical progress. > If federal bills are passed allowing ESCR,can state bills override them? > It may depend on the wording of each. > On the Michael J Fox interview on Oprah last week, I was surprised to hear > Dr. Oz state "The stem cell debate is over." Seems like it is far from > over..... > > > Linda > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: States move to ban ESCR > Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:26:35 -0700 > > Update on what states are doing. I read somewhere that for the past > couple > of decades, religioius conservatives have made big strides in getting > control of state legislatures, local school boards, etc. > > Ray > > States Move to Restrict Stem Cell Research After Obama lifts Federal > Restriction > > Last month, President Barack Obama lifted 8-year-old restrictions on > federal > funding for most embryonic stem cell research. > > But researchers in Texas, Oklahoma and other states may not be able to > take > part in what many expect to be a boom in stem cell science, as several > state > legislatures have moved to ban or restrict the research on the heels of > the > policy shift. > > This week, the Texas senate passed a budget bill that included an > amendment > to ban the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Earlier in > March, the Oklahoma House passed a more restrictive bill -- one that would > make it a criminal misdemeanor for scientists to work with embryonic stem > cells in the state. > > "I absolutely believe that if the federal government messes things up, > states have a right to straighten it out," Oklahoma Rep. Mike Reynolds, > who > introduced that bill, told Reuters. "My motivation is to protect unborn > children." > > The Texas House and the Oklahoma Senate have yet to vote on the bills. If > the legislation passes, Texas and Oklahoma will join several other states, > including South Dakota, Louisiana and Arizona, that already have laws > restricting or banning embryonic stem cell research. > > "Certainly these bills send a statement," says Erin Heath, a senior > program > associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's > Center for Science, Technology and Congress, who has been tracking the > bills. "It's hard to tell right now what kind of broad impact they'll > have. > And it's hard to even tell which bills will go all the way." > > Indeed, the Georgia Senate passed similar legislation in mid-March -- it > would have banned therapeutic cloning in the state and the creation of > embryos for any purpose other than procreation. But on Tuesday, state Rep. > Amos Amerson, the Republican chairman of the House Science and Technology > Committee, said that he was going to table any discussion of the bill and > that the House would not vote on it this session. > > The efforts have pitted religious conservatives against scientists as well > as business leaders who worry that the restrictions could drive away > scientific investment. > > Former presidential science advisor Neal Lane, now a professor at Rice > University in Houston, joined 17 other Texas scientists in writing a > letter > to the legislature opposing the bill. > > "Going down this road puts Texas, which ought to continue to be a world > center for medical research, well behind the curve," Lane says. > In Georgia, Rep. Amerson cited economic concerns as part of his reason for > tabling that state's legislation, telling the Gainesville Times that he > didn't want to hurt the state economically by angering participants in a > national bioscience conference that will bring 20,000 people to Atlanta in > May. > > Irving Weissman, the director of Stanford University's Institute for Stem > Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine, says the states that ban stem cell > research will hurt themselves economically and scientifically. When > California decided to fund stem cell research during the eight years of > federal funding restrictions, he was able to attract more money and > researchers to Stanford's institute. > > "The new industries that spring up from successful research will be in > California," he says. "[States] may choose to opt out of this kind of > research because they have some moral or religious sense guiding them > rather > than scientific merit, and it will hurt them." > > Even Texas's less restrictive bill, which bans using state funds for the > research but does not prohibit it altogether, will have a "dramatic > chilling > effect," according to Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the > American Society of Reproductive Medicine. That's because "state funds" > can > be interpreted very broadly -- perhaps even cutting out federally- or > privately-funded research done in buildings owned by state universities, > for > example. > > "Research institutions just don't want to risk being on the wrong side of > the legislation," Tipton says, "So they tend to make the most broad > interpretation possible of these kinds of restrictions." > > Conservative groups, meanwhile, say they plan to continue supporting > state-level legislation. > > "I don't know that we'll have a very big voice [on the federal level]," > David Prentice, the senior fellow for life sciences at the conservative > Family Research Council, told the New York Times. "The states tend to be a > little more fluid." > > ---- By Lea Winerman, Online NewsHour > > Rayilyn Brown > Director AZNPF > Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation > [log in to unmask] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn