Category Archives: Stem Cells

The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss