Blogging to Be Light Over Next Two Weeks

Heads up--It's winter vacation and my 5 year old is home from kindergarten tomorrow until the New Year. It's hard to write much when he's in the house! We will also be out of town for a large portion of next week and I won't be writing those days at all. The rest of the time I'll be checking in when I can, but probably not daily. Take a break yourself.

Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Bill Delayed in Senate

Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Bill Delayed in Senate

The Kaiser Networks’ Daily Reports says that Senate Democrats blocked Majority Leader Bill Frist’s attempt to get a vote on the umbilical cord stem cell bill presently before the Senate. It was already approved overwhelmingly by the House. The Kaiser report is itself not a primary news source (neither is this blog) and cites Congressional Quarterly and the Washington Times.

Here is a partial transcript from the Congressional Record (straight from the horse’s mouth):

The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to first pay my respects to Senator Frist and his leadership. He has been a leader in this area. He knows it well. We served on the same committee together when our leader came here to the Senate. I also commend Senator Frist for his leadership on the stem cell issue, a very courageous stand.
I want to make it very clear that I support the cord blood bill. I am a cosponsor of it. What's more, I joined with Senator Specter 2 years ago to create the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program, and as our leader said, we included $10 million for that purpose in the fiscal year 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. We have been funding that program ever since. When I say I want this bill to pass, I have a record to back that up.
But I have said for months that we should consider the cord blood bill at the same time that we take up H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. That is what the House of Representatives did. On May 24, the House approved both bills. We have been waiting in the Senate to do the same thing. Senator Specter and I, along with Senators HATCH, FEINSTEIN, KENNEDY, and SMITH all agree. Let's have up-or-down votes on cord blood and H.R. 810, as the House did. The House did them together. Then we can send them to the President.
We keep hearing that we want to bring up H.R. 810. In fact, I pay my respects to the leader for his very courageous speech. On July 29, our leader said he would vote for the bill. But we just can't seem to bring it up on the Senate floor. Members keep coming up with new bills to try to confuse things. They want to vote on 5 or 6 or 7 bills, some of which have nothing to do with stem cells or cord blood. I understand there is a lot of pressure on Senators to take up the cord blood bill before the end of the year. I have no problem with that, but under one condition--that we also take up H.R. 810.
I reserve the right to object. I ask the leader if he would modify his request to include H.R. 810 in his amendment at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to the request for a modification, all of these issues are critically important to promoting the health and welfare of patients as we look to the future, especially with embryonic stem cells, diseases that occur today. But it is going to take some while to have the research fully developed to be able to apply it. I believe it has huge promise, as I have said on this floor many times. The reason I feel strongly about separating the bills now is that bill is contentious in the sense that it is going to take a lot of debate. This is the embryonic stem cell bill that my distinguished colleague from Iowa refers to. It is going to take some time that I will give on the floor of the Senate early in the year and have committed to do so because of its importance. It is important to address that in order for that research to be amplified. Much of that research needs to be amplified for cures that may occur 5 or 10 years down the road.
The reason I feel strongly, since there is probably unanimous consent on the substance of this bill, that we should move ahead is that we can benefit people who are dying today from diseases such as Fanconi's anemia, diseases such as a whole range of leukemias, childhood leukemia especially, where cord blood is so particularly powerful, diseases such as Krabbes, a pretty rare disease for which there is no treatment today except for the therapy that is applied in terms of cord blood. The reason I think we can justify, and should justify, separating these bills is that we all agree on the substance. It is a good bill. The leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have brought us to the point that funding has begun. But now is the time to make this registry available nationwide.
The one problem with cord blood today is that it is powerful. It is more powerful than a regular bone marrow transplant, but the quantity that you get out of the placental byproducts has to be accumulated. You need to accumulate it from several different sources. But you do have to have a degree of genetic matching. Therefore, the only way to take advantage of it is to have a national registry where you can go to a computer and see where it is all over the country. Then you pull it together to treat a child who is dying from leukemia today. Therefore, action on this bill will save lives, literally.
We always exaggerate. A lot of people exaggerate the politics about saving lives in a lot of legislation we do. But I do believe that by establishing the registry and the communications network, which has not been done in spite of the funding, we can have a dramatic impact.
Since we have the House bill, we have the bill that we are requesting today, and I have assurances that the House will deal with it before we leave in the next 48 hours, we literally can pass a bill that we all agree upon.
There are a number of other bills. One is the embryonic stem cell bill. But there is an alternative therapy bill. There are a whole range of bills that are very important that we need to take up that are going to take several days on the floor to look at ethical and scientific issues. We are committed to doing that in the early part of the year. This is an important topic, and that is why I will object to the modification because I believe the embryonic stem cell does deserve more thought than we can possibly give it in the next 48 hours.

You can search the CR at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html to read more; the bill in question is number HR 2520. (Unfortunately I can’t put a direct link on because Thomas times it out as a search request.)

My first impulse is to agree with Frist on this and not with Senator Harkin. Why not vote on a bill that everyone agrees should pass? Now clearly Harkin is trying to hold the bill from a vote in order to put pressure on the Senate to vote on the embryonic stem cell research bill. It’s not as though this is the first time a vote on one bill has been delayed so that a vote can be made on another; Harkin is playing by the established rules of politics. Both sides do it all the time. Of course Frist could help by actually scheduling a date for a floor vote on the embryonic stem cell bill instead of delaying it further, so now my sympathy is swinging from him. Politics sucks.

Heart Stem Cell Differentiation Research

Heart Stem Cell Differentiation Research

Researchers at Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease (GICD), which is affiliated with The University of California San Francisco, have demonstrated that a form of short RNA, or miRNA, helps in the determination of heart stem cells in the embryonic life of a fruitfly. It works in part by interfering with the expression of a gene which determines whether or not stem cells become heart muscle cells. The researchers believe there is potential for future gene therapy based on these findings.

The news release is on EurekAlert.

Hwang Denies Allegations

Hwang Denies Allegations

The story is changing rapidly, so by the time you read this something else may have happened….Be warned!

In the latest installment of the scientific melodrama that Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk’s cloning research has become, Hwang has denied fabricating the research. The Sidney Morning-Herald reports that Hwang said he made 11 stem cells lines, that all 6 researchers involved agree to this, and that the cells have been contaminated with a fungus. He suspects tampering. He also said that he expects analysis of five frozen stem cell lines within 10 days. He was “shocked” at Dr. Roh Sung-il's allegations.

According to a Chosun Ilbo story, Hwang suggested that the errors in documentation in the cloning article were a result of stem cells being mixed up with others stored at the fertility center from which he obtained the eggs. He is requesting a judicial investigation. Meanwhile, Roh is sticking to his story and “accused Hwang of trying to pass the buck.” The Korea Times reports that Hwang believes the mix-up was intentional. The Seoul District Prosecutor’s office said that they could not look into the issue without a lawsuit because the scientific community has not yet agreed on the answers to the underlying questions.

The Korea Times also reports that Roh has accused Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh of actually being the writer of the paper in question and said that he should have known that “the patient-specific stem cells are not real considering the incredibly quick growth of the cells.” Roh called Schatten an accomplice.

The International Herald Tribune reports that “both sides admitted grave mistakes in the handling of the research data and agreed to retract their joint paper published in the journal Science in June.” The IHT also says that he cited “irrevocable mistakes” but stood by the core findings:

Hwang said that six stem cell colonies were destroyed by a fungus infection in January, but his team quickly created six more to create a total of 11 lines. He said it was only in November, after MBC-TV began its inquiry, that he discovered that some of the 11 colonies presented for the Science article were not his, but instead were Miz Medi samples. Hwang did not explain the whereabouts of the missing cell lines. He said his team would test the remaining five stem cell lines in his lab to see if they were authentic. He said the results would come in a couple weeks.

An AP story reprinted various places, including the San Diego Union Tribune, reiterates that Hwang has asked the journal Science to withdraw the article but still defends the overall results. It adds some information from other sources:

The researcher from Roh's hospital who reportedly was ordered to fabricate results defended Hwang on Friday. In an interview with KBS television in the United States, where he is assigned to the University of Pittsburgh, Kim Sun-jong said he had personally seen eight stem cell lines and another three being nurtured.

The AP story also quotes an American cloning researcher as saying that when Hwang was questioned November 9 at a scientific meeting, he appeared “confident and believable.” The scientist continues to give Hwang the benefit of the doubt.

Reuters reports that stock shares in Korean biotech firms took a plunge, but that it was mostly panic selling and very few of the companies are actually involved in stem cell research.

Today’s Questions: Who has more credibility, Roh or Hwang? And why? (Does Roh benefit from Hwang’s fall?) What will Schatten say now?

My entirely subjective guess on what will happen next: the stem cell lines being tested will not survive the testing. I hope I’m wrong. But it seems like this will end as a Shakespearean tragedy, bodies strewn everywhere and only the bystanders left to wonder what went wrong.

Australian PM to Receive Stem Cell Report

Australian PM to Receive Stem Cell Report

According to the Victoria Herald-Sun, a report to be given to Prime Minister John Howard next week is expected to call for relaxing the current Australian restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The report will recommend allowing SCNT, or therapeutic cloning, while still banning reproductive cloning. Scientist would be legally able to create embryonic stem cells, rather than relying on donated embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures.

Let’s see what happens.

Adult Tooth Stem Cells Can Help Repair Teeth

Adult Tooth Stem Cells Can Help Repair Teeth

Researchers at the University of Illinois-Chicago working with rats have shown that the adult stem cells found in teeth can be coaxed to differentiate into cells which form dentin, the bone-like material which makes up the primary part of a tooth. The researchers implanted dental pulp stem cells in rat molars with a protein containing a recombinant gene, and after 2-4 weeks the stem cells had differentiated into cells which had the potential to form dentin.

The study is reported on News-Medical.Net.

Engineered Progenitor Cells Can Deliver Drugs

Engineered Progenitor Cells Can Deliver Drugs

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have engineered brain progenitor cells that can deliver medicine directly into areas of the brain. The study was an attempt to find a way around the brain’s structural tissues which keep many blood-borne medicines from entering directly into it.

According to the press release (available on EurekAlert) the researchers engineered progenitor cells derived from human fetal tissue to produce a growth factor known as glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). In trials, this drug has been shown to have promise in treating Parkinson’s disease, but could only be administered by the invasive procedure of pumping it directly into the patients’ brains. In the study, the researchers transplanted the engineered cells into rat and primate brains.

The cells migrated within critical areas of the brain and produced the growth factor in quantities sufficient for improving the survival and function of the defective cells at the root of Parkinson’s.

One of the hurdles that the researchers say must be overcome before this could be a potential treatment is getting the cells to “switch off” and stop producing the GDNF when it is no longer needed. They have been able to do this in cell cultures but not in laboratory animals.