header logo image


Page 1,456«..1020..1,4551,4561,4571,458..1,4701,480..»

Fixing broken bones a growth industry

June 10th, 2012 7:17 pm

Scientists have paved the way for human bones to be replaced with new ones grown outside the body. Photo: iStockphoto

SCIENTISTS have grown human bone from stem cells in a laboratory, paving the way for patients to have broken bones repaired - or even replaced with new ones grown outside the body from their own cells.

Researchers started with stem cells taken from fat tissue. It took about a month to grow them into sections of fully formed living bone up to several centimetres long.

The first trial in patients is on course for later this year, by an Israeli biotechnology company that has been working with academics on the technology.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Professor Avinoam Kadouri, head of the scientific advisory board for Bonus BioGroup, said: ''We use three-dimensional structures to fabricate the bone in the right shape and geometry. We can grow these bones outside the body and then transplant them to the patient.

''By scanning the damaged bone area, the implant should fit perfectly and merge with the surrounding tissue. There are no rejection problems as the cells come from the patient.''

The technology, developed with researchers at the Technion Institute of Research in Israel, uses three-dimensional scans of damaged bone to build a gel-like scaffold that matches the shape.

Stem cells, known as mesenchymal stem cells, that have the capacity to develop into many other types of body cell, are taken from a patient by liposuction and are then grown into living bone inside a ''bioreactor'' - a machine that provides the conditions to encourage the cells to develop into bone.

Animals have already successfully received bone transplants, but in the latest study, the scientists were able to insert almost 2.5 centimetres of laboratory-grown human bone into a rat's leg bone, where it successfully merged with the remaining animal bone.

Read the original here:
Fixing broken bones a growth industry

Read More...

Human bones grown from fat in laboratory

June 10th, 2012 7:17 pm

"We use three dimensional structures to fabricate the bone in the right shape and geometry. We can grow these bones outside the body and then transplant it to the patient at the right time.

"By scanning the damaged bone area, the implant should fit perfectly and merge with the surrounding tissue. There are no problems with rejection as the cells come from the patient's own body."

The technology, which has been developed along with researchers at the Technion Institute of Research in Israel, uses three dimensional scans of the damaged bone to build a gel-like scaffold that matches the shape.

Stem cells, known as mesenchymal stem cells, which have the capacity to develop into many other types of cell in the body, are obtained from the patient's fat using liposuction.

These are then grown into living bone on the scaffold inside a "bioreactor" an automated machine that provides the right conditions to encourage the cells to develop into bone.

Already animals have successfully received bone transplants. The scientists were able to insert almost an inch of laboratory-grown human bone into the middle section of a rat's leg bone, where it successfully merged with the remaining animal bone.

The technique could ultimately allow doctors to replace bones that have been smashed in accidents, fill in defects where bone is missing such as cleft palate, or carry out reconstructive plastic surgery.

Professor Kadouri said work was also under way to grow the soft cartilage at the ends of bones, which is needed if entire bones are to be produced in a laboratory.

Bone grafts currently involve taking bits of bone from elsewhere in the patients body and transplanting them to the area which is damaged to encourage healing.

More than 250,000 bone grafts are performed in the UK each year, including repairs to damaged jaws and the replacement of bone lost in operations to remove tumours.

Link:
Human bones grown from fat in laboratory

Read More...

Obesity Causes Increased Risk of Kidney Cancer, Kidney Stones, and Stroke

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm

by: Steve G. Jones, Ed.S

Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30.0 or greater. BMI is a ratio determined by weight and height. With a large percentage of Americans classified as being obese, research is showing the effects extra weight and obesity have on a person's overall health. Recent studies show that obese people have an increased risk of developing common kidney cancer, kidney stones, and an increased risk of having a stroke.

A study involving 1,640 participants studied the effects of weight on kidney cancer. The average age of patients was 62 and all participants had kidney tumors. The study showed that patients with a BMI of 30 or higher were 48% more likely to develop clear-cell renal cell cancer (RCC). With every 1 point increase in BMI, obese patients increased their odds of getting kidney cancer by 4%.

Out of all the participants, 67% of the obese patients had kidney cancer compared to 57% of non-obese patients. Researchers do not know why there is a link between obesity and kidney cancer. Researchers are looking into a secondary link involving diabetes, hypertension, hormonal changes, and decreased immune function. Read more…

Cardiofy Heart Care Supplement

Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/integratedmedicine

Read More...

Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

The proposed changes will come up Monday morning before the Intellectual Property and Industry Subcommittee of the
CIRM governing board.
No stem cell research funded by CIRM
has yet been commercialized. Its intellectual property regulations,
which determine payback criteria, were developed shortly after CIRM
was created in 2004. Ed Penhoet, one of the founders of
Chiron and now a venture capitalist, chaired the panel that worked
out the rules. He has since left the CIRM board.
A CIRM staff memo described the payment
rules in the case of a "blockbuster" therapy as "uneven"
and "lumpy." The memo said they "could be a
disincentive for the engagement of industry." Other rules were described as creating
"administrative challenges and uncertainty." The proposed changes, the memo said,
would address those issues and ensure a "comparable economic
return to California."
Here are links to the specific changes
-- see here and here.
Public sites where interested parties
can take part in the discussion are located in San Francisco, La
Jolla, Los Angeles and Irvine. Specific addresses can be found on themeeting agenda.
The proposed changes must go before the
full governing board and then into the state's administrative law
process before taking full effect.  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

All $69 million in last month's
translational research round went to 21 academic and nonprofit insitutions. No business received an award. One firm, Eclipse
Therapeutics
of San Diego, appealed to the agency's governing board but was not successful despite having a higher scientific score
than at least two winners.
The miniscule amount of funding for
commercial enterprises – less than 4 percent of $1.4 billion handed
out so far – has been a matter of concern for some time for both
industry and some members of the CIRM governing board. Most
recently, industry executives complained at an April hearing of the
Institute of Medicine panel looking into CIRM's operations.
Even a 2010 review commissioned by CIRM said the agency needed to do
better by business.
The question of funding goes beyond a
simple matter of fairness or "good science," as CIRM
describes its funding goal. Without efforts by industry to turn
research into cures, CIRM will not be able to fulfill promises to
voters in 2004 when they approved creation of the stem cell agency.
CIRM last month approved a set of five-year goals that push more
aggressively for development of commercial products, but the goals
lacked such things as a financing round devoted solely to business
applicants.
In last month's translational round,
applicants went through a three-step process, which is conducted
primarily behind closed doors. First came what CIRM calls
pre-applications. Those were reviewed by CIRM staff with the help of
outside advisors if necessary. Applicants who cleared that hurdle were allowed to apply for the full, peer-reviewed round. During that
process, the CIRM Grants Working Group reviews applications,
makes decisions and sends them to the full CIRM board for
ratification and possible changes. The board almost never has
rejected a grant approved by reviewers. But the board has ultimate
authority and sometimes funds applications that reviewers have
rejected. The applicants' names are withheld from the board and the
public during the process, although some of the board discussion and
the final vote is conducted in public. CIRM does not release the
names of rejected applicants unless they appeal.
In the translational round, a total of 42
pre-applications out of 167 were approved by staff, according to
CIRM. Thirty-eight came from nonprofits and academics out of the 153
such institutions that applied. Four out of 14 business
pre-applications advanced to full applications but none made the
final cut. All of the winning applications were linked to
institutions that have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Those representatives are not allowed to vote on or take part in
discussion involving applications to their institutions.
The primary decision tool used by the
grant review group is a scientific score. In last month's round,
scores of approved grants ranged from 88 to 53. However, eight grants
that were ranked above 53 were rejected by the board. One of those
higher-ranking applications came from San Diego's Eclipse
Therapeutics, which scored 58. The low-ranking grants were approved
for what CIRM describes as "programmatic" reasons.
More than three weeks ago, the
California Stem Cell Report asked CIRM for figures on the
numbers of applications in the translational round, including those
for business. CIRM said the figures had not been compiled and would
not be available until after the awards were made on May 24. The
numbers were finally supplied yesterday.
Our take: The number of applicants, and
their breakdown, is basic information that should be part of board's
decision-making process. The statistics should be routinely available
well in advance of the board's meeting. Indeed, the agency in its
earlier days used to routinely publish the figures. It may be now
that generating them is more time-consuming than necessary. The
recent performance evaluation of the agency said CIRM needs to make
major improvements in how it handles critical information needed for
its top management and board.
Whatever the reason, given CIRM's poor
track record with business, the agency's directors should diligently
track industry's success rate on applications. If proposals ranked as
low as 53 are approved while higher ranking applications from
business are bypassed, it warrants more than cursory examination.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

‘Ugly’ Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


California stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has been busy recently pumping out a plethora of items on his blog, including his own stem cell essay contest and a summary of "ugly" stem cell headlines.
He also rails, albeit briefly, against the Los Angeles Times "hate fest" against the California stem cell agency and offers some advice on developments involving prostate cancer, an affliction that he suffered from a few years ago.
Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientist, puts some cash on the line in his essay contest, with a prize of a $50 iTunes card plus publication of the winning piece. He is looking for a "convincing, non-fiction essay on stem cells thinking entirely outside the box." No more than 500 words. He has two categories, one for persons under 18 and one for persons over that age. June 30 is the deadline for submissions.
Knoepfler also wrote about Twitter and how it can be used by scientists in a useful item called "The scientist's top 10 guide to Twitter." We recommend it.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

They are Sherry Lansing and
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik
of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29
, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
Proposition 29 is patterned after the
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
In an op-ed piece on Friday, Lansing and
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
Lansing and Vuori referred to a column
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
In his most recent column, Hiltzik
said,

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

Hiltzik cited a list of state
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
Hiltzik continued,

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

 A final note: The New York Times
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said, 

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

 Also yesterday, Willie Brown, the former mayor
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Stem Cell Miracles and Campaign Promises : Thomas-Trounson vs. Hiltzik of the Times

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

Specifically did the campaign promise
miracles?
The story begins with a column May 27
by Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times about the
"Son of CIRM" initiative, Proposition 29, on the June ballot. It
seeks to fund more medical research with $800 million handed out by
an organization patterned after the stem cell agency.
In the column, Hiltzik did not speak
well of the agency and said the 2004 campaign promised miracles.
In a letter today in the Times, J.T,
Thomas
, chairman of CIRM, and Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM, said the campaign did not promise "miraculous cures."
Hiltzik filed a riposte this afternoon
on his blog, quoting from TV campaign ads featuring Christopher
Reeve
and Michael J. Fox. Hiltzik also wrote,

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency Fires Back at LA Times Columnist

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times
that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Michael
Hiltzik
mentioned California's $3 billion stem cell effort in a piece
May 27 about Proposition 29 on the June ballot. The "Son of CIRM" initiative,
tailored after the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency
in 2004, would provide $800 million annually for research into
tobacco-related illnesses. The money would be derived from a $1
dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes.
Among other things, Hiltzik said,

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

The reponse from J.T. Thomas, chairman
of the CIRM board and a Los Angeles bond financier, and CIRM
President Alan Trounson came in the form of a letter to the editor.
The letter was only four paragraphs long and may have been cut prior
to publication, which is common practice for letters to the editor.
We have asked CIRM about whether there is more to the letter. (Following publication of this item, CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said the complete text was published by the Times, which has a 150-word limit on letters. The CIRM letter was 148.)
Here is the full text as published.

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

June 10th, 2012 3:58 pm


As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.
Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta.
He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

California Stem Cell Hoopdedoo Over Rick Perry: Strange Bedfellows and Education of Politicians

June 10th, 2012 3:57 pm


A onetime aspirant to become the leader
of the free world was in California recently touring the lab of a
stem cell researcher in La Jolla.
The visit was somewhat unusual. The
visitor was Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who campaigned
unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president and who is
a strong opponent of hESC research. The lab is run by Scripps' Jeanne
Loring,
who engages in hESC research among other things.
The event – if you can call it that –
also led to a video on YouTube of Perry at the lab, three blog
items by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and
responses from Loring and Michael Thorsnes,  who put up
the video and who has what he modestly describes as
"significant political experience" in the Democratic party.
Thorsnes, a retired San Diego lawyer and now a photographer, raised about $5.4 million for John Kerry's and Al Gore's
presidential efforts as well as other Democrats.
Issues raised in all the hoopdedoo include
consorting with the enemy, openness, exploitation of scientists for
political gain, public education and education of political leaders,
promotion of patient causes, rushing to judgment and even strange
bedfellows.
As far as we can tell, Perry's visit
received no attention in mainstream media, but Thorsnes, a key figure
in arranging the visit, put up a video of it on the Internet.
Knoepfler, who is the rare stem cell scientist with a blog, saw the
video and on May 21 raised what he now calls "a big stink"
in a blog posting. Subsequently Knoepfler toned down the language in
that item because of what he says was its "overly extreme
verbiage."
For several years now, Knoepfler has
been writing a fine blog that deals mostly with stem cell science but
also public policy, biotech business and more. Unfortunately,
however, his original item is no longer available, but our
recollection is that Knoepler's item was strong, indicating that
Loring should not have allowed the visit because it would bolster the
political fortunes of an enemy of science or at least hESC science.
Knoepfler cited what he called the campaign-style video as evidence
of exploitation. 
On May 24, after a related May 22 item dealing with Rick Perry, Knoepfler said he rewrote the original item to temper his comments as a result of learning more
about what led up to the visit.   That included more information from Thorsnes, who is chair of the executive advisory board of the
Parkinson’s Disease Association of San Diego. 
Loring was quoted in original item as
saying, 

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

The California Stem Cell Report
queried Loring about any additional comments she had on the subject.
She replied,

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Our take: Perry is first and foremost a
politician with large ambitions. It is more than legitimate to think
about how such a visit might be used or misused. Nonetheless,
foregoing the opportunity to educate political leaders, who control
research spending in this country, means isolation of the scientific
community and less understanding on the part of lawmakers. As far as
Perry's possible political gain is concerned, it is conceivable that
the visit could backfire on Perry should a political opponent
characterize the Loring lab tour as some sort of endorsement by him
of hESC research.
Everybody's particular interests were
at work in this episode: Thorsnes' desire for support for his cause,
Perry's political schmoozing and his own special interest in stem
cells – pro adult and con hESC, and Loring's desire to promote
scientific research in general and to educate a major political
figure.
As for the video, Knoepfler now says he
would allow a lab visit by Perry but no video. But in this digital
age, that condition could kill a likely visit. If researchers want to
talk to politicians – and they should -- risks are always involved,
but that is the price of relying on public funding and building
public enthusiasm for continued support.
One final note: Earlier in this item,
we said it was unfortunate that the original Knoepfler post is not
available. Without being able to read the original, it is difficult
to completely understand the subsequent string of events. On the
California Stem Cell Report, when corrections or other changes are
made, we always retain something to show what the original item said
and note where changes are made and why. It keeps the record straight
and provides a necessary paper trail. All in all, however, from
Perry's visit to today, it has been a robust and healthy exchange for
the stem cell community and beyond.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

CIRM Board Member Prieto Endorses Proposition 29

June 10th, 2012 3:57 pm


One of the members of the governing
board of the California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has
commented on the item yesterday dealing with California's Proposition 29, which
would create a CIRM-like agency to fund research into tobacco-related
illness.
Prieto, who is a Sacramento physician
and president of the Sacramento Sierra Chapter of the American
Diabetes Association
, said in an email,

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times
columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Obesity Causes Increased Risk of Kidney Cancer, Kidney Stones, and Stroke

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm

by: Steve G. Jones, Ed.S

Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30.0 or greater. BMI is a ratio determined by weight and height. With a large percentage of Americans classified as being obese, research is showing the effects extra weight and obesity have on a person's overall health. Recent studies show that obese people have an increased risk of developing common kidney cancer, kidney stones, and an increased risk of having a stroke.

A study involving 1,640 participants studied the effects of weight on kidney cancer. The average age of patients was 62 and all participants had kidney tumors. The study showed that patients with a BMI of 30 or higher were 48% more likely to develop clear-cell renal cell cancer (RCC). With every 1 point increase in BMI, obese patients increased their odds of getting kidney cancer by 4%.

Out of all the participants, 67% of the obese patients had kidney cancer compared to 57% of non-obese patients. Researchers do not know why there is a link between obesity and kidney cancer. Researchers are looking into a secondary link involving diabetes, hypertension, hormonal changes, and decreased immune function. Read more…

Cardiofy Heart Care Supplement

Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/integratedmedicine

Read More...

Business-friendly Changes Proposed for Revenue Sharing by Stem Cell Agency

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

The proposed changes will come up Monday morning before the Intellectual Property and Industry Subcommittee of the
CIRM governing board.
No stem cell research funded by CIRM
has yet been commercialized. Its intellectual property regulations,
which determine payback criteria, were developed shortly after CIRM
was created in 2004. Ed Penhoet, one of the founders of
Chiron and now a venture capitalist, chaired the panel that worked
out the rules. He has since left the CIRM board.
A CIRM staff memo described the payment
rules in the case of a "blockbuster" therapy as "uneven"
and "lumpy." The memo said they "could be a
disincentive for the engagement of industry." Other rules were described as creating
"administrative challenges and uncertainty." The proposed changes, the memo said,
would address those issues and ensure a "comparable economic
return to California."
Here are links to the specific changes
-- see here and here.
Public sites where interested parties
can take part in the discussion are located in San Francisco, La
Jolla, Los Angeles and Irvine. Specific addresses can be found on themeeting agenda.
The proposed changes must go before the
full governing board and then into the state's administrative law
process before taking full effect.  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Business Success Rate at Stem Cell Agency: Zero in Latest Round After 14 Fail

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

All $69 million in last month's
translational research round went to 21 academic and nonprofit insitutions. No business received an award. One firm, Eclipse
Therapeutics
of San Diego, appealed to the agency's governing board but was not successful despite having a higher scientific score
than at least two winners.
The miniscule amount of funding for
commercial enterprises – less than 4 percent of $1.4 billion handed
out so far – has been a matter of concern for some time for both
industry and some members of the CIRM governing board. Most
recently, industry executives complained at an April hearing of the
Institute of Medicine panel looking into CIRM's operations.
Even a 2010 review commissioned by CIRM said the agency needed to do
better by business.
The question of funding goes beyond a
simple matter of fairness or "good science," as CIRM
describes its funding goal. Without efforts by industry to turn
research into cures, CIRM will not be able to fulfill promises to
voters in 2004 when they approved creation of the stem cell agency.
CIRM last month approved a set of five-year goals that push more
aggressively for development of commercial products, but the goals
lacked such things as a financing round devoted solely to business
applicants.
In last month's translational round,
applicants went through a three-step process, which is conducted
primarily behind closed doors. First came what CIRM calls
pre-applications. Those were reviewed by CIRM staff with the help of
outside advisors if necessary. Applicants who cleared that hurdle were allowed to apply for the full, peer-reviewed round. During that
process, the CIRM Grants Working Group reviews applications,
makes decisions and sends them to the full CIRM board for
ratification and possible changes. The board almost never has
rejected a grant approved by reviewers. But the board has ultimate
authority and sometimes funds applications that reviewers have
rejected. The applicants' names are withheld from the board and the
public during the process, although some of the board discussion and
the final vote is conducted in public. CIRM does not release the
names of rejected applicants unless they appeal.
In the translational round, a total of 42
pre-applications out of 167 were approved by staff, according to
CIRM. Thirty-eight came from nonprofits and academics out of the 153
such institutions that applied. Four out of 14 business
pre-applications advanced to full applications but none made the
final cut. All of the winning applications were linked to
institutions that have representatives on the CIRM governing board.
Those representatives are not allowed to vote on or take part in
discussion involving applications to their institutions.
The primary decision tool used by the
grant review group is a scientific score. In last month's round,
scores of approved grants ranged from 88 to 53. However, eight grants
that were ranked above 53 were rejected by the board. One of those
higher-ranking applications came from San Diego's Eclipse
Therapeutics, which scored 58. The low-ranking grants were approved
for what CIRM describes as "programmatic" reasons.
More than three weeks ago, the
California Stem Cell Report asked CIRM for figures on the
numbers of applications in the translational round, including those
for business. CIRM said the figures had not been compiled and would
not be available until after the awards were made on May 24. The
numbers were finally supplied yesterday.
Our take: The number of applicants, and
their breakdown, is basic information that should be part of board's
decision-making process. The statistics should be routinely available
well in advance of the board's meeting. Indeed, the agency in its
earlier days used to routinely publish the figures. It may be now
that generating them is more time-consuming than necessary. The
recent performance evaluation of the agency said CIRM needs to make
major improvements in how it handles critical information needed for
its top management and board.
Whatever the reason, given CIRM's poor
track record with business, the agency's directors should diligently
track industry's success rate on applications. If proposals ranked as
low as 53 are approved while higher ranking applications from
business are bypassed, it warrants more than cursory examination.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

‘Ugly’ Stem Cell Headlines and a Stem Cell Essay Contest

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


California stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler has been busy recently pumping out a plethora of items on his blog, including his own stem cell essay contest and a summary of "ugly" stem cell headlines.
He also rails, albeit briefly, against the Los Angeles Times "hate fest" against the California stem cell agency and offers some advice on developments involving prostate cancer, an affliction that he suffered from a few years ago.
Knoepfler, a UC Davis scientist, puts some cash on the line in his essay contest, with a prize of a $50 iTunes card plus publication of the winning piece. He is looking for a "convincing, non-fiction essay on stem cells thinking entirely outside the box." No more than 500 words. He has two categories, one for persons under 18 and one for persons over that age. June 30 is the deadline for submissions.
Knoepfler also wrote about Twitter and how it can be used by scientists in a useful item called "The scientist's top 10 guide to Twitter." We recommend it.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Two California Stem Cell Agency Directors Plump for Proposition 29

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

They are Sherry Lansing and
Kristiina Vuori, who were the subjects of a column by Michael
Hiltzik
of the Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition
29
, the "Son of CIRM" measure that would raise
$800 million for research by increasing the price of cigarettes by $1
a pack. In addition to serving on the CIRM board, Lansing heads her
own anti-cancer foundation and is chair of the board of the UC
regents. Vuori is head of the Sanford-Burnham Institute in La
Jolla.
Proposition 29 is patterned after the
measure that created the stem cell agency. The organization established by Proposition 29 would also be governed by a board that is run by
representatives of organizations almost certain to receive the bulk
of the funding, as is the case with CIRM.
In an op-ed piece on Friday, Lansing and
Vuori said the Times and Hiltzik had fallen for "a smokescreen"
put up by tobacco companies which are spending something in the
neighborhood of $40 million to defeat the initiative. Lansing and
Vuori said the measure is needed to stop smoking by young people as
well as providing cash for research for tobacco-related diseases.
Young people are more sensitive to price increases of cigarettes than
adults, according to research.
Lansing and Vuori referred to a column
in which Hiltzik opposed the measure because it would divert money
from more immediate state needs, including health and welfare
programs for children, education and the poor. (See here for thecolumn and here, here and here for related items.)
In his most recent column, Hiltzik
said,

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

Hiltzik cited a list of state
government cuts that have meant the loss of health coverage for
400,000 California children, eliminated welfare benefits for 578,000
poor California families and would mean an end to state college
student aid for 72,000 young people from less affluent families.
Hiltzik continued,

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

 A final note: The New York Times
carried a piece yesterday on Proposition 29 that drew 481 comments.
The article said, 

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

 Also yesterday, Willie Brown, the former mayor
of San Francisco and a keen observer of California politics,
predicted voter approval of the measure along with an increase in
cigarette smuggling from adjacent states and the sale of discount
smokes at the 58 Indian casino sites in the state. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Stem Cell Miracles and Campaign Promises : Thomas-Trounson vs. Hiltzik of the Times

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

Specifically did the campaign promise
miracles?
The story begins with a column May 27
by Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times about the
"Son of CIRM" initiative, Proposition 29, on the June ballot. It
seeks to fund more medical research with $800 million handed out by
an organization patterned after the stem cell agency.
In the column, Hiltzik did not speak
well of the agency and said the 2004 campaign promised miracles.
In a letter today in the Times, J.T,
Thomas
, chairman of CIRM, and Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM, said the campaign did not promise "miraculous cures."
Hiltzik filed a riposte this afternoon
on his blog, quoting from TV campaign ads featuring Christopher
Reeve
and Michael J. Fox. Hiltzik also wrote,

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

California Stem Cell Agency Fires Back at LA Times Columnist

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times
that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Michael
Hiltzik
mentioned California's $3 billion stem cell effort in a piece
May 27 about Proposition 29 on the June ballot. The "Son of CIRM" initiative,
tailored after the ballot measure that created the stem cell agency
in 2004, would provide $800 million annually for research into
tobacco-related illnesses. The money would be derived from a $1
dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes.
Among other things, Hiltzik said,

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

The reponse from J.T. Thomas, chairman
of the CIRM board and a Los Angeles bond financier, and CIRM
President Alan Trounson came in the form of a letter to the editor.
The letter was only four paragraphs long and may have been cut prior
to publication, which is common practice for letters to the editor.
We have asked CIRM about whether there is more to the letter. (Following publication of this item, CIRM spokesman Kevin McCormack said the complete text was published by the Times, which has a 150-word limit on letters. The CIRM letter was 148.)
Here is the full text as published.

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

The Market’s Invisible Hand and Its Impact on Stem Cell Research

June 10th, 2012 3:55 pm


As the $3 billion California stem cell
agency intensifies its efforts this year to push cures into the
clinic, a Canadian academic is raising a host of serious questions
about the drive towards commercialization in scientific research.
Exhibit No. 1 was stem cell research,
in an article Monday in The Scientist magazine. It was written
by Timothy Caulfield, a Canada Research Chair in Health Law
and Policy, and a professor at the Faculty of Law and School of
Public Health, University of Alberta.
He said,

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

Caulfield noted that research has
played a role in commercial enterprises and that the goal-oriented
research has led to important developments. But he also wrote,

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

In late July, the governing board of
the California stem cell agency is expected to make some hard
financial decisions about where its future spending will be targeted.
Just last week it approved a five-year plan with explicit goals for speeding stem cell research into the marketplace.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Page 1,456«..1020..1,4551,4561,4571,458..1,4701,480..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick