ONE PHONE CALL—TO SAVE TEXAS STEM CELL RESEARCH RIGHTS!

                                                                    by Don C. Reed

Dear Friends:

Anti-research forces in Texas are trying to pull a fast one, to kill all hopes for embryonic stem cell research in the state, permanently. They are doing it two ways.

First, Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) "quietly" inserted a 24-word provision banning state funds for any form of embryonic stem cell research-- into the Texas budget (SB 1). If the budget passes (which it must) as is, the research is effectively banned.

According to the Dallas Morning News, "The Senate finance committee, which Ogden heads, took only two minutes to consider his rider. It says, "No funds appropriated under this act shall be used in conjunction with or to support research which involves the destruction of a human embryo."—R. T. Garrett, Dallas Morning News, March 30, 2009.

Senator Ogden did not allow research scientists or patient advocates to speak.

Afterwards, Ogden was asked if that provision would kill embryonic stem cell research in Texas. He reportedly responded, "If that one doesn't, my next one will."

Second, Senator Ogden's bill, SB 1695, would "…end all embryonic stem cell research…in any of the laboratories of our state. Even private institutions like Baylor College of Medicine would be affected because they receive state funding."—Texas research advocate Dr. Ralph Dittman, cited in Huffington Report.

Folks, the debate on the Texas budget begins Wednesday, which is TOMORROW.

Any chance you could make one phone call, to try and preserve Texas stem cell research? (Which, by the way, is very much worth fighting for; I will tell you later about some of the outstanding scientists in the Lone Star state.)

It doesn't matter where you live. Texas voters have the most importance of course, but right now, the main thing is to make some noise.  This is attack legislation-- in a state which has the possibility of genuinely vast amounts of research, as much as three billion dollars for cancer alone. We dare not lose the enormous contributions of this vital state.

As always, Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research, TAMR, is leading the charge against this insidious infringement on research rights.

Friend Judy Haley, immediate past President of TAMR, says:

"This is the worst situation we have ever had… an emerging disaster. They (the rider to the budget, SB 1, and the bill, SB 1695--dr) would ban ALL hESC in Texas in any research facility that receives any state funding—(including) all our public and private labs. This would be a disaster, not only in Texas, but as a model for how to do it (damaging legislation) for the rest of the nation."

Joe Brown, current President of TAMR suggests a message:

First, if you live in Texas:

Click on this link http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your home address under "who represents me" to find your senator and their phone number.

CALL OR FAX YOUR STATE SENATOR WITH THE MESSAGE:

"Stem cell research is important to me, to my family, and to millions of Texans; it is unacceptable for the Texas Legislature to pass any bill or rider which restricts embryonic stem cell research done under National Academy of Science ethical guidelines. I want Senator _____________ to actively work to make sure that neither SB 1's prohibitive  rider nor SB 1965 do not become part of Texas law."

Don't live in Texas?

Call anyway.

Three calls you could make:

1. David Dewhurst, President of the Senate and Lt. Governor: (512) 463-0001
2. Jim Pitts, Chairman of House Appropriations Committee:  (512) 463-0516
3. Joe Straus, Speaker of the House: (512) 463-0516

Nothing fancy is required. Just tell whoever answers that you oppose the anti-embryonic stem cell research rider on the Texas budget this year, and  also you oppose SB 1695.

You might even tell them why, maybe mentioning a condition which affects you or a loved one.

The opposition calls itself "right to life" people. But the way I see it, my sister Barbara has both cancer and leukemia, and she has a right to life as well.

Please make that phone call; it will take you five minutes, and it could make the difference.

To help heal our loved ones—stand tall for Texas today!

A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF CALIFORNIA'S STEM CELL RESEARCH PROGRAM
 
                                                By Don C. Reed
 
Imagine that you and I are involved in a terrible war, against a relentless enemy which fully intends to kill us and all our families. But we are fighting back hard, and despite tremendous odds against us, we are beginning to win.
 
Suddenly good news arrives: reinforcements are on the way!  
 
Should we respond by laying down our arms, to surrender?  
 
President Obama's reversal of the Bush stem cell restrictions is wonderful: a decision that will echo down the halls of history. But it is not victory.  
 
The Obama edict brings no guarantees of new stem cell funding. Those "extra" NIH funds you heard about? At best, they help make up for 5 years of flat-lined funding, when National Institutes of Health budgets remained stagnant, not even matching increases of inflation.
 
Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not relax them.

  
Let me show you why.
 
In the midst of all the economic gloom and doom, something shining has emerged in California: the beginning of a vastly better world.
 
Take a look at some highlights of what the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) did—with just twelve months of reliable funding, in 2008.
 
(You can verify the following amazements by going to http://www.cirm.ca.gov/  Scroll down the left side of the page, until you find a bright red picture of stem cells, click under that: 2008 report, download it for free.)
 
LABORATORIES: have you tried to find parking for your car at an overcrowded college campus lately? Imagine what a nightmare it is to find space for new stem cell laboratories, let alone equip them. Dedicated buildings are urgently needed.
 
But bricks and mortar costs a lot, and the last thing California wants is to spend precious research dollars on a bunch of unnecessary buildings. So, a limit was set: no more than 10% of the entire program's cost, $300 million, could be used for facilities. But, that's not much money. In today's market, it would pay for only about three or four hundred homes: nowhere near enough for serious labs.

How did the CIRM meet this challenge?
 
They authorized $271 million on facilities (buildings and equipment)—and, to make sure we got the most possible bang for its buck, a special requirement…. Any organization wanting a grant had to bring their own money as well.
 
This strategy brought in an additional $880 million dollars. Our $271 million in taxpayer money was leveraged (great word) into $1.15 billion dollars.
 
Twelve major facilities will be built—and soon. All these buildings are contractually obligated to be up and running by the end of 2010.

And of course, we must not forget the stem cells…
 
CIRM NEW CELL LINES AWARDS

After 8 years of being stuck with a tiny number of ancient stem cell lines, America desperately needs new ones--$25 million went to derive new cell lines.  Some were disease-specific: allowing us, for the first time in history, to watch the development of Alzheimer's disease in a Petri dish, instead of only seeing—too late—its devastating results on a person.
 
Other stem cell lines are needed to compare embryonic stem cells with the new kind of cells, induced Pluripotentiary Stem cells (iPS). As we struggle to find out if the new (iPS) method can be made safe for human use, or even as a research tool, we also need to know if it can really do the job.
 
And who will be allowed access to these new stem cell lines funded by CIRM?

These valuable biomaterials will be available to any responsible researcher working toward cures…

New buildings, new stem cell lines-- how about some new scientists?
 
TRAINING NEW SCIENTISTS: CIRM RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAM II

For too long, only scientists in their mid to late forties, folks who had their PhD's for almost a decade, have been able to receive funding from the NIH.

But if we only fund scientists that far along in their career, how will the field grow? If young scientists cannot get grants, their options are limited. At best, they will  work for other scientists, doing research directed by them instead of blazing their own trail; or, financial need may drive them out of the field altogether.

The very first project CIRM funded was training grants, to help new scientists into our field, an oasis of funding in what had been barren desert. Training Program II continues providing funds for these young men and women and their labs: allocating $40 million for this vital effort.  

But even the greatest scientist cannot do his or her work alone.

TEAM ASSISTANCE:  Generals are nothing without soldiers; even so, scientists rely on the assistance of trained professionals; where will they come from?  

"An educated and properly trained workforce is essential if our state is to retain its premier position and fully realize the medical and economic benefits from this emerging industry."—joint statement, Senator Gloria Romero and Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg.
 
The "CIRM Bridges to Stem Cell Research Awards" program is designed to insure training exists for these incredibly valuable technicians: the workforce to make the miracles possible, perhaps becoming future superstars themselves– you never know where success in such a new enterprise may lead.

$17 million in these Bridges awards has been approved.

But what about the business side? The greatest stem cell idea in the world means nothing, if it is not translated into something real and usable: and that means biotech.
 
LOANS 

"Our new loan program for biotech companies is meant to provide… support for institutions testing the safety and efficacy of possible therapies."—Robert N. Klein, Chair, ICOC.
 
Developed by our new Vice-Chairman Duane Roth and Finance subcommittee Chairman Michael Goldberg, (and of course Chairman Klein, who is pretty much everywhere) the new loan program is for $500 million—and hopefully an additional $500 million in federal loan guarantees as part of the stimulus package.
 
Numbers that big numb my brain like novocaine at the dentist's.   

But wait, there's more! 
 
"That amount would be scaled up by recycling an additional $1 billion in repayment proceeds over the first decade of the program. In short, with $500 million in federal long-term guarantees and recycled principal repayments, interest and stock warrant revenue from borrowers, over $1.5 billion in additional resources could be added to the Proposition 71 portfolio."—BK.
 
As I understand it (always an element of doubt about that) this would be astonishing.

Leveraging five hundred million in state dollars to two billion, perhaps even two and half billion, so that California got five times the value of its initial investment?
 

And, these loans are targeted: designed to answer an unmet and colossal need.
 
CLINICAL TRIALS

Taking just one new product from idea to pharmacy costs hundreds of millions of dollars, due to safety testing.

The time between basic research and clinical trials completion is called the "Valley of death" because so many products and companies die during that period. What an agony it would be to have a great cure for paralysis, for example, and then watch it fail-- for lack of money to pay for those tests.
 
The new loan program is designed to help turn the ideas of cure into products everyone can use: promising new medicines or therapies through the grueling cycle of tests, so they can be submitted to the FDA for approval.

MODEL FOR THE COUNTRY

Look at the path that CIRM has laid down for cure: educating and supporting scientists, helping train their support staff, setting up loans for the companies that will risk so much to develop products for patients… this is something which should be shared, and imitated.
 
COMMUNICATION:
 
Next ICOC meeting you go to, look for a crew-cut, glasses-wearing individual with tremendous energy, listening to everything, hardly ever sitting still—this is Don Gibbons. Very often, he has the honor of being the voice of the CIRM. 

A tough job indeed. For starters, he has to understand enough of the science to be able to translate it into people talk, enough legalese to do the same for those complicated aspects.
 
In addition to sharing information through public outreach, some of Gibbons' projects include: updating the CIRM website, (major improvements just days away, btw) Town Hall Meetings (You MUST come to one of these—the first one was last week, and it was terrific—three outstanding scientists use people talk to share where their corner of the science is at—more info at bottom of page.

And what a message he has to share, as the CIRM's influence grows, even leaping beyond the artificial boundaries of lines drawn on a map.
 
COOPERATING WITH OTHER STATES AND NATIONS:

"…no one state or nation (can) do this alone," stated Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,"…collaborations…which bring together leading medical researchers from around the globe have a great potential in improving the lives of not only Californians, but all the people around the world."

The CIRM has already made agreements for combined research with countries including Australia, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada, bringing in additional funds to the effort. Those countries have already committed over $200 million dollars to collaborative efforts with CIRM.

For example, Canada will be teaming with California to fight cancer.

There is more to come. California money must always be spent inside the borders of our state (as required by Prop 71 statute), but knowledge can and should be shared.

State to state cooperation will, increase our strength. Consider the example set by Dr. Dennis Clegg of UC Santa Barbara. Working with colleagues in Massachusetts, he found a molecule that helps embryonic stem cells multiply faster, while still maintaining their stability, vital characteristics for the large quantities of pure cells we will need for cure.

CALIFORNIA GOLD

It is not enough just to labor endlessly—everybody wants results.  As President Alan Trounson puts it: "I tell my colleagues here at CIRM probably at least once a week: "We are in a hurry; we have a short time frame, and we need to get genuine cures to Californians."

The opening page of the 2008 report shows the official motto of the CIRM:

"turning stem cells into cures".—Roman Reed.

That is my son who wrote those words, in case you did not know—and that is our goal.

Success will come in careful reliable steps, and we are taking them right now.

We benefit from the leadership of chief science officer Marie Csete (pronounced chet-uh) an energetic little exclamation point of a person, and the indefatigable Director of Scientific Activities, Patricia Olson.

Do you know them? If you live in California, you should. Walk up and say hello to them at the next CIRM meeting.

Are they approachable? You bet. Here is an example.

There will soon be an autism workshop: for scientists only. This is fairly common, giving the scientists a chance to speak their own language, and interchange ideas—very important.  BUT— such knowledge should be shared. So, seeing Dr. Csete at another public meeting (there have been about 150 public meetings so far) I asked her if there was a way to make the autism meeting more open, because there were literally millions of people interested in this all-too-common condition. She thought about it for a minute, and then said, there should be a transcript, print and video, and that could be made available on the web. (Something I forgot to ask was: could parents of autistic children send in questions to be asked of the scientists?)

That is how this program works. The decisions are made in public, and anyone who wants to get involved is welcome.

Come to the meetings; California wants you! (to find out when and where the meetings are, go to http://www.cirm.ca.gov/  and click on Meetings; it is up near the top of the page.

Already, CIRM scientists have authored more than 70 scientific publications, adding to the world's understanding.

If you go to the meetings, you will get to hear Dr. Trounson talking about the latest breakthroughs in stem cell science. Such as:

Remember one huge difficulty with the new stem cell method,  iPS, induced Pluripotent Stem cells, mainly that the use of viruses might cause cancer? At Scripps Institute, a scientist named Sheng Ding may have found a way around that obstacle, using "small molecules rather than viruses to carry reprogramming genes into cells, moving the iPS cells closer to being safe for clinical use."

And speaking of genes, this miniscule marvels which turn body processes on and off, it is vital we know exactly which genes do what-- and  Dr. Jean Loring and her team "published a database of gene expression profiles", vital information for the sorting of cells.

(Both those scientists, by the way, received CIRM grants.)

Sometimes, a step in one area helps in another; look at the next two paragraphs.

First, If we can learn how healthy cells are turned into cancer cells, (as Dr. Wei Guo of UCLA did with blood cells), maybe we can learn how to do the reverse-- and turn cancerous cells back into healthiness.

Second, at Stanford, Dr. Emmanuelle Passegue showed that a "family of cancer-fighting proteins also helps blood-forming stem cells divide normally."

As CIRM President Dr. Alan Trounson observed, "These two push-and-pull findings hold great promise for uncovering novel ways of treating cancer and preventing its spread."

CIRM helped Dr. Catriona Jamieson of UCSD as she brought a new approach to fighting leukemia to human trials.

So much more: at Stanford, human embryonic stem cells were grown into "primitive cardiac tissue (which) repaired heart damage in mice".

At UCLA, scientists matured human embryonic stem cells into T cells and inserted a gene—why does that matter? "Their eventual goal is to insert a gene that makes the cells immune to HIV/AIDS, then replace a person's infected cells with the resistant ones…"
 
Yet there are still dark days ahead, much work to do, battles yet to fight—including financial ones.

WILL THERE BE MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING?

If the financial equivalent of Hurricane Katrina crashes down upon us, (and it did) we have only two choices: adjust, or let the program die. 

First, every new grant comes with a proviso that the money will be provided if and when it is available. Some extremely worthwhile projects may have to be delayed a year. This is just a fact of economic life.

Our program depended on selling bonds. 

If California cannot sell bonds, will we be able to keep the stem cell program alive?

Here is the official CIRM answer.

"CIRM's Financial Commitments Are Secure… CIRM currently has significant cash reserves of $160 million, which can fund all existing commitments through at least September. The agency's plans have always called for raising new capital on a cash-flow, as-needed basis. We expect the traditional bond market will open soon with resolution of California's budget situation. To supplement this public bond market, CIRM is working with the State Treasurer's office on a CIRM private placement of $200 million in general obligation bonds this year and $200 million again next year… The Agency intends to continue the planning and review needed to maintain its mission on schedule…"

The men and women of California's stem cell program have taken up the gauntlet, accepting this new challenge.

They deserve the support and thanks of a nation.

SO WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

In California we have funded a solid beginning. We must build on that, in "synergistic cooperation" (Gibbons' phrase) with the federal government, each side strengthening the other, and the same with other states across the land.

Ten thousand stem cell advocates developed Proposition 71; seven million Californians voted it into law; what we need now is more of the same.

Not every state wants or needs to be a California or New York, with major biomedical infrastructure employing hundreds of thousands of workers in excellent and good-paying jobs. But every state should at least have funding for regenerative research, and the freedom to do it. 
 
As patient advocates, you and I are involved in a war against chronic disease and disability. And it is a war, make no mistake about that. Millions of lives are at stake, as well as the economies of every nation.

Our motivation is continual; for those who themselves are suffering, the pain and distress is a constant reminder. For we who have the luck of health, our loved ones must be fought for.
 
But ours is a war like none that ever was before. It is a very civilized combat.

We have two sides essentially throwing words at each other. We pound the keyboards for a while—argue, argue, argue—then rest, do some other chores for a while, and then come back to the computer, fight some more.

These are epic confrontations, on which the future of the world depends; yet, nobody is killed. There are no ruined families, no widows made, nor orphans, no silent graveyards, no white crosses on a hill.

In this war, we are fighting to save lives, not take them. 

And when we win, there will be no reason for tears: save only those of joy.

If you are really interested in the latest news in Stem Cell Research, check out the Genetics Policy Institute's web site at

http://www.genpol.org/

After you look at the site, join the Stem Cell Action Network.

http://www.genpol.org/newsletter.html

Steve

From the Hartford Courant, January 29, 2009

"State leaders praised the development of the new stem cell lines as validation of the state's 2005 decision to invest $100 million in stem cell research over 10 years. Because former President George W. Bush restricted the use of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research, the state money allowed Connecticut researchers to work in a cutting-edge area of science that their counterparts in all but a handful of other states could not.

Now, at a time when the state's economic prospects look bleak and policymakers worry about the exodus of young, educated workers from Connecticut, stem cell research is offering a bit of hope. The state stem cell money has allowed Connecticut to lure top scientists — including Xu, Ge Lin, the postdoctoral fellow who created the stem cell lines, and Haifan Lin, director of the Yale Stem Cell Center — and has spurred research and biotech business efforts.

"Instead of having a brain drain where all of our best and brightest in Connecticut were going out of the country or to other states, we started to receive some of the best and the brightest in Connecticut," said Warren Wollschlager, who administers the state stem cell research program as the chief of the office of research and development at the state Department of Public Health.

That could soon pay off in even bigger ways.

President Barack Obama is expected to lift the restriction on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, and officials and researchers say Connecticut's head start will give it a major advantage in competing for federal research money.

"We have a track record now, which I think will be looked upon very favorably in Washington," Pescatello said.

So far, the $29.6 million in state stem cell money has been used to build the infrastructure for research facilities, recruit faculty and fund research by scientists from UConn, Wesleyan and Yale. Wollschlager said the state program has begun receiving more private sector applications and that they are improving in quality.

Already, businesses related to stem cells are developing in the state, Pescatello said. One company getting started in the New Haven area is planning to use stem cells to create a uniform supply of cells to test new drugs on, Pescatello said.

UConn's new stem cell lines, named CT1 and CT2, were derived from embryos from a fertility clinic, donated with the consent of the patients, according to UConn

                                               By Don C. Reed

Like a war more deadly than any in history, chronic disease is ravaging Earth.

The incurably ill suffer and die no less than if bullets had struck them; hospitals and sickrooms overflow, inadequate to the task.    

Our problem is simple. With expensive modern medicines, we can keep our loved ones alive despite almost any illness or injury—but we cannot make them well.  

Two staggering statistics: first, in America alone, medical costs exceed $2.3 trillion in 2007, more than all federal income tax receipts ($1.8 trillion) combined—and three-fourths of all medical costs are directly due to chronic (incurable) disease.

First, we need international recognition of the scope of the problem. 

The United Nations must urge the world to work together on research for cure: stem cell research, gene therapy, biomedicine-- within each nation's ideological belief system.

Some nations (the Vatican, for example) oppose embryonic stem cell research; but there is no reason they could not fund adult stem cell research: the Pope's recently urged the Earth's Catholic community to support non-embryonic stem cell research, including the new induced Pluripotentiary (iPS) stem cells, an important piece of the puzzle. 

In countries that already do support full stem cell research, advocates must build upon that hard-won foundation in the UK, China, Singapore, Spain, Japan, Sweden, and many others, including (very soon) the United States.

We need international scholarship programs, so even the poorest countries can lend their brightest young men and women to Earth's emergency. If a country cannot afford a medical research college, loan programs should be developed for this global benefit.

In the business community, every country can and should encourage the research, from basic theory in the laboratories, to translation into actual use: therapies and cures.

As was done in San Diego , where four great institutes joined their strength for the good of all, companies and colleges can form consortiums, sharing their scientists, their knowledge, and their equipment.

Cities, states, and provinces can make life easier for struggling startups: establishing "incubators" for biomedical Mom-and-Pop companies as Silicon Valley did for the fledgling computer industry.

New ways of thinking can foster cooperation among scientists, like the disease team approach of the California stem cell program, and beyond.

What if the best scientists in the country were locked in a room, and not let out until they found a cure for __________ disease? Ridiculous, perhaps, or maybe not: if disease came with explosions, and germs were big enough to wear uniforms, we would take it much more seriously.

 At every step, government must help.

Asia understands. In China , the government is offering tax incentives, as well as funding at national and local levels; in Singapore , an entire community, Biopolis, provides jobs and housing for biomedical scientists and their families. This is wisdom, and should be emulated here at home, unless we want the biomedical revolution to be outsourced, giving blessings only to other countries.

In America , the emerging life science industry must think of itself as a new Defense Department-- and quit being so bashful! What business is more vital, urgent, and irreplaceable than one which could save lives and ease the suffering of millions?

We dare not flinch from political involvement. On the contrary, Biomed must lobby aggressively, make campaign contributions to legislators who support our goals, and vigorously oppose ideologues who would block the industry of healing.

Talk about a justifiable tax exemption! To my mind, the entire biomedical industry should be tax free for at least a decade, give it time to grow.

In Washington , there is much to be done. President-elect Obama must follow through with his promise: to remove ideological restrictions on regenerative medicine. This goes deeper than the ill-conceived Bush restrictions.  The Dickey Amendment, for example, should no longer be automatically renewed, attached every year to some "must-pass" legislation. That miserable law defines cells in a Petri dish as the equivalent of a human being; it is even rewritten year after year to block new forms of research, like nuclear transfer research, which involves neither sperm nor womb. It is time we stopped allowing opponents of science to be the "deciders" on science policy—in a country based on liberty.

But freedom to research, while crucial as the air we breathe, is not enough. We cannot live on air alone, and neither can the families of scientists. These men and women are trying to do the impossible with the invisible, and we must look out for them.

Imagine if President John F. Kennedy had pointed to the sky, and said: we are going to the moon—but we're not actually going to pay for it? Research without funding is like a moonshot with no rocket.

The Castle/Degette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (twice vetoed by President Bush) must be rewritten to include major money for the research. 

The National Institutes of Health must no longer be ignored. The NIH was once the crown jewel of Earth's research, and it must be so again. Its funding levels have been "flat-lined" for the past five years; costs have risen, but its funding has not even kept pace with inflation. When a patient's vital signs flat-line, they need life support; so does the NIH.

We need help from every state.

At present, only a "Magnificent Seven" states provide funds for full stem cell research: California , New York , New Jersey , Massachusetts , Connecticut , Illinois , and Maryland .  Even here, there is no room to relax, as advocates must fight to protect what has been won.

Not even the magnificent California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is safe. There is money for grant programs until July of this year, and enough to run the Institute itself (on a skeleton crew) for a year after that. But our funding comes from bonds which are sold, and that sale must be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. If the financial conditions in the Golden State do not improve, and new bond sales are not allowed, California may be forced to do again what ICOC chair Bob Klein did to protect us before.  When our funding was blocked by lawsuits, he and a dedicated few board members brought in loan/gifts from the public: a tremendously difficult job even then, and it will be immeasurably more difficult now. 

And what about the states which still handcuff their scientists? Places like Arizona , Arkansas , Iowa , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Minnesota , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Mexico , North Dakota , Pennsylvania ,  Rhode Island , South Dakota , Utah , and Virginia still put ideological hurdles in front of researchers, sometimes calling them criminals, and threatening them with prosecution for their life-giving work.

Advocates in such states do have options: they can directly challenge the negative laws; or work around them, pushing for funding bills which support only adult stem cell research; or, they may prepare the state for tomorrow, giving educational talks to community organizations: such speeches are hugely influential, planting seeds for future growth and beneft.  

One useful tool is a miniature research bill, like California 's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act. It is tiny, just $1.5 million a year. But from that small beginning, a way to cure paralysis may spring. If you saw the paralyzed rats that walked again, scampering around a purple plastic swimming pool on TV, you saw "our" work. One influential scientist,  Dr. Hans Keirstead, succeeded first with a Roman Reed grant, then used that success as leverage for larger grants from the NIH; That experiment (now funded by ground-breaking Geron) is under consideration by the FDA for human trials, the first in the world.

"Roman's Law" has funded about $12 million in research over the few years of its existence—and quintupled that investment for the Golden State, bringing in an additional $50 million in matching funds from the feds, new money for our state—funding more than 50 scientists and their staffs, good jobs for our state and nation

Why not a regenerative research funding law in every state?

One immediate benefit would be funding for new scientists, the young ones all too often locked out of grants from the NIH. Because there is so little money in the National Institutes of Health budget, a scientist often won't get help from this prime source until he or she reaches an average age of 43. A scientist who earns a doctor's degree (a huge accomplishment) may not be able to make a living for the first twenty years in the field!

In these and other ways, small and large, our states and nations can work together. Every contribution helps: like little cloth squares, meaningless by themselves, but when combined into a patchwork quilt, bring warmth and comfort on a freezing Winter's night.

Imagine how beautiful international research cooperation could be: like an Iranian/Israeli stem cell research institute.  Why not? Both countries are strong supporters of stem cell research, everybody loves their children, and every family deserves access to the best medicine science can provide.

Already, the State of California is working with countries like Canada, Japan and the UK, finding ways to multiply our efforts, getting far more bang to the buck, while still spending the money inside the Golden State, as mandated by Proposition 71.

We must support the research where it grows; plant seeds where it is not—with a global stem cell research action plan.

Don C. Reed is Vice-President for Public Policy, Americans for Cures Foundation; his opinions may or may not reflect the views of the Foundation.

TIME TO TAX? OR-- THE YANT ALTERNATIVE

by Don C. Reed

First, here is an argument FOR increased taxation of the very rich, the sort of folks for whom the first great Depression was a happy time: when prices were low, and servants worked cheap. For those who ignore the sufferings of millions, there may be no answer, except to tax.

But for the far-sighted, there is another way, which I will get to in a minute. 

Part One: Time to Tax

"Let the rich alone," said William F. Buckley, in a famous essay of 1968, and for forty years our country has taken that advice all too literally, as cornerstone financial policy. 

Until very recently, the worst thing that could be said about a politician was to be labeled a "tax and spend" Democrat. Instead, we were told, the "unseen hand of the market" was cited as the answers to all ills.

In California, that attitude is enshrined in law. A virtually unattainable 2/3 majority is required to pass any new tax. The result? We once provided the best public school education country have fallen to 46^th in per-pupil spending—and the Golden State is reportedly just weeks away from bankruptcy. 

Nor is California alone in its difficulties. America is going broke: mired in debt, increasingly unable to pay our bills.  One huge expense alone, ($2.3 trillion in medical costs), outstrips all federal income tax receipts (1.8 trillion) combined. 

Real unemployment is close to 13%. The usual figure of 6.7% is misleading; if a person is out of work for more than a few weeks, they are considered to have given up seeking employment, and are not counted any more. But they have not gone away. They are still there, and are growing increasingly hungry.

The gap between rich and poor has widened, until the income of the top three hundred fifty thousand Americans is more than the bottom one hundred fifty million.

Is it not time to reconsider the dreaded "T word"? 

Or have we forgotten what took us out of the first Great Depression?

Massive governmental spending taxed-and-spent us out of depression-- and into the greatest lasting prosperity the world has ever known.

Soon, a new Administration will begin: a new President, a new Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate. We all wish them courage and wisdom for what lies ahead.

They must do what every politician dreads: inflicting new taxes on the very rich:  requiring them to give back to the country which made their wealth possible.

To do otherwise is to break faith with a woman named Andrea, a 30-year-old injured military veteran, whose unemployment benefits just ran out.

As she walked away from the volunteer soup kitchen, not long before Christmas Day, Andrea carried a small frozen turkey, some canned vegetables, and a tub of sour cream, which was all that charity had left to give her.

The little bit of food would have to last. Andrea is also a mother, a single mom, raising a little girl on her own. 

"I gave up on eating every day," Andrea said, "I want to make sure what we have lasts for my daughter."*

Voluntary charity is not enough for all the Andreas and their children in our country, the ten per cent of our population which goes to bed hungry every night.

America must not let her down.

It is time to tax.

• "Food stamp recipients have quadrupled in the past year, study shows",

Karen de Sa, Fremont Argus, Bay Area News Group, 12/23/08

PART TWO: 

OR—there is Bob Yant's Way

Bob Yant is a gentle-voiced friend of scientific research-- and of anybody in a wheelchair who wants to get out.

A mainstay of the research movement, Bob has been fighting for science many years, always with a smile, and the attitude that "wouldn't it be great if it were possible to—", so the ideas linger in the mind.

He can handle giant ideas, and "talk science" with the best of them.

And—he is a businessman. His product?

Excuse me, but I must get personal for a moment.

Anybody in a wheelchair knows that bathroom needs cannot be taken for granted.

Once paralyzed, never again is it enough to just say, "Hey, where is the restroom?", and that is all it takes.

Assistance is required: like catheterization tubes that go inside the body.

A trustworthy product is needed. So, Bob designed his own catheterization gear, based not only on the most up-to-date science, but also backed by the irreplaceable knowledge of many years living in a chair.

I am no urologist to understand the medical side of such things.

But I know Bob Yant, and I trust him. In my opinion, any product he develops will be outstanding.

In a minute I will point you to his website.

But first, the reason for this editorial.

Because Bob also came up with an ALTERNATIVE TO TAXATION: his own personal

way to advance scientific research without being forced.

Instead of waiting to be taxed, the Yant approach was to voluntarily donate ten per cent of what he makes from the product, and give it to research.

I am no economist, but I cannot help wondering about the impact his example could bring. We already have a certain level of taxation, which has to be maintained, and loopholes closed: even the most tight-fisted of conservatives agree the national debt must be paid down, and there is no other way.

But what would happen if every company and wealthy individual followed the Yant example, and genuinely donated ten per cent of gross income to support a social goal? 

There might be no need to increase taxation at all.

For a look at Bob Yant's product, and his policy, go to http://www.curemedical.com.

THE LONE STAR VOLUNTEERS, AND THE FAMILY OF CURE

                                    By Don C. Reed

As friends of this column know, the past four years have been great fun for me. Not only have I been able to work with amazing people, doing exactly the kind of work I most enjoyed, but I received a part-time stipend from Americans for Cures Foundation for my out-of-state efforts. It was like being paid for vigorous fun.

Today, in the deepening winter of recession, it is much harder for non-profit organizations to gather donations for even part-time staff.

Chances are, I will be working volunteer again for a while.

I have applied to renew my teacher's credential, and will substitute (ask any teacher what that small hell is like) 2-3 days a week. Subbing exhausts you. Every period is like the first day of school, when a teacher must prove himself, and fight. That is no problem, when the kids are going to be yours all year, because on the first day of school they are a little off-balance, and you just have to take charge immediately. After a few days they realize they can live with you, and teaching becomes a great job, although of course grossly underpaid.

But as a substitute, it is you who are off-balance. The kids are comfortable, and the sub is the outsider. The students mostly come to play, because they know you are not staying. If you intend to actually teach (and I don't know any other way) it is a war. By the time they realize you intend to be taken seriously, it is the end of the period—and then the next class comes in, and the nightmare begins again—every period, all day, and it drains you, all that emotional fighting.

Unless I can find a grant, I will be doing advocacy work only in my spare time: twenty to thirty hours a week instead of sixty-to-eighty.

This will of course diminish my efficiency—but I have been there before. Part-time volunteer work was what I did in the first decade of the advocacy adventure.

So, what can a part-time volunteer do?

Practically anything.

 It is easier with a budget, no question: but the vast majority of stem cell research advocates everywhere are zero-budget folks.

Right now, I can think of ten chores that can be done by people without money.

1. develop a state stem cell research funding bill;
2. establish a state  "permissions" bill, for scientific freedom;
3. develop and deliver informational presentations to advance awareness;
4. help elect Congressional and Senatorial candidates who back research;
5. support ongoing legislative efforts already begun by other advocates;
6. oppose anti-research laws by speaking/writing/organizing;
7. use Google alerts to keep in touch with regenerative medical progress;
8. support efforts to at least double NIH funding;
9. work to block the annual renewal of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment;
10. respond to articles in the press, either positive or negative.

These are "doable"; I have done them, (with the help of hundreds of hard-working friends) and am trying to do them again, all on a volunteer basis. 

Most advocates never receive a salary at all. The most important work of their lives is done "for free".

Look at the amazing efforts of CAMR, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, our voice in Washington—I think they have one and a half paid staff—all the rest volunteer their services.

Look at the Texas folks: like Joe and Nina Brown, Judy Haley, Beckie McCleery and other Lone Star volunteers: people like Val, Kathy, Laura, Susan, Chris, Larry, Dianne, Wendy, Bill, Jennifer, Ellen, Cheryl, Gerald, Ralph, Clarence, Michael, Harry and Kent, to name a few.

If any of those endlessly-working people receives a salary, I would be delighted—(talk about justified!)—and, unfortunately, surprised.

These are folks who are willing to drive to the state Capitol in the middle of the night, when hearings may be suddenly called about stem cell issues. In addition to trying to follow and understand the science, and to communicate it to others, including the press, they spend countless hours arguing with legislators all too often under the thumb of the religious right.

Texas is controlled by a party which lets its science policy be determined by an ultra-conservative religious minority: remember, the current Republican party platform calls for the complete elimination of embryonic stem cell research. 

It must feel like trying to dig water wells in the Sahara desert.

And yet, the Texan stem cell research community continues to fight.

I remember an old boxer saying, "sometimes you win by just hanging on, waiting for an opportunity." They do a lot of that in Texas, fighting to defeat rotten bills that would deny the hope of cure to millions, while at the same time trying to pass good bills they know do not have a prayer of passing.

Why do they do it, month after month, year after year? Same reason as always, because their loved ones are at risk. They are fighting for their families, and yours and mine.

For one thing, they understand that cure research is a way to stabilize the economy. They know that of America's $2.3 trillion medical costs last year, 75% was spent on the care of folks who have incurable (chronic) disease or disability. That mountainous medical bill is a key reason our economy is starting to fail. Cure diabetes? That would save roughly a fifth of a trillion dollars.

They know that every step to advance regenerative medicine not only brings our families closer to safety from disease and disability, but also is a direct help to America's faltering economic system.

These are far-seeing folks: like the people who built the library in my hometown of Fremont.

If you visit our library sometime, you will find it jam-packed with happy people—probably none of whom ever stop and think, hmmm, how many council meetings had to be sat through, how many government officials had to be approached by unpaid volunteers, (a group called "Friends of the Library"), how many booksales, how many campaigns to try and get funding for this building and its books.

And, one suspects, this is how it has always been:  behind every victory are the efforts of many people, uncredited, unpaid; and who may not even get to see their horse come in.   

But we know. And when America finally grabs hold of the biomedical revolution, and cure begins to happen, it will be because of people like the Lone Star volunteers.

If you don't mind working free, (which by definition means part-time, because you have to do something else to pay the rent) there are endless jobs that need doing in your state's collegiate, legislative, charitable, or business arena.

For me, the first priority is putting pressure on government to fund  basic research for cure, laying the ground work for private enterprise, so they can get involved when financially sensible. It may cost as much as a billion dollars to develop a single drug, bringing it from the scientist's lab to people's medicine cabinet; it is unreasonable to expect the companies to pay for everyone else's research as well. Funding basic research is what the public sector does best, from the smallest state funding bill, to the National Institutes of Health, the NIH.

Eventually, the giant corporations will be "forced" to invest in regenerative medicine. Businesspeople cannot overlook a burgeoning opportunity.

 But first, states and national government agencies must to do their share.

And who will exert this pressure on our elected government, in a country which not only allows citizen involvement, but encourages it, depends on it?

That would be us.

We may never meet in person, you and I, never have the chance to shake hands and laugh, hug and have dinner, babble over coffee, share advocate war stories and pictures of our kids.

But we are brothers and sisters in struggle just the same.

We are the family of cure.

Happy New Year!

CHRISTMAS, UNDER DURESS

 by Don C. Reed

I went to my Grandson's Christmas program last night.

Gloria, beloved wife of almost 40 years, goes to church at least once a week, without fail.

I go when forced by societal pressures, i.e. Gloria. Roman Junior goes to a Catholic school, so I go if it is something to do with him, plus the Mrs. always muscles me into a Christmas religious service of some kind or other.

Technically, I felt, I had already done my Christmas obligation.

Last week, Gloria put on a small dinner for the homeless. Our local church provides a place to sleep for about four families down on their luck. Gloria purchased multiple pizzas, sent her husband to purloin oranges off our neighbor's tree, arranged cupcakes from a friend, made homemade guacamole dip and cut up bread strips to dip with, as well as providing bottled drinks and items of the vegetable persuasion.

I thought there would be a lot of people involved in the providing part of the dinner, but there wasn't. It was just us.

When we came in the door, a woman looked up and said: "Did you bring the dinner?"

I thought: what if we had forgot? Would they have eaten?

There were about eight children.

One man, well-dressed, studied his shoes. Beside him were two little girls. Their hair was tied up in bows. I said hello, shook hands, he introduced his children proudly. I did not see a mom. What if I was a single parent, with two little girls to care for?

Gloria took command as usual, lining everyone up like she was in the military.

"No, just one piece of pizza till everybody gets served!"

"What, pizza again?" I heard somebody say.

The women hustled the children over, to make sure they were fed before the food was gone. They ate everything we brought and I wished there was more. Just one piece of pizza, for the main dish?

But it was something, and the Catholic Church had made it possible, encouraging parishioners like Gloria to help with food, while the Church provided shelter and also some real-life helps like job hunting assistance.

On the one hand Gloria's church is the epitome of charity; on the other, the Pope's narrow-minded and anti-scientific views (if listened to) would condemn millions to lives of needless suffering.

A former member of the Hitler Youth, Pope Benedict (formerly Joseph Ratzinger) may be over-reacting to his Nazi past. Probably all German-Americans are at least somewhat embarrassed about the horrible cruelties inflicted by the nation from which their ancestors sprang (I am half German on my mother's side, her Schneider family name changed to Snyder) and the Pope makes stem cell research sound like the Nazi science of eugenics, trying for the "master race", which is total nonsense. Trying to cure people's misery is a whole lot different than trying to create a bunch of Hitler mini-monsters.

Have you read the Pope's latest statement on bioethics? It is 32 pages long, and was created by a Church council which he led before becoming Pope. 

If you want to read the statement, a condensed version follows. it says: 

The document … expressly approved by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI…is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (Dignitas personae, n. 37).

In other words, you cannot even disagree in your own mind, let alone argue about it

Stem cell research is life and death important to me.

And under the current Pope, almost every form of advanced stem cell research is forbidden.

Sure, there was a little disclaimer:  "The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself…"    (emphasis added)

The truth is the Church will intervene and control exactly as much as it can get away with. In Italy, the Pope's word is pretty much law. In the United Nations, robed priests went with Bush Administration officials to put pressure on small countries to ban Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning), trying to criminalize it throughout the world. They failed, but not through lack of trying.

From Michigan to Missouri, the Catholic Church has mounted full-force political efforts to block embryonic stem cell research.

But there was one line in the Pope's statement, which gave me hope for the day when the Church will inevitably reconsider its stance, as it has done in the matter of x-rays, small-pox vaccine, anesthesia, and many other medical advances, initially opposed.

"…danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin…"

That was a loophole, perhaps, which might one day be used to alter a mistaken policy.

Because what parent would not consider cure for a child, dying?

I remembered where my grandson got his middle name.

When Rome was four years old, he had a friend named Jacob, who was eight. Roman and he used to throw a football around, and Jacob was always patient and kind.

But he contracted leukemia, and there was no cure. His parents did the best they could for him, but the pain grew worse and worse.  I visited him one time, and brought my old Marine World slide show along, and told him about the sharks and dolphins, and for a little while the lines of pain eased on his face. But then the stories ended, and the pain sank in again.

Roman told him, when he grew up, if he ever had a son, he would name him after Jacob.

After many months of struggle, Jacob told his mother, he did not want to go on any more. And she held him in her arms as he let go, and died.

Our son remembered the promise, which was how Roman Jacob Reed got his name.

I thought about a rally I attended, a march against cancer, put on by Assemblymember John Dutra, original sponsor of the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, and a devout Catholic. He had let me speak at the event, and of course I spoke strongly about stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research, how it had nothing to do with making babies and everything to do with making cures-- the whole nine yards.

Afterwards, two little nuns came over to speak with me. I got a little frightened--

oh, no, I am in for it now—because how can you argue with a nun?

But the older nun said, quite firmly:

"We wanted you to know, we support the research."

The second nun nodded, and smiled.

Like the 72% of American Catholics who support embryonic stem cell research, she had made up her own mind.

My knee was hurting, so I had to stand up for a while. We there almost an hour early, sigh… I went out in the lobby, and there were many pamphlets and brochures. I did not thumb through them, knowing if I found anything about stem cell research, I would not like it. I remembered the 32 page document, which talked about opposing research because it lessens the "dignity" of humankind—where is the dignity in loss of bowel and bladder control? Where is the dignity in losing one's mind to Alzheimer's?

Gloria always tells me, the Pope is a man, and people make mistakes.

But this is such a powerful man, and the mistake is so enormous!

I went and sat down again, my stomach in knots.

Then the children filed in.

And began to sing.

As a lover of music, some of it was legitimately painful to my ears. These were just regular kids, everybody in the school, and some did not quite grasp the concept of following notes. At one point I suppressed a groan and muttered something to Gloria, in what I thought was the softest of whispers. She elbowed me sharply, indicating with a jerk of her head that one of the children's fathers was the enthusiastic cameraman directly to our left.

But then it was our grandson's turn to walk up on stage. Roman Jacob Reed Part Two,  son of our son. Roman senior was beaming in the back. Mom Terri and Jason were home taking care of our new puppy.

All the children sang. Most of the pieces (mercifully) were short.

But the music director harbored ambitions.

As I glanced at the program, I felt my eyes widen.

The last number was-- the Hallelujah Chorus, from Handel's Messiah?

Handel's Messiah has been called the greatest piece of music in the world. It is also genuinely difficult to sing right, even for trained professionals.  

I knew from experience, having massacred the piece myself, decades ago, in the choir of the church I attended before marrying Gloria. It took months of preparation and rehearsal, every one of us had a musical background-- and even then we barely survived.

And these little kids—regular normal kids off the street-- were going to attempt the Hallelujah Chorus?

Now. The most important two notes in that song are the first one, and the last. You have to start off STRONG-- The "Haaa" in Haleluja has to be a full-throated bellow, a shout-- and finish with a cutoff note that is clean and sharp, abdominal power, and control.

The conductor raised her baton—the audience held its breath—

And then it came.

"HAAA-lay-loo-ya!  HAAA-lay-loo-ya!"

As if by Christmas magic, power descended on those children's voices. It was like a second choir, and every child was caught up in the joy, faces bright as Christmas candles.

They sang the complicated parts, Halleluja, hallelujah, hall-lay-ay-loo-ya!",

when one group sings one thing, and another group does something else, And He shall reign forever, and ev--" while a third group sings another Halleluja altogether-- and every word has to be heard, and every note singularly appreciated.

They nailed it. It was plainly impossible, but they were kids and did not know it was impossible, and so they did it anyway, good and loud, going for it on every single note.

"…Hall-ayyyy—loooo-yaaaaa--!"— they cut off the last note clean and sharp, and it echoed in the hushed church.

An instant of silence—and then the roar of applause began.

For these, our voices of the future.

May they build a church more open, to the hope of a healthier world.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

ZE08121202 - 2008-12-12
Permalink: http://zenit.org/article-24541?l=english

Synthesis of Instruction "Dignitas Personae"

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the synthesis of the instruction "Dignitas Personae" that was released today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on certain bioethical questions. It was published in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Polish.

* * *

Regarding the Instruction Dignitas Personae

Aim

In recent years, biomedical research has made great strides, opening new possibilities for the treatment of disease, but also giving rise to serious questions which had not been directly treated in the Instruction Donum vitae (22 February 1987). A new Instruction, which is dated 8 September 2008, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, seeks to provide some responses to these new bioethical questions, as these have been the focus of expectations and concerns in large sectors of society. In this way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeks both to contribute "to the formation of conscience" (n. 10) and to encourage biomedical research respectful of the dignity of every human being and of procreation.

Title

The Instruction opens with the words Dignitas personae - the dignity of a person, which must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death. This fundamental principle expresses "a great `yes' to human life and must be at the center of ethical reflection on biomedical research" (n. 1).

Value

The document is an Instruction of a doctrinal nature, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and expressly approved by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. The Instruction therefore falls within the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter" (Instruction Donum veritatis, n.18), and is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (Dignitas personae, n. 37).

Preparation

For several years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been studying new biomedical questions with a view to updating the Instruction Donum vitae. In undertaking the examination of such new questions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "has benefited from the analysis of the Pontifical Academy for Life and has consulted numerous experts with regard to the scientific aspects of these questions, in order to address them with the principles of Christian anthropology. The Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae of John Paul II, as well as other interventions of the Magisterium, offer clear indications with regard to both the method and the content of the examination of the problems under consideration" (n. 2).

Intended recipients of the document

The Instruction is meant for "all who seek the truth" (n. 3). Indeed, in presenting principles and moral evaluations regarding biomedical research on human life, the Catholic Church "draws upon the light both of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life" (n. 3).

Structure

The Instruction has three parts: "the first recalls some anthropological, theological and ethical elements of fundamental importance; the second addresses new problems regarding procreation; the third examines new procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and the human genetic patrimony" (n. 3).

First Part:

Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects of Human Life and Procreation

The two fundamental principles

"The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life" (n. 4). "The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born must be the fruit of marriage" (n. 6).

Faith and human dignity

"It is the Church's conviction that what is human is not only received and respected by faith, but is also purified, elevated and perfected" (n. 7). God has created every human being in his own image, and his Son has made it possible for us to become children of God. "By taking the interrelationship of these two dimensions, the human and the divine, as the starting point, one understands better why it is that man has unassailable value: he possesses an eternal vocation and is called to share in the trinitarian love of the living God" (n. 8.).

Faith and married life

"These two dimensions of life, the natural and the supernatural, allow us to understand better the sense in which the acts that permit a new human being to come into existence, in which a man and a woman give themselves to each other, are a reflection of trinitarian love. God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father... The Holy Spirit who is poured out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian couples the gift of a new communion of love that is the living and real image of that unique unity which makes of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord Jesus" (n. 9).

The Church's Magisterium and the legitimate autonomy of science

"The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life" (n. 10).

Second Part:

New Problems Concerning Procreation

Techniques for assisting fertility

Among the procedures which respond to problems of fertility are the following:

"techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization" (n. 12): that is, "techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage" (footnote 22). "techniques of homologous artificial fertilization" (n. 12): that is, "the technique used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage" (footnote 23). "techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility" (n. 12). "techniques aimed at removing obstacles to natural fertilization" (n. 13). "adoption" (n. 13).

Techniques are morally permissible if they respect: "the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being", "the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse" and "the specifically human values of sexuality" (n. 12), which require that the procreation of a new human person come about as a result of the conjugal act specific to the love between a husband and wife.

Therefore, "techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted" (n. 12). In such procedures, the "medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed" (n. 12). "Certainly, techniques aimed at removing obstacles to natural fertilization... are licit" (n. 13). "Adoption should be encouraged, promoted and facilitated so that the many children who lack parents may receive a home... In addition, research and investment directed at the prevention of sterility deserve encouragement (n. 13).

In vitro fertilization and the deliberate destruction of embryos

The experience of recent years has shown that in all techniques of in vitro fertilization "the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high" (n. 14). Even in the most technically advanced centers of artificial fertilization, the number is above 80% (cf. footnote 27). "Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded"; a increasing number of couples "are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring"; of the embryos which are produced in vitro "some are transferred into the woman's uterus, while the others are frozen"; the technique of multiple transfer in which "the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost... implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos" (n. 15).

"The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure...leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being. Recognition of such respect is, on the other hand, promoted by the intimacy of husband and wife nourished by married love... In the face of this manipulation of the human being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be repeated that God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness.. Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end" (n. 16).

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is a variety of in vitro procreation in which fertilization in the test tube does not simply "take place on its own, but rather by means of the injection into the oocyte of a single sperm, selected earlier, or by the injection of immature germ cells taken from the man" (footnote 32).

This technique, which is morally illicit, causes a complete separation between procreation and the conjugal act" (n. 17). It takes place "outside the bodies of the couple through actions of third parties whose competence and technical activity determine the success of the procedure. Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person" (n. 17).

Freezing embryos

"In order to avoid repeatedly taking oocytes from the woman's body, the process involves a single intervention in which multiple oocytes are taken, followed by cryopreservation of a considerable number of the embryos conceived in vitro. In this way, should the initial attempt at achieving pregnancy not succeed, the procedure can be repeated or additional pregnancies attempted at a later date" (n. 18). The freezing or cryopreservation of embryos "refers to freezing them at extremely low temperatures, allowing long term storage" (cf. footnote 35).

"Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos; it presupposes their production in vitro; it exposes them to the serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high percentage does not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at least temporarily of maternal reception and gestation; it places them in a situation in which they are susceptible to further offense and manipulation" (n. 18).

With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? All the answers that have been proposed (use the embryos for research or for the treatment of disease; thaw them without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers; put them at the disposal of infertile couples as a "treatment for infertility"; allow a form of "prenatal adoption") present real problems of various kinds. It needs to be recognized "that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore, John Paul II made an "appeal to the conscience of the world's scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of `frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons" (n. 19).

The freezing of oocytes

"In order avoid the serious ethical problems posed by the freezing of embryos, the freezing of oocytes has also been advanced in the area of techniques of in vitro fertilization" (n. 20).

In this regard it needs to be stated that while the cryopreservation of oocytes is not in itself immoral, and is employed in other medical contexts which are not the subject of this document, when it takes place "for the purpose of being used in artificial procreation" it is "to be considered morally unacceptable" (n. 20).

The reduction of embryos

"Some techniques used in artificial procreation, above all the transfer of multiple embryos into the mother's womb, have caused a significant increase in the frequency of multiple pregnancy. This situation gives rise in turn to the practice of so-called embryo reduction, a procedure in which embryos or fetuses in the womb are directly exterminated" (n. 21).

"From the ethical point of view, embryo reduction is an intentional selective abortion. It is in fact the deliberate and direct elimination of one or more innocent human beings in the initial phase of their existence and as such it always constitutes a grave moral disorder" (n. 21).

Preimplantation diagnosis

"Preimplantation diagnosis is a form of prenatal diagnosis connected with techniques of artificial fertilization in which embryos formed in vitro undergo genetic diagnosis before being transferred into a woman's womb. Such diagnosis is done in order to ensure that only embryos free from defects or having the desired sex or other particular qualities are transferred" (n. 22).

"Unlike other forms of prenatal diagnosis..., diagnosis before implantation is immediately followed by the elimination of an embryo suspected of having genetic or chromosomal defects, or not having the sex desired, or having other qualities that are not wanted. Preimplantation diagnosis...is directed toward the qualitative selection and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of abortion... By treating the human embryo as mere `laboratory material', the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination...Such discrimination is immoral and must therefore be considered legally unacceptable..." (n. 22).

New forms of interception and contragestation

There are methods of preventing pregnancy which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted.

"Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation" (n. 23); for example, the IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called `morning-after pills' (footnote 42). They are "contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted" (n. 23); for example, the pharmaceutical known commercially as RU-486 (footnote 43).

Even if such interceptives may not cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse, it must be noted, however, that "anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion". In the case of contragestatives "what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted... the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral" (n. 23).

Third Part:

New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of
the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony

Gene therapy

Gene therapy commonly refers to "techniques of genetic engineering applied to human beings for therapeutic purposes, that is to say, with the aim of curing genetically based diseases" (n. 25).

Somatic cell gene therapy "seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells" (n. 25). Germ line cell therapy aims "at correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the individual" (n. 25).

From the ethical point of view:

Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes "are in principle morally licit...Given that gene therapy can involve significant risks for the patient, the ethical principle must be observed according to which, in order to proceed to a therapeutic intervention, it is necessary to establish beforehand that the person being treated will not be exposed to risks to his health or physical integrity which are excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the pathology for which a cure is sought. The informed consent of the patient or his legitimate representative is also required" (n. 26). With regard to germ line cell therapy, "the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable" and therefore "in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny" (n. 26). ith regard to the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool, it must be observed that such interventions would promote a "eugenic mentality" and would introduce an "indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals... Finally it must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator" (n. 27).

Human cloning

Human cloning refers to "the asexual or agametic reproduction of the entire human organism in order to produce one or more `copies' which, from a genetic perspective, are substantially identical to the single original" (n. 28). The techniques which have been proposed for accomplishing human cloning are artificial embryo twinning, which "consists in the artificial separation of individual cells or groups of cells from the embryo in the earliest stage of development... which are then transferred into the uterus in order to obtain identical embryos in an artificial manner" (footnote 47) and cell nuclear transfer, which "consists in introducing a nucleus taken from an embryonic or somatic cell into an denucleated oocyte. This is followed by stimulation of the oocyte so that it begins to develop as an embryo" (footnote 47). Cloning is proposed for two basic purposes: reproduction, that is, in order to obtain the birth of a baby, and medical therapy or research.

Human cloning is "intrinsically illicit in that...it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity" (n. 28).

With regard to reproductive cloning, "this would impose on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting him - as has been stated - to a form of biological slavery, from which it would be difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person represents a grave offence to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people... In the encounter with another person, we meet a human being who owes his existence and his proper characteristics to the love of God, and only the love of husband and wife constitutes a mediation of that love in conformity with the plan of the Creator and heavenly Father" (n. 29). With regard to cloning for medical therapy or research, it must be said that to "create embryos with the intention of destroying them, even with the intention of helping the sick, is completely incompatible with human dignity, because it makes the existence of a human being at the embryonic stage nothing more than a means to be used and destroyed. It is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends" (n. 30). As an alternative to therapeutic cloning some researchers have proposed new techniques which are presented as capable of producing stem cells of an embryonic type without implying the destruction of true human embryos, for example, by altered nuclear transfer (ANT) or oocyte assisted reprogramming (OAR). Doubts still remain, however, "regarding the ontological status of the `product' obtained in this way" (n. 30).

The therapeutic use of stem cells

"Stem cells are undifferentiated cells with two basic characteristics: a) the prolonged capability of multiplying themselves while maintaining the undifferentiated state; b) the capability of producing transitory progenitor cells from which fully differentiated cells descend, for example, nerve cells, muscle cells and blood cells. Once it was experimentally verified that when stem cells are transplanted into damaged tissue they tend to promote cell growth and the regeneration of the tissue, new prospects opened for regenerative medicine, which have been the subject of great interest among researchers throughout the world" (n. 31).

For the ethical evaluation, it is necessary above all to consider the methods of obtaining stem cells.

"Methods which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the stem cells are taken are to be considered licit. This is generally the case when tissues are taken from: a) an adult organism; b) the blood of the umbilical cord at the time of birth; c) fetuses who have died of natural causes" (n. 32). "The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo...invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit... In this case, research...is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves" (n. 32). "The use of embryonic stem cells or differentiated cells derived from them - even when these are provided by other researchers through the destruction of embryos or when such cells are commercially available - presents serious problems from the standpoint of cooperation in evil and scandal" (n. 32).

Numerous studies, however, have shown that adult stem cells give more positive results than embryonic stem cells.

Attempts at hybridization

"Recently animal oocytes have been used for reprogramming the nuclei of human somatic cells... in order to extract embryonic stem cells from the resulting embryos without having to use human oocytes" (n. 33).

"From the ethical standpoint, such procedures represent an offense against the dignity of human beings on account of the admixture of human and animal genetic elements capable of disrupting the specific identity of man" (n. 33).

The use of human "biological material" of illicit origin

For scientific research and for the production of vaccines or other products, cell lines are at times used which are the result of an illicit intervention against the life or physical integrity of a human being.

Experimentation on human embryos "constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person. These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder" (n. 34). With regard to the use of "biological material" of illicit origin by researchers, which has been produced apart from their research center or which has been obtained commercially, the moral requirement "must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of `biological material' of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation". It needs to be remembered that the "duty to refuse to use such `biological material' springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one's own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life. Therefore, the above-mentioned criterion of independence is necessary, but may be ethically insufficient" (n. 35). "Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such `biological material'. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision" (n. 35).

(end—DR)