NIH seeking comments on embryonic stem cell funding

[barbara]

http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm

Below is from a blog that deals with spinal cord injuries. I have commented in support of funding and research by the NIH for embryonic stem cells. You can comment by clicking on the link above. As this blogger states, even one line is helpful. Deadline is May 26th.




THE N.I.H. NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! (Seriously, this is very important.)

The new National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research have just been issued.

They would significantly loosen the Bush restrictions. If you are glad about that, it is important to say so?because the opposition is mounting a full-scale attack.

This is the all-important public comment period. For the next 3 weeks, until May 26th, 2009, comments on the guidelines will be accepted from you, me, everybody.

Some folks will say, hey, I am not a scientist, I don?t know what kind of guidelines are good? what does this have to do with me?

Everything.

Here?s why.

Those who oppose the research will definitely be writing in.

Opponents are already being organizing a mass letter-writing campaign.

Every letter will be tabulated, divided into counted piles: for, or against.

What if the majority of people writing in are against embryonic stem cell research? That figure will be used against us at every opportunity: quoted by every anti-research legislator, at every budget hearing from now on.

The NIH needs to hear from you.

If you only send a one sentence letter, that would be great. The little electronic letter box is right below. It is so easy to fill it out.

Folks, this is for everyone, and accordingly, everyone needs to weigh in on it.



Or, write a snail mail letter, to: NIH Stem Cell Guidelines, MSC 7997
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-7997

[hlichten]

Done.
Took virtually no time, as you said.

[windless1]

My comments sent to NIH. Piece of cake. Hope all comment. Larry

[barbara]

Thank you both.

This is an excerpt from the draft guidelines. I thought it was a good summation.

As described in these draft Guidelines, human embryonic stem cells
are cells that are derived from human embryos, are capable of dividing
without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are
known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ
layers. Although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos,
such stem cells are not themselves human embryos.
Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about
the complex events that occur during human development. Some of the most
serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are
due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A better
understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes
could provide information about how such diseases arise and suggest new
strategies for therapy. Human embryonic stem cells may also be used to
test new drugs. For example, new medications could be tested for safety
on differentiated somatic cells generated from human embryonic stem
cells.
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. Today, donated tissues and organs are often used
to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable
tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed
to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases and conditions, including Parkinson?s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis.

[alex]

Sent my comments

[Mysty119]

My comments have been sent.

[barbara]

Time is running out to make your comments to the NIH.


BOSTON, MA - Time is running out for scientists to comment on the proposed National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for the use of human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines and their eligibility for federal funds. The rules as drafted make it possible that funding for almost all existing cell lines will disappear.

On May 26, the window to provide feedback will close. But apparently scientists have been slow to get their comments in, leaving researchers in the field very concerned.

Patrick Taylor, deputy general counsel at Children's Hospital Boston, warns in the journal Cell Stem Cell that since the rules are retroactive, ongoing research is threatened.

"Research with almost all existing cell lines will not be fundable, leaving almost no federal funds for research using cells created ethically since 2001. This will mean a loss of much of the research benefit of the last eight years, even though that research was independently reviewed and determined to be ethical under federal standards," Taylor said. "It is vitally important that scientists are aware of this problem and that the situation is resolved as quickly as possible."

Ronald McKay, director of the NIH Stem Cell Unit, pointed out that the current draft guidelines may not even allow for continued research on the 21 ES cell lines approved by President Bush in 2001. "It is important to recognize that continued access to the ES cells themselves is important for medical research," said McKay. "It is common to use the economic metaphor of the 'gold standard' when discussing the value of human ES cells. But unlike gold, stem cells will not retain value if they are locked in a bank and we cannot analyze their secrets."

Researchers from all scientific disciplines and interested members of the general public can comment on the proposed guidelines here until 11 pm EST on May 26.

[Jeannine]

Maybe if the NIH spent less time doing research in Brazil and China with US taxpayer money they could dedicate more time to Americans and their health issues.

I thought Pres. Obama was going to release more funding for embryonic stem cell research.

[barbara]

China and Brazil are two hotbeds for stem cell research. Even the NIH was thwarted by the ban on federal funding for embryonic research. Some of the best scientists at the NIH and others from the U.S. have fled to other countries where there is a lot more money and a lot more freedom to work on their research. It is sad that the U.S. has chosen in the past to let scientific evidence be ignored and instead decided to politicize it. We now have a lot of catching up to do. I think there is a lot of manipulation (something they want to deny us) going on with agencies, scientists, politicians. Everyone is jockeying for the best position.

[Jeannine]

Barb
What NIH is spending money on in China and Brazil has nothing to do with stem cells. They're researching CHinese and Brazilian prostitutes. See link.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/government-funds-million-program-make-chinese-prostitutes-drink/

Why would stem cell researchers have to flee to other countries? Are they receiving funding in other countries? Embryonic stem cell research has never been banned in the US - only the funding has been limited. I find it strange that so many have been able to research adult stem cells with little to no funding in the US and make great strides while embyonic research requires government money. Who are these researchers who have fled the US?

Tens of millions of US Dollars given to the NIH are going to fund research outside the US. WHY?

[barbara]

From reading your first reply, I assumed you meant stem cell research since this is a stem cell discussion forum. The article you sent does seem like a huge waste of our non existent money, I will agree. The NIH recently sent out e-mails complaining that they were underfunded and that we spend more on fishing than health issues. Maybe, this is one of the reasons that they didn't get as much money as they would have liked.

The lure for scientists to go to other countries is huge amounts of funding compared to what they can get here, more freedom to experiment, ultra modern laboratories and thousands of patients to work on, and governments that really back them on what they are doing. We have had a dry 8 years and it has put us behind. When you say only the funding was banned, this is true, but many researchers find it difficult to do their work with no funds.

This subject takes up several chapters in "Cell of Cells" by Cynthia Fox to explain the effect that President Bush's ban had here in the U.S. I will attempt to recap it for you and post some of the most significant losses and problems that his edict can be blamed for this weekend. There are many books dealing with this very issue, but I just happen to be reading hers.