Comment on a comment

I received a lengthy comment over the weekend in support of Dr. Hwang's work. It says that, " The media are controlled by money and they can distort events and facts. We implore every single conscientious journalist throughout the world to report on this issue." Much of the thrust of the comment was that Hwang has been cheated, in large part by Schatten.

Now, I have no problem with presenting this person's opionion. However, the writer of the comment used the words "We" without identifying who "We" is. Is it a citizen's group? Is it Korean only? Is it prospective patients? Etc., etc. Because the writer declined to give an identity when asking for support, I am declining to publish the comment. Who is being supported? If the writer wishes to repost this with some identification of whom he or she represents (which can still be done without a personal name) I will post it to this blog for others to think over. The post begins, " We are happy to stand here to let the world know the truth." Please tell us who you are before we listen.

Anonymous comments are totally ok with me for personal opinion but a plea for "every single conscientious journalist throughout the world to report on this issue" can't be honored seriously when provided anonymously. Names can be withheld, but journalists can have no credibility if they can't check their sources. Yes, this is a blog and not a newspaper or journal, but I do try to adhere to standards of credibility and objectivity.

Stem Cell Scientific Journal

A press release on the German website Innovations Report announces that the current issue of The Biochemist focuses on stem cell research. One of the articles is on the difference between the US and the UK in hESC research. The Biochemical Societyhttp://www.biochemist.org/bio/ website says that you can register to receive full free access to the article.

Follow-up on some stories from Friday

Follow-up on some stories from Friday

Just a few developments on things I reported on Friday for anyone who wants to follow them more.

The Schatten investigation: just a note here on headlines. One story in the Chicago Tribune is headlined, “Stem cell expert cited for `misbehavior'”. A headline in the Northeastern PA News is, “Pitt: Professor sought out personal gain in stem-cell research.” This is an AP story that says in part, “A news release first sent by the university announcing the findings put a more positive spin on the panel's conclusions.” It also says,

But in a harshly worded report, the panel said Schatten joined forces with Hwang to help a colleague he admired and to help himself through "enhancement of his scientific reputation, improved opportunities for additional research funding, enhanced positioning for pending patent applications, and considerable personal financial benefit.”

So perspectives are a little different. I have to say, that as a former member of academia, I don’t see a desire for increased reputation, funding, or positioning as unusual. USA Today reports that other researchers had mixed reactions to the report. And Chosun Ilbo reports that Hwang's lawyers plan to sue Schatten over patent issues.


Missouri—The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that Senator Talent is getting flak for his switch on the stem cell bill. Big surprise. It does clarify that Talent supports the altered nuclear transfer procedure, under which a cell is genetically altered so that it can’t develop into an embryo. Other researchers are not sure this procedure will work. (Of course we don’t know that regular SCNT works either, now that Hwang has been debunked.)

Maryland—Lt. Governor Michael Steele said that he supports embryonic stem cell research but believes it should be approached cautiously, according to an article in the Washington Post on Saturday. He supports alternative methods of extracting cells without destroying an embryo.

California Stem Cell Institute Adopts Two Proposals

California Stem Cell Institute Adopts Two Proposals

On Friday the CIRM board met and adopted two recommended proposals from the Citizen’s Oversight Commission. Ethical standards requiring that egg donors be informed of possible health risks were adopted. The use of the eggs must also be approved by two physicians, and the doctor who extracts the eggs cannot be an investigator. The intellectual property proposal in which grant recipients must give 25% of all profits over $500,000 was also approved. There are still future hearings, and there is opposition to both proposals, according to the San Diego Union Tribune. In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times reported that it may be 15 months before the lawsuits are resolved and money can be disbursed.

A personal note here—the lawsuits are in the Alameda County Superior Court. I have some experience with this court from a legal job I once held, and things can be pretty darn slow. I don’t know if they are slower than any other court, but the 15 months in probably a pretty good estimate.