Mary Meets Dolly

It may seem to all of you that I have disappeared.  I am still here.  I think about you all everyday.  Unfortunately, things in my life have been super crazy lately causing me to have to quit my job.

The good news is, after my last day at the end of this month, I will be back in full blogging mode!  I hope to see you then!

In a major strategic development on November 1, 2007, the Company
announced its discovery of novel stem cell technology and its launch of the
C'elle (pronounced "C-L") service, the world's first-ever commercial
service allowing women to cryopreserve their own menstrual stem cells.
C'elle menstrual stem cells are adult stem cells but with many properties
associated with both embryonic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells (a
highly potent adult stem cell in therapeutic use today derived from
connective tissue). C'elle menstrual stem cells have demonstrated the
capability in preliminary research to differentiate into other cell types,
such as nervous system, heart, bone, fat and cartilage cells. The Company
believes C'elle menstrual stem cells will have a significant impact on
regenerative medicine. The C'elle service is based on Cryo-Cell's
intellectual property, for which patent applications are pending, related
to the procurement, processing, isolation, cryo-preservation and
composition of matter related to these unique menstrual stem cells. The
Company has executed collaborative research agreements with several leading
stem cell researchers who are studying C'elle menstrual stem cells in
various pre-clinical models from diabetes and heart disease to stroke.

C'elle. I am not sure if that's creepy or clever. Can't you just see the commercial now? A woman running through a field of tall grass with blue skies and butterflies....

U.S. scientists say they've reprogrammed human skin cells into ones with the same blank-slate properties as embryonic stem cells, a breakthrough that could aid in treating many diseases while sidestepping controversy.

Human embryonic stem cells have the ability to become every cell type found in the human body. Being able to create these cells en masse and without using human eggs or embryos could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine, said the scientists, from the University of California, Los Angeles.

The researchers genetically altered human skin cells using four regulator genes, according to findings published online in the Feb. 11 edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The result produced cells called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, that are almost identical to human embryonic stem cells in function and biological structure. The reprogrammed cells also expressed the same genes and could be coaxed into giving rise to the same cell types as human embryonic stem cells, the researchers said.

"Our reprogrammed human skin cells were virtually indistinguishable from human embryonic stem cells," lead author Kathrin Plath, an assistant professor of biological chemistry and a researcher with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, said in a prepared statement. "Our findings are an important step towards manipulating differentiated human cells to generate an unlimited supply of patient specific pluripotent stem cells. We are very excited about the potential implications."

Wow, I am so honored! Reflections of a Paralytic has tagged me with an Excellence in Blogging acknowledgment. Thank-you very much!

I am supposed to tag other excellent bloggers, but there are so very many out there. Here is a short list:

Jivin J

Eye on DNA

BioPolitical Times

LifeEthics

My Biotech Life

Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

BioEthics.com

If you ain't readin' these guys you are missing out. On the list? Consider yourself tagged.

Biotechnology is arguably more insidious than abortion. Abortions take
place one at a time and generally as a response to an accident, lapse
or nasty surprise. Their gruesomeness actually limits their prevalence
by arousing revulsion and political opposition. Conventional stem-cell
harvesting is quieter but bolder. It’s deliberate and industrial, not
accidental and personal. In combination with cloning, it entails the
mass production, exploitation and destruction of human embryos. Yet its
victims don’t look human. You can’t protest outside a fertility clinic
waving a picture of a blastocyst. You have to explain what it is and
why people should care about it.

The Perth scientist who made the world-first discovery that human
breast milk contains stem cells is confident that within five years
scientists will be harvesting them to research treatment for conditions
as far-reaching as spinal injuries, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease.

But what Dr Mark Cregan is excited about right now is the promise that
his discovery could be the start of many more exciting revelations
about the potency of breast milk.

He believes that it not only meets all the nutritional needs of a
growing infant but contains key markers that guide his or her
development into adulthood.

“We already know how breast milk provides for the baby’s nutritional
needs, but we are only just beginning to understand that it probably
performs many other functions,” says Dr Cregan, a molecular biologist
at The University of Western Australia.

What ever happen to adoption?

Several months ago when the news broke about poisonous pet food and lead-laden toys from China, I asked my local pharmacy to give me a letter stating it is not selling me any prescription drugs imported from China. The reply was, "We don't buy any drugs from China."

I said, "I know you don't, but I want you to check with your suppliers and verify that they don't buy from China." That request was met by thunderous silence.

Now we know why. The Government Accountability Office reported that 80 percent of the drug substances used by U.S. manufacturers to produce prescription drugs is imported. The majority come from China.

That means most of our medicines and medical products are manufactured in thousands of unregulated, unsupervised plants run by managers who have no moral code that imposes an obligation to use ingredients that are safe in preference to those that are cheaper but poisonous or at least dangerous. As Walter Cronkite would say, "That's the way it is."

I did not know that. Interesting. There is more shocking information about RU486:

Like so many scandals, the problem is not merely the crime but the cover-up of violations; the company refuses to tell what drugs it has exported to the United States. Chinese government authorities have arrested the CEO; maybe he will face the same fate as China's top drug safety official who was executed last year, but that doesn't solve the problem.

We do know that Shanghai is the sole supplier to the United States of the abortion pill, Mifepristone, known as RU-486. The FDA had previously concealed the source of RU-486, and its U.S. distributor, Danco Laboratories, does not list a street address on its Web site or return calls from the news media.

So much for SAFE and legal.  But, what caught my eye in this piece was Ms. Schlafly's prediction about importing cloned human embryonic stem cells from China:

Free
trade is not only bringing us contaminated drugs and foods, but soon
could bring us the products of embryonic stem cell transfers (aka
cloning). The Chinese government is financing a new laboratory to
conduct research on stem cells, the nuclear transfer and reprogramming
of cells, and other cell-engineering innovations.

So,
there need be no more demands for U.S. funding of embryonic stem cell
research. The globalists can partner with Chinese-funded stem cell
factories, like the new stem-cell agreement between Beike Biotechnology
and Tsinghua University's Shenzhen Graduate School.

My older brother was (and still is) the master of psychological warfare. He would approach you with a sweet look on his facing saying, "Shhhhh, Shhhhhhh, it's okay" in the most soothing tone. You were expecting a hug, or a pat on the back, or some jesture of affection, but what you got instead was a wedgie, an indian burn, or some other method of torture untill you screamed "Uncle, Uncle!"

Bear with me people, I do have a point. See behind the soothing words of comfort, disguised as real compassion, was something wicked coming this way. Now, anytime I hear someone coming at me saying "Shhhhhh, it'll be
alright" I get a pit in my stomach and know something bad is going to
happen. I call it the "Shhhhh!" feeling.

I got that same feeling reading this. Wesley J. Smith has a quote from a member of Britian's House of Lords that chilled me to the bone. Disguised in compassion for "the children," is the spirit of eugenics, which we are not reminded enough begot Nazi Germany.

Baroness Meacher had this to say about the "rights" of children born with severe cerebal palsy:

"They were natural births. Those two children cannot breathe
naturally; they have to be helped to breathe. They will never talk.
They lie on their backs and can do nothing. My belief is that there are
children, born at those very early ages, who are not viable people. It
would be in their best interests to have been aborted." [my emphasis]

"Shhhhhh Children born with genetic defects or severely disabled. Shhhhhhhh, it is going to be alright...."

When a culture embraces death as a solution, sickening things like this happen:

Two women suicide bombers who have killed nearly 80 people in Baghdad were Down's Syndrome victims exploited by al Qaida.

The explosives were detonated by remote control in a co-ordinated attack after the women walked into separate crowded markets, said the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad General Qassim al-Moussawi.

Other officials said the women were apparently unaware of what they were doing in what could be a new method by suspected Sunni insurgents to subvert toughened security measures.

More than 70 people died and scores were wounded in the deadliest day since the US "surge" of 30,000 extra troops were sent to the capital this spring.

In the first attack, a woman detonated explosives hidden under her traditional black Islamic robe in the central al-Ghazl market. The weekly bazaar has been bombed several times since the war started but recently had re-emerged as a popular place to shop and stroll as Baghdad security improved. At least 46 people were killed and more than 100 wounded.

The second woman then struck a bird market in a predominantly Shiite area in south-eastern Baghdad killing up to 27 people and wounding 70.

Think Western Civilization is better? Well considering that a recent estimate suggests that 80-90% of all Down Syndrome babies in America are aborted, I would say we are just as screwed up, just a lot quieter about it.

HT: DesiringGod

With, Prop 71, Californians voted to give $3 billion tax-payer dollars to fund human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. They were told that this money was necessary for cures to every disease imaginable. And not surprisingly, I am sure that most Californians were unaware of how long it would take for their hard earned pennies to actually yield therapies in humans. (That would be decades.) And I know Californians were not told that even though it was their money that funded the research and the trials, they were unlikely to see any discounts in resulting therapies. Taxpayer advocacy groups have successfully fought to make sure Californians reaped some of the reward from any grant money given out as a result of Prop 71.

The Stem Cell Institute, the body that gets to pass out the $3 billion tax-payer dollars, has decided that since real venture capiltalists are not putting their money into cutting edge and speculative stem cell research, they will generously use the monies provided by the good people of California to provide not "grants, but "loans." From SignOnSanDiego.com:

California's taxpayer-funded stem cell institute wants to do something a lot of banks won't: make loans to biotechnology companies with no cash flow, very little collateral and a high risk of failure.

The idea is that loans would not pay for basic scientific research, but rather help fund the translation of research into clinical therapies, helping to push therapies closer to market and traditional investors, such as venture capital or public markets....

It is not known exactly how much money would be put into the loan program, although it will likely involve a small chunk of the $3 billion that California voters agreed to spend on controversial stem cell research by passing Proposition 71 in 2004.

Also unknown are the terms of the loans, and who would judge the worthiness of the chronically cash-strapped companies and the high-risk products they are trying to develop.

So why do these companies need "loans" from Joe California? Because real venture capitalists don't want to lose their money in such shaky investments:

Meanwhile, some executives said venture capital investors have been overly skeptical about investment in the field because it is still so new and they've become more adverse to risk after being burned in other technology investments.

“I'm not going to say that we get the scraps, but regenerative medicine has not been a rich area for VC investment,” said Alan Lewis, chief executive of Novocell, a San Diego-based embryonic stem cell company.

And pharmaceutical companies, which often partner with biotechnology companies for late-stage clinical trials and commercialization, have been slow to invest in regenerative medicine because of its nascency and political problems, Lewis said.

That creates a dearth in midstage funding, creating what the biotechnology industry has dubbed the “valley of death,” where interesting science goes to die before even reaching late stage, large clinical trials in humans.

The question is will these "loans" be repaid, or is this just a start-up money "grant" in disguise therefore side-stepping the commitment to repay Californians for their investment:

John Simpson, of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, said the institute spent two years hammering out a fair intellectual property policy that serves the public's interest.

“This is an end run around that carefully deliberated policy and that is outrageous,” Simpson said.

He believes the institute should create grants to bridge the gaps in commercialization funding.

Some skeptics would question why loans would be offered to biotechnology companies, which generally are not in a position to repay them. Many companies fail without bringing a product to market.

So would they be taking the state loan and promising to repay it with a wink and a nod?

So wake-up California! You are now high-risk venture capitalists! Wow! I just wouldn't be waiting by the mailbox for a dividend check.

The Brave New Brtis are really sliding down the slippery slope these days. First, the UK government decided to allow British scientist to implant human DNA into a cow or rabbit egg, essentially creating an embryo that is 99.9% human and 0.1% animal. But, it is OK see because these embryos are being created with the express purpose of being destroyed. That makes it all better. Read here for UK Catholic Bishops response to these experiments.

This next announcement is as equally chilling, but it is not that readily apparent. The UK government wanted to pass legislation that would restrict the use of DNA from tissue banks for cloning experiments without the donors consent. In other words, scientists would need your consent to make a bunch of your embryonic clones to experiment on. But, for the "advancement of science" all barriers and common sense seem to have flown the coop. From the TimesOnline:

The Government has agreed to back down on strict laws planned for embryonic
stem-cell experiments after a “compelling case” was made by leading
scientists in a letter to The Times.

The letter, published last week, expressed alarm that the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Bill would delay potentially life-saving research by
requiring all tissue used to create cloned embryonic stem cells to have the
explicit consent of its donor.

The Bill, which is passing through Parliament, was set to outlaw access to
most of the tissue banks that act as vast libraries of the genes that
contribute to serious disorders.

More than 50 biomedical researchers and administrators, including four Nobel
prizewinners, have told ministers that such strict measures would deny
stem-cell scientists the use of tissue banks for studying diseases such as
muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s and diabetes.

The tissue banks enable scientists to create cloned embryos that can be
implanted with the genetic material of patients, assisting research into how
the illnesses develop.

The Government’s justification for requiring “express consent” had been that
some patients who agreed to donate cells may not have realised that their
tissue could later be used for cloning. [my emphasis]

Not only are these "leading" scientists wanting to create cloned embryos with particular diseases for the express purpose of studying and destroying them, but they want to do it with your DNA without asking for your consent. So you may have donated some tissue for research unrelated to cloning, but scientists are going to go ahead and make clones of you and experiment on them with out asking if you are alright with that. Because see, asking you would take too long and would get in the way of cutting edge research.

So much for informed consent and medical ethics. All in the name of the "advancement" of science.

Seven states — including Connecticut — are leading the world in
political and financial support for embryonic stem-cell research.

Their
goal: Attract the best stem-cell scientists from around the globe and
become a hub for a multi-billion-dollar bioscience industry. So far,
their plan appears to be working.

In the past two years,
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and
Wisconsin have awarded some $230 million in grants — more than three
times as much as the federal government spent on embryonic stem-cell
studies in that time — and there has been no shortage of scientists
seeking the money.

Granted this is a business article, but does it seem the "multi-billion-dollar bioscience industry" is more important than the supposed "cures" that are still decades away?

Also note that seven states have spent $230 million dollars of taxpayer money on grants for embryonic stem cell research. How much farther could we be if that was spent on the more advanced adult stem cell arena?

Here is a note of sanity:

But six others — Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota
and South Dakota — now ban studies that result in the destruction of
human embryos, and Arizona bars state funding for embryonic studies.
These states have positions closer to those of Japan and most European
countries.

Most European countries ban studies that result in the destruction of human embryos. Good for them. But, I always thought it was the liberals' cry that the United States needs to be more like our global counterparts. Apparently not when it comes to the destruction of human life other than theirs.

If you live in a state not aforementioned, this is probably what is going on in your state:

Except in these states, work on embryonic stem cells is free to go on in
the United States at places such as universities and private, nonprofit
and corporate laboratories — as long as no federal money is involved.
But states that want to be players in the nascent stem-cell arena are
finding they must ante up with state financing and a science- friendly
environment.

It saddens and angers me that now to be considered "science-friendly" you have to fork out your hard earn cash for the destruction of nascent human life.

Craig Venter is best known for his push to sequence the entire human genome. Once you have done that, where do you go from there? Synthesizing an entire artificial genome. Venter has announced that he has created all the genetic material for a bacteria from the simple building blocks of DNA. This is different from genetic modification where existing DNA is modified. Venter made this genome from scratch. From Philly.com:

In a major step toward the creation of artificial life, scientists
said today that they assembled the entire genetic code for a simple
bacterium from scratch.

The technique used to duplicate a real organism's DNA could allow
the fashioning of novel organisms designed to, say, pump out new
biofuels or absorb carbon dioxide, the researchers said. And by
exploring the boundaries between the living and inanimate worlds, the
work may change our understanding of the nature of life itself.

"We started with four bottles of chemicals," said Craig Venter, a
collaborator on the project, done at his institute in Rockville, Md.
They ended up with the single chromosome that contains the genetic code
for Mycoplasma genitalium.

The bacterial chromosome also represents the largest synthetic
molecule of any kind. Its chemical structure took 147 pages to spell
out.

The team's next goal, Venter said, will be to "boot" the chromosome
in a donor bacterium whose own genetic code has been removed. If they
succeed, the bacterium will begin to run using the new genetic
instructions just as a computer might run on a new operating system.

So the idea is to design organisms that will clean up the evirnoment, or cure cancer, or generate biofuel. It is a worthy endeavor, but is it ethical?

Artificial organisms surely beg the question what is life and what makes something alive? If we can create our own custom organisms at will, does that degrade human life ever further?

I do not think it has to. I do not believe that creating artificial bacteria and other simple organisms to better mankind and the environment that God left in our charge is not in and of itself unethical. Does it have serious ramifications? Yes. Is it scary? Most certainly. Will there be enough safeguards in place to prevent this kind of genetic engineering from getting out of control? I doubt it, especially since we are still arguing over the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Our leaders had better start getting their act together and stop wasting their time trying to convince us that human cloning isn't really human cloning, and start becoming well versed in the field of genetics and genetic engineering. If they are still arguing over whether SCNT is actually cloning and whether a human embryo is actually human in five years, I am afraid we may find ourselves at the mercy of rogue synthetic biologists.

This is big news. The pancreas produces insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar. People with type 1 diabetes have a damaged pancreas that produces little or no insulin. They need to inject insulin regularly. Diabetes has been the battle cry for embryonic stem cell research.
It was previously thought that there were no stem cells in the pancreas. If the pancreas has no adult stem cells, then to regenerate the pancreas you must get the stem cells from an embryo. Right?

Maybe not. Researchers have found adult stem cells in the pancreas of mice and hope to find the same in humans. From USnews.com:

An international team of researchers has finally managed to locate stem cells in the pancreas -- in mice, at least.

If the findings are confirmed in humans, they could pave the way for
dramatic new therapies for diabetes, namely the regeneration of beta
cells so the body could once again produce its own insulin. Until now,
scientists had all but abandoned hopes that the pancreas made its own
stem cells because they had failed to find evidence to support the
theory....

For this study, Heimberg and his colleagues cut off the duct that
drains digestive enzymes from the pancreas in mice. Within two weeks,
the number of beta cells in the pancreas doubled.

Not only did the number of beta cells increase, the mice started producing more insulin.

"When damaged a specific way, it triggered stem cells" production, Dominguez-Bendala said.

The newly identified stem cells were almost identical to embryonic
beta cell progenitors. In fact, the gene Neurogenin 3 (Ngn3), which
plays a role in embryonic development of the pancreas, is also involved
in the formation of these new beta cells, the researchers said.

"This is a model of regeneration no one has tested before,"
Dominguez-Bendala said. "From a basic science point of view, it's very
exciting. It opens the door to potential therapies. If we could trigger
regeneration, that would be fantastic."

"This demonstrates a stem cell repair mechanism in the pancreas
that, if we understand it more, then we can help develop more cures
with either transplantation or with drugs that can increase the body's
own stem cells and beta cells," said Paul Sanberg, director of the
University of South Florida Center for Aging and Brain Repair in Tampa.

Taken from CathNews.com:

“If this human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least
a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough”.

Dr. James Thomson, embryonic stem cell pioneer

This video has probably been around, but I couldn't help but link to it because there are rarely good gags in science.

For the love of polymerase chain reaction, better known as PCR.

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Friday condemned the cloning of human
embryos, calling it the "worst type of exploitation of the human being."

"This
ranks among the most morally illicit acts, ethically speaking," said
Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life,
the Vatican department that helps oversee the Church's position on
bioethics issues....

Sgreccia said the cloning research was unjustifiable. He also said
it was unnecessary, given advances in similar research that bypasses
the controversial use of embryos.

"There isn't even -- I won't
say the justification, because it's never justified -- but not even the
pretext of finding something (new)," he told Vatican radio.

Now Monsignor, tell us what you really think:

Sgreccia said, given the alternatives, he could not understand why
scientists wanted to use human embryos -- which the Roman Catholic
Church believes should be protected.

"You can't know any more if this is all a game ... done solely out of the desire to experiment on men and women," he said.

Human cloning: a game born of the desire to experiment on human beings.  I think Monsignor Sgreccia has hit the nail on the head.

US scientists involved with a small company set up by
an unnamed investor report they are the first to clone human embryos
and prove it.

But some researchers are asking how much of a scientific development this really is.

Dr Andrew French of Stemagen Corporation of La Jolla in California
and colleagues have published their findings online ahead of print
publication in the journal Stem Cells.

The researchers used somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to clone
five early-stage embryos, called blastocysts, from donated human eggs
and skin cells from two men.

"This study demonstrates, for the first time, that SCNT can produce
human blastocyst stage embryos using nuclei from a differentiated adult
somatic cell," the researchers say.

The researchers' long term aim is to use SCNT to produce
patient-specific stem cells for possible treatments, but this time
around they did not actually produce stem cells from the cloned embryos.

Instead, they destroyed the embryos in the process of checking their DNA in order to prove they were clones. [my emphasis]

A couple of important points to note here:

1.Researchers are saying they "cloned human embryos" even though these embryos were not implanted and were never going to be. Take a hint Missouri, SCNT is cloning, just like we always said.

2. Researchers in this article said "cloning technique is only efficient if the egg is used within two hours of being taken from the woman." Once again, this is not about the "frozen leftovers." Fresh eggs and embryos has always been the name of the game.

I found this great cloning timeline today and the following dates should make anyone, including pro-cloners, pause to think about how far we have come and how far this is going to go:

JULY 5, 1996: Dolly, a sheep who is the first organism ever cloned from adult cells, is born.

MARCH 4, 1997: President Clinton proposes a five year moratorium on federal and privately funded human cloning research.

JULY
1997: The scientists who created Dolly create Polly, a Poll Dorset lamb
cloned from skin cells grown in a lab and genetically altered to
contain a human gene.

SEPTEMBER 1997: Thousands of biologists and
physicians sign a voluntary five-year moratorium on human cloning in
the United States.

JANUARY 1998: Nineteen European nations sign a ban on human cloning.

Less than ten years ago, the world was pretty much in agreement that human cloning was bad. Now we are trying to clone human DNA into cow eggs, with the approval of the government.

All I can think, is "Soylent Green is people! People!"

He finally put to words that obscure, creepy and unsettling feeling I get when I think about how many in the pro-death camp really think they are doing the right thing. They really believe that from stem cell research, to end-of-life medicine, to abortion, death is the answer.

I can hear them now: "But, it is only Death for the inconvenient human life that can be marginalized somehow. That is the only way to make things better for the rest of us. Need stem cells? Kill the embryo. Unplanned pregnancy getting in the way? Kill the fetus. Dying in pain? Its just easier (and cheaper) to kill the patient instead of their pain. See people? Death solves everything. It is you backward people who are "pro-life" that are mean, uncompassionate and deaf to the cries of the suffering."

To me this thinking is like a strange mix of ignorance, arrogance and misguided compassion all rolled into one.

In Plague Journal, O'Brien's character, Nathaniel has a dream about an evil serpent that shape shifts into a bear, then a leopard, then a dragon. Nathaniel writes about this dream in his journal:

...I'd been trying to reclaim the lost sleep and in it there was another dragon-snake-bear dreams: the world was in choas, and legions of grey men and grey ladies were trying to fix it. In measured tones they assured us that, if we killed all the "dysfunctional" children and the geriatrics, it would make everything right again. I was arguing with them, but it didn't make the slightest difference. They were absolutely convinced that they were saving humanity. The more I argued the nicer they became, but it was a strained gentility, a professional veneer to keep us powerless until the leopard-bear-dragon arrived.

Advanced Cell Technologies first said it could extract embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. Then it came out that the embryos in question where actually destroyed in the experiments. Now ACT says it can really extract embryonic stem cells without destoying the embryo. Is this the "new ethical alternative everyone has been looking for?"

It wasn't before, and it still isn't. I will just recycle my entry from after the first announcement back in Spetember of 2006. I called it "Embryo destructive researchers just don't get it"

When it was announced that Robert Lanza and Advanced Cell Technology
(ACT) had proven that it was possible to extract embryonic stem cells
from an embryo without destroying the embryo, the initial response was
that this approach was gonna put an end to the whole debate. This was
sure to appease Pres. Bush, Catholics and pro-lifers everywhere.

Even if ACT had actually extracted the cells without destroying the embryos,
I know the Church would still call this research unethical. Why? Let me
count the ways: 1. It is unethical to create a human embryo in a dish
and treat it like a commodity, 2. Embryo biopsy is not always
successful and therefore still destroys embryos, if only part of the
time, and 3. What happens to the embryo after a piece of it is sucked
out? Will it actually be implanted? Or does it go back in the deep
freeze?

The fact that ACT thought that this approach would solve
the impasse shows that they really do not understand pro-lifers'
fundamental objection to research on embryos which, I think, could be
stated as such: It is wrong to perform research on human subjects (say
it Dr. Seuss: "No matter how small") without their consent, especially
research that puts the human subject's life at risk. PERIOD.

So while those at ACT just do not get it, David Magnus does. In an entry at the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics, Magnus penned this gem:

By the way, there is no confirmation to the rumor that ACT is attempting
to develop a method of abortion that foes of abortion will find morally
acceptable.

Exactly!

Scientists in China have successfully created a florescent green pig and
claim that the animal is passing its glow to some of its offspring.

Last year DNA from jellyfish was added to fertilized pig embryos resulting in
a piglet that glowed
green.

Now a similar pig has passed on its florescence to two of its 11 offspring.

"The smooth birth of these green pigs testifies to the mature development of
our country's use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce
transgenic pigs," said Liu Zhonghua, a professor at
Northeast
Agricultural University in Harbin.

Source: www.arthritis.ca

When the nurse in Chicago called with the good news, retired William
C. McGinnis School Principal Michael George couldn't get the words
"thank you" out quick enough.

George has been approved for an autologous adult stem-cell transplant
that he hopes will give him relief from an advanced case of
scleroderma, an incurable autoimmune disease that causes excess
collagen to make skin tighten and feel hard and thick.

George and his wife Alice flew to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in
Chicago last month for pretesting to determine if he was a good
candidate for the procedure. The procedure involves taking stem cells
from his bone marrow and harvesting them while also taking large doses
of chemotherapy to cleanse his immune system before the stem cells are
put back into his body to grow.

Let us say a prayer that George gets some relief from scleroderma!

Before I begin this entry, I want to give my sincere apology to any of my readers that I have abandoned over the last several months. For many reasons I was unable to blog. And it always weighed heavily on my mind. A fight is gearing up in my state on assisted suicide and I have been trying to get myself ready to speak out on that issue. Also I have acute seasonal affective disorder that sometimes just makes it hard to get dressed in the morning. I need to move back to California!!!

Now that it is 2008, I have vowed to keep on keeping on as best I can. So I am starting with a relatively easy one, autism.

There has been much hoopla about what causes autism, is it genetic? Is it caused by a reaction to routine vaccinations?

The signs are pointing to genetics as a cause. In my very limited experience with austism genetic testing, my lab tests two genes that has been shown to cause autism (MECP2 and Fragile X), I finally had an "Ah-Ha!" moment. Mutations in MECP2, which is on the X chromosome, do not start rearing their ugly heads until a girl (boys don't usually survive full-term) is around 9 to 12 months. So parents have a normal child and then all of a sudden she begins to digress and starts showing signs of autism or Retts syndrome. That is also the very time she is getting her vaccinations. I am no expert on the issue, but it seems to me that blaming vaccinations would be an easy mistake to make.

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that autism has a genetic component. From US News and World Report:

On Thursday, scientists reported that 1 percent of people with
autism share a variation on chromosome 16. Several other genes have
been previously implicated in autism, but this study in the New England Journal of Medicine is the first to find a consistent genetic variation in such large numbers of people....

"This finding really nails it," says Andrew Zimmerman, director of
medical research at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at the
Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore....

Until now, about 10 percent of autism cases have had a known cause,
like Fragile X syndrome or congenital rubella. With this extra 1
percent now explained, that leaves another 89 percent to go.

The upshot? Do not fail to vaccinate your children just because you think it might cause autism. You may be doing their health a disservice.

In the next few decades, you as consumers will be inundated with genome services that will claim that they sequence your genome and then can tell your future bases on your genes.  Is it a scan or a scam?

Read Dr. Lei's The New England Journal of Medicine Gives Direct-to-Consumer Genome Scans Thumbs Down at Eye on DNA.