Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: NIH Feedback

  1. #11

  2. #12
    I just heard from somebody who attended a meeting at NIH that of the 6000+ comments that NIH has received concerning the draft guidelines, 99% were from people who opposed embryonic stem cell research.

    There are many scientists who believe that these NIH guidelines are unacceptable and unnecessarily shut off research that are not prohibited by law. For example, the guideline says that parthenogenesis is prohibited by law. Parthenogenesis (i.e. the stimulation of an egg so that it believes that it has been fertilized) does not necessarily lead to creation of an embryo.

    The language of the draft guidelines, if strictly interpreted, may actually prevent NIH funding of studies of the cell lines that have already been derived. Specifically, NIH appear to be requiring specific informed consent language that may result in NIH not allowing even the so-called Presidential lines to be studied with NIH funds.

    Finally, the guidelines does not address specific important issues regarding pluripotent stem cells and the creation of human-nonhuman chimeric animals. This is very important because such prohibitions will prevent very important research based on misunderstandings of what human cells do when they are transplanted into animals.

    If people support embryonic stem cell research, it is very important that they write to NIH saying that they support embryonic stem cell research and that the proposed guidelines are unnecessarily restricting research that are not required by law. I will post a detailed analysis of the guidelines soon. The deadline for all comment is May 24.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 05-09-2009 at 11:24 AM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    2,222
    Thanks Wise. Unless you tell me not to, I will hold off submitting my comments and asking friends and family to do so until I have those specifics.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Random View Post
    Thanks Wise. Unless you tell me not to, I will hold off submitting my comments and asking friends and family to do so until I have those specifics.
    Here is my "draft" response to them... I am still adjusting it.

    COMMENT ON DRAFT NIH GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN STEM CELL RESEARCH
    by Wise Young, PhD MD,
    Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road
    Piscataway NJ 08854-8082
    email: wisey@pipeline.com
    10 May 2009

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is requesting public comment on draft guidelines, entitled “National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research” [1]. These draft guidelines were created in response to Executive Order 13505 by President Barack Obama [2], requesting that NIH establish policy and procedures under which NIH will fund research in the area in accordance to applicable law. Below, I will refer to these as Draft Guidelines.

    The deadline for public comments is May 26, 2009 and can be entered at http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm or mailed to
    NIH Stem Cell Guidelines, MSC 7997
    9000 Rockville Pike
    Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-7997

    The applicable law include the “Dickey-Wicker Amendment” [3] which prohibits NIH funding of research that harms human embryos. In addition, there is a long-standing Department of Health and Human Services regulation for Protection of Human subjects, 45 C.F.R. 46 , which establishes safeguards for individuals who are the sources of human tissues used in research. The following are my comments.

    Misdefinition of Human Embryonic Stem Cells

    The Draft Guidelines misdefines human embryonic stem cells (HESC) as “cells that are derived from human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiation for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers.” This definition covers some cells that are not human embryonic stem cells and fails to cover some cells that are.

    The more accepted scientific definition of HESC is the inner mass cells located in a developing blastocyst or pluripotent cells derived from such cells. The length of time that they can divide in culture without differentiation is irrelevant to the definition. Likewise, the stipulation of “dividing without differentiation” depends on culture conditions and should not be part of the definition.

    The definition excludes some cells that would be considered HESC. For example, some cells derived from the inner mass of blastocysts cannot develop into cells and tissues of all three primary germ layers but are still considered HESC because they can make many kinds of cells, including themselves. If HESC is defined only as those stem cells that produce all three primary germ layers, the guidelines would not pertain many HESC lines or their progeny.

    The definition includes many cells that would not be considered HESC but are nevertheless derived from human embryos and are pluripotent. For example, several widely used cancer and human teratoma cell lines would fall under the definition. Teratoma cell lines are likely to have originally derived from an embryo, are usually pluripotent, but would be considered cancer cells and not HESC.

    Finally, the term “embryo” includes all stage of fetal development. HESC are derived from blastocysts, which are pre-embryonic. An blastocyst does not become an embryo until a midline develops. As written, the definition of HESC stipulating derivation from embryo would include all derived or induced pluripotent cells from any stage of embryonic development. This definition is not only wrong and misleading but introduces unintended and unnecessary regulatory problems.

    Mischaracterization of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    The Draft Guidelines state that “studies of human stem cells may yield information about the complex events that occur during human development”. Likewise the Guidelines state that HESC “may also be used to test new drugs”. This use of “may” is unnecessarily conservative and misleading in this situation. HESC are already yielding important information on human development and are being used by the pharmaceutical industry to test drugs. The use of the word “may” in this context suggests political motivation to downplay the importance of HESC research.

    The Guidelines fail to mention one very important application of HESC. HESC derived from individuals with genetic diseases or genetically modified HESC would allow study of these disease in vitro or in vivo, i.e. HESC cells transplanted into human or animals. Having cells lines that contain human genetic disease, particularly complex genetic diseases tha involve multiple genes, provide powerful tools for studying human disease.

    Finally, the statement that “Perhaps the most important potential use of human embryonic stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies” is simply wrong. Clinical application of HESC is the least likely of the many potential uses of HESC. This because HESC (unless they are derived from SCNT) are not immune compatible. The role of HESC for transplantation is being supplanted by induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC).

    It is gravely disappointing that NIH should write Draft Guidelines that provide misleading information to the public concerning the science and potential of embryonic stem cells. It should be written by somebody who is more aware of the latest research in the field.

    Unnecessary Restrictions of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

    The Draft Guidelines “would allow funding for research using only those human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and are no longer needed for that purpose”. This restriction was not stipulated in Executive Order 13505, the Dickey-Wickers amendment, nor the basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects.

    The restriction came originally from the Clinton Administration who had proposed that IVF Clinics provide a source of HESC that may be politically acceptable to the public. The Clinton Administration side-stepped the Dickey-Wickers amendment by having outside groups isolate the cells from blastocysts that would be discarded but are donated by the parents for research. This subterfuge relieves NIH of the onus of directly funding handling of blastocysts.

    A decade has passed since the original recommendation from the Clinton Administration to use blastocysts from IVF clinics. Much science has developed including many methods for deriving and creating pluripotent stem cells. Given this situation, why has the NIH chosen to restrict the study of HESC to IVF sources? Why have they decided to prohibit cells derived from “somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research purposes”?

    The Guidelines said “Funding will continue to be allowed for human stem cell research using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells”. Unfortunately, it did not define induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells. For example, would IPS cells from fetal cells be allowed? As IPS cel research has progressed, it has become clear that pluripotency is a condition that is induced by relatively few genes from an enormous variety of cells.

    The Guidelines provide no rational, moral, or legal framework for what it prohibits. For example, it is not clear at all why it is all right to study HESC derived IVF blastocysts that are “no longer needed” by the parents but it is not all right to study cells derived from parthenogenesis, a process where an unfertilized egg is fooled into dividing and producing some stem cells, even though it cannot develop further. No human parthenote has ever been produced nor considered possible.

    By failing to provide rational, moral, or legal basis for its restrictions, the Guidelines risks being hypocritical and will not be able to withstand the criticism of those who seek to abolish HESC research altogether. For example, the guidelines assume that there is an important moral distinction between embryos that are created for procreation and are no longer needed versus parthenotes, i.e. an never-fertilized egg that is fooled into dividing to produce HESC but cannot develop into a fetus. What is that distinction? Why is one okay and the other not?

    Retroactive Informed Consent Requirements

    The Draft Guidelines will limit the sources of HESC even more than the Bush Administration. For example, the Guidelines will impose additional requirements on the source of HESC cells. For example, it requires that “all options pertaining to the use of embryos no longer needed for reproductive purposes” be explained to potential donors. Depending on how this is interpreted, this seemingly innocuous requirement can rule out all the HESC stem cells created to date because informed consents from donors are unlikely to include “all options”.

    The Guidelines further requires that “no inducements were offered for the donations”, that “a policy is in place at the health care facility where the embryos were donated that neither consenting nor reusing to donate embryos for research would affect the quality of care provided to the potential donor(s)”, that “there was a clear separation between the prospective donor(s)’s decision to create human embryos for reproductive purposes and the... decision to donate human embryos for research purposes”, and a long list of other specific requirements.

    It is unclear that any or all these requirements have been met, even in the so-called Presidential lines derived before August 2001. The wording of the Guidelines suggest intent to impose that requirements on existing cell lines. If so, this would essentially rule out NIH funding of any HESC line derived before the Guidelines. The Guidelines specify that these informed consent requirement apply to future cell lines that are derived and not to previously derived cell lines.

    Unnecessary Restrictions on HESC and IPSC Transplants into Animals

    The Guidelines prohibit two types of research that are not prohibited by current law or regulation. The first is “research in which human embryonic stem cells (even if derived according to these Guidelines) or human induced pluripotent stem cells are introduced into non-human primate blastocysts. The second is “research involving the breeding of animals where the introduction of human embryonic stem cells or human induced pluripotent stem cells may have contributed to the germ line.

    At the present, all NIH-funded human stem cell research that is conducted with animals must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the research institution, the HESC board of the institution, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and by several NIH peer-review and ethics boards. Instead of allowing existing mechanisms to review the grant application, the Guidelines are imposing poorly worded sweeping regulations that restrict most human-animal chimera research. Let me explain why.

    One of the most important demonstrations of pluripotency at the present is to transplant a putative stem cell line into an immune-suppressed animal and showing that the cells will contribute to many types of tissues or form a teratoma that have many types of cells. The former is usually done by introducing a cell into developing animal blastocyst (the easiest stage to introduce cells). The latter is more difficult and injected into an adult immune-suppressed animal.

    Likewise, one of the most important tools for biomedical research is the creation of animal strains that contain human cells that allow prediction of human responses to treatment. The clearest example of this, for example, a mouse strain that was created by Irv Weissman, that has a human immune system. This mouse is a mainstay of human immunological research, allowing the study of human cells in a mouse. Under the proposed rules, the creation of such an animal strain using NIH funds would no longer be allowed.

    Even though the Executive Order requested guidelines for use of HESC only, these Draft Guidelines extended HESC prohibitions human IPS cells (IPSC). IPS cells have nothing to do with HESC or embryos. These restrictions will make it significantly more difficult for scientists to develop ways to validate pluripotent cell lines. The Guidelines should require more stringent ethical review of such research but should not issue unnecessary and short-sighted prohibitions in this fashion.

    Conclusions

    These Guidelines have the unfortunate potential to impose unnecessary regulations on HESC and IPSC research by NIH than the prohibitions under the Bush administration. The Guidelines impose a scientifically incorrect definition of HESC that covers cells that are not HESC and does not cover some cells that are HESC. It misrepresents the promise of HESC research and appears to have been written by non-scientists. Worse, it imposes additional regulations on HESC and IPSC research that are not mandated by existing law or regulations at NIH. As written, these Guidelines will cause more harm to HESC research than it helps. The Guidelines are poorly written, scientifically inaccurate, and impose new restrictions on both HESC and IPSC with little rational, legal, or ethical basis.

    Recommendations

    I recommend that these Guidelines be changed in the following ways:

    1. The definition of HESC should be rewritten to refer specifically to inner mass cells obtained from blastocysts or progeny of these cells.

    2. The section on the promise of HESC research should be written by a scientist based on the latest information about HESC.

    3. Informed consent requirements should not be imposed retrospectively on HESC lines derived in the past.

    4. The Guideline should focus only on HESC and should not refer to IPSC research, which have nothing to do with embryos.

    5. The Guidelines should not restrict research not prohibited by current law or regulations, including use of HESC and IPSC in animals.

    6. Separate guidelines should be developed for parthenogenesis- and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) derived HESC.


    References

    1. Stem Cell Information [World Wide Web site]. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 [cited Saturday, May 09, 2009] Available at http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009draft

    2. Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells (108KB PDF http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-5441.pdf)

    3. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 110-161, 3/11/09

    4. “Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects, Title 45 Public Welfare Department of Health and Human Services, Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects, revised June 23, 2005. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/OHRPRegulations.pdf




    Last edited by Wise Young; 05-09-2009 at 04:33 PM.

  5. #15

    Exclamation Embryonic vs. Adult Stem Cell

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    I just heard from somebody who attended a meeting at NIH that of the 6000+ comments that NIH has received concerning the draft guidelines, 99% were from people who opposed embryonic stem cell research.

    There are many scientists who believe that these NIH guidelines are unacceptable and unnecessarily shut off research that are not prohibited by law. For example, the guideline says that parthenogenesis is prohibited by law. Parthenogenesis (i.e. the stimulation of an egg so that it believes that it has been fertilized) does not necessarily lead to creation of an embryo.

    The language of the draft guidelines, if strictly interpreted, may actually prevent NIH funding of studies of the cell lines that have already been derived. Specifically, NIH appear to be requiring specific informed consent language that may result in NIH not allowing even the so-called Presidential lines to be studied with NIH funds.

    Finally, the guidelines does not address specific important issues regarding pluripotent stem cells and the creation of human-nonhuman chimeric animals. This is very important because such prohibitions will prevent very important research based on misunderstandings of what human cells do when they are transplanted into animals.

    If people support embryonic stem cell research, it is very important that they write to NIH saying that they support embryonic stem cell research and that the proposed guidelines are unnecessarily restricting research that are not required by law. I will post a detailed analysis of the guidelines soon. The deadline for all comment is May 24.

    Wise.
    This is something I received in my email a couple of days ago. This may influence people to decide that adult stem cell would be better to use than embryonic. Here's their link that was sent out with this brief message:

    As you know, embryonic stem cells (ESC's) have ruled the airwaves for the last decade. Less known by the public are adult stem cells (ASC's). ASCTA has recently published a white paper on the research of embryonic vs. adult stem cells. Since educating the public about the potential of ASC's is a goal of ASCTA, please take a minute to click on the link below and share this with family and friends. It shows that the research is much more plentiful and mature on adult than on embryonic cells. Enjoy!

    http://www.safestemcells.org/uploads....Embryonic.pdf

    I would like to know who these people are and what type of hog wash their trying to sell to the public. Granted there are some good benefits and useage of adult stem cell for some people but not all people. People have to understand that if these cryogenically preserved embryos aren't used they will be flushed down the toilet.
    Aggie Mom 2007

  6. #16
    Done!

  7. #17

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    Here is my "draft" response to them... I am still adjusting it.
    In case it's not sent yet, just so you know it looks like you are missing 2 closing quotes in one paragraph:

    The Guidelines prohibit two types of research that are not prohibited by current law or regulation. The first is “research in which human embryonic stem cells (even if derived according to these Guidelines) or human induced pluripotent stem cells are introduced into non-human primate blastocysts. The second is “research involving the breeding of animals where the introduction of human embryonic stem cells or human induced pluripotent stem cells may have contributed to the germ line.
    Also, there is some information and links to those heading up the opposition to stem cell research here that is interesting (not sure who posted it):

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd5vs2xt_0hkwp6xd8

    I also suggest using social media sites like Twitter (if you have accounts) to let people know about this. I heard about it from author Neil Gaiman here (nice to know that some celebrities are helping to spread the word ).

    -Michael

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by mvandemar View Post
    In case it's not sent yet, just so you know it looks like you are missing 2 closing quotes in one paragraph:



    Also, there is some information and links to those heading up the opposition to stem cell research here that is interesting (not sure who posted it):

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd5vs2xt_0hkwp6xd8

    I also suggest using social media sites like Twitter (if you have accounts) to let people know about this. I heard about it from author Neil Gaiman here (nice to know that some celebrities are helping to spread the word ).

    -Michael
    Hello. I was the one who put up that google document, I stumbled upon this forum while searching google to see how much the news was spreading. I'm a high school senior and intern at the New York Neural Stem Cell Institute. Late Saturday night/Sunday morning I received the message published in the google document in my email inbox, forwarded by some of the people at NYNSCI. I immediately attempted to get the message to everyone that I could, and published the email message as a google document to make sending it easier.

    I also sent the link to a few people with access to extremely potent means for disseminating information who might be sympathetic to the cause, including Neil Gaiman, Randall Munroe of XKCD, and Wil Wheaton. I didn't think that anything would come of it, but thought it was at least worth a try. To my surprise and joy, Gaiman replied back in email just a couple of hours later and posted the links to his twitter feed and just tonight posted it to his blog. I've yet to hear from any of the other people that I sent the link to, but it has only been 23 hours since I first sent the emails and Gaiman's influence has already been tremendous.

    A friend of mine alerted me to the existence of twitturly, a website which essentially tracks the spread of ideas in twitter. This particular page tracks the spread of my google document and allows you to view the twitter posts which contain it. As of this message, an estimated 498,360 people have been exposed to it on twitter alone. I am told that Gaiman's blog is in turn followed by an additional 400,000 people. I'm not completely certain on the validity of the latter statistic, but we can rest assured that it is at least several hundred thousand. If either Randall Munroe or Wil Wheaton climb on board, we may well be reaching close to the million mark. How many of those people will go on to comment at the NIH page, I can't say. But I think it is safe to say that we now greatly outnumber the previous 6,000 which contained such disturbing statistics.

    When I started all of this last night, I really had no clue that the message would spread so fast. I cannot thank Neil Gaiman - who is truly a wonderful human being - enough for using his influence in such a tremendously effective and positive manner.

    If you'd like, I can continue to keep this forum thread updated as I get more news.

    -Joshua Turner

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by mvandemar View Post
    In case it's not sent yet, just so you know it looks like you are missing 2 closing quotes in one paragraph:



    Also, there is some information and links to those heading up the opposition to stem cell research here that is interesting (not sure who posted it):

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd5vs2xt_0hkwp6xd8

    I also suggest using social media sites like Twitter (if you have accounts) to let people know about this. I heard about it from author Neil Gaiman here (nice to know that some celebrities are helping to spread the word ).

    -Michael
    Michael, thanks. I have not yet sent my comments. I have been working on it for the past couple days and I will post a final version soon.

    Wise.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2006, 01:25 AM
  2. NASA good for a laugh
    By dejerine in forum Pain
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-16-2005, 05:41 AM
  3. Support this advocate!
    By Leo in forum Cure
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-28-2003, 10:48 AM
  4. Congress wants payoff from increased NIH funding
    By Max in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2003, 03:27 PM
  5. Sooner or later...
    By Iacopo in forum Cure
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-25-2003, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •