The University of Michigan Welcomes Passage of Proposal 2

Early yesterday morning, as Declan began selling The Big Issue - a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches - a homeless begged alongside him; provocatively, I might add, like he wanted Declan to say something to him. After Declan left him to the pitch, we were not sure if the incident would prove the highlight of the day: Declan walks a round trip of two hours to the Catholic Manna Centre every weekday to be guaranteed a bite to eat for lunch, where he was assaulted on 19 June (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”); and only the day before yesterday at 5.00am, as were about to leave the place we sleep in at night, a cleaner hosed where we bed down (see previous blog).

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 end up in spam boxes (or in cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”), so it doesn’t really count as a highlight. Still, the number of out-of-office autoreplies I received yesterday afternoon was amongst the lowest I have received in months: four from a total of 264 emails. For example, 86 emails to University College London Neuroscience yielded one autoreply; 60 to the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial College London, one - the first email; and 78 to the School of Medicine of University of Southern California, two. (On Monday, it was eight autoreplies from 109 emails to University College London Neuroscience and 118 emails to the School of Medicine of University of Southern California; and two signatures.)

University of Michigan executive officers and faculty issued statements this morning regarding the passage of Proposal 2, the amendment to the Michigan Constitution that allows new embryonic stem cell lines to be derived from embryos that have been created for fertility treatment purposes. The embryos affected by the amendment would otherwise be discarded, unless donated with informed consent.

Proposal 2, approved by voters in yesterday’s general election, overturns a 1978 Michigan law that prohibited creation of new stem cell lines from discarded embryos – the vote was 2,143,101 in favor to 1,945,035 against. Prior to passage of Proposal 2, Michigan has been one of the most restrictive states in the country with respect to embryonic stem cell research.

The proposal pitted the state’s powerful public and private biological research centers against large, conservative Catholic and evangelical populations who equated destroying fertilised eggs with murder (see previous blog). “This is a great night for the state of Michigan,” said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology and a vocal supporter of the proposal. “Clearly the voters saw through the misinformation and fear that the opposition were spreading.

“I can tell you this: We’ll be meeting within the next week ... to expand our embryonic research program. We expect in the short-term millions of new dollars of grants to come from the federal government and private foundations to support the expanded research.”

Proposal 2’s strongest support came from college graduates and people who have done postgraduate work. High school graduates and dropouts were inclined to oppose it, said The Associated Press.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado rejected a measure defining a person to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization”, which would have applied to sections of the Colorado Constitution that protect “natural and essential rights of persons”, said CNN.

Although, like most people, we expected Democratic candidate Barack Obama to win the general election, we were nonetheless quite pessimistic about Proposal 2 – according to pre-election polls, Michigan voters were split down the middle. All in all, it was a great night for Declan’s petition to the UN and our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

For the record, below is Declan’s email letter yesterday afternoon to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation, Steven Round. The Big Issue has informed us that from this coming Monday we will no longer be able to have a registered pitch, after almost two years surviving on the streets of London by selling the magazine from the same registered pitches; an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging, an illegal activity in England. In a reply email yesterday evening, Round informed Declan that he would make sure we receive a response.

Subject: The Big Issue

Dear Mr Round

I am writing to you in your capacity as chair of The Big Issue Foundation. Please find below a copy of my email letter of 7 October to the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue, Mr John Bird MBE, to which I have not received a reply. As a seller of The Big Issue magazine, I wish to complain that if my wife and I have not purchased a minimum of 40 magazines each week for four weeks commenced 6 October, from 10 November we will no longer be able to have a registered pitch - we “will be allowed to carry on selling but not have priority on any pitch”.

I can confirm that on 13, 14, 15 and 16 October I emailed The Big Issue with respect to my wife's new badge (1170), which, being unavailable for collection at Head Office on Monday, 13 October, did not become available for her to pick up until 1.00pm on Thursday, 16 October. The same Monday at Head Office - following my own rebadging to the end of February 2009 and the validation of our pitch authorisation slips until the end of Tuesday of the following week - I was advised by Office staff that my wife could not purchase or sell The Big Issue without her new badge.

I can also confirm that the first two working weeks of October culminated in the so-called "Black Friday" financial crash; shares around the world have continued their downward trend, particularly in London; and our pitches are located in the heart of London's financial district. Further, last week temperatures plummeted – the first time London has seen snow in October for 70 years.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Badge no. 1163

---------------------------

Subject: The Big Issue

Dear Mr Bird

As the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue, please find enclosed copy of an email I received yesterday, 6 October, from your Outreach Manager for London, Mr Paul Joseph. On 10 September 2007 you wrote to me, stating:

I have employed many people over the years to do jobs related to the running of The Big Issue. I have never employed them to do my job; likewise I do not do their job. Please bear this in mind when you are composing your letters. You do not need to address your letters to me, as it is not my job. I would only get involved if you were utterly and totally let down by those whose job it is in The Big Issue. I hope this assists in your deliberations in pursuit of your claims.

I wish to complain that if my wife and I do not purchase a minimum of 40 magazines each week for the next four weeks, from 10 November we will no longer be able to have a registered pitch - we "will be allowed to carry on selling but not have priority on any pitch".

Yesterday we were only able to afford to buy two Big Issues for resale, and today will only be able to afford to buy another two magazines. Moreover, I wrote to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights on 21 August further to my second application for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, stating:

As explained in previous applications, my wife and I survive on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches, and I have lodged numerous written complaints with The Big Issue Head Office in respect of my wife and myself being walked off our respective pitch by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors. You will note from my email and attachments to Court of 16 August that not only may my wife be forced into begging (a criminal offence in England), but she has been threatened by The Big Issue with debadging for so doing.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Badge no. 1163

cc Mr Steven Round, Chair of The Big Issue Foundation

State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention

This morning at 5.00am, as we were getting ready to leave the place we sleep in 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) - we nearly got drenched: one moment I am tying my shoelaces on one of the steps and the next water is pouring down by my side from a hose, all our bags still about the place. This is actually the second time a cleaner has come out on us with a hose (see blog of 19 October “United Nations Set to Revisit Cloning Issue”).

We find it 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 571 scientists and academics, including 24 Nobel Laureates), but run a project for the homeless.

We will seek to lodge a complaint with the City of London Police should this situation get out of hand. Of course, there is always the option of soaking our shelter for the night to ensure we can’t bed down. In this instance, we have yet to decide 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.



Tomorrow, Michigan voters will decide on Proposition 2, a constitutional amendment that would allow narrowly defined research on human embryos that are leftover after fertility treatment and that would otherwise be discarded if not donated by patients for stem cell research. “Michigan has one of the most restrictive laws in the country with respect to embryonic stem cell research: it is legal for patients to discard human embryos but not legal for scientists to perform research on these discarded embryos even if that is what the patients want,” write University of Michigan’s Liz Barry and Sean Morrison in Science Progress. “This law delays medical research without saving a single embryo from destruction,” they add. (Liz Barry is the Managing Director of the Life Sciences Institute of the University of Michigan and Sean Morrison is the Director of the University's Center for Stem Cell Biology.)

Only four states have laws as restrictive as Michigan: Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Louisiana. “Both presidential candidates and a majority of members of Congress have affirmed their support for loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Barry and Morrison write. “The loosening of federal funding restrictions will provide a boost to stem cell research nationwide, but will increase the gulf between scientists in Michigan as compared to those in other states. Unlike scientists at other major research universities, scientists in Michigan universities will remain unable to derive new embryonic stem cell lines for use in expanded federal funding. So is the Michigan vote consequential for national public policy on stem cell research?”

The answer is yes. “A peer-governed competitive national system for funding biomedical research has been a fundamental policy and programmatic triumph for the United States,” they write. “The National Institutes of Health invest over $28 billion each year, 80 percent of which is awarded in peer-reviewed competitive grants to researchers across the nation ... Under this system, the United States has become the global leader in biomedical research. Key to our success has been choosing the best research to fund based a nationwide competition, judged by scientists themselves rather than politicians or lobbyists. American science succeeds because it is a meritocracy, rewarding achievement and ability over more provincial concerns.

“This winning approach is thwarted by the patchwork of conflicting state laws and policies regarding human embryonic stem cell research. Forty-five minutes south of Ann Arbor, Michigan, scientists in Toledo, Ohio, are free to use human embryos in research and to derive new stem cell lines. Are the values of Ohio residents so different from the values of Michigan residents (other than in football)? Across the country in California, the state just awarded over $59 million to support the stem cell research of California scientists and has committed a total of $3 billion overall. Massachusetts is investing $1 billion in a similar program, and New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Illinois have also pledged millions of dollars in funding. Yet scientists in Michigan would go to jail for doing the work for which scientists in these states are receiving millions of dollars in state funding.”

According to Barry and Morrison, diverse and separate state funding undercuts the successful system of choosing which research to fund based on nationwide competition and peer review. “California scientists are only competing with other California scientists for the funds available there and Illinois scientists will only compete with other Illinois scientists,” they write. “Scientists in other states, who may sometimes have greater expertise, will not have the opportunity to help solve the important problems targeted by these states for funding. This fractured system is antithetical to the goal of funding the most meritorious research and to engaging all of our resources in the war against disease. Families affected by disease don’t care where the cure comes from. Yet under the current system, geography drives research investment and determines the problems and approaches that our scientists focus on.”

Barry and Morrison conclude: “Michigan is home to the University of Michigan, one of the world’s leading research universities. According to various measures of scientific impact, UM is one of the top universities in the world in the field of stem cell research. Yet that impact comes almost entirely from research in the area of adult stem cells. If the upcoming ballot initiative in Michigan fails, it will delay Michigan’s ability to develop in the area of pluripotent stem cell research and reinforce the idea that geography should trump merit or promise when the nation determines scientific priorities.”

Proposition 2 pits the state’s powerful public and private biological research centers against large, conservative Catholic and evangelical populations who equate destroying fertilized eggs with murder, said the Wall Street Journal. “I'd call it a religious-ethical friction,” Leonard Fleck, a medical ethicist at Michigan State University in Lansing, who favors the proposal, told the Journal. “It’s obviously related to the abortion issue. What gives it a different moral colouring, what we’d hope to accomplish with the embryonic stem cells, is the saving of human life.”

According to polls, Michigan voters are split down the middle. The proposal’s opponents, gathered as Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, have raised more than $7 million in contributions – $5 million alone from the Michigan Catholic Conference – to defeat the initiative and keep the ban on the destruction of human embryos for medical research in place, according to the Journal. Our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), will seek to make the case that such interventions at state level have led to very serious threats to the entire US biomedical research enterprise, replacing science with ideology, and replacing rational regulation with restrictions based on ideology that undercut “a peer-governed competitive national system for funding biomedical research that has been a fundamental policy and programmatic triumph for the United States”.

Stem Cell Research: Five Basic Things To Know

Stem cell researcher Sue O'Shea, standing, looks at stem cells in her lab

On 4 November, Mitchigan voters will vote not just for who they want to be president, or to represent them in Congress, but what they want the state to do about stem cells. And the way they vote on a ballot measure called Proposal 2 will determine the fate of a Michigan law that currently restricts research using embryonic stem cells. Stem cell researchers see overturning the law as critical to maintaining momentum in allowing research using embryos. Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Louisiana have restrictions similar to Michigan’s. Eight states explicitly permit embryonic stem cell research (see previous blog “Issues Surrounding Leftover Embryos”). A Michigan loss could mean “a swing of the pendulum back” toward greater restrictions in other states, said Doug Engel, chair of the University of Michigan Medical School's Dept of Cell & Developmental Biology (O'Reilly, AMNews, 20/10).

Stem cell research is generating great interest and investment worldwide because it could lead to possible treatments for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes and other diseases. The main thing is to understand the goals of stem cell research and to sort out fact from fiction, says Science Daily. There are several key facts citizens in Michigan can keep in mind as they navigate through a flood of often conflicting information about stem cell research, say University of Michigan stem cell scientists Sean Morrison, and Sue O’Shea. Morrison directs the Center for Stem Cell Biology at U-M’s Life Sciences Institute and is a faculty member at the U-M Medical School. O’Shea directs the Michigan Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research at the Medical School. Here are the five key things they feel every voter should know about stem cells:

1. 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. It would be shortsighted to pursue only one kind, O’Shea says, 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,” she notes. Morrison observes that much of the attention has focused on embryonic stem cells. “Embryonic stem cells are one type of stem cell that people are very excited about because these are cells that come from the very earliest stages of embryonic development, from microscopically small clumps of cells. And these cells have the capacity to make every cell type in the body in unlimited quantities,” he says. “So, when you’re trying to cure a public health problem, the capacity of embryonic stem cells to make any cell type in unlimited quantities is a powerful advantage.”

2. Embryonic stem cells that scientists study come from early-stage embryos. These embryos are created in fertility clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment. But for a variety of reasons, not all embryos can be used for fertility treatment, and many embryos are discarded. “The embryos that are used for research are microscopically small clumps of cells, smaller than the period at the end of a sentence on a piece of paper,” says Morrison. “They have no specialised tissues of any type; there’s no nervous system, there’s no heart, there are no limbs. These are clumps of cells that oftentimes in a fertility clinic don’t develop in a healthy manner and that doctors would not be willing to implant in patients.” Scientists in most states, but not Michigan, are allowed to use embryos from these clinics to create stem cell lines and develop disease therapies in their laboratories. Science Daily explains that the cells scientists use come from embryos just five days after fertilisation. Embryos at this stage, called blastocysts, are spheres containing about 100 cells that have not yet differentiated into more specialised cells. If some of these cells are placed in a lab dish in the right conditions, they can become stem cell lines that can be maintained indefinitely in an undifferentiated state, or guided to become specific types of cells.

3. Adult stem cells are like supporting actors in the quest for stem cell treatments. Science Daily further explains that adult stem cells are more specialised cells that arise from embryonic stem cells. Also known as tissue-specific stem cells, they are present in adults – but contrary to their name, they’re also found in children, newborn infants and developing fetuses. They have the ability to make one or two kinds of cells, such as blood and immune system cells, brain or muscle cells. Adult stem cells have a more limited capacity to replace themselves than do embryonic stem cells. Says Morrison: “There are many different types of adult stem cells present throughout our tissues. They differ from embryonic stem cells in that they’re already partially specialised, so that blood-forming stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to all types of blood cells, but not to cell types in other tissues. Adult stem cells are still useful, but they’re more specialised than embryonic stem cells and they don’t have the same capacity to give rise to unlimited numbers of specialised cells.” The claim that adult stem cells have been used to cure more than 70 diseases has been widely discredited, says Science Daily, adding that so far it has been very difficult to get many types of adult stem cells to reproduce in sufficient amounts to lead to effective treatments.

4. Induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, are adult cells reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. Recently, Japanese and American scientists have developed a third type of stem cell, which are skin cells that have been “reprogrammed” to be similar to embryonic stem cells. About these cells, which are called “induced pluripotent cells”, Morrison says: “This is exciting because it will really enhance our ability to study particularly inherited human diseases. But these cells aren’t ready for prime time in terms of clinical use because the reprogramming process involves the use of viruses, which predispose those cells to cancer, and so none of the reprogrammed lines that we have so far at least would ever be usable in patients.” According to Science Daily, the discovery of iPS cells “demonstrates the promise of embryonic stem cell research to lead to breakthroughs that would change the future of medicine; the ability to reprogram adult human cells was discovered as a result of research on human embryonic stem cells. While iPS cells are an exciting discovery, scientists agree it is too early to assess the technique’s full potential and determine whether the reprogrammed cells truly can function the way embryonic stem cells do.”

5. Michigan scientists want to explore all types of stem cells to look for treatments or cures. But they currently lack a key tool: the ability to develop their own embryonic stem cell lines. Most Michigan scientists, along with many Michigan citizens affected by debilitating diseases, want current state law to be changed, says Science Daily. If the Proposal 2 ballot initiative passes, the law would change to allow Michigan scientists to do what they currently cannot: develop new embryonic stem cell lines using early-stage embryos from fertilisation clinics that would otherwise be discarded. “Under current law, we in Michigan can study cell lines that are created outside of the state, but we can’t derive our own new lines within the state,” Morrison explains. “That’s a crippling problem because most of the lines that we would like to be able to study, in order to study the diseases that affect the people of Michigan, don’t exist yet.” O’Shea notes an important fact about Proposal 2: it requires that the allowed embryos are ones that couples designate for research. The proposal outlaws the sale or purchase of embryos for research and states the research needs to abide by federal law (Science Daily, 14/10).

Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council

On Friday one scientist signed Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells despite me having emailed 242 scientists. And in keeping with the norm, I received an exceedingly low number of out-of-office autoreplies – six; for example, 57 emails to Newcastle Biomedicine Newcastle University yielded only one autoreply. Still, on Wednesday I received two autoreplies out of a total of 271 emails (see previous blog) so presumably this time a larger number of my emails were delivered to inboxes, and not spam boxes (or cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). And yesterday afternoon Declan had to email the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council regarding Idea Store Whitechapel, the borough's flagship library, learning and information service, and our on-going difficulties with computer bookings and internet access (the email is presented below).

Since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps. The company that owns the building works with charities, according to their website, but that didn’t stop a cleaner spraying us with a hose at 4.50am this morning as we were packing to leave. I mentioned in the blog of 7 October “Letter to the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue” that the loss of our Big Issue pitches from 10 November - The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches - speaks ominously of the weeks to come; well, it would appear things have only started.

Former president Bill Clinton stumps for stem cells in Michigan

According to a Detroit News editorial, Michigan voters should vote yes on Proposal 2 - amending the state constitution to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research - on a November ballot because it would overturn “one of the most backward laws on human embryonic stem cell research in the nation”. Currently, it is against the law to destroy a human embryo in Michigan. In effect, this also bans embryonic stem cell research, since the research process entails embryo destruction.

Proposal 2 is a constitutional amendment that allows embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions. These conditions, said the News, include that the embryos subject to research were created for the purpose of fertility treatment, the person seeking the treatment voluntarily opted to donate the embryos for research and that they would be discarded anyway if they were not going to be used for research. The amendment forbids the sale of embryos for stem cell research and keeps in place Michigan's ban on the cloning of a human embryo for both reproductive and research purposes.

The embryonic stem cell research ban, said the News, damages the ability of the University of Michigan, one of the leading stem cell research centers, to conduct cutting-edge embryonic stem cell research and recruit leading researchers to the center. Sean Morrison, head of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, comments that “under current law it is legal in Michigan's fertility clinics to discard human embryos, but not to use them for medical research to try and help patients” (Detroit News, 2/10).

Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change. Opposing the ballot question is Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, which had raised nearly $595,000 by mid-September, said The Ann Arbor News. It is principally supported by the Michigan Catholic Conference, which contributed $500,000, and Right to Life Michigan, which contributed $76,709. Endorsements include other pro-life and religious organisations, such as Democrats for Life of Michigan and the Family Research Council (Gershman, The Ann Arbor News, 6/10).

According to a new report by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan (CRCM), opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that life begins at the moment of conception or fertilisation, making research on ‘living’ embryos unethical. Abortion is often tied to embryonic stem cell research even though there is no direct link between the two. CRCM: “Embryonic stem cells are derived from pre-implantation embryos, not from aborted embryos or fetuses.”

Proposal 2 will feature prominently in our campaign in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning under the section “Science and the Law” – as it does in the blogs of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding” and of 10 July “Smithies explains his support for embryonic stem cell research”. Yet another application of embryonic stem cell research will also feature prominently in the campaign: scientists at Edinburgh University (from which we have several signatories) revealed on Wednesday that they have found a way to overcome “a major hurdle in creating pancreas and liver cells from human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory”, said The Scotsman. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times examines issues surrounding leftover embryos, which I would like to turn into a blog. Of course, that assumes I can get computer time!

This is Declan's email yesterday afternoon to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman (at cllr.lutfur.rahman@towerhamlets.gov.uk), who is also the Leader of the Labour Group:

Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel

Dear Cllr Rahman

I refer further to the attached copy of my most recent correspondence with Mr Ian McNicol, Head of Idea Stores, to whom the former Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Denise Jones, referred my original complaint of 21 January regarding Idea Store Whitechapel and the repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access on both my wife's card (card no. D000350314) and my card (card no. D000355837) since 14 November 2007.

In the absence of a response from Mr McNichol with respect to the aforementioned complaint, I wish to further confirm that this afternoon at approximately 2.15pm the computer I had booked from 2.00pm to 5.00pm cut out and, after it automatically came back in another card holder's name, I was told by a member of staff to give the computer up as there was no record of a booking in my name from 2.00pm to 3.00pm. (Computers cannot be accessed without a member's name appearing on the monitor at log-in time. Further, I am emailing this during my second one-hour booking on the same computer from 3.00pm to 4.00pm.)

I reconfirm that since my complaint of 21 January to Cllr Jones, my wife and I have not only experienced repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access, but several other problems to boot. For example:

(i) 1 February: the Principal Idea Store Manager, Mr Sergio Dogliani, wrote to me advising that the restriction by Idea Store Whitechapel of my wife and I to a 3-hour maximum free computer use per day as from 29 January stands, despite that for several previous months we were given "additional time" subject to computer availability and in accordance with the Council's then and current "Idea Stores PC Usage Policy";
(ii) 24 June: at approximately 12.30pm, a member of staff threatened my wife with "security" if she did not give her computer up to another card holder, despite that thirty minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that my wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm;
(iii) 3 August: both of the computers my wife and I had booked the previous day contained an identical virus which spread to the two USB drives were are using, rendering my wife's portable programs inoperable and corrupting some of my most valuable data;
(iv) 6 August: at approximately 2.45pm, MIMEsweeper, the filter software used by the Idea Store network, blocked access to my Google Mail account due to "Porn Detected". At 3.10pm I was again able to access the account, after which I was informed by the IT technician that "it may happen again for any length of time".

As I explained in my email letters to you of 4 and 6 August, since 22 October 2007 my wife and I have been using as much of our computer time in Idea Store Whitechapel as possible to contact scientists and academics to invite them to sign my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease. To date, this petition has been signed by 559 scientists and academics, who include recognised authorities from the world's leading universities and research institutes, as well as 24 Nobel Laureates.

I acknowledge receipt of an email of 7 August 2008 from your Personal Assistant, Ms Rachel Bielby, stating: "Cllr Rahman is now on leave until the end of August. I have asked the office of the Director of Communities, Localities and Culture's office to deal with your correspondence." I can confirm that I have not heard from this office, nor indeed from Tower Hamlets Council.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr Zoinul Abidin, Manager of Idea Store Whitechapel (by email)

Smithies explains his support for embryonic stem cell research

This morning at 4.50am we were visited by two City of London police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 – the first time since a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch two weeks ago, and which, according to the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, gives police “permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway” (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”). We were actually packing our bags to leave when the two police officers approached us: they want to have a chat to see if we are okay, PC 864C says. So the usual: that Declan has lodged a second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 4 July “Second Request for Priority to the European Court”); that no, we can’t go into a hostel or apply for benefits because, first and foremost, Declan would have to withdraw his application to the European Court (see previous blog); and that we have a petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning which has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates, and in respect of which, since yesterday, we are full on seeking contributions for an international campaign. Declan asked PC 864C to issue us a ticket but he wouldn’t, despite that the back of a ticket states that “you are entitled to a full copy of the record of the stop or search now unless wholly impracticable”. Never mind, at 6.25am, after Declan was woken by two more officers as he was in the middle of his usual half-hour snooze – in the church yard where he washes and shaves every morning (see blog of 10 April “Washing in the street”) – he got his ticket.

Smithies explains his support for embyonic stem cell research

On 27 June, CNN ran a piece on Nobel laureate Oliver Smithies entitled “Nobel scientist looks to the future”, which carries a story highlight “Smithies explains his support for human stem cell research”. (Smithies won the Nobel Prize for medicine last year – with Sir Martin Evans and Mario Capecchi – for developing gene targeting, a method of using embryonic stem cells to "knock out" genes in mice, then observing what goes wrong to determine any gene's normal function.)

In the CNN video “Smithies on embryonic stem cells”, Smithies explains that scientists have been using embryonic stem cells from mice for more than twenty years, but only relatively recently has it been possible to get cells of a comparable type from humans. "The human embryonic stem cell has been controversial for non-scientific reasons. It has been controversial because of people who have different views as to when life starts, and the religious consequences of working with these cells," he says. “I asked the ambassador to suggest to the president of the United States that we maybe have got this the wrong way round when we talk about when life begins in this respect. As far as embryonic stems cells are concerned, my position would be and my argument would be: When does life end?”

Smithies describes life as being continuous since it began. Evolution has made it more complex, he explains, but even so, simple structures such as human eggs and sperm are alive. And so are fertilized eggs. So in his view, if they are not needed by couples trying to have children using in-vitro fertilisation, discarding these eggs kills them. In his view, using them to create embryonic stem cells keeps them alive. Smithies argues:

How marvellous it would be to think that when one died, part of one’s being was used to help other people, and I think that the use of embryos which are not otherwise being used for helping other individuals must be rather marvellous to the donor of those embryo cells. So I would like people to think of it as the perpetuation of life not the destruction of life, because life was already in those cells.

I believe this is a winning argument against those who oppose such research (see blog of 23 June “US bishops condemn embryonic stem cell research”), and one that will be central to our campaign; in fact, as soon as this homeless business is over, Declan intends contacting Smithies to ask how we could elaborate on it: what aspect(s) of evolution do we need to address?

Besides the hotly contested presidential election, Michigan voters will most likely vote in November on a ballot proposal that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Currently, excess embryos from procedures such as in-vitro fertilisation are discarded as medical waste. If the proposal is passed, however, people will be given a choice to donate their excess embryos for research. "Under existing state law, it is legal to throw embryos away, but it's not legal to use them for research," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology. Penalties for destroying one embryo for the purpose of research can reach up to $1 million in fines and 10 years in prison, he said.

Embryonic stem cell research is already going on in the corporate and private sectors, said John Ruckdeschel of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Cancer Center in Detroit. "I would rather have it out in the open in our universities, under appropriate guidelines," he said. "We need to come out of the Stone Age on this."

"The choice that will face Michigan voters is this: Do we take these thousands of stem cells and dump them into the trash, or do we devote them to the research that can bring cures to serious diseases and serious injuries?" said Larry Owen, chairman of CureMichigan, and former member of the Michigan State University board of trustees.

Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change: a coalition group called Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation (MI-CAUSE), which includes the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan, oppose the proposal because embryonic stem cell research “is a direct assault on innocent human life”. It is interesting that Jewish views hold that human embryonic stem cell research entails no moral issue since genetic (ie, embryonic) materials are not even part of a human being until implanted in a womb. And some US Protestant denominations have expressed support for hES cell research, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ.