The State of Stem Cells, 2006

[Faye]

Legislatively look for the Senate passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I wonder why that is not mentioned in this article by Steven Edwards:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...l?tw=rss.index

All I see mentioned is:

Legislatively, look for a renewed push of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act and an unnecessarily vicious debate on the Pluripotent Stem Cell Act.

[Faye]

The only thing I see is a plug for drug companies.

Apart from that the only mention of Stem Cells is a plug for the author's preferred stem cell measure. One that would fund far-fetched dedifferentiation research of adult cells.

What about the STEM CELL ENHANCEMENT ACT which is about to pass the senate???????

[Steven Edwards]

As to your specific question, the SCREA was not mentioned because it has no shot of being signed into law by our beloved President.

Geron's mentioned. Linked, no less.

[Faye]

Originally Posted by Steven Edwards

As to your specific question, the SCREA was not mentioned because it has no shot of being signed into law by our beloved President.

Geron's mentioned. Linked, no less.

Congress has the capability to override a presidential veto.
If our representatives were truly representative of the american people they would be able to muster the 2/3 vote in both House and Senate.

Ommiting even the mention of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act does a disservice to fellow sci advocates such as Don Reed.

As you clearly show your commentaries are meant to be educative, and leaving out such a crucial piece of legislation, which has us on the brink of federal funding of stem cell research, is outrageous when talking about The State of Stem Cells, 2006.

[bigbob]

Not only that, even if Bush vetos the act, although it was passed, it would show that most people are for the science and perhaps at least there would be a surge in private and corporate funding

[Steven Edwards]

Faye, Don Reed gave me a call while I was writing this commentary. He and I chatted about the SCREA and I commented that federal funding of ESC research has no chance of happening before the next President is sworn into office in 2009. Don chose not to disagree with me. He may not agree with me on that issue, but he consciously decided not to object to my statement.

Don asked me to "keep my ear to the ground" regarding ESC research. I told him I was and that if I heard something promising, I would definitely write on it.

Had I chosen to mention the SCREA, I would have repeated what I stated below. Publicly. And you would have been displeased with that, much as you are now.

This was written to say to people whose only hope was Hwang: "Okay. Hwang's out of the picture, but there is still reason for hope."

I wanted to include a lot more but I was running beyond my word limit, so I limited myself to what you read. I spoke with many researchers in deciding which therapies to include, including Tom Okarma. Based on his responses, I decided not to focus on Geron in the piece.

I wrote what I am looking forward to as having the potential to provide tangible results in 2006.

May I ask what you are looking forward to?

[Faye]

Originally Posted by Steven Edwards

I spoke with many researchers in deciding which therapies to include, including Tom Okarma. Based on his responses, I decided not to focus on Geron in the piece.

Why would he NOT want more focus on Geron's work with ESC?

[Leif]

Well, I don’t know about you guys. But over here when we fight for a legalising for to be allowed to perform research on embryonic stem cells we have to use this word. If we mix in other words or definitions the public will be totally confused. We have to call a spade for a spade – make a simple message so that anybody can understand and decide what they feel about it. Although I can be wrong here but I don’t think I am.

We have to be firm, fair and square. Leif

[Leif]

Steven - Yes but don’t we have to take the whole book with us.

Actually you have a good point in your post I think. If we can link a specific therapy towards a cure for us it will be much harder for those against this research to protest it. But are we there yet?

[Leif]

Like those against ESCR use this poor woman from Korea which was treated with ASC for all it is worth saying she was cured and on top of that, this is not proven.

If we could have agreed or found or the scientists could have documented an approach we could have agreed upon it would have been much easier for us. I feel we need some tangible proof we can unite around.