MAJOR NEWS:Sorry, Wisconsin: The Jig is Up on Patents in Embryonic Stem Cell Research

From The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in California and The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) via Jon Merz comes the most important news in stem cell research since 2000:

PTO REJECTS HUMAN STEM CELL PATENTS AT BEHEST OF CONSUMER GROUPS:

Santa Monica, CA -- April 2, 2007 -- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has upheld challenges by consumer advocates to three over-reaching patents on human embryonic stem cells and rejected patent claims by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.

"This is a a great day for scientific research," said John M. Simpson. FTCR stem cell project director. "Given the facts, this is the only conclusion the PTO could have reached. The patents should never have been issued in the first place."

The challenges were filed last July by FTCR and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) because the three WARF patents were impeding scientific progress and driving vital stem cell research overseas. FTCR and PUBPAT argued that the work done by University of Wisconsin researcher James Thomson to isolate stem cell lines was obvious in the light of previous scientific research, making his work unpatentable. To receive a patent, something must be new, useful and non-obvious. The PTO agreed with the groups.

Its decision said, "It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to the method of isolating ES cells from primates and maintaining the isolated ES cells on feeder cells for periods longer than one year. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to isolate primate (human) ES cells, and maintained in undifferentiated state for prolonged periods, since ES cells are pluripotential and can be used in gene therapy."

The PTO decisions were dated Friday, March 30 but were received today. WARF has two months to respond to the PTO ruling and seek to change it. Third party requests for patent re-examination, like the ones filed by FTCR and PUBPAT, are ultimately successful in having the subject patent either changed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.

Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell researcher at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, filed statements in support of the re-examination requests.

"The real discovery of embryonic stem cells was by Martin Evans, Matt Kaufman, and Gail Martin in 1981, and none of these scientists considered patenting them," said Loring. "It is outrageous that WARF claimed credit for this landmark discovery nearly 15 years after it was made."

In the face of the challenges by FTCR and PUBPAT WARF announced in January that it would ease its licensing requirements on human embryonic stem cells. "Now that the PTO has ruled, WARF should simply drop all its claims," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT Executive Director. [ed: yeah, hold your breath indeed...]

The groups said the patents' dubious validity is underscored by the fact that no other country in the world honors them. As a result, U.S. researchers have sent research monies abroad where they can avoid paying royalties to WARF. California voters approved the nation's largest publicly funded stem cell research program in 2004 with Proposition 71, which allocated $3 billion in grants over the next 10 years.

More information about FTCR and PUBPAT's challenges to the WARF stem cell patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,843,780, 6,200,806 and 7,029,913), including copies of the Patent Office's Orders rejecting the patents, can be found here, and you canr ead John Simpson's Op-Ed explaining the need for the patent challenges here.

Alternative Sources of Stem Cells? How About the Garage Refrigerator!

Greg Dahlman pointed me to perhaps the weirdest take on how to isolate your own human amniotic epithelial cells from the placenta - at home (mmmmm. Will there be placenta left for lunch?) Here are the instructions. The creator of the method wrote in to give us a link to an even better page. Knock yourself out.

The Do Not Show Me State

The Scientist is reporting that Missouri has all but decided that it does not want to even entertain real arguments about stem cell research, and is very close to passing a law that will ban SCNT stem cell research entirely.

And the Next State to look into Embryonic Stem Cell Research is ...

Connecticut may be the next state to look into funding embryonic stem cell research. For Connecticut State Senator Larry Miller, who is spearheading the issue, the issue strikes particularly close to home: after being diagnosed with multiple myeloma several years ago, he believes that his life was saved with an autologous bone marrow transplant, using his own adult stem cells from his bone marrow. Although this treatment is not controversial, Miller's personal experience and concern for others with serious diseases, is what drives him to push for stem cell research in Connecticut. He and another senator wrote a bill last year to allow stem cell research; the Senate approved the bill, but the House opted to study the issue for another year. There is a possibility that the research might be funded with $10 to $20 million from the state’s surplus, as a one-time expense toward stem cell research.

Asia Is Stem Cell Central

This piece elaborates on the role of some major Asian cities and nations in effectively beginning a drive to dominate stem cell research. Not much new here but it is comprehensive and there are some interesting examples of scientists who went east for the gold instead of west for the rush. [From Business Week]

Wesley Smith has Lots of Nerve

Wesley Smith has made a serious bid for the 2004 chutzpah award. in a new column he complains that proponents of embryonic stem cell research using cloned embryos are playing word games in how they describe cloned embryos. This coming in the context of a year's worth of conniving on the part of proponents of a ban on cloning for research to say they are not opposed to 'stem' cell research when what they mean is adult stem cell research and intentionally confusing reproductive cloning with cloning for research. Wesley--stones, glass houses, c'mon now! - Art Caplan

Wired News: Stem-Cell Method May Cheat Death

"Stem-Cell Method May Cheat Death" reports on the potential derivation of stem cells from a single cell removed from a morula, which we mentioned a week or two ago on this list. Note, though, that they think it will solve the problem of killing embryos, because the embryo it was removed from would persist. The philosophical conundrum is that, if you believe any totipotent cell is human life, when you remove that blastomere from the morula all you have really done is twinned the morula. To someone believing in the sanctity of embryonic life, it might not be enough that the parent morula is not destroyed. The blastomere itself can be considered life worthy of protection. There is a point at which the cells cease to be totipotent as the morula transforms into a blastocyst. If someone could culture stem cells from a blastomere taken from a morula/blastocyst that has ceased to be totipotent -- then we will have really solved the stem cell problem to everyone's satisfaction, I believe. I think the ultimate point is that the stem cell problem may go away soon, leaving us only with enhancement, abortion, and PVS to distract us from health care reform.

Geron: Behemoth of the Stem Cell Race

Sacremento Bee reports on the importance of Geron and its patents for the race to acquire and license stem cell research technologies. It is a field in which there is a great deal of patent protection, as I wrote in a survey of the existing patents for a book Magnus, Caplan and I co-edited: Who Owns Life?. And now there are three billion dollars available for research that will in many cases produce licensing arrangements that filter automatically through Geron. This will be an interesting time for those who invest in biotechnology, but more interesting still for those who follow patent law in the life sciences, where the patent and trade offices in the US and European Union seem to have lost their minds. GM

Real Estate Investor to Run California Stem Cell Program

Just out from the official Governor's Office press release:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced his selections for leadership of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC) which oversees the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine created by the passage of Proposition 71. The proposition, supported by the Governor, was approved by voters in November and will fund stem cell research that may offer cures for ailments ranging from Alzheimer’s disease to diabetes and cancer. The Governor announced his nomination of Robert Klein for chairman and Edward Penhoet for vice chairman of the ICOC.

The Stem Cell Debate is Dead

In this editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, David Magnus and Art Caplan argue that with the passing of California's prop. 71, it is long past time to stop worrying about the President's policies or the tired issue of whether ex vivo embryos are people. The new stem cell debate is going to be about when the science justifies moving to clinical trials, worries about the therapeutic misconception and conflicts of interest. I know I am not the only one who feels like i've gone back in time--substitute enthusiasm for stem cell research for gene therapy. We argue in this piece that we should learn some lessons from that experience.

Whoa Thar Little Stem Cells. Stop Tryin' to Leave the Dang State!

Texas needs stem cell policy, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, likely candidate for governor of Texas, is pushing to save Texas from stem cell obscurity. It is difficult to imagine that the state - dominated by conservative protestants and Catholics - would ever embrace any serious stem cell research plan that includes embryonic cells. Hey ... they execute lots of disabled people in Texas. If that passes must with the Texas pro-life constituency, maybe they'll go for Hurlbut's "kill a disabled embryo" approach! Or maybe not, pardner. Not in Crawford. [thanks Arthur Caplan]

WANTED: Czar for California Stem Cell Research Agency ... Must Be Rested & Ready to Be Most Powerful Person in Biotech

LA Times reports:

With less than a week before the debut of California's new $3 billion stem cell institute, intense behind-the-scenes debate is growing over who should head the agency and whether a Friday deadline for filling the post will allow the best candidates to be considered. The debate is expected to crest Monday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and three other state elected officials must, under the tight deadlines set by the state's embryonic stem cell initiative, put forward their nominee to chair the new agency.

The chairperson will immediately become among the most influential officials in the field of biological research, running much of the day-to-day operations of an institute that will dole out some $300 million a year in grants, more than 10 times what the federal government now spends yearly in the stem cell field.

Bernard Lo is quoted.

No Comment from the Plaintiff, Who is Still a Tiny Frozen Glob

KRT newservice reports on the dismissal by a federal appeals court of a 1999 lawsuit that alleged that all U.S. frozen embryos (400,000) are threatened by stem cell research, which required that they be destroyed. The suit, by Hagerstown, Minnesota based National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children ("an embryo is a terrible thing to waste") - NAAPC - "sued the federal government on behalf of "Mary Doe," a name it chose for the nation's estimated 400,000 frozen embryos.

"You see, Mary Doe is coming into court and she says, 'I'm alive, and I'm a human being. Stem cell research is killing my brothers and sisters, and I may be next in line,'" said Rudolph M. Palmer, who founded the Hagerstown organization about 15 years ago.

In its appeal, NAAPC argued that present policies threaten the embryo every bit as much as the Clinton policies. "But a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to address the ethics of stem-cell research, agreeing Tuesday with a lower court that the issue was moot since it hinged on outdated Clinton administration policies."

A Man in Search of an Audience

Updated 12/5, 12/9 (We just can't slow this story down!): The Culture of Life people reported 12/1 on the news that the stem cell debate will soon be 'solved':

A member of the President's Council on Bioethics believes he may have found a way to obtain stem cells with the same potential as embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying a human embryo.

At last, a brilliant idea for getting around the big problem with embryonic stem cell research. It comes from President's Council on Bioethics member William Hurlbut, who constantly complains that those who favor embryonic stem cell research are - his term - "not morally serious" enough (take a listen). But he's had his idea vetted by "prominent Catholic clerics and other ethicists," to see if the technology he proposes is morally acceptable. The idea? Gushes the prolife newsletter:

in Hurlbut's method the gene responsible for creating the placenta is turned off. Hurlbut contends that this prevents an embryo from ever being created. But like traditional cloning, the egg still generates inner cell mass, or the "blank" cells, that some scientist believe have the greatest research potential. The [Boston] Globe reports that parts of the technique are currently being performed on mice.

Sounds great, right? It even sounds oddly familiar, probably. That is because it has been proposed in several forms by at least a dozen scientists who actually work in the area, and published in (among other places) Nature, although not by Hurlbut. Some of the papers are catching on to the idea that maybe the suggestion isn't so novel. But Hurlbut thinks his solution is important and scientifically significant, and conservatives are everywhere trumpeting the significant scientific breakthrough.

There's just one problem with taking him at face value: He has no publications in stem cell biology, ethics, theology or any part of clinical IVF. Nor is he, an MD, in clinical practice in that or any other area. Stanford faculty who have asked the president of that institution to release him point out that he has allowed and personally encouraged the description of him as a "Stanford scientist."

Hurlbut bases the moral utility of his claim on the fact that he vetted it with priests

The Boston Globe covered his theory, and right to lifers are beside themselves with joy at the morally serious solution. (UPDATE: Actually, some of the pro-life leaders are beginning to see the fix Hurlbut's idea puts them in) But there are many, many problems with Hurlbut's claims that even a visit to the Pope won't fix: 1) he makes assumptions about what counts as an embryo, a matter on which no ten embryo researchers agree, 2) he thus makes assumptions about when the destruction of embryonic material would count as destruction of an embryo, a person, or a human life for either scientists or clerics, 3) he makes no effort whatever to describe why his proposal is somehow less objectionable than other nuclear transfer technologies that he has campaigned against so vigerously.

UPDATE: Washington Post reports that Hurlbut's idea was mocked by a visiting scientist at the council, but that nonetheless the council is trading on the prominence afforded to it by Hurlbut's "big ticket idea," and as a direct result Leon Kass did in fact hold hearings on "solutions" to the stem cell problem, which (surprisingly to me, anyway) were hailed by Kass himself (chair) as important stuff. One might have guessed that Professor Kass would be a bit embarrassed that his handpicked council would advance ideas as potentially repugnant (following his analysis in his own writing) as Hurlbut's, designed to sidestep rather than engage a debate. And Kass does try his best to make the ideas sound thoughtful:

Kass said the ideas raise the possibility that "the partisans of scientific progress and the defenders of the dignity of nascent human life can go forward in partnership without anyone having to violate things they hold dear."

But the idea is neither an artful dodge nor a successful one. - GM

On the Way to Regulating Stem Cells in California

News from the National Academies conference in Irvine, California this week. Moreno, Charo, Lo are quoted. "R. Alta Charo, a bioethics professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told the audience that, for anyone who believes embryonic stem-cell research is unregulated and has slipped through the cracks, she had brought 35 slides dedicated solely to the field's current regulations."

President's Council Dignifies Stem Cell "Solutions"

Chris Mooney noticed this careful dissection of the ideas for "getting around" the ethical problems associated with using embryonic stem cells in research. It is a nice, thorough review of these ideas and how problematic they are. We're, frankly, much less impressed with the entire discussion than are either Chris or other critics. But we've already made that argument ad nauseum. It is an open question why the council has pursued the questions it has chosen to pursue.

Tommy Thompson's Parting Words

Chris Mooney blogs Thompson's last comments on stem cell research before he is to depart his Bush administration role. MSNBC/Newsweek covered the final conference by Thompson.

Why No Bioethics on the California Proposition 71 Governing Council?

Why doesn't California put a bioethicist on its Proposition 71 governing board dealing with the $3 billion to be allocated for stem cell research? University Chancellors and Presidents are being nominated up and down as schools' and institutes' top guns clamor to be public intellectuals on this big-ticket funding item, no doubt in part to ensure that their shop gets some of the money. The proposition guarantees seats on the board to some institutions (including the 5 UCal schools), but why in the world can't there be some slots dedicated to bioethics?

No matter what your position on stem cell research, there simply must be a dedicated stem cell ethics expert among the governors. If it weren't so serious a matter, one would have to laugh at the idea that these University and institute administrators are properly trained to think about how and whether to dispense the money and for which studies. It is a question several are beginning to ask anew, echoing concerns from those who opposed Prop 71 but themselves supported hES research. Bioethics in California has always been a developing phenomenon, although the Stanford center is arguably among the top programs in the nation. Hopefully at least some of the ballast for deliberations about which programs should be funded will be provided by people in stem cell bioethics in California. But that is a very, very short list of people.

Even more important, California should finally begin to build up some bioethics programs, particularly in the universities that plan to do significant new stem cell research. If the past is any predictor, that will not be easily accomplished in California, where bioethics has just never really taken a foothold in terms of university budgets and powerhouse faculties. There are plenty of good people in bioethics in California, but it is difficult to identify a group of major research centers in bioethics in the state, despite its preeminent place in biotechnology research. Proposition 71 should be the full employment act for California bioethics, to borrow Art Caplan's description of the role ethics money in the Human Genome Project had on bioethics in the 1990s. But if it is business as usual in the most populous state in the nation, bioethics may become an unfunded sport for university CEOs. That would not only hurt bioethics, it would hurt the people of California, who are clearly hoping for a careful, smart use of the $3 billion windfall for stem cells. For them, ethics has to stay in the mix in a serious way.

Asian Stem Cell Labs Dwarf Ours

Labs in Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul, and Singapore have begun to dwarf labs in the UK, and by extension the US, in terms of physical space, talent, and most important in terms of development of cell lines, and particularly across species lines. We've blogged to death about the insecurity in Wisconsin about other states, particularly California, hogging the stem cell research dollars. And yes, Advanced Cell Technology is moving there. But no state in the U.S. has spent half the money that is budgeted in the research groups in Asia, and it is beginning to show.

UN deadlock defeats cloning ban

After a number of delays and much maneuvering and politicking, a deadlocked United Nations has finally defeated a ban on therapeutic (research) cloning. The defeat is a blow to the Bush Administration, which has tried for years to get the international body to throw its weight behind a ban on the technology. While almost all nations support a ban on human reproductive cloning -- cloning procedures that result in a living child -- many nations support the use of cloning technology for medical research. In fact, much of the research goes on in the United States, and a three billion dollar bond issue in California promises to keep the US in the forefront of such research, unless our more conservative Congress passes a US ban.

Illinois' Stem Cell Aspirations Take a Dive

Illinois Senate has moments ago canned its amendment promoting stem cell work in the state. The story is still developing but Wesley Smith posted it on MCW. More:

The defeat of the amended version of HB 3859, which opponents argued would allow "laboratory cloning" as part of stem cell research, depended upon the votes of Downstate Democrats. Republican senators Kirk Dillard, Christine Radogno and Adeleine Geo-Karis broke ranks with the Republican caucus and voted to support the measure.

What's Up Roundup

Not enough organs in Scotland, and fewer are going to be available.

More about how the world will end, or at least it will feel like that in Wisconsin, if the state doesn't kick up its stem cell spending.

Wisconsin should be more worried about New Jersey, whose new acting governor is going to be asking voters to approve borrowing "hundreds of millions of dollars" to fund embryonic stem cell research.New Jersey's last governor, in early retirement, is being eulogized all over the place for his role in advancing stem cell research there.

A new novel from Jodi Picoult examines purposeful birth for organ donation and Courtney Devores likes it. AJOB will have a review; anybody want to do it?

Seattle PI discusses moral surprise in the election.

Go figure that fewer people want hormone replacement therapy after a study showed that they might harm women. Who would have guessed?

I love this piece in OregonLive about the Seventh-day Adventists' role in Operation Whitecoat, the long-running biologic research program between 1954 and 1973. The courage of these who were exposed to all sorts of horrific germs is interesting. Moreno is quoted.

I love university fluff about professorial accomplishments, because it means that the university recognizes that it actually has a faculty. Here's a nice piece about Bob Levine's appointment to the CDC vaccine task force.

Speaking of university press, this short one by a Princeton undergrad looks at Peter Singers' class' visit to a NICU. Singer visits a NICU. What does he say in his ethics consults??

Leave it to an evangelical to coin a new bioethics term: the bioethics porkfest.

William F. May on George W. Bush

William May, recently retired from Southern Methodist University, will speak on the Bush administration's likely position on stem cell research going forward. May, who was not reappointed to the President's Council on Bioethics, is now in residence at UVA.

Britain? Stem Cell Leaders? Meet California.

They are running scared in Britain. After months of believing their own press about a purported mass exodus of stem cell researchers, there are some pretty scared venture capitalists now in London. Financial Times' Clive Cookson delivers a eulogy for the era of mass optimism, complete with lots and lots of quotes from folks like Roger Pederson. The UK, by the way, spends just over 25% of the annual amount California has just allocated for stem cell research.

w-2: Searching for Good News in a Bush Victory

It is difficult to overstate the damage that George Bush can do to the nation's health care and biomedical science in his second term. Long after the shock of a Bush victory - yes, he did win this time - has faded in the minds of Americans, the world will have to cope with this election. What are the implications for medicine and science? Hint: you won't like any of them ... this term, Bush is empowered, under pressure from conservative protestants, and a lame duck to boot.

Kiss pharmaceutical reform goodbye. There is no way George Bush will do any less for pharmaceutical companies than he has done for oil companies. In fact, if anything, the election will draw a more direct analogy between oil and drugs: Bush now has no reason to fear reprisals from those who oppose the drug industry's extraordinary pricing structure in the United States. Bush's cronies may not yet directly profit from the drug industry in the way that they do from Haliburton, but you can bet plenty of Bush appointees are thinking seriously about their future in biomedical lobbying. Pharma will need the President as its collusion with FDA officians and others comes to the fore. Pharma knew what it was buying with Bush, "make no mistake." Any reform effort that included drugs from Canada, including the one Bush said he was "looking at," and any effort to seriously curtail the price of drugs for seniors, will fall prey to the three million vote margin of victory. Drugs will cost more and fewer people will be able to afford them.

International efforts to, well, do anything that Bush opposes are in real trouble. Unfettered international drug research is part of the bargain. Advocates for research subjects have lobbied the WHO and the UN - and those organizations have lobbied the US - to stop the most lopsided and colonialist drug industry research efforts in developing nations. How many research programs in Africa have really rewarded research subjects with any kind of improvement in healthcare quality, even for the disease being researched? Not many.

Healthcare access and insurance reform? Look, no one wants to be pessimistic. Health insurance reform is long-overdue and we in the U.S. have to find a way to provide affordable healthcare to tens of millions of U.S. uninsured. Here's a great Bush solution that lots of Americans seem to support: tort reform! All we have to do is stop those big lawsuits against physicians, and we can save a whole lot of ... wait ... what? Only 3% of the cost of healthcare is in any way related to lawsuits? Ok, wait, so maybe stopping patients from recovering the damages juries want to award them in cases of malpractice won't have much financial effect ... except on physician and lawyer salaries. But Republican voters aren't weeping about that. What they will cry about is the bills that they, and all of us, will have to pay as we watch emergency rooms continue to be the provider of healthcare for the poor, the sick and the legions of uninsured - hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary treatment. Those costs have to come out of somewhere. Just watch your premiums skyrocket, guys. Red states will also bleed red ... ink. Maybe there will be a direct correlation between insurance increases and prices at the gas pump! Who knew anything but college tuition could go up so fast?<[> Enough has been written about Bush's war on science to establish beyond question in the mind of anyone in a blue state that Bush, as a final-term president with uniform control of the U.S. government, will be able to quietly support all sorts of insidious efforts around the nation. Just as gay marriage is quietly being outlawed around the nation, look for Bush to lend support of several kinds to state efforts to roll back protection of women's reproductive healthcare. Bush could care less about evolution, but the "intelligent design" movement can rest easy that Oklahoma's new senator and many other new elected officials around the nation are supporters of creationism in the classroom.

There is still one winable battle, although I fear it is not in Ohio or Iowa. The battle is to reform or reject the President's Council on Bioethics. Leon Kass is no doubt gearing up to lead all the President's ethicists for another term of 'moral seriousness'. He must be put on notice that bioethics cannot afford four more years of feckless, xenophobic neocon posturing, even if it is delivered with austerity. Kass should have apologized to the nation for selling the proceedings of his Council through a for-profit, conservative commercial press. He should not have abused the reputation of one of the world's most prestigious biomedical scientists, Elizabeth Blackburn, named by Bush to the PCB and then shown the door under the pretense that she did not attend enough meetings. Blackburn was by all accounts one of the most active participants in the dialog about stem cell research, emailing Kass and others constantly. Kass could not find another way to defend the PCB against the charge that it sat idly by while the Bush administration (or he) fired one of two moderate scholars, and "retired" the other one, replacing both with ultraconservatives. So Kass resorted to distortion and blame in broad public view. To this day he has neither apologized nor attempted any kind of rapprochement with Blackburn or for that matter with anyone more moderate than William Kristol.

The new generation of conservative bioethicists seems dedicated to the proposition that debate is the enemy, or more accurately that opponents are best left ignored. The PCB virtually ignores the bioethics literature in its writing and anthologies. There are passing references to those who agree with them on matters at hand, most noticeably Carl Elliott, but it has become a hallmark of Bush Bioethics that no position is argued by the PCB while there are people 'in the room' with whom one must argue, unless absolutely necessary. This Council must go, or at least be made to play a peripheral role in the bioethics scene, unless it is radically remade with voices from both sides of the aisle. Supposedly even Wesley Smith agrees that there should be such voices. Now it is time for the American Enterprise Institute's Hertog Fellow Leon Kass to act with courage so that we really can have a "richer" bioethics.

It is a pretty terrible day for those of us in bioethics who supported the right to choose, hES research, and dozens of other areas I have not taken the space to discuss. But the real tragedy would be if bioethics did not take from this mess the lesson that not all battles must be fought nationally. State-by-state we will see the new changes made in bioethics-relevant law. California's Proposition 71 is just the beginning of some very important new shifts that deserve some real pragmatic consideration. Bioethics may not be as prestigious when it is fought out in the states, but that is where the battles now lie, at least for four more years. - Glenn McGee (UPDATED 11/3;11/20 )

Nature: Embryonic Stem Cell Research 'Lite'

Nature reports a new technique for developing cultures of hES cells, which has several implications each of which would help scientists deal with what is sure to be a very difficult four years for stem cell research. The big news is not the primary finding, that morula-stage embryos can produce stem cells. The folks who brought us "W: The Sequel" could care less what kind of embryo is destroyed; whatever it is, they're against it. The big news is what morula-stage embryo-derived stem cells could mean for harvesting of hES cells without destroying embryos:

Researchers might also use the new method to grow stem cells from morula-stage embryos that have stalled in their development and are incapable of growing into babies, suggests stem-cell researcher Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University in East Lansing. "You could remove a big obstacle from the ethical standpoint," he says.

The Wild West of Stem Cell Reports

Really he means East - Russia - where Chris Mooney reports that stem cell swindles are on the rise.

Wisconsin is Petrified of Stem Cell Migration UPDATED

Wisconsin Business reports that California's Prop 71 will create a "giant sucking sound" as big stem cell labs and important scientists are vacuumed up by California. The article asks how much will it take to lure James Thomson? Interesting question...several weeks ago we blogged Alta Charo's comments regarding the threat of Bush policies to Wisconsin. One could be cynical about that threat, given that Wisconsin holds so much intellectual property in stem cell research that Wisconsin profits no matter who is doing the work. But Alta is clearly right that Wisconsin could lose its key figures in stem cell research to Prop 71 and to California.

Mel Gibson, Stem Cell Advocate

Ok, he's not suffering from anything, nor does he have any other personal stake in the matter. But like Michael J. Fox, he is famous. And that seems to be enough for Mel, who shared with Good Morning America's viewers his passion for embryonic sanctity. Debating, well, me (McGee) with a self-described bioethicist by his side, he argued that there's nothing an embryonic cell can do that an adult cell can't. He'll be publishing that finding soon. UPDATE: Already the Southern Baptist Press is joining a growing chorus of conservatives in celebrating the first anti-stem cell celebrity.

Mooney on Kinsley on Stem Cells

Chris C Mooney notes the Michael Kinsley piece in New Republic, describing it as the "must read" stem cell argument for this week. Kinsley is a Parkinson's patient now, and his argument is fascinating regarding the sacrifice involved in the research.

Vatican Backs Total Cloning Ban Including for Stem Cells

No surprise here, although it still remains to be explained how Catholics arrive at the notion that a nuclear transfer derived colony of cells with no potential for birth can be called an embryo. More in Catholic News.

Around the World News

It is a huge day for bioethics news.

Interesting non-U.S. perspective on the positioning of Bush and Kerry on embryonic stem cell research and abortion, finds that there is great confusion and deception in both campaigns.

Jakarta Post announces a national bioethics body for Indonesia.

They must love George in the U.K., where he has just attacked their stem cell policy, reports The Times London.

LifeNews reports that the Dutch law extending euthanasia to children is being attacked in several ways in public policy forums.

A Paraplegic's View on Stem-cell Research

This month it has been a seller's market for bioethics "talks" on stem cell research. Every organization in the nation seems to be inviting ever bioethics scholar in the nation, and more than a few dozen ministers and lobbyists and politicians (including many who cannot spell 'pluripotent') to address group after group on hES and the election. On a weekend that Peter Singer (of Princeton) was protested at University of Vermont - giving the Dewey lectures - for discussing stem cells and disability, it seems important to note the perspective often adopted by several of the disability organizations and many with disabilities: stem cell research debates, and perhaps the research itself, can lead to odd and pernicious views of disability, it is argued. Kelly Hollowell offers one such view in the WorldNet.

Prop 71/Stem Cell Conference in Los Altos

Proposition 71, on the Nov. 2 ballot, poses a quandary for California voters. The "California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Initiative" entails two major questions: Should the state of California assume additional debt through a constitutional amendment? Should the state of California fund contentious research and development in an area that has been typically carried by the federal government, biotech, big pharmaceutical companies and venture capital? Community Connections of Los Altos has scheduled two discussions with experts in the scientific and ethical communities so voters can be better informed. Henry T. (Hank) Greely, law professor at Stanford University, and Jennifer C. Lahl, the national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, will discuss the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research 7-9 p.m., Oct. 17. The talks will be moderated by Los Altos Hills resident Tom Gutshall, CEO of Cephied. Both talks will be held at Main Street Cafe & Books, 134 Main St., Los Altos. - David Magnus

Christopher Reeve Dies

The New York Times reports on 'Superman' and "Crusader for Stem Cells"

Updated: Leon Kass on Playing Politics?

Playing Politics With the Sick is the title of Leon Kass' editorial concerning politics and stem cells. Given the title of his Op Ed, it is particularly interesting that he does not distance himself or recuse himself from his official political role or from the opinions of other members of the Presidential Bioethics Council. In fact his affiliation in the piece is listed as chairman of the President's Council of Bioethics. Kass is speaking at ASBH this month; it will be interesting to see if that is raised. Is it a problem?? UPDATE: Chris Mooney argues that Kass' use of science in the editorial is ironic and incredibly misleading.

StemClone Digest

Just brought to our attention, but unread as of yet: StemClone Digest is an online journal on that set of issues.

Pew Poll Out Today on Stem Cell Opinion

Pretty sophisticated polling data about changes in public opinion about politics and stem cells was released from Pew - this will figure in the next Presidential debate for sure. This from A.Caplan.

MSNBC - Stem-cell research a pawn in election politics

Art Caplan's MSNBC.com editorial on stem cell research is easily the clearest defense of hES research during the election cycle, and has already caused a huge stir among Bush supporters and campaign staff.

Advanced Cell to California

From Chris Mooney, an LA Times story today on the planned opening of anAdvanced Cell Techology facility in California. Lanza at ACT is right that lots of companies will be moving west, but one can be sure that there are those in the U.S. hES research community - those who weathered the last two ACT-created microscandals - who are wondering why ACT couldn't keep moving west until they get to Singapore...

Wilmut the Clinical Researcher

Ian Wilmut has applied to HFEA for a permit to investigate potential cell therapeutics for ALS, using human embryonic cells produced through cloning. The news announcements, even this one come from a short news conference so little is really known. Wilmut's presence in this area at this time could scarcely be more volatile for the US election-year debate about "who will get ahead" in hES research under US restrictions.

Baptists and Stem Cells

Chris Mooney is as usual on top of everything and today found a pretty amazing piece in the Baptist Press identifying a new focus among conservative Baptists on stem cell research. The description of the position comes in a summary of a major panel in Nashville and features a description of stem cell research as a new slave trade on the horizon. This is election relevant for sure and speaks volumes about the alignment of fundamentalist protestants with the Catholic perspective on embryonic stem cell research. No nuance is allowed concerning cells sourced from non-viable embryo-like organisms.

Boston Globe: Family Seeks $15,000 hES Miracle

Gareth Cook is one of the Blobe's most intrepid science reporters. His front page piece today goes after Ukrainian stem cell "therapies," following the Rossetti family through two rounds of treatment. It's not an impressive investigative piece but it makes us wonder whether U.S. stem cell researchers should be educating clinicians about stem cell fraud.