¦ November 21, 2007
Research Updates
Reprinted from Americans for Cures

"Stem Cell Research Breakthrough; SCNT Technique Proves Successful in Primates"
Scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center may have stepped into history: successfully cloning stem cells from a primate.

Working with macaque monkeys, Dr. Shoukrat Mitalipov has apparently advanced the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) technique to a near-human level. As with all pioneering science, his results will have to be replicated and verified by others - but early commentary from top scientists is overwhelmingly positive. "This is proof of concept," said Professor Alan Trounson, new President of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. "To me, it's a breakthrough," said Jose Cibelli, stem cell expert at Michigan State University.

Previous attempts at deriving SCNT stem cells from primates had been unsuccessful, and it was feared their physical structure (and therefore the human body) might be too complicated for the SCNT method. However, a new method of handling the eggs without ultraviolet light and dyes appears to have made the difference.

Stem cells derived via the SCNT technique will allow scientists, for the first time in history, to examine the development of disease at a cellular level. It will allow researchers to test therapies on human cells instead of human beings - lessening the risk of clinical trials. This will lead to better understanding, treatments, and even cures for some of the most devastating diseases and injuries that plague our society.

Negative press is to be expected. The usual fantasies of an army of cloned humans will be raised by opponents of the research. It is vital for patient advocates to remember that human reproductive cloning is supported by no responsible body of science in the world, and is in fact already illegal in California.

"Embryonic-Like Cells Offer Possibilities, Cautions"
New studies by researchers Jamie Thomson and Shinya Yamanaka appear to have successfully reprogrammed skin cells back into something which may act like an embryonic stem cell. We are optimistic about the potential of these advances, but take them as they are.
It might be wonderful - or it might not. The International Society for Stem Cell Research, a prestigious organization of over 2500 scientists in 47 countries, has expressed concerns over the safety of these cells:
"We know that the scientists that did the research have considered the challenges ahead-including the need to understand how to make [induced pluripotent stem] iPS cells safe for potential clinical use. Since the process uses potentially leukemogenic retroviruses to insert genes into somatic cells, and in some cases genes that can cause cancer, the safety of human iPS cells needs to be addressed fully before these methods could yield cells for direct therapeutic use."

As cancer studies have shown for decades, what works for a mouse may not work, or be safe, for a human.

While we are excited at the prospect of cures and treatments - from any avenue of research - we are concerned that opponents of embryonic stem cell research will use these advances to attempt to stop other forms of stem cell research filled with potential. No experiment, however promising, should shut down an entire field of research.
As Shinya Yamanaka himself, lead author of the study, states: "...it would be a serious mistake to conclude that [this research]... averts the need for ongoing research on human embryonic stem cells...Thus, we hold that research into all avenues of human stem cell research must proceed together. Society deserves to have the full commitment of scientific inquiry at its service."

"Congratulations to Texas!"
In a triumph for state funding to advance medical care, Texas successfully voted in Proposition 15, a $3 billion bond act for cancer research. Texas follows in the footsteps of California - where the first public bonds were sold to finance medical research. Our country's intellectual capital and our good health are as valuable, if not more so, as our roads and schools. This shows a tremendous commitment to advancing medical research.

Voters who supported Proposition 15 spoke movingly of the 650,000 Texans who have survived cancer, of the nearly 1 in 2 men who will develop cancer in their lifetimes, of the 1 in 3 women who will receive the grim diagnosis - and of the 37,000 Texans who will lose their fight with cancer.

Because cure research knows no boundaries, the entire world will benefit. We applaud the vision and leadership shown by the voters of Texas this November.

"Comments on the Outcome of New Jersey's Stem Cell Bill"
We do not view the failure of Question Two's passage in November 2007 as a reflection of diminished support in America for stem cell research.

We analyzed the disappointing outcome in New Jersey:
• The media reported "voter fatigue" - reluctance of New Jersey voters to increase their taxes - as the primary reason why Question Two failed to garner a winning vote.
• Although there was broad support from patient advocacy organizations, this was not communicated to voters because of a lack of funding. The public can be confused by the opposition's claims. But when we can demonstrate the support of 30-40 patient advocacy organizations to the voting public, it is clear to the voters which side represents patients' interests.
• Putting an initiative on the ballot in "off-cycle elections" (those with no Congressional, Presidential or gubernatorial races) is risky because voter turnout is low. Low turnout historically favors conservative voters. Add the weather in the northeast to the mix - New Jersey had rain throughout Election Day - and turnout will be even lower.
• The opposition has been organizing since 2001 and must not be underestimated. Our understanding is that every Catholic Church in New Jersey was provided with specific language against the research and the Church used the pulpit and DVDs to denounce the research that Question Two would have funded. Questions have been raised as to the legality of this level of political involvement since it appears to defy laws guaranteeing the separation of Church and State.

In New Jersey the opposition put substantial money behind a patient who was reportedly a former police officer. He claimed that stem cell research would never help his paralysis, since it had not led to a "cure" in 20+ years. We know that human embryonic stem cells were only discovered in 1998 and that research and development had been obstructed by federal NIH restrictions since 2001. The pro-cures organizers did not have time or resources to respond to this false argument. Deliberately misinformed attacks like this on stem cell research by the Catholic Church and other ideological organizations cannot compete against the publicized endorsements of patient advocacy organizations. The voter has a simple choice: "Do I believe the patient advocacy organizations are all wrong, or, in fact, do those organizations, individually respected, truly represent the interests of the patients?"