 |
 |
Kathleen, I agree with all that you wrote - a bill that included the use of sCNT would not have gotten as far in Congress - it was a tradeoff. It also seems like the draft guidelines were based on the legislation that was passed twice, and is more acceptable to more people. i just think its unfortunate that by not engaging in the debate about SCNT, we also lost the opportunity to educate people, and there is so much misunderstanding and ignorance about this research. There may also be issues about informed consent of the earlier donors. So it also means that all of our comments (patients, scientists, advocacy organizations) will be VERY important if we are to have a chance at broadening the research funding. The guidelines haven't been posted in the Federal Register yet -- they said by April 24th - and then you have 30 days to respond. I expect PAN and CAMR will be providing more info and suggestions for comments soon. But it is ironic that the President stressed in his executive order that scientific funding and policy should be divorced from politics, and yet these new NIH were in part based on what they thought would be most acceptable to the most people. Clearly the debate is not over, and as you said won't be over until the cures from stem cells become a reality. ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Kathleen Cochran <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: New NIH Guidelines thwart SCNT Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:08:54 -0400 True, Linda, excess IVF cells were what we asked for— largely, I think, because in the Bush years that seemed to be our best chance at getting anything at all. It was the place where the outrageousness of his stance was most apparent. After all, these cells were going to be thrown out. Today, the principle to which we, in our desperation, gave tacit support is alive and well: "killing embryos" is wrong if the purpose is to save lives, but it is OK to sacrifice them in the interest of creating life. Were we wrong not to come on stronger about SCNT? Hard to say, but we can get started now, while the NIH guidelines are in draft stage. The information from PAN and CAMR will be most welcome. Given what some states are doing it's clear that none of what we have gained under the new administration, even the accessibility of material to be disposed of by IVF clinics, can be taken for granted. Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water... Kathleen 2009/4/19 [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > It's disappointing that the new NIH Draft Guidelines seem more restrictive > than the earlier ones, by limiting NIH funded research to research using > only excess embryos from fertility clinics and prohibiting federal funding > of SCNT to create new stem cells. > The earlier guidelines , issued in 2000 , through legal interpretation and > support by then NIH director Harold Varmus allowed for NIH funding for > research on newly derived human embryonic stem cells (not from fertillity > clinics, but the NIH still could not fund research to produce the cells. > The Clinton administration backed the policy that federal funds could > be used for research on human embryonic stem cells obtained from the > private sector. These guidelines were abandoned before any funding could > take place when Bush took office in 2001. > These new draft Guidelines are more restrictive. They would allow funding > for research using only those human embryonic stem cells that were derived > from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive > purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose." > They also cite the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which complicates the issue - > it prohibits NIH funding of the derivation of stem cells from human embryos > by the annual appropriations ban on funding of human embryo research . > Another issue is that the bills passed by two Congresses during the Bush > years (and vetoed by Bush) to lift his restrictiions on funding ESCR, also > only addressed excess IVF embryos. This is what we asked for. Funding for > therapeutic cloning research (SCNT) has not really been strongly advocated > for in the last few years. Could this be a factor? > The draft guidelines are online at: > http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009draft > There is a 30 day public response period. By April 24th, the guidelines > should be published in the Federal Register and a URL will be availaable to > send comments to. More information should be coming from PAN and CAMR in the > next few days, with a request to send your comments to the NIH. It will be > important that all of our voices are heard. > -- Original Message ---------- > From: rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: New NIH Guidelines thwart SCNT > Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:14:35 -0700 > > Proposed NIH Stem Cell Guidelines Dismay Leading Stanford Researcher > a.. Friday April 17, 2009, 6:39 pm EDT > STANFORD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The director of stem cell research at > the Stanford University School of Medicine says he is troubled by draft > guidelines issued today by the National Institutes of Health that would > prohibit federal funding for research on stem cell lines created through a > technique sometimes referred to as "therapeutic cloning" or somatic cell > nuclear transfer. > > Irving Weissman, MD, director of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology > and Regenerative Medicine, said the SCNT technique is one way to create > disease-specific human embryonic stem cell lines on which to conduct > research and test therapies. He also took issue with the assertion that the > NIH consulted existing guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences and > the International Society for Stem Cell Research-both of which sanction the > use of SCNT-derived cell lines-in coming up with its draft recommendations. > > "Instead of facts, the NIH placed its own version of ethics in place of the > president's clear proclamation," said Weissman, the Virginia & D.K. Ludwig > Professor for Clinical Investigation in Cancer Research. "As head of the > National Academy of Sciences' panel that unanimously endorsed research using > SCNT, and as a drafter of the guidelines for the International Society for > Stem Cell Research, I know that this suggested ban on federal funding of > SCNT-derived human embryonic stem cell lines is against our policies and > against President Obama's March 9 comments. The NIH has not served its > president well." > > On March 9, President Barack Obama signed an executive order removing > previous restrictions on the use of federal funds for research on any human > embryonic stem cell line derived after Aug. 9, 2001. He used the ceremony to > remark that it is important to ensure "that scientific data is never > distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda-and that we make > scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." > > In announcing the draft guidelines, acting NIH director Raynard Kington, > MD, PhD, justified the restriction in part by saying that there is a lack of > scientific consensus as to the necessity of funding lines derived by SCNT > and that, although the technique has been used to create many embryonic stem > cell lines in animals, such human embryonic stem cell lines have not yet > been documented. > > "We believe there is strong, broad public and scientific support for the > use of federal funds for research on cell lines from embryos derived through > in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes that would not otherwise be > used," said Kington, noting that similar legislation had twice passed both > the House and Senate only to be vetoed by former President George W. Bush. > "We do not see similar broad support for using federal funding for research > on cell lines from other sources." > > The somatic cell nuclear transfer technique involves removing the nucleus > from an egg cell and replacing it with a nucleus from a different cell in > order to create an embryonic stem cell line genetically identical to the > donor nucleus. In the case of a donor who suffers from a condition like > Parkinson's disease, the SCNT process would yield an embryonic stem cell > line that could be used to test specific therapies for that patient. > > If the draft guidelines are adopted, they would underscore the continued > need for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which has > funded grants to several scientists working to create specific human > embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. The institute was > established in 2005 by Proposition 71 to counteract the effect of President > Bush's limits on federal funding of such research. > > "Methods like SCNT were specifically sanctioned by Prop. 71," said Geoff > Lomax, PhD, the senior officer to the state institute's Standards Working > Group, which was instituted to develop ethical guidelines for the use of > embryos in CIRM-funded research. "These potential restrictions on the range > of research materials available for federal funding ensure that CIRM will > continue to play a unique role in the world of stem cell research." > > "For certain types of research, CIRM could remain very important," > concurred Renee Reijo Pera, PhD, director of Stanford's Center for Human > Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education. Reijo Pera said she had expected > the NIH guidelines to be somewhat conservative, particularly where SCNT is > concerned. > > "I am happy that these are draft guidelines," said Weissman, who noted that > the NIH did not solicit input from either the National Academy of Sciences > or the International Society for Stem Cell Research during the consensus > process. "I'd like to remind the NIH of the principles enunciated by the > president on March 9. Research in this area is moving very fast, and it's > not possible to say whether advances will come from work on adult-derived > iPS cells or from embryonic stem cells created by nuclear transfer. Policy > needs to be developed as the field develops, rather than precluding > something based on ideology." > > The proposed NIH guidelines will be available for public comment for 30 > days, and the final guidelines will be released by the agency on or before > July 7. They can be viewed at http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009draft. > Comments can be mailed, or submitted electronically after the guidelines are > published in the Federal Register by April 24. > > The Stanford University School of Medicine consistently ranks among the > nation's top 10 medical schools, integrating research, medical education, > patient care and community service. For more news about the school, please > visit http://mednews.stanford.edu. The medical school is part of Stanford > Medicine, which includes Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard > Children's Hospital. For information about all three, please visit > http://stanfordmedicine.org/about/news.html. > > > Contact: > Stanford University Medical Center > PRINT MEDIA: > Krista Conger, 650-725-5371 > [log in to unmask] > or > BROADCAST MEDIA: > M.A. Malone, 650-723-6912 > [log in to unmask] 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn