Vatican Denounces Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Fertilisation Treatments

Wednesday last week Declan was diagnosed with a viral infection in the Royal London Hospital and is only now starting to recover. He got it while we were snoozing in the doorway of an unused building as we waited for 1.00am to bed down in our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch. The previous blog gives a brief account of some of the events of late, so I won’t repeat myself. Of course we are still being told, pretty much every working night now, to stay away until 1.00am due to there being a “function” (we get up at 4.20am M-F; 6.20am on weekends), and on Monday we were again hosed out of the pitch. The company that owns the building is a Livery Company – a self-contained society with a strong commitment to charitable causes; it also plays an important part in the system of local government in the City of London, reflecting its historical roots (see www.heraldicmedia.com). In fact, communications started out cordial between us and employees: the company not only fund raises for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 587 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates, despite months of serious spamming), but run a project for the homeless.

Press conference on bioethics at the Vatican on Friday

In its most authoritative declaration on bioethics for more than 20 years, the Vatican on Friday reinforced its hostility to a wide range of techniques and treatments that have become available in recent decades, said The Guardian. They included IVF, embryonic stem cell research, the morning-after pill and the contraceptive drug mifepristone. The 36-page document endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI also condemns the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos – demanded by researchers looking to cure diseases because of a shortage of human eggs – which is now legal in the UK thanks to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

The document stopped short of declaring that human embryos were people, according to The Guardian. The pope’s chief adviser on bioethical issues, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, told a press conference that such a declaration would have embroiled the Vatican in a “very complex philosophical debate”. But, he said, the document fully backed the idea that a human embryo had the “dignity typical of a person”. And he noted this was an “advance” on the position taken in the Vatican’s last high-level pronouncement, its 1987 instruction entitled Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life).

The formulation in its latest document, Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person) comes close to equating with murder such practices as the destruction of defective embryos in IVF, said The Guardian. On one issue – what to do with frozen, “orphan” embryos – the Vatican admitted it was flummoxed. Dignitas Personae rules out every apparent solution: their destruction, their donation to infertile couples and their use for therapeutic or experimental purposes. It said that proposals for the adoption of unwanted embryos were “praiseworthy in intention”, but fraught with problems.

Fisichella’s predecessor as president of the Pontifical Pro-life Academy, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, said: “Our basic advice is that the freezing [of the embryos] ought not to be done.” It created “a blind alley”; a situation “the correction of which implies another mistake”. Neither he nor any of the other Vatican officials at the presentation would venture an opinion on what they considered the lesser evil.

According to The Guardian, the document otherwise restates the Catholic church’s opposition to abortifacient forms of contraception, or those it regards as such. These include the world’s most widely used method of reversible contraception, the intrauterine device (IUD) or coil. Dignitas Personae said most forms of artificial fertilisation were “to be excluded” on the grounds that they replaced “the conjugal act” as a means of reproduction. And it said pre-implantation diagnosis during IVF, in which embryos are examined for defects or to determine gender or other characteristics, was “shameful and utterly reprehensible”.

Saying life was sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, the document also defended the Catholic church’s right to intervene on such matters. It accepted, however, that Catholic parents, especially in the US, might have no alternative to having their children inoculated with vaccines produced with cells from aborted foetuses. It also stressed that stem cell research “should be encouraged” if the tissue is obtained from adults, umbilical cord blood or foetuses that have died naturally (Hooper, The Guardian, 13/12).

Thomas Murray of the Hastings Center told the Washington Post
that the guide “is significant in the sense that the church has now laid down a marker on these important issues … The church has now dug in and committed itself to an official position.”

The document has drawn criticism from many groups, said the Washington Post. “The Vatican’s statement on bioethics shows that it is once again on the wrong side of science and the needs of contemporary society,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. Infertility doctors and stem cell researchers defended their efforts. “It has contributed to the quality of life of patients and families through the improved ability to have children, which clearly is a worthwhile goal and a focus of many couples in their life goals,” said Robert Brzyski of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Said George Daley of the International Society for Stem Cell Research: “Cells are not people and embryos are not people, and my first responsibility as a physician is to patients – not cells in a petri dish.”

Steven Pinker, world-renowned thinker and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (and an honorary associate of NAC and early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning), argues in a piece in The New Republic titled “The Stupidity of Dignity” (posted 28 May) that the concept of dignity is natural ground on which to build an obstructionist bioethics. “An alleged breach of dignity provides a way for third parties to pass judgment on actions that are knowingly and willingly chosen by the affected individuals,” he writes. “It thus offers a moralistic justification for expanded government regulation of science, medicine, and private life. And the Church’s franchise to guide people in the most profound events of their lives – birth, death, and reproduction – is in danger of being undermined when biomedicine scrambles the rules. It’s not surprising, then, that ‘dignity’ is a recurring theme in Catholic doctrine: The word appears more than 100 times in the 1997 edition of the Catechism and is a leitmotif in the Vatican’s recent pronouncements on biomedicine” (see blog of 23 May “The Stupidity of Dignity”).

Hosed out of our sleeping pitch

Mike Di Scipio in a billboard he posted in New York City, 2004

As I said in the blog of 4 December “Charis Thompson: Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation”, last Wednesday we learnt that the place where Declan gets his breakfast every weekday and I get my food for the day, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, is closed this week Monday to Wednesday, a first in over two years; and that I am pretty much on red alert: for example, two days after the date on a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that Declan’s case would be dealt with “as soon as practicable”, our main bag, containing all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see blog of 20 June “Letter from the European Court of Human Rights”). My eyes have been particularly on our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch.

I’m afraid I could hardly be more spot-on: in addition to being told on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday night to stay away until 1.00am due to there being a “function” (we get up at 4.20am M-F; 6.20am on weekends), this morning I was convinced Declan and I were heading for the local City of London police station to seek to make a statement in respect of the hosing of our property by a cleaner at 4.30am this morning. We don’t disturb or obstruct anybody; nevertheless, as soon as we got up two cleaners came out of the building: one threw a bucket of water down the steps, and shortly after, the other, for twenty minutes, hosed around us, spraying both me and our bags in the process (by the time we had packed to leave, the approximately four-inch deep gulley on two sides of us was almost overflowing). In over two years as rough sleepers we have never experienced anything like it; the closest was on 9 June when, under the watchful eye of a City of London police officer who had just threatened us with arrest if we did not “move on”, two cleaners from the City of London’s Cleansing service washed around our groundsheet, water pouring down the two steps of the porch onto the pavement (see blog of 9 June “Letter to the City of London Police Commissioner”).

We find it all a bit odd, especially since communications started out cordial between us and employees: we were visited by an employee within days, and on three occasions within the first two weeks we were given food. Also, according to the website of the company that owns the building, they are well respected and not only fund raise for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 587 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

However, even if we had gone to the police station, we would still be back in the place tonight: on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). And I don’t have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged out of the porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June). Since we have no option but to be in the street (see blog of 21 October “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”), we prefer to be at the back of a building, off the streets; though it seems not everyone shares this preference with us.

I mentioned in the previous blog that I believe there is a link between the little sleep we have been getting since Wednesday (and now the hosing) and the work I started early last week on the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). I expect the “functions”, and perhaps now also the hosing, will likely become a nightly occurrence, which is why in the previous blog I said that I am cutting my losses and concentrating exclusively on SCNT: I am putting together all the content that will be on my website in support of nuclear transfer – the blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” describes what this website will contain, including with respect to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research.

For two years we survived on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered pitches throughout the UK. As I wrote in the blog of 17 November, our Big Issue pitches have been terminated (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”); and although we can still sell the magazine on the pitches we had for two years, we have no priority whatsoever: we have to leave if the vendors to whom the pitches have been allocated come along, and not stand in on the pitches at all if a vendor is already there – the latter was experienced by Declan this evening (a first in over two weeks). The fact that we don’t have pitches any more is particularly serious for me, because I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

On the SCNT front, I was particularly interested to discover that the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee (New York) is currently discussing the financial compensation of women who donate their eggs for research - the Committee makes recommendations regarding scientific, medical and ethical standards to the ESSC Board Funding Committee which oversees and administers $600 million in funding to promote stem cell research and development in New York State; $100 million was earmarked for FY 2007-2008 and $500 million was earmarked at $50 million per year for ten years beginning in FY 2008-2009. The minutes of the Committee’s meeting on 4 September reveals that Franciscan Friar Daniel Sulmasy, Professor of Medicine and Director of the Bioethics Institute of New York Medical College, “questioned whether New York State should go out on a limb and be the first to explicitly allow compensation of egg donors for research”. He also suggested that the Committee “should return to its discussions about the embryo and the unresolved issue of what the Committee means by ‘respect for the embryo’.” The Committee’s upcoming meeting is scheduled for 26 January.

On red alert

As I said in yesterday’s blog “Charis Thompson: Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation”, on Wednesday morning we learnt that the place where Declan gets his breakfast every weekday and I get my food for the day, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, is closed next week Monday to Wednesday, a first in over two years; and that I am pretty much on red alert: for example, two days after the date on a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that Declan’s case would be dealt with “as soon as practicable”, our main bag, containing all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see blog of 20 June “Letter from the European Court of Human Rights”). My eyes have been particularly on our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch.

I’m afraid I am spot-on: in addition to being told on Wednesday night to stay away until 1.00am due to there being a “function”, last night we were told exactly the same and the guy so effectively communicated how funny it is that we get up at 4.20am (6.20am on weekends) that I am convinced this is going to be a nightly occurrence. On 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).

I believe there is a link between us getting a maximum of three hours sleep for the past two nights and the work I have being doing this week on therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). As I wrote in Tuesday’s blog “Egg shortage hits race to clone human stem cells”, I am Googling leading bioethicist, Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University, Ohio – in a Nature commentary titled “Fair payment or undue inducement?” he calls for women to be paid to donate eggs for stem cell research on the same basis that research participants are compensated for taking part in other medical research; unfortunately you need to make a payment to read the commentary.

Because we are getting so little sleep, I am cutting my losses and concentrating exclusively on SCNT: I am putting together all the content that will be on my website in support of nuclear transfer – the blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” describes what this website will contain, including with respect to human embryonic stem (hES) cell research. Among the resources on SCNT that I am assembling is a 2007 report by the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, stating: “Financial compensation of women donating eggs for infertility therapy or for research is justified on ethical grounds.” Also the testimony of scientists before legislators in Massachusetts (2005) and California (2006) will be high on my list of experts calling for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer (Kaplan, Los Angeles Times, 13/9/06).

On our other SCNT front, Declan’s email inviting scientists and academics to sign his petition to the UN is still very much in the firing line. The issue of spam was dealt with in the blog of 18 November, including that on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith; and that the NAC website was suspended on 8 March, three days after the Home Office denied there was a warrant to intercept his communications. Including the 70 emails I sent yesterday to the Department of Cell & Tissue Biology at University of California San Francisco (which yielded zero out-of-office autoreplies), this week from a total of 318 emails there has been one signature – last week, it was two signatures from 661 emails; three weeks ago, two signatures from 640 emails; and five weeks ago, one signature from 1,072 emails. All the more reason to concentrate on the contents of our SCNT campaign.

Charis Thompson: Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation

Yesterday morning we learnt that the place where Declan gets his breakfast every weekday and I get my food for the day, the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, is closed next week Monday to Wednesday – a first in over two years. I am pretty much on red alert: for example, two days after the date on a letter from the European Court of Human Rights advising that Declan’s case would be dealt with “as soon as practicable”, our main bag, containing all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see blog of 20 June “Letter from the European Court of Human Rights”).

Primarily, I have my eyes on our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch. Last Friday, we were told that we couldn’t bed down due to there being a “function” and had to stay away until 1.00am (see blog “Threatened with arrest”); and on 14 November dim bulbs in the spotlights above us were replaced with very powerful ones (see blog “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”). I, in particular, don’t need to be reminded that on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).

I am right to be on alert: last night we had to again stay away until 1.00am due to a “function” – we get up at 4.20am M-F (6.20am on weekends) so we got less than three hours sleep. If all it takes to deprive us of sleep is some lights in the building and a couple of cars in the courtyard, I may very well take a stand and politely request they call the police, especially since we do not obstruct or disturb anyone. On 26 February police officer 9191 referred to me in our local train station as “a piece of shit” that should be put away (see blog of 1 March “Interception of communications”); after two years surviving in the street, I could still end up being put away.

And the emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells? Well, the vast majority of them are still being dumped into spam boxes: yesterday and the day before I sent a total of 248 emails which yielded three out-of-office autoreplies and just one signatory – to date the petition has been signed by 587 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

An expected to be of high quality egg from a 32 year old woman

As I wrote in the blog of 26 November “Therapeutic cloning offers hope of treatment for Parkinson’s”, a chief objective of our campaign in support of therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), is to propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer. I am still Googling leading bioethicist Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University, Ohio – in a Nature commentary he called for women to be paid to donate eggs for stem cell research on the same basis that research participants are compensated for taking part in other medical research; we want to make his argument central to our campaign for nuclear transfer. I am also reading the 4 September meeting minutes of the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee (New York) because they mention the payment issue – the Committee makes recommendations regarding scientific, medical and ethical standards to the ESSC Board Funding Committee which oversees and administers $600 million in funding to promote stem cell research and development in New York State.

Meanwhile, I have come across an argument from Charis Thompson, who is an associate professor in the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies at University of California Berkeley Stem Cell Center. The research article summary (published 27 February 2007): “Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation”, reads:

In this perspective, I shall argue that women who donate eggs solely for human embryonic stem cell research ought to be compensated. My argument rests on three inter-related principles. First, it is important to recruit the healthiest possible egg donors to minimize the risks of donation. This would relieve pressure to donate on those suffering from diseases that might be treatable with stem cell-based therapies, who are likely to be at greater risk from donation. Second, I believe that it is crucial to be pro-active in building representative stem cell banks, especially in stem cell initiatives paid for, in part, by the public/government. The right of all groups to participate in and benefit from equitable and safe research must be developed for egg donors as for other kinds of research participants. Particular attention should be paid to the opinions and desires of women from historically underserved populations as to how to conduct donations and guide research so as to serve all members of society. Third, reasonable payment would undermine tendencies for domestic and international black and grey egg markets for stem cell research to develop. I then suggest replacing the question of compensation with the question of harm mitigation as the central donor protection issue.

Robert Steinbrook, a New England Journal of Medicine national correspondent, says in an article titled “Egg Donation and Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Research” that it is “inconsistent to compensate subjects for undergoing certain invasive procedures but not others or to allow compensation for egg donation for reproductive purposes but not for research.” He points out that the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine cites an estimate that egg donors spend “56 hours in the medical setting, undergoing interviews, counseling, and medical procedures related to the process”. Some bioethicists, he says, argue that egg donors should be compensated – on the basis of the time and discomfort associated with the process, not the number and quality of the eggs that are produced.

According to Bonnie Steinbock, a professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Albany who has studied egg donation, in the absence of a consensus that no egg donor should be compensated, payment for donations for research is ethically acceptable. In an interview, Steinbock explained: “Any time that we ask people to do things that impose significant burdens and some degree of risk, fairness may require that they be adequately compensated. At the same time, there’s a general consensus that it would be improper to offer enormous sums of money to egg donors that could sway their judgment” (Steinbrook, NEJM, 26/1/06).

Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying that participants in other kinds of biomedical research are compensated for their time, inconvenience and rigors of participating. So why, she asks, should egg donors be treated any differently? There are ways to guard against exploitation of vulnerable women, she said. One would be for local boards that oversee research to make sure that donors are recruited from a wide variety of groups rather than just the economically disadvantaged, she said. And limits can be set on the number of times any one woman can participate, she said (Ritter, Washington Post, 20/1/07).

Egg shortage hits race to clone human stem cells

Human embryo clone, used for stem cell research

In October, the research community in the UK won over a majority of the public and convinced Parliament to approve some of the most permissive embryonic stem (ES) cell research provisions in the world, said Nature Reports Stem Cells. Speaking this July at the European Science Open Forum in Barcelona, Spain, Stephen Minger, director of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory at King’s College London (and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning), said UK researchers had overcome fierce opposition by being at the front of the national debate over legislation governing human stem cell research.

Having been passed into law on 13 November, the updated Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill expands the existing regulatory framework to include, among other provisions, four new types of human-animal hybrid embryos. Hybrid embryos are created by inserting the nuclei of a human cell into an empty animal egg. They are a tool for generating disease-specific embryonic stem cells without the need to use donated human eggs; the cells will not be used in patients, but be used to model diseases in the lab, test new therapies and study cloning processes. Human-animal embryo research can ensure a more plentiful supply of stem cells for use in research into treating conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Speaking in Barcelona, Lord Norman Warner, a former health minister in the UK government, recalled denunciations from the nation’s pulpits and said the bill’s final stages were delayed to avoid upsetting Catholic voters before a series of important by-elections. Nevertheless, he said, a clear majority of the public – once they were aware of the bill’s aims – backed the government against attacks by organised religion and what he called “dialogues of the deaf”. An open letter to the government supporting the bill was signed by representatives of 223 medical organisations and charities. “They were quite happy to meddle with nature because they weren’t happy about what nature was doing to afflict those near and dear to them,” Warner said (Nelson, Nature Reports Stem Cells, 2/10).

In the US, stem-cell researchers are calling for changes to state laws that prohibit compensating women who donate eggs for research. The biggest complaints have come in California, where voters in 2004 approved $3 billion to fund stem cell research, said the American Medical News. Limits on compensation are making it hard to find women willing to undergo the time-consuming, often painful process of egg donation, which involves taking a regimen of hormone shots to stimulate oocyte (egg) production for surgical retrieval, said Samuel Wood, who is CEO of Stemagen, a private embryonic stem cell research firm in La Jolla, California. “Why would a woman take 40 injections and go through everything else involved in oocyte donation in exchange for bus fare?” Wood asked. “It’s wrong to ask women to go through this process and not pay.”

California and Massachusetts outlaw egg donor compensation that goes beyond reimbursement for direct expenses such as travel costs and lost wages. The National Academies of Science adopted similar ethical guidelines in 2005. The restrictions are justified, supporters say, because big-money payouts could induce women unduly into taking risks they otherwise would avoid. But these restrictive payment rules stand in stark contrast to the practice in fertility clinics, where the national average payment to egg donors is $4,217, according to a survey published in the May 2007 Fertility and Sterility. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine says payments of more than $10,000 are inappropriate, but highly educated and therefore highly prized egg donors have sometimes been paid much more. Clinical research subjects are usually compensated for the risks and discomfort associated with invasive procedures such as bronchoscopy or endoscopy (O'Reilly, American Medical News, 15/9).

As I wrote in the blog of 26 November “Therapeutic cloning offers hope of treatment for Parkinson’s”, a chief objective of our campaign in support of therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), is to propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer. I am currently Googling a leading bioethicist, Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University, Ohio. Hyun has called for women to be paid to donate eggs for stem cell research on the same basis that research participants are compensated for taking part in other medical research. In a Nature commentary Hyun argues that “compensation offers a reasonable way to acknowledge women’s efforts by rightly embracing oocyte providers as healthy research volunteers”.

Threatened with arrest

Last night when Declan and I arrived at our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch – we were told that we couldn’t bed down due to there being a “function” and had to stay out until 1.00am. This was a first, and had it happened on a weekday we would have got less than three hours sleep – we get up at 4.20am; weekends at 6.20am. On Monday the week before last we arrived at the pitch to find it had just been hosed down with water (see blog of 18 November “Our sleeping pitch is soaked”), and the Friday previous dim bulbs in the spotlights above us were replaced with very powerful ones (see blog of 15 November “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”). Anyway, we knew of no other place to bed down so we just knocked about in the cold, mist and rain for four hours – on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).

Nonetheless, we are staying put. We have little appetite for spending another nine hours looking for an alternative place to sleep. And I most certainly do not have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged out of the two-step porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June). Since we have no option but to be in the street (see blog of 21 October “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”), we prefer to be at the back of a building, off the streets; though it seems not everyone shares this preference with us.

The “function” came at the end of a week in which Declan’s email inviting scientists and academics to sign his petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), has been severely spammed. The issue of spam was recently dealt with in the blog of 18 November, including that on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith; and that the NAC website was suspended on 8 March, three days after the Home Office denied there was a warrant to intercept his communications. Including the 239 emails I sent yesterday to the University of Glasgow, University of Newcastle and University of California San Diego, and the 109 emails I sent on Thursday, this week from a total of 661 emails the petition has had one signature - a week ago, it was one signature from 419 emails; two weeks ago, two signatures from 640 emails; and four weeks ago, one signature from 1,072 emails. It really has no credibility that only so few would sign Declan’s petition.

Take Newcastle University. Some very renowned scientists have signed it, including Alison Murdoch, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Consultant Gynaecologist and Head of Department of Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life. Murdoch is past Chair of the British Fertility Society, the national society which represents all those involved in the provision of care for the infertile patient. According to a press release from the University, she has held a licence for embryo based research for 15 years and holds the only active nuclear transfer licence in the UK.

Murdoch co-wrote (with Sir John Gurdon, Emeritus Professor of the Department of Zoology at Cambridge University and Professor of the Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute; and another signatory of Declan’s petition) a paper in Cell Stem Cell titled “Nuclear Transfer and iPS May Work Best Together”, published 7 February, stating: “The major constraint in the development of NT [nuclear transfer] is the supply of human eggs. Not surprisingly, therefore, opponents of NT have targeted the donation process and used this as an indirect tool to stop research.” As stated in the previous blog, a chief objective of our campaign in support of SCNT is to propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer.

Therapeutic cloning offers hope of treatment for Parkinson’s

I am repeating in almost every blog that the vast majority of personalised emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). The issue of spam was recently dealt with in the blog of 18 November “Our sleeping pitch is soaked”, including that on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith; and that the NAC website was suspended on 8 March, three days after the Home Office denied there was a warrant to intercept his communications.

Anyway, yesterday I sent 246 emails to University of California San Diego (UCSD), University of Cambridge and the British Society for Cell Biology but only received five out-of-office autoreplies – 153 emails to UCSD yielded two – and, not surprisingly, only one signature. Monday was similar: 176 emails, two autoreplies – from the 99th and 100th emails – and no one signed. In fact, when I accumulate some figures from the past four weeks, we have had five signatures from the 2,553 personalised emails sent (last week it was one signature from 419 emails; two weeks ago, two signatories from 640 emails; and four weeks ago, one signature from 1,072 emails), or one signature per 510 emails – the petition to date has been signed by 585 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

For two years we survived on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered pitches throughout the UK. However, since the termination of our Big Issue pitches two weeks ago (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”), we are now restricted to the 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February (notwithstanding that we frequently experience difficulties with internet access and computer bookings in this library; see, for example, blog of 13 October “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”). It means I have had to adapt my blogs: the emphasis now is on the product of my research in the field of human embryonic stem (hES) cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), so that as soon as I have a laptop I am in a position to build within two weeks a website for our campaign in support of hES cell research and SCNT.

Stemagen's Andrew French documented the cloning of an adult human cell

The blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” includes a brief description of what this website will contain: for example, the subsection “Embryonic stem cell research” will be broken up into the associated subsections “Science”, “Law and Policy”, “Ethics” and “Applications”. For a way to develop the navigation menu I have Greenpeace International – see here; also the homepage will be loosely based on theirs. In the previous blog, I detailed the navigation menu of “Applications” for hES cell research; this same associated subsection will be simpler with respect to SCNT since a human egg shortage has greatly hampered the possibility of nuclear transfer being successful (see blog of 16 July “Therapeutic cloning: Researchers back bid to pay egg donors”).

In therapeutic cloning or SCNT, the nucleus of a somatic cell from a donor subject is inserted into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. This cell then develops into a blastocyst from which embryonic stem cells can be harvested and differentiated for therapeutic purposes. As the genetic information in the resulting stem cells comes from the donor subject, SCNT would yield subject-specific cells that are spared by the immune system after transplantation (ScienceDaily, 24/3).

Research led by investigators at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) has shown that SCNT can be used to treat Parkinson’s disease in mice, and could have future implications as this method may be an effective way to reduce transplant rejection and enhance recovery in other diseases and in other organ systems, said Medical News Today on 25 March. The work was led by Lorenz Studer, who is Head of the Stem Cell and Tumor Biology Laboratory of the Sloan-Kettering Institute of the MSKCC (and a signatory of Declan’s petition).

I am still researching the institutes, labs, and biotechnology companies that are doing SCNT, but the San Diego biotechnology company Stemagen will feature prominently in “Applications”. Stemagen, a privately held embryonic stem cell research company, announced 17 January it has become the first in the world to create, and meticulously document, a cloned human embryo by fusing a donated egg cell with the DNA from skin cell of an adult man. “No other scientific group has documented the cloning of an adult human cell, much less been able to grow it to the blastocyst stage, the stage at which the transferred adult donor cell is driving embryonic development and the stage that yields the cells from which embryonic stem cells are made,” lead researcher Andrew French (another signatory of Declan’s petition) told Reuters Health. The company’s work is a major step toward creating embryonic stem cell lines from cloned human embryos, or cells that are specific to one person and capable of evolving into the 200 different cell types in the body, said The San Diego Union-Tribune.

But six months after the company’s success, when the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine was handing out $23 million in research grants, Stemagen’s application was denied, said Voice of San Diego. Sam Wood, the company’s chief executive, said the main reason the agency cited for the denial was the lack of a guarantee that enough eggs would be available for the research. “I'm hoping there will be a rising up of public opinion here,” he said. “If there’s not a change, this research will move to New York”, where new guidelines for a $600 million stem cell research program may allow payment for eggs. “It’s clear that without having access to resources, in this case human oocytes [eggs], we cannot move forward,” Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the University of Oregon told the Union-Tribune. Mitalipov led the only team known to have successfully conducted therapeutic cloning using monkey cells.

A chief objective of our campaign in support of SCNT is to expose that egg-payment bans are stymieing this promising avenue of research, and consequently the issue of payment for eggs will feature prominently on the website’s homepage; specifically, we will propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer.

Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

UCSF Foundation panel discussion held on Thursday

As I wrote in the previous blog “Bishop: Oppose embryonic stem cell research”, applications of human embryonic stem (hES) cell research will be central to the website that I will build for our campaign in support of hES cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – together with the institutes, labs and people involved. According to a recent report by the nonpatisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan, many scientists believe that hES cells have the potential to benefit medicine in many ways, including helping scientists understand the complex events that occur during early human development, testing and screening new medications, and providing therapies for previously incurable diseases. Albeit there is much to learn about how to grow and control ES cells and prevent them being rejected, before they are likely to be widely used.

Potential Benefits. Studying ES cells may give scientists a better understanding of early human cell development and the role that genes play in that development. This is an area of research where adult stem cells cannot replace the potential of ES cells. Studying early cell development may help scientists understand how genetic mutations affect normal cell development; how infectious agents invade and attack human cells; how genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of birth defects, cancer, and other diseases; and what happens to cells during normal aging. A better understanding of these processes may suggest new strategies for therapy.

ES cells may be useful in testing new medications much in the same way that cancer cell lines are currently used to screen potential anti-tumor drugs. ES cells may provide a valuable source of human cells for drug testing without risking the health of animal or human test subjects. Further research may allow scientists to produce cell lines with certain genetic qualities in order to test potential treatments. ES cells could also help scientists to identify and understand the effects of toxic substances found in drugs, food, and the environment. ES cells are viewed as important to testing medications and toxins because they are easier to grow and maintain in the laboratory than adult stem cells. If realised, this potential benefit would likely make drug discovery more efficient and cost effective.

ES cells have potential for use in cell-based therapies. ES cells are believed to have more potential than adult stem cells because of their pluripotency, their capacity to become virtually any other kind of cell. ES cells can be controlled and differentiated into specific cell types and offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases and injuries, including neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, Multiple Sclerosis, cerebrovascular accidents, spinal cord injuries, as well as heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and others. For example, in patients with Type I Diabetes, the cells of the pancreas that normally produce insulin are destroyed by the patient’s immune system. Scientists have made progress transforming ES cells into insulin-producing cells. Geron reported in 2007 that hES cells could be transformed into the pancreatic cells that produce insulin, offering the potential to treat diabetes. On 23 October, Cellartis, which specialises in hES cells, announced a collaboration with Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk to program stem cells to turn into insulin-producing beta cells that can be used for the treatment of diabetes.

The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches. As I wrote in the blog of 17 November, our Big Issue pitches have been terminated (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”) and I have had to adapt my blogs because we are restricted to the free 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February. Declan tells me that the litmus test for a successful blog is one that I will revert to myself for information as soon as I have a laptop to build our campaign website.

The blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” includes a brief description of what this website will contain: the subsection “Embryonic stem cell research”, for example, will be broken up into the associated subsections “Science”, “Law and Policy”, “Ethics” and “Applications”. “Applications” will lay out the range of research possibilities created by ES cells, so it will be divided into the three areas of potential benefit cited above: provisionally named “Early cell development”, “Drug discovery and toxicity studies”, and “Treatments and cures”.

“Treatments and cures”, for example, will include “Heart disease”, “Neurodegenerative disease”, “Diabetes” and “Cancer”. For a way to develop the navigation menu I have Greenpeace International – see here; also the homepage will be loosely based on theirs. We are hopeful that stem cell scientists, researchers and physicians in the field of biomedical research, as well as bioethicists and law professors who study issues surrounding embryonic and other stem cell research, may be willing to advise us – the ultimate aim in this regard would be to have a scientific advisory board that would be supplementary to our Board of Trustees and Honorary Associates.

The role of ES cell research in economic development will also be addressed in “Applications”. For example, drugs giant Pfizer is to spend $100m to research stem cells, reports Pharmalot. Over the next five years, Pfizer Regenerative Medicine will be co-located in the biotech hubs of Cambridge, Massachusetts in the United States and Cambridge, UK. It will work with both ES cells and adult stem cells to treat heart disease, diabetes, cancer and vision loss common among the elderly (see Pfizer statement). According to the website for the 2008 World Stem Cell Summit, regenerative medicine and stem cell technologies are projected to become a $500 billion industry over the next 20 years.

Bishop: Oppose embryonic stem cell research

The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches. As I wrote in the blog of 17 November, our Big Issue pitches have been terminated (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”); and although we can still sell the magazine on the pitches we had for two years, we have no priority whatsoever: we have to leave if the vendors to whom the pitches have been allocated come along, and not stand in on the pitches at all if a vendor is already there – the latter has been experienced by Declan for two days now. The fact that we don’t have pitches any more is particularly serious for me, because I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

The vast majority of emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are still being dumped to spam boxes. In fact, as I explained in the blog of 18 November “Our sleeping pitch is soaked”, the spamming is quite severe. Yesterday, I only received six out-of-office autoreplies from 320 emails; on Wednesday, it was one from 99 emails. No surprise then that only one scientist signed from 419 emails - last week it was two signatories from 640 emails; three weeks ago, one signatory from 1,072 emails. The petition to date has been signed by 584 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

James Thomson at Tuesday’s 10-year celebration of his hESC breakthrough

I have also written that since the termination of our Big Issue pitches, I have had to adapt my blogs because we are now restricted to the free 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February. Emphasis now is on the product of my research so that as soon as I have a laptop I am in a position to build within two weeks a website for our campaign in support of embryonic stem (ES) cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Applications will be central to this website; also the institutes, labs and people involved. For a way to develop the navigation menu I have Greenpeace International – see here; also the homepage will be loosely based on theirs (for more about the campaign website, see blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?”).

My thinking behind this website is that once the general public is exposed to the work of scientists and clinicians, the funding their work attracts and the potential for clinical cures and therapies for debilitating diseases and disorders, the misinformation and fear that the Catholic church and conservative evangelical groups continue to spread will be seen straight through. A recent statement written by Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw, Michigan to Catholic voters on Proposal 2, the amendment to the Michigan Constitution allowing research on embryos that were created for fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded, serves as an example. “Because it is scientifically unnecessary, because it goes too far and because it is based on reprehensible moral principles, I call on all Catholics in the Diocese of Saginaw to oppose Proposal 2,” the Bishop wrote. His statement also asserted that the use of adult stem cells “has already played a role in the treatment and cure of over 70 types of diseases” (a claim that has been widely discredited), and that the use of embryonic stem cells “has resulted in zero treatments or cures.” Not only was Proposal 2 approved, but Detroit News exit polling showed 56 percent of voters who identified themselves as Catholic supported the measure – overall the measure passed by a 53-47 margin.

Scientists generally agree it’s crucial to push forward rapidly in all three key areas of stem cell research: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and induced pluripotent (or “reprogrammed”) stem cells. Around the world, these three kinds of stem cells are under intense study for possible treatments for conditions from spinal cord injuries to juvenile diabetes. Scientists argue that it would be shortsighted to pursue only one kind because each may hold particular promise for understanding and treating specific diseases. Results in one area of research will continue to shed light on work in the others. The capacity of embryonic stem cells to turn into virtually any other kind of cell obviously gives them the most potential for organ and tissue replacement (ScienceDaily, 14/10).

Doctors transplant windpipe with stem cells

The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches. Given the termination of our Big Issue pitches (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”), we are pretty much unable to keep our account in the local internet café (£3 for seven hours) going and are now restricted to the 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February. I have had to adapt my blogs accordingly: the emphasis now is on the product of my research into the field of human embryonic stem (hES) cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – conferences, news, reports, discoveries and applications, major research institutions throughout world, joint international efforts, bloggers, etc – so that as soon as I have a laptop I am in a position to build within two weeks a website for our campaign in support of hES cell research and SCNT.

Claudia Castillo received trachea grown from her own cells

British newspapers report this morning that surgeons replaced the damaged windpipe of Claudia Castillo, a 30-year-old mother of two, with one created from bone marrow stem cells grown in a laboratory at Bristol University – Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning has had 11 signings from Bristol University, and would have a lot more if the vast majority of emails I send to scientists and academics on his behalf were not going to spam boxes, or to cyberspace (see previous blog; on the subject: yesterday, after I posted the blog, I sent 163 emails to the United States, received two out-of office autoreplies, and not unsurprisingly no one signed – to date the petition has been signed by 583 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates).

Britain’s top stem cell expert, Professor Stephen Minger of King’s College London (an early signatory of Declan’s petition) told the Evening Standard that the cutting-edge collaboration, involving doctors from Spain, the UK and Italy, was hugely important for future disease treatments. As the first scientist in the UK to grow human embryonic stem cells, he said: “This is a lovely example of how basic stem cell biology continues to yield new, exciting and clinically important treatments. I commend this international research team for such a co-ordinated and successful treatment approach.”

Professor Colin Blakemore of Oxford University, a former chief executive of the UK Medical Research Council (and another signatory of Declan’s petition), has a piece in today’s Times titled “An event that might really deserve to be called a breakthrough”. He writes that advances such as this trachea transplant “are the kind of encouragement that we need to have hope that stem cells and tissue engineering will eventually deliver the promised revolution in medical treatment”. Commenting on hES cell research, he writes: “At the much earliest steps on the ladder to treatment, researchers are now trying to grow entire organs – hearts, kidneys, pancreases – from embryonic stem cells, in test tube conditions. The capacity of embryonic stem cells to turn into virtually any other kind of cell obviously gives them the most potential for organ and tissue replacement. But there is much to learn about how to grow and control them and prevent them being rejected, before they are likely to be widely used.”

In the United States, the Wisconsin State Journal reports today that last week, President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team named a prominent University Wisconsin-Madison researcher - Alta Charo, a bioethicist and law professor who studies issues surrounding embryonic and other stem-cell research – to a panel reviewing federal health policy, including funding hES cell research. Obama has pledged to lift federal restrictions on the research. USA Today comments that Obama “could reignite an emotional national debate over the promise and the perils of medical research using cells taken from human embryos”. It adds: “The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is warning that Obama will alienate millions, and abortion opponents are bracing for a fight.”

Yesterday I had the time to google the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, an alliance of four San Diego research powerhouses: University of California, San Diego, The Burnham Institute, The Salk Institute and The Scripps Research Institute. The consortium renamed itself in September, after announcing a $30 million donation from South Dakota philanthropist T Denny Sanford. Sanford’s funding has been combined with a $43 million grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to build a four-story facility on North Torrey Pines Mesa for research in regenerative medicine. The new research center is expected to be open by 2010, with groundbreaking set to begin this January. The Consortium coordinated a one-day forum on 7 November at the Salk Institute which attracted several hundred biomedical researchers (Bruce Bigelow reported on the event on Xconomy and Science Network says that videos of the event will be available on its website soon).

Our sleeping pitch is soaked

As I reported in the previous blog, yesterday The Big Issue
Head Office – The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches – confirmed that our pitches have been terminated, after two years of us surviving on the streets of London by selling the magazine from the same registered pitches and despite Declan’s email letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”). This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

Then last night we arrived at the place we sleep at night – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch – to find it had been hosed down with water (this is a first for us in over two years of sleeping rough). It has only been a few days since we found out that dim bulbs in the spotlights above us had been replaced with very powerful ones (see blog of 15 November “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”), and two weeks since we were at the other end of a cleaner with a hose as we were about to leave at 5.00am (see blog of 3 November “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). Anyway, equipped with a scrubbing brush and a shower curtain, we stayed put because the night we decided to sleep elsewhere, on 10 September, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).

A matter of particular concern to us is how many of the emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are actually getting through: we are under no illusion that the vast majority are being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). Yesterday, I only received seven out-of-office autoreplies from 226 emails. Hardly surprising we only got one signature (last week it was two signatories from 640 emails; three weeks ago, one signatory from 1,072 emails). Back in February I expressed concern that my emails were not getting through (see blog of 16 February “Declan’s petition to the UN is being brought to a halt”). In fact, on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith, regarding interception of communications; the Home Office replied on 5 March denying that any such warrant was issued; and on 8 March the NAC website was suspended due to spam as reported via SpamCop (see blog of 14 March “SpamCop reports Declan as a spammer”).

Although the NAC website will not be uploaded again – as I announced in August, we are trying to raise the £450 we need to buy a laptop to build a website for an international campaign in support of human embryonic stem (hES) cell research and therapeutic cloning – this is a snag of what the “Recent News” page looked like before it was suspended (the NAC website was built long ago, around the beginning of 2005, and what was then termed “liberal reforms strongly rejected by the Vatican and the Christian Right” has become “the scientific perspective on public policy issues”):

Our Big Issue pitches are terminated

This morning, The Big Issue Head Office – The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches – confirmed that our pitches have been terminated, after two years of us having survived on the streets of London by selling the magazine from the same registered pitches and despite Declan’s email letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”). This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

It also means that it is highly likely that Declan will be unable to keep our account in the local internet café (£3 for seven hours) going, so it seems we will be restricted to the 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February, despite that for several months previous we were given “additional time” subject to computer availability and in accordance with the council’s then and current “Idea Stores PC Usage Policy”. Notwithstanding that, we frequently experience difficulties with internet access and computer bookings in this library (see, for example, blog of 13 October “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”).

With such restrictions, I now have to adapt my blog. Up to today I have been selecting themes in embryonic stem (ES) cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and developing each with reference to news, articles, and/or opinion pieces from leading scientists and academics. From now on it will be about researching everything that is going on in the field in ES cell research – conferences, news, reports, discoveries and applications, major research institutions throughout world, joint international efforts, bloggers, etc – and producing blogs with links that will serve as an interesting source of material.

Declan tells me that the litmus test for a successful blog is one that I will revert to myself for information as soon as I have a laptop – to build within two weeks a website for our campaign in support of ES cell research and SCNT. The blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” includes a brief description of what this website will contain: for example, the subsection “Embryonic stem cell research” will be broken up into the associated subsections “Science”, “Law and Policy”, “Ethics” and “Applications”.

Criticising the restrictions introduced in August 2001 by President George W Bush that prevent federally funded researchers from working on all but a few sources of embryonic stem cells, Robert Lanza - chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology, a stem cell company in Worcester, Massachusetts (and a signatory of Declan’s petition) – told New Scientist: “We’ve been operating for the past decade with one hand tied behind our back.” This is exactly the way Declan and I are being forced to operate. We believe though that we can work this situation to our advantage, and are quite excited at the prospect of doing so.

Our sleeping pitch is targeted

In yesterday’s blog I wrote that for two days a cleaner has been arriving at the place we sleep in at night at 4.00am, twenty minutes before we get up – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch – and when yesterday he came out with a hose to fill a bucket of water above us as we were packing to leave, we wondered if we were in for at least the wetting we got on 3 November (see blog “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). Alas, when last night we returned to the sleeping pitch we found that the dim bulbs in the spotlights above us had been replaced with very powerful ones. The down-light is so bright it feels like sleeping under the search light of a low-flying police helicopter.

We find it all a bit odd, especially since communications started out cordial between us and employees: we were visited by an employee within days, and on three occasions we have been given food. Also, according to the website of the company that owns the building, they are well respected and not only fund raise for science education (Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells has been signed by 581 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

Nonetheless, we are staying put. We have little appetite for spending another nine hours looking for an alternative place to sleep. And I most certainly do not have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged out of the two-step porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June).

As I stated in yesterday’s blog, we will seek to make a statement in our local police station should this situation get out of hand. Of course, in addition to washing us out with a hose, there is always the option of soaking the shelter to ensure we can’t bed down. In the latter instance, we are undecided if we will sleep anywhere nearby for the night and, should the police insist we move on, I take the arrest as I did on 11 September (see blog “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). As I stated in the blog of 13 September “Letter from the City of London Police”, I am well prepared to have the legality of such an arrest tested under the Human Rights Act 1998, and even on appeal, if necessary.

Arthur Caplan: Obama election signals change in stem cell fight

The vast majority of emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are still being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). Yesterday, I only received nine out-of-office autoreplies from 314 emails: for example, 80 emails to the European Network of Cancer Registries yielded three autoreplies; 43 to the University of California San Francisco, just two. From 138 emails I didn’t receive a single autoreply: 51 were sent to the University of Wisconsin Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Center and 87 to the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. Hardly surprising no one signed. In fact, this week I have sent a total of 640 emails, which have resulted in just one signature (two weeks ago, it took 1,072 emails for the same result). We really have little option in this situation other than to play the odds and get off as many emails as we can in the hope that a few get through - the petition has so far been signed by 580 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates.

For the last two days a cleaner has been arriving at the place we sleep in at night at 4.00am, twenty minutes before we get up - since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps (prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch). This morning this guy was outside the building as we were packing and, when he reappeared with a hose to fill his bucket, we wondered if we were in for at least the wetting we got on 3 November (see blog “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). We are again keeping our fingers crossed for this weekend in the Catholic Manna Centre, where Declan was assaulted on 19 June (see blog “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”); and should this cleaner get out of hand on Monday morning we will seek to make a statement in the local police station, which should make for some interesting online writing.

Caplan speaking at a European Commission conference (Brussels) in 2004

We believe that the momentum is swinging behind Declan’s petition and what will be our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In the US, the election of President-elect Barack Obama “signals a shift in the bioethics debate,” writes Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics of the University of Pennsylvania, in an MSNBC.com opinion piece. (Caplan is one of the world’s most quoted medical ethicists - and one of the first signatories of Declan’s petition.)

According to Caplan, last week’s US presidential election will be remembered for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics, including embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights. Caplan writes that the failure of state ballot initiatives that aimed to restrict abortion rights signals that the abortion debate may be subsiding, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, are emerging. In addition, he argues, the election of President-elect Obama has brought the fight over embryonic stem cell research in the US “to an end”, because Obama has pledged to lift federal restrictions on the research.

Caplan points out that the passage of Michigan’s Proposal 2 – allowing research on embryos that were created for fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded – means that 10 states now have laws permitting embryonic stem cell research. “These 10 are likely to be the recipients of an executive order that the new president will undoubtedly sign shortly after taking office, freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research while laying out new regulatory guidelines,” Caplan writes. He adds: “Many, including myself, would argue that the ongoing debate over the morality of stem cell research is really just a stalking horse for the abortion debate.” And efforts to further restrict abortion did not fare well at the ballot box, with voters in South Dakota and California both rejecting efforts to restrict abortion rights, Caplan notes. In addition, a Colorado ballot measure that would have defined a fertilised egg as a person with constitutional rights failed by a measure of three to one.

“Taken all together, this series of votes represents an important moment in public bioethics in America,” Caplan writes. “Like it or not – and I am well aware that many are not ready to let go of these issues – the nation may be starting to move past the endless battles over stem cells, embryos and abortion.” He argues that embryonic stem cell research is advancing, embryos are not going to be given legal status as persons and further restrictions on abortion are unlikely. As these issues fade from the spotlight, how Americans die and treat painful medical conditions will emerge as the dominant bioethical debate (Caplan, MSNBC.com, 6/11).

Right to Life and the Michigan Catholic Conference – two longtime powerhouse cultural warriors in state politics – underwent a rugged and uncustomary Election Day, said The Detroit News. They watched a ballot proposal they had feverishly championed with millions of dollars go down to defeat. And many anti-abortion candidates fell to abortion-rights advocates.

“It was probably the worst night Right to Life has had in Michigan in a couple of decades,” Bill Ballenger, a former state senator and publisher of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, told The Detroit News. “And the Catholic Church hierarchy has to be embarrassed that the church spent $5 million in a failed effort to defeat a ballot proposal to ease embryonic stem cell research given all the other problems out there and the church’s social justice mission,” he said.

According to The Detroit News, neither the Catholic church nor Right to Life was willing to say they had suffered irreversible setbacks and said they still would be able to pursue an agenda that protects the dignity of life and other issues important to the church. One of the first things they want to look at is regulations for the stem cell issue, Proposal 2, which the church bitterly fought. Detroit News exit polling showed 56 percent of voters who identified themselves as Catholic supported Proposal 2 – overall the measure passed by a 53-47 margin. (Cain, Detroit News, 13/11).

One quote that I think particularly complements Caplan’s opinion piece comes from Marci Hamilton, the Paul R Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law. She opens her legal commentary in FindLaw, titled “The Five Religion-Related Issues that Should Most Concern the Future Obama Administration”, by writing: “With the election of Obama, there is finally some hope that the United States can turn to a more rational set of policies relating to religion.”

Stem cell research tops Obama agenda

The vast majority of emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are still being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). On Monday I sent 198 emails - mainly to Scotland and California because in Sunday’s blog I referred to the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine of Edinburgh University and the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine in San Diego – but only received ten out-of-office autoreplies, and not unsurprisingly just one signature. Yesterday I sent 128 emails, mainly to California, which yielded two autoreplies, and no signatures.

Also yesterday, The Big Issue Head Office – The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches – advised Declan that our pitches are in effect terminated (as soon as it has been confirmed by Office staff that we did not purchase a minimum of 40 magazines each week for the four weeks commenced 6 October, we will no longer be able to have a registered pitch), despite his complaint the previous day to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation (see previous blog). This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

Then last night, as we were bedding down, just to add insult to injury, I suppose, two guys entertained themselves on their skateboards above us for some twenty minutes – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps (prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch). The last time some guys partied in the enclosure, on 9 September, we decided to sleep somewhere else the following night and I was arrested because I refused to be moved on as result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”). The road is described as a “quiet thoroughfare” by the company that owns the building. Oh, well.



Barely a week since his election victory, US President-elect Barack Obama is bringing joy to long-suffering stem cell researchers. For years, US progress has been crippled by restrictions introduced in August 2001 by President George W Bush, preventing federally funded researchers from working on all but a few sources of embryonic stem cells - the cells from embryos with huge medical potential for repairing organs and tissues. Now, those restrictions will be among the first of Bush’s executive orders to be swept away, probably within the next 100 days, said New Scientist. The news emerged on Sunday from an interview on Fox News featuring John Podesta, the head of Obama’s “transition team”, which is managing the switch to power.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” said Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. According to New Scientist, the aim is to quickly dismantle the legacies of the Bush era that Obama sees as holding back progress, particularly those motivated by ideology or religion. Bush’s resistance to stem cell research, for example, is a concession to evangelical conservatives who oppose all research on embryos. “I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country,” said Podesta.

The news was greeted with delight by researchers who have long criticised the Bush restrictions. “Hallelujah - at last,” Robert Lanza, chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts (and a signatory of Declan’s petition), told New Scientist. He added: “This represents the end of a sad chapter in American scientific history. Under an Obama administration, money will hopefully flow to all promising avenues of research based on scientific merit, and not skewed to fit a conservative agenda. We’ve been operating for the past decade with one hand tied behind our back” (Coghlan, New Scientist, 12/11).

The Union-Tribune quotes Joe Panetta, executive director of San Diego’s Biocom, an association representing the local biotech industry. “I’m feeling very positive about some of the things we’ve seen and heard about Obama’s plans to increase funding for basic research,” Panetta said. He added that a number of local biotech firms depend on federal funds for research, largely distributed through the National Institutes of Health. Federal support of stem cell research would also aid the Burnham, Scripps and Salk research institutes (of the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine). Although California has enacted its own $3 billion stem cell research program, under current federal regulations, embryonic research must be conducted separately from federally funded research. “That’s an incredible nightmare in logistics and operations,” Panetta said. “It would be great to see the rules loosening” (Calbreath, The Union-Tribune, 9/11).

According to Reuters, a reversal of President Bush’s long-standing policy would give a boost to companies seeking to develop therapies based on stem cell research. Several stem cell focused companies reported positive developments on Monday. Geron Corp said its potential HIV treatment, TAT2, had promising preclinical data, while biotech giant Celgene Corp got a regulatory nod to go ahead with human trials of its experimental stem cell therapy for the treatment of Crohn’s disease. “We will see more and more of these events just given the fact that there is more and more path for the commercialisation of stem cells – adult, placental, umbilical and now, more embryonic,” WBB Securities analyst Steve Brozak said. Shares of Geron were up as much as 16 percent, while StemCells’ shares soared 42 percent. Both stocks have risen significantly over the last one month. Other smaller players in the field also benefited (Dey, Reuters, 10/11).

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan of Mexico, who acts as the Vatican health minister, said that stem cells taken from human embryos and involving the destruction of the embryos “serve no purpose”, reports The Times yesterday under the headline “Vatican fires off warning to Barack Obama over stem cell research”. Asked whether the Vatican was concerned about reports that Mr Obama might reverse the Bush Administration’s ban, the cardinal said that embryonic stem cell research had not resulted in any significant health cure so far and was “good for nothing”. Research on adult stem cells and umbilical cords had been shown to have “positive value”, by contrast, although even that was not “a panacea for everything”. He said the Vatican would seek clarification of the new administration’s position on stem cells, and he himself was not “fully aware” what it was (Owen, The Times, 11/11).

Our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), will argue that stem cell research, including human embryonic stem (hES) cell research, is vital to advancing regenerative medicine. According to a 2006 US Department of Health & Human Services report, a conservative estimate of the worldwide market for regenerative medicine by 2010 is $500 billion (the projected US market is $100 billion). We will also argue that advancements in hES cell research have the potential to be an economic boon for countries throughout the world and to lower overall domestic health care costs, which in the US alone are in excess of $2 trillion annually (16 percent of US Gross Domestic Product). With reference to the United States, we will further argue that ill-considered interventions at a state level that replace rational regulation with restrictions based on ideology undercut a peer-governed competitive national system for funding biomedical research that has been a fundamental policy and programmatic triumph for the United States (see blog of 3 November “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”).

In fact, we believe that NAC will be in a position to be a leading Vatican watchdog regarding ES cell research and SCNT. We are well aware of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), for example, which has a permanent Secretariat in Brussels. The COMECE secretariat monitors and analyses current developments in research policy, biotechnology and bioethics at the European Union level, according to its website.