Why Missouri Must Vote No On Fox, McCaskill & Stem Cells
Jill Stanek has written a fantastic disection of the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative and how it is deftly written to allow exactly what it claims to prevent. This article is available at WorldNetDaily.com and through her blog, Pro-Life Pulse. I will quote from it and then let you see the entire, unedited text of the actual amendment.
Here is the first lie, designed to trick people opposed to human cloning into votiing for this amendment.
“No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.”
In actuality, Amendment Two would force cloning on Missourians. The people who wrote this amendment knew that the vast majority of Missourians would vote against human cloning so they simply changed the definition of cloning to say a clone isn’t a clone unless its specifically implanted in a mother’s uterus. While the amendment calls for a ban on “cloning” it says “somatic cell nuclear transfer” is okay. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning. It’s cloning outside the uterus.
Here is lie number two.
“No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.”
That sounds like this amendment would absolutely prevent the creation of embryos for use in stem cell research, right. The problem is, another part of the amendment authorizes researchers to “purchase embryos” from in vitro fertilization clinics, which can get embryos any way they want. These clinics will pay big bucks for eggs and they already tons of money advertising that they will pay college girls for donating eggs.
Lie number three.
No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies or cures.”
That sounds like you can’t sell an embryo or an egg for the purpose of stem cell research, right. WRONG! There is a loophole in the amendment that lets people and businesses get “reimbursements for reasonable costs” for “dontating” embryos and eggs which includes, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer … and lost wages to the donor.
This amendment was written to deceive people into voting FOR something that they are against. BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE!
This is a constitutional amendment. According to one analysis it will alter or negate at least 45 other constitutional provisions. It also paves the way for tax payer funding of stem cell research with NO OVERSIGHT.
This amendment will take your tax dollars to pay for research and let the researchers keep any patents produced for themselves.
The worst thing is, this amendment to the constituion forbids legislators from overturning it and from using any means of withholding funding from researchers, clinics, donors, ANYBODY associated with stem cell research.
Go here to read the amendment yourself.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 2. Then vote against Claire McCaskill for lying about this amendment and using Michael J. Fox to try to sell the lie to you.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2006 at 1:32 am
1. Somatic nuclear transfer is NOT cloning a human being. It is removing DNA from a cell.
2. Cells can only be obtained from fertility clinics and only those scheduled to be discarded may be used. There are over 500,000 frozen blastocysts waiting to be destroyed in fertility clinics right now. They will either be destroyed or used for medical research. You can adopt all 500,000 of them if you want to undergo painful fertility treatment and implantation and you can get the permission of the donors. Good luck!
3. I’ll finish after I read with my children for a while. They deserve my attention. I’m not sure that you do. But it is hard to just leave you behind. You need me.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2006 at 2:18 am
“take your tax dollars to pay for research and let the researchers keep any patents produced for themselves.” First, your tax dollars ALREADY fund embryonic stem cell research. Remember, Bush himself created the first program to do so! Ding bats. As for patents, if federal funds are involved, researchers can’t patent the discoveries. They will be in the public domain. So your hero, Buck, has just added more lies to the alread astonishing collection of crap that they have been making up about stem cell research.
I am starting to think that you guys bring out the stem cell stuff to distract voters from the disaster in Iraq, Delay, Abramoff, Ney, Enron, Katrina, the Borders, Korea, torture taxis, domestic phone tapping, the abolition of Habeas Corpus, the massive deficit and debt, and all of the other issues you want to avoid for the next week or so.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2006 at 2:43 am
Thought that in order to bring you into contact with the sorts of work that NIH scientists do that I would start sending you updates on discoveries. So here is one that was just reported today. Hopefully you can start to get a sense of how NIH funded research is crucial to the discovery of cures for diseases, even if it is left to the drug companies to bring their products to market for themselves. I can supply dozens of these a day if you need them.
Cause Of Nerve Fiber Damage In Multiple Sclerosis Identified
Researchers have identified how the body’s own immune system contributes to the nerve fiber damage caused by multiple sclerosis, a finding that can potentially aid earlier diagnosis and improved treatment for this chronic disease.
The study reveals how immune system B-cells damage axons during MS attacks by inhibiting energy production in these nerve fiber cells, ultimately causing them to degenerate and die. Study results appear in the Oct. 15 issue of the Journal of Immunology.
B-cell-axon activity is an emerging area of MS research, one that is changing how scientists and clinicians can look at this disease. In this study, Dr. Yufen Qin and fellow researchers from UC Irvine’s School of Medicine analyzed spinal fluid and tissue samples from MS patients to identify substances that stimulate a B-cell immune response. They noted an increased level of B-cell antibodies on lesions and in spinal fluid bound to two specific enzymes – GAPDH and TPI.
These two enzymes are essential for efficient energy production. The researchers believe that the binding of these antibodies to these enzymes – GAPDH, in particular – may lower the amounts of ATP – the chemical fuel for cells – available in cells, which eventually can lead to axon cell degeneration and death. In addition to the energy-production function, GAPDH is involved with a number of genetic activities, such as RNA translocation, DNA replication and DNA repair.
Other recent studies have shown that binding of inhibitors to GAPDH and TPI causes decreased ATP production in neurons, followed by progressive neuronal degeneration and death. Moreover, patients with TPI deficiency can develop progressive neurological disorders.
“This research is exciting and potentially important for future treatments because it identifies new antibodies associated with MS that can be targeted with emerging therapies,” said Qin, an assistant professor of neurology. “Significantly, these are the first antibodies to be identified with axon activity, which is a new area researchers are exploring in the pathology of MS.”
MS is a chronic central nervous system disease that can cause blurred vision, poor coordination, slurred speech, numbness, acute fatigue and, in its most extreme form, blindness and paralysis. Some 400,000 Americans have this disease. Its causes are unknown, and symptoms are unpredictable and vary greatly in severity.
Much MS research is focused on an autoimmune process in which T-cells attack and damage myelin, the fatty insulating tissue of axons. These T-cells do not attack axons themselves; the process of demyelination interrupts electrical impulses that run through these nerve fibers, thus causing MS symptoms. Demyelination has been considered the central feature of MS.
Recently, however, Qin has been among a group of researchers who have discovered that B-cells too are involved with the autoimmune response to MS. Instead of targeting myelin, these B-cells attack axons directly. Axons are the long, slender fibers of a neuron that serve as the primary transmission lines of the nervous system, and as bundles they help make up nerves.
Research at UCI and elsewhere has shown that myelin grows back if the T-cell autoimmune response is turned off, and drugs exist or are in development to block demyelination. Axons, in turn, repair very slowly, which implies that B-cell attacks on axons may have a significant impact on the chronic central nervous system damage caused by MS.
“Since this area of research is in its early stage, it’s important to understand the process by which these B-cell responses happen,” Qin said. “Hopefully, by identifying these two crucial enzymes, it will lead to a greater understanding of MS and lead to more effective treatments for people who live with this disease.”
Johanna Kolln, Hui-Min Ren, Reng-Rong Da, Yiping Zhang, Dr. Michael Olek, Dr. Neal Hermanowicz, Lutz G. Hilgenberg, Martin A. Smith and Dr. Stanley van den Noort of UCI and Edzard Spillner of the University of Hamburg also worked on the study. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the National Institutes of Health provided funding support.
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Wow. Check out another example of how UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS are wasting your tax dollars. So much to tell you, so little space and time.
Headway Against Hepatitis C: Study Shows Liver Damage Can Be Reversed
Saint Louis University Liver Center scientists are presenting research today on a more effective way to treat hepatitis C patients who have been unresponsive to current drug therapies.
They have shown that a cocktail of ribavirin and Infergen, a highly potent Interferon, is nearly twice as effective at controlling hepatitis C than standard treatments.
They are sharing their findings at the annual American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases meeting in Boston.
“The results are promising,” says Bruce R. Bacon, M.D., principal investigator and director of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. “This group of non-responders is a very challenging population to treat, and we found that patients who followed through with the therapy had a response nearly twice that of previous trials looking at this population.”
Saint Louis University Liver Center researchers led a study of more than 500 patients with hepatitis C at 40 sites, 77 percent of whom had advanced fibrosis. Fourteen percent of patients taking 9mcg of Infergen daily and 20 percent taking 15 mcg were virus negative after six months.
A quarter of the non-cirrhotic patients receiving Infergen were also virus negative after 24 weeks. The optimal response to antiviral therapy is for the hepatitis C viral RNA to become undetectable on treatment and to remain undetectable for at least another six months off therapy; this is referred to as a sustained virologic response, essentially a cure of the disease. Rates of sustained virologic response are still to be determined in this ongoing study.
Infergen is a highly potent type of interferon currently used for adult patients with chronic hepatitis C three times a week, Bacon says. This trial is expected to be completed in 2007.
An estimated 3.9 million Americans have hepatitis C. About 250,000 who have been offered therapy are unresponsive to current drug therapies, and the number is growing by 50,000 annually, according to the CDC.
Second Study Shows Liver Damage Can Be Reversed
In another study being presented at the AASLD conference, SLU researchers found that liver damage may be able to be reversed in patients with chronic hepatitis C who have undergone successful therapy.
“They are not only at a very low risk for relapse but may also see improvements to their liver,” says lead author Adrian Di Bisceglie, M.D., professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Saint Louis University School of Medicine.
Researchers studied the long-term effects in 150 patients with chronic hepatitis C following therapy. The level of liver damage in 79 percent of patients with stage 2 or worse fibrosis greatly improved and was unchanged in the rest of the patients.
“Little is known about how these patients fare after their treatment,” says Di Bisceglie, M.D., also acting chair of the department of internal medicine at SLU. “This is the largest study of its kind to examine just how much improvement patients with hepatitis C have five years after a sustained virologic response, and the results are very encouraging.”
admin Says: October 31st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Dear Nut,
You need a hobby. Thank you for being the first liberal in history to acknowledge the it was a Republican president, George Bush, that actually created the first federally funded stem cell research program. The actual Democrat talking point you should have quoted is “Bush wants to kill people with MS!”
For the record “we guys” didn’t bring out the stem cell issue “you guys” did by using Michael J. Fox “jerking around” in a TV commercial packed with lies and half truths. How about if we get video of a partial birth abortion and make a TV commercial out of that. Want to sit around the TV with your kids and let them watch that before their bedtime story?
You keep missing the point. This is not about federally funded stem cell research programs. I support NIH dollars that go to embryonic stem cell research programs using existing lines of cells. There is also quite a bit of promising research, funded by NIH, using “adult stem cells”, of which I’m sure you are aware. That’s fine. I support it too. What I don’t support is unfettered, unregulated use of any kind of embryo, discarded or not. THAT’S WHAT THE MISSOURI STEM CELL INITIATIVE WILL DO!
Amendment 2 is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that prohibits government regulation and interference in private and public stem cell research in Missouri. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? WHY?
READ THE AMENDMENT……READ IT!
nutslikebush Says: October 31st, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Buck,
Bush and the republicans convereted me from someone who didn’t give a hoot about politics for the first 5 decades of my life into someone who will not stand by and let them systematically mislead my fellow citizens. So my hobby is seeking out the hardest headed right wing zombies I can find and holding their noses to the truth until they start to perceive it and come to life. That is why I visit this site. I am determined and see it as my moral obligation to my fellow man. Thanks for having me.
I have a question regarding your last post. How can you support embryonic stem cell research on the embryonic cells that Bush approved for scientists to study and not support studying other embryonic cells that are in the same situation as those Bush approved for research?. From my perspective, they are the exact same cells and therefore must have identical ethical value. So if it is ok to study the embryonic cells that Bush approved, it must be ethically acceptable to study the abandoned cells that sit in fertility clinic deep freezes.
The reason that researchers want access to the doomed fertility clinic cells is that the embryonic stem cell lines that Bush approved were contaminated during the early stages of this sort of research (by genetic mutations and mouse stem cells that they were co-cultured with). It also would be tremendously helpful to have some more genetic diversity among the research stem cell lines. I think that researchers would be happy to get a chance to work with a relatively small number of new cells. I have the hardest time understanding how you can think that is wrong to use cells for research but you accept, without apparent protest, the fact that those cells will certainly be destroyed if they are not used by researchers. Indeed, their only chance for life is if they are used in research.
And why attack the character of those who support stem cell research based on their sincere and thoughtful conviction that it is the most moral and ethically proper choice?
nutslikebush Says: November 1st, 2006 at 12:19 am
Buck, You will recall that I am the one who forwarded the bill to you in the first place. I read it again in case I missed anything the first three times I read it. It does not say what you say it says. It is highly restrictive and does not promise anyone a single red cent for research. It just says that if you have received federal funding for stem cell research you have the right to carry out that research. That makes perfect sense to me. I recommend voting YES. Fox was right after all.
nutslikebush Says: November 1st, 2006 at 1:53 am
Do you really think that the sight of Michael J. Fox (or others with Parkinson’s disease) is comparable to seeing a partial birth abortion. You might want to think about what you are saying here. I don’t think that people with neurodegenerative diseases should be hidden from public view and I do believe that Fox has a right to speak on behalf of issues that he believes in.
admin Says: November 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 am
Dear Nut,
Why does Missouri need a constitutional amendment regarding research into embryonic stem cells?
kolran Says: November 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 am
Nut needs a hobby, a life, and numerous other things. You should run for president nutslikebush, then you dould have job, a hobby, and you could come here and rant and rave about how bad the president is and we would all get a laugh.
nutslikebush Says: November 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Professors, doctors, and scientists at Washington University Medical School in St. Louis are being hindered from engaging in stem cell research because Missouri law is unclear on the matter. The MSI provides for the following:
* ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
* ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
* require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
* impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
* prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?
As you can see, a major emphasis of the bill is on the civil and criminal penalties imposed on researchers who do not follow the letter of the law. The bill strictly regulates what can be done by researchers.
nutslikebush Says: November 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 am
Kolran, I will get a hobby when you get a brain.
nutslikebush Says: November 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Buck,
Here is another example of the sort of research that happens in university laboratories (domestic and foreign) that translates into knowledge that pharmaceutical companies can use. I am just trying to increase your contact with a part of the world that may not be on your radar screen.
Researchers at the University of Warwick are examining a way of using bacteria to manufacture a new suite of potential anti-cancer drugs that are difficult to create synthetically on a lab bench.
The bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor naturally produce antibiotics called prodiginines.
This group of antibiotics has stimulated much recent interest as they can be used to target and kill cancer cells. A synthetic prodiginine analogue called GX15-070 is currently in phase 1 and 2 cancer treatment trials. However, analogues of other prodiginines, such as streptorubin B, could be even more powerful anti cancer tools, but they cannot currently be easily synthetically produced on a lab bench.
Professor Greg Challis and colleagues in the Chemistry Department of the University of Warwick have looked at the enzymes controlling the process that allows the bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor to create streptorubin B and have gained a clear understanding of which are the key enzymes that act at particular steps of that process. By manipulation of the enzyme content of the bacteria, they aim to produce a range of different compounds based closely on the form of streptorubin B normally formed by the bacteria. Some of these analogues of streptorubin B could provide the basis for developing useful new anti cancer drugs.
Professor Challis said: “This approach combines the strengths of conventional organic synthesis, with the synthetic power of biology, to assemble complex and synthetically difficult structures. It could be particularly valuable for generating analogues of streptorubin B with all the promise that holds for the development of new anti cancer drugs”
admin Says: November 4th, 2006 at 6:35 am
Dear Nut,
I still haven’t seen an answer to the question. Why do we need a constitutional amendment for embryonic stem cell research. You have spent countless hours trying to convice me and visitors to this site how important embryonic stem cell research is. If it’s so important, so valuable, why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect it? Why did the group offering this amendment see the need to spend 30 million dollars trying to convice voters to vote for it? BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT RESEARCH! It’s about money. If you think anybody is going to spend 30 million dollars out love for their fellow man….YOU ARE A MORON! Why stop at constitutional amendments for embryonic stem cells? Why not have a constitutional amendment protecting adult stem cell research. How about an amendment protecting research into medical technologies? Isn’t it important to give Missourians access to the best technology available? Shouldn’t we have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right?
The authors of this amendment were very crafty indeed but there is no good reason to alter the state constitution for embryonic stem cell research….NONE.
By the way….if you spent as much time in your lab as you do spouting your liberal ilk on this website…maybe we’d already have a cure!
nutslikebush Says: November 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Buck,
The constitutional amendment is not an only amendment FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH. One of it’s primary functions is to forbid human cloning. Do you not think that if researchers are using technology that, in principle, could be used for human cloning (but won’t for just stem cell research), that it would be propoer to spell out that human cloning itself is forbidden? That is why this constitutional amendment is being proposed - to enable the research while also forbidding human cloning. It also provides strict guidelines for the regulation of the research by government agencies. If you don’t pass this amendment what you are going to get is private companies doing anything that they want and being entirely unregulated. I thought that’s what you wanted in the first place and you were using the religious right as pawns in the argument (per ususal for the neocons).
nutslikebush Says: November 4th, 2006 at 11:47 am
It is ironic that the anti-stem cell research crowd has it backwards with respect to this initiative. Nothing in the law currently restricts private companies from doing all of the things that you don’t want them to do with stem cells. And outside of the company not a single person ever knows it happened. I assure you that right now plenty of private companies are doing this sort of research, investing billions, and guarding their findings very carefully.
But the amendment would require companies to follow regulations and make the public aware of the fact that they are actually doing this research. The amendment also would permit scientists with non-comercial (i.e., objective) interests in the issue to become involved in developing public knowledge. Remember, when private companies carry out research they do everything in their power to keep most of their research activities private. The first thing that I have to do when I do a project for a private company is sign a “non-disclosure agreement.” If I violate an NDA and reveal anything to anyone outside of the company about what the company is doing (or that it is doing anything at all) my career is over. Remember, I do stem cell research for a living friends.
I am continually amazed at how the right understands the biases and fears harbored by their “base” and how effectively they capitalize on those fears and biases to advance their own political power. All the while just using thier base - that is the genius of Rove. The get this initiative on the ballot in Missouri and then twist its interpretation inside-out and bring their base to the polls to vote on a hot-button issue and meanwhile also cast a vote for the republican candidate. I assure you that Rove and his disciples couldn’t care less about the stem cell issue per se. They don’t even consult with scientists at all on the issue of stem cell research! They are just using stem cells as a tool to fire you up for Tuesday. After that, they won’t give a damn what you think about stem cells for the next 23 months.
nutslikebush Says: November 4th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Buck,
As for spending time in my lab - 60+ hours per week is enough. And I suspect that the discoveries that I have made represent a substantially greater contribution to our society than Rush Limbaugh could make in 20 life-times (if in fact he reversed his ways and started working for good rather than evil). I am standing up to you guys because I really do believe that the right is destroying my children’s world! It is going to be hard to stop me because I do love them with all of my heart.
nutslikebush Says: November 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Buck,
Where did you get information about the $30 million? I can’t find anything about that and usually I can identify exactly where you get your info from in just a few minutes (hint to others, usually it is standard right-wing propaganda sources).
nutslikebush Says: November 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
More federally funded university research that you are wasting your tax dollars on. Since I read 20-50 research articles on stem cell microbiology each day as part of my work, I will just keep passing along a few that I think you should see lest you miss the point. I catalog the summaries anyway for my work so it only takes a few moments to pass them along to you as a favor.
Growth factor stimulates rapid extension of key motor neurons in brain
MGH study first to identify factors controlling growth of brain cells damaged in ALS
A growth factor known to be important for the survival of many types of cells stimulates rapid extension of corticospinal motor neurons – critical brain cells that connect the cerebral cortex with the spinal cord and that die in motor neuron diseases like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease). In the November 2006 issue of Nature Neuroscience, two investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute describe how insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) dramatically increases the in vitro growth of corticospinal motor neuron (CSMN) axons – projections that carry nerve impulses to the spinal motor neurons that connect to muscles – and that blocking IGF-1 activity reduces that growth in both cultured cells and in living mice.
“Our findings that IGF-1 specifically enhances both the speed and extent of axon outgrowth of corticospinal motor neurons are the first direct evidence of growth factor control over the differentiation of these neurons, ” says Jeffrey Macklis MD, DHST, director of the MGH-Harvard Medical School (HMS) Center for Nervous System Repair, the report’s senior author. “In addition to providing insight into the development and circuit formation of this critical population of neurons, these results might lead to the future ability to treat motor neuron disorders and spinal cord injuries.”
Although their cell bodies are located in the brain, CSMN axons extend down to the neurons they control in the spinal cord – extending as far as three feet in adult humans. These neurons degenerate in ALS and related disorders, and their damage contributes to loss of motor function in spinal cord injuries. Since they are embedded among hundreds of other types of neurons in the cerebral cortex, it has been difficult to study CSMN, and little has been known about cellular and molecular factors that control their growth and development. In order to study growth factor controls over these cells, Macklis and Hande Ozdinler, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory, developed a new way of isolating pure populations of CSMN in culture and found that IGF-1 was a prime candidate for control over CSMN development.
Using these purified neurons, they then showed that two ways of applying IGF-1 – generally adding it to culture dishes or placing IGF-1-coated microbeads right next to CSMN cell bodies – both increased the growth of axons by 15- to 20-fold, reaching the very fast rates previously seen only during initial development. Blocking the interaction between IGF-1 and its receptor reduced axon growth to control levels, confirming that the IGF-1 pathway is critical to the enhancement effect.
Experiments with another type of neuron and with several different growth factors verified that axonal growth was stimulated only by IGF-1 and only in CSMN. The researchers also showed that IGF-1 enhancement of axonal growth operates separately from the growth factor’s known support of neuronal survival. Tests in living developing mice showed that blocking the IGF-1 pathway in the spinal cord prevented the growth of CSMN axons, which confirmed the applicability of the in vitro experiments to living mammals.
“The role of IGF-1 as a potent and specific enhancer of CSMN axon growth is highly relevant to our understanding of this critical population of neurons. These findings are a first step that may someday lead to ways of treating the neuronal degeneration of diseases like ALS, regenerating cells for the treatment of spinal cord injury, and to the potential replacement of neurons using precursors or ‘neural stem cells’,” says Macklis, who is on the faculty at Harvard Medical School.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the ALS Association, and the Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair.
nutslikebush Says: November 5th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Buck,
Interestingly, I found the article on the $30 million spent by each side of the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative debate. By you logic, the opponents must have spent their $30 million with the hopes of making some money from their investment. Just how do you think the opponents will recoup their $30 million? It’s your logic, not mine.
kolran Says: November 5th, 2006 at 6:53 am
You will get a hobby when I get brain?!!? I mean, come on! It isn’t my fault, I thought that you, being more liberal minded then me, would except that some people aren’t as smart as others and use that to your advatage, not openly declare a fact. What ever happened to go ‘ole distort the truth. On a different note, I know republicans no longer use stay the course, but do liberals still use lie and die?
nutslikebush Says: November 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
“Use it to my advantage’? the problem is that ignorant people make ignorant choices. That is the most powerful weapon the republican party has in is arsenal. As for what liberals say, I’m not the one to ask since I really am not a liberal - just a regular joe who is sick of the liars who have taken over our country’s government and media and lead the ignorant around by their noses.
Emory Says: November 5th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
“…sick of the liars who have taken over our country’s government…”
Yes, I often long for the Clinton years of truth and enlightenment.
nutslikebush Says: November 5th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Yesterday I mentioned that companies are investing a lot more $ in stem cell research than the public realizes. Occasionally small teasers are reported in the literature. Here is one funded by Novartis (a major Pharamceutical company). Trust me, a great deal of stem cell research is done under the public radar - totally unregulated.
Scientists Identify Synthetic Compound That Keeps Stem Cells Young
A team of scientists from the Scripps Research Institute, the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation and the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine has discovered a new synthetic compound that can support growth and self-renewal of mouse embryonic stem cells, offering a simple alternative to current growth conditions that may vary batch-to-batch and confuse experimental results.
The findings, reported in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, should accelerate stem cell research and offer new insights into cell biology that could aid in the development of treatments for diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s.
Embryonic stem cell research has been plagued by problems arising from undefined conditions for growing and differentiating stem cells. Embryonic stem cell culture dishes are commonly coated with inactivated fibroblast cells known as “feeder cells.” These feeder cells offer embryonic stem cells a suitable attachment surface and also release largely uncharacterized nutrients into the culture medium that support stem cell growth in the undifferentiated state. A variety of other factors are also added to promote stem cell growth and, most importantly, force the cells to maintain their pluripotency-their ability to become a variety of other final, specialized types of cells.
The end result is that such conventional culture conditions often suffer large variability, and make it extremely difficult for scientists to tease out the impact of individual molecules on experimental results.
“Stem cell applications and studies have been hampered by using undefined culture conditions” says Sheng Ding, an assistant professor at Scripps Research who led the research.
Feeder cells can also introduce viral and other forms of contamination that may lead to rejection of stem cells by the human immune system, among other problems.
Ding and his colleagues set out to solve these culturing problems using high-throughput screening of a Scripps Research library of tens of thousands of synthetic small molecules in search of a compound that could eliminate the need for feeder cells and added factors. This initial screening led to the discovery of a class of pyrimidines that improved cell growth. Later, the team produced a library of analogs of this class that proved to include a single compound, dubbed “pluripotin,” that supports self-renewal of mouse embryonic stem cells and maintains their pluripotency alone with only the addition of standard cell culture basal medium.
The Ding group has also shown that pluripotin improves the growth of human embryonic stem cells, although other factors are still required to maintain their pluripotency. However, the team is already screening the Scripps Research library to identify a synthetic compound or compounds that will single-handedly maintain the human cells as pluripotin does for mouse cells. Ongoing research with pluripotin has revealed that the compound controls the stem cells via a novel mechanism. Pluripotin appears to simultaneously block the activity of the proteins RasGAP and ERK1, both of which have cell differentiation inducing activity.
“The mechanism of pluripotin suggests new strategies for maintaining and propagating stem cells,” says Ding. “Such a discovery of a single small molecule that operates through two different classes of targets to achieve a desired biological effect also has fundamental implications for drug discovery.”
Work with pluripotin and compounds that may follow should dramatically improve researchers’ ability to work effectively with stem cell lines, Ding says, and should facilitate the practical application of stem cell research in developing therapies.
The work also offers benefits beyond improved stem cell culture. “Pluripotin and other such molecules are likely to provide insights into the molecular mechanisms that control stem cell fate and ultimately may be useful for in vivo stem cell biology and therapy studies,” says Ding.
In addition to Ding, authors of the paper, titled “Self-renewal of embryonic stem cells by a small molecule,” are: Shuibing Chen, Qisheng Zhang, and Shuyuan Yao of The Scripps Research Institute; Jeong Tae Do and Hans R. Schöler of the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine; Feng Yan and Eric C. Peters of the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation; and Peter G. Schultz of The Scripps Research Institute and the Novartis Research Foundation.
The project was supported by the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation.
Niki Says: November 21st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Rock on, Nut.
Obviously well-thought-out & intelligent (for the most part) responses to an otherwise misleading post.
PS: “If it’s so important, so valuable, why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect it?” … sheesh … yeah … cuz we didn’t need Constitutional Amendments for the following IMPORTANT items:
- establishing free speech
- outlawing slavery
- voting rights
But I suppose these weren’t valuable things worth having a Constitutional Amendment to protect, right?
Man … THINK before you write.