"What we are announcing today is just the beginning," Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director, said Wednesday. Approval was "open and shut," he said, because the lines met requirements of new Obama administration guidelines for informed consent of embryo donors.

An embryonic stem cell line is a colony of cells grown from one embryo, which is destroyed in the process. The cells can grow into every type of body tissue. Collins and others propose using the cells to study embryonic development, screen drugs and perhaps grow rejection-free replacement organs.

"It's very exciting," says George Daley of Children's Hospital Boston, whose lab submitted 11 of the 13 approved lines. The other two lines belong to Ali Brivanlou at Rockefeller University in New York. The NIH will allow researchers, whose 31 grants for using such cells had awaited the announcement, to now proceed with the 13 lines.

"Eventually, the new guidelines will open up several hundred lines," says Dartmouth bioethicist Ronald Green. "Researchers need to be patient."

In July, the NIH answered President Obama's call for new federal funding rules for human embryonic stem cell research, overturning Aug. 9, 2001, Bush administration rules that limited funding to 21 lines created before that date.

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes embryonic cell research, called the announcement "a political event, but the science is all moving in the other direction," toward "induced" stem cells, which are grown from skin cells but with the tissue-growing potential of embryonic cells. But Collins said the embryonic stem cells possess unique potential and also will illuminate induced cell line research.

Going forward, researchers will have to demonstrate that embryonic stem cells used in research were obtained from fertility clinic embryos that otherwise would have been discarded. Also, the stem cells must come with the informed consent of the parents or mother.

But stem cells developed earlier will not require such precise documentation, representing a departure from draft guidelines issued in April by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

According to published reports, earlier stem cell lines must meet the "spirit" of the new guidelines, if not the "letter," to qualify for taxpayer-supported funding.

The crucial test, The New York Times reported, is whether the embryos used to create the older stem cell lines were created for reproductive purposes and whether donors freely consented to their use in research procedures. At a news conference Monday, Dr. Raynard S. Kington, acting director of the NIH, noted that some researchers had used videos instead of written forms in the past and that such a minor difference in protocol would not make that research ineligible for financing, the newspaper said.

The new guidelines still ban federal financing for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos created solely for research.

In March, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that he said would allow federal taxpayer dollars to fund significantly broader research on embryonic stem cells because "medical miracles do not happen simply by accident."

The executive order overturned a long-standing Bush administration policy limiting government funding of human embryonic stem cell research to cell lines already in existence as of August 2001.

Since the draft guidelines were issued by the NIH in April, "the question was what about the embryonic stem cells that have already been in use since 2001," said Paul R. Sanberg, director of the Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. "There are many in those cases that didn't get informed consent."

"The more information we have about these cells that are used for research or potential treatment, the better off we'll be," Sanberg said. "It's important that there be documentation on tissue, on embryonic cells, that informed consent was received."

Different medical societies applauded the new guidelines, including the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF).

"The guidelines released today reflect the tremendous importance of embryonic stem cell research, while assuring that federal funds will only be available for use on stem cell lines derived under appropriate ethical supervision," ASRM spokesman Sean Tipton said in a prepared statement. "The scientific community is pleased that the policymaking is complete and is ready to get to work at learning how to tap the power of embryonic stem cells to relieve human suffering."

Alan J. Lewis, JDRF president and chief executive, "applauded" the new guidelines. "We particularly want to commend the NIH for including in the guidelines a provision under which existing stem cell lines derived in an ethically responsible manner would be eligible for federally funded research," he said in a news release. "This provision will ensure that a process is in place so researchers can build on the stem cell advancements made to date and accelerate research on cell lines with the greatest potential to facilitate treatment of the disease."

Embryonic stem cells are the most basic human cells, believed to be capable of growing into any type of cell in the body. Working as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells. The scientific hope is that stem cells may, at some point in the future, become capable of treating a variety of diseases and conditions, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injuries, according to the NIH.

Stem cell research received a boost in January when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment. Geron Corp., a California-based biotech company, was given permission to implant embryonic stem cells in eight to 10 paraplegic patients who can use their arms but cannot walk.

The new guidelines take effect Tuesday. The NIH will create and make available a registry of approved stem cell lines.

"There will be an opportunity to work with a lot more cells under these guidelines," Sanberg said. "But as scientists, we clearly need to continue to think about the ethical issues."

National polls continue to find that the majority of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research, although some surveys have found that support has declined somewhat in recent years.

Many people object to the use of embryonic stem cells, contending that the research requires the destruction of potential life because the cells must be extracted from human embryos.

Passed with scant discussion by Ogden’s committee 6-5, the budget bill includes a rider that if allowed to become law, will inflict serious damage to efforts to boost regenerative medicine research in Texas, particularly at state institutions, including the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

Proponents of the stem cell funding ban have failed to pass bills in previous legislative sessions, as lawmakers from both parties have opposed it. Republican House members Beverly Woolley of Houston and Rick Hardcastle of Vernon are among the key supporters of responsible stem cell research, as is U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Now that the administration of President Barack Obama is dismantling federal barriers to expanded fetal stem cell use, new state funding restrictions would drive talent and research dollars to other states.

An open letter to legislators from pre-eminent members of the state’s scientific community contends that the ban would “halt ongoing research projects and negatively impact the ability of the Texas academic health institutions, both public and private, to competitively recruit and retain world-class scientists, professors and medical students in the biological sciences.” They contend that since private funding is almost never available for early-stage biomedical research, “a ban such as this would effectively stifle this research in Texas.” The letter is signed by researchers from Baylor College of Medicine, the UT Health System and Rice, as well as two Nobel Laureates and a former presidential science adviser.

Bernard L. Weinstein, who directs the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas at Denton, says the ban would run counter to a campaign by Gov. Rick Perry to boost the Texas biotech industries. It would cost the state billions of dollars in economic activity while undermining Texas’ image as a hospitable environment for research.

State Rep. Ellen Cohen, a Democrat whose district includes the Texas Medical Center, says the amendment was “passed with no public debate or input from the thousands of doctors, researchers and medical professionals responsible for extending so many lives … I cannot stand by silently when the voices of so many responsible for so much good are not even heard.”

Ogden’s amendment is no minor technical measure inserted for some hometown special interests. It is an attack on the viability of a vital sector of the state economy and upon the well-being of future thousands of desperately ill Texans who could benefit from the cures resulting from stem cell advances.

Late Wednesday the Senate passed the budget, including Ogden’s amendment, by a vote of 26-5. Before the vote, he explained that his intent was not to ban all such research but to keep state money from being used directly for research involving the destruction of a human embryo. Whatever his stated intent, more progressive members should strike the ban when the budget reaches conference committee.

While claiming the moral high ground in defense of fertility clinic embryos that are routinely discarded, Ogden used the amendment route rather than relying on his own bill with similar wording that would have faced public hearings and an up-and-down vote by colleagues.

This issue is far too important to be decided by a back-room legislative maneuver. It is now up to responsible lawmakers in the Texas Senate and House to counter Ogden’s power play and approve a budget that does not undermine the ability of our medical institutions to participate in the renewed national effort to advance a promising field of medical research.

"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," Obama said Monday. "They result from painstaking and costly research; from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit; and from a government willing to support that work," he said.

New Momentum For Stem Cell Research

The stem cell restrictions, imposed by former President George W. Bush, limited federal spending for embryonic stem cell research to a small number of cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

Bush's restrictions were strongly supported by the anti-abortion community, which contends that destroying human embryos is morally wrong. But researchers say many of the early cell lines have major drawbacks. Scientists have created hundreds of other cell lines since then, which have been off-limits to researchers who receive federal dollars.

Embryonic stem cell research is believed to hold the key for better treatments and possible cures for diseases, including diabetes and paralysis. The cells have the potential to turn into any cell in the human body, which is what makes them so promising to researchers. Proponents, from former first lady Nancy Reagan to the late actor Christopher Reeve, have long called for ending the limits on federal spending.

But the research is highly controversial because embryonic cells are derived from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

And while the new order will allow researchers to use federal funds to work with new cell lines, a legislative ban on the use of federal dollars to create new stem cell lines remains in place.

The president said that he could not guarantee more research would lead to new treatments and cures, but that opening up new research was worth the gamble to "make up for lost ground."

The National Institute of Health now has 120 days to come up with new guidelines for the use of stem cells, which Obama said will include prohibiting the use of cloning for human reproduction.

Most research institutes are likely to wait to allow researchers to use federal funds for new stem cells until the federal guidelines are announced. Researchers will also still be subject to state regulations and the guidelines of their individual research institutions, which may be stricter than the federal requirements.

A Controversial Decision

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) has been working to overturn the Bush administration restrictions since they were first imposed. The next step, she said, is for Congress to write federal standards for the research funding into law, "in large part because we don't want to see this become a pingpong ball between different administrations like the international family planning issues and other issues have become." Those policies have switched back and forth depending on which party is in control of the White House.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research funding are already crying foul. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement asking Obama to "re-evaluate" his decision. "The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," Rep. Boehner said.

Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor said on CNN that "federal funding of embryonic stem cell research can bring on embryo harvesting, perhaps even human cloning."

'Restoring Scientific Integrity'

Obama also signed a presidential memorandum on Monday directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to "develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." The memorandum, Obama explained, would ensure that his administration's policies would be based on "the soundest science," and that scientific advisers be appointed "based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology."

DeGette says that during the Bush administration, scientific policy was often dictated by things other than scientific evidence. "It started with global climate change, where the Bush administration announced they really didn't believe it was true, contrary to the scientific evidence. And then it moved all the way through (to) abstinence-only sex education, stem cell research and many other issues," she said.

Specter's bill would overturn a Bush Administration policy that restricts federal funding for such studies. The legislation is expected to complement action by President Obama, who also has indicated he wants to lift the restrictions.

Specter"This legislation is necessary to codify this important policy change so that it does not ping-pong back and forth with each successive president," Specter said today in a statement. During his time in office, former President George W. Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research, and members of Congress tried, unsuccessfully, to override his policy.

Specter, who has battled Hodgkin's disease, said expansion of embryonic stem cell research is important "to ensure that medical research is pursued with all possible haste to cure the diseases and maladies affecting Americans."

Another Republican representing the Lehigh Valley, U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, also has spoken in support of expanding embryonic stem cell research.

Proponents say the stem cells can transform into other types of cells, which could be useful for treating diseases including Parkinson's and diabetes.

Critics say scientists should not take a life for research.

In 2001, Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research only to human embryonic stem cell lines that already existed. It was a gesture to his conservative Christian supporters who regard embryonic stem cell research as destroying potential life, because the cells must be extracted from human embryos.

Embryonic stem cells are the most basic human cells which can develop into any type of cell in the body. Scientists believe the research could eventually produce cures for a variety of diseases, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injuries.

President Barack Obama has promised to lift funding restrictions on the controversial studies, possibly as early this month.

"It's time to pursue embryonic stem-cell research," said Stanton Gerson, director of the Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine in Cleveland. "There's a huge amount of science to be done."

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any of the 220 specialized human cells. Scientists hope to use the cells for a host of diseases and disorders, from burn wounds and damaged blood vessels to leukemia and diabetes.

"There are a lot of scientific breakthroughs on the horizon ," said Chandan Sen, associate dean for translational and applied research at the Ohio State University College of Medicine.

"First and foremost, the playing field has not been level, nationally or globally. This would be huge for the nation our science would be empowered to compete."

Scientists say they are ready to submit grant proposals to study hundreds of cell lines developed using private money. They have been off-limits in federally funded research.

Chris Coburn, who runs the capital venture arm of the Cleveland Clinic, said Bush's restrictions had a "chilling effect" on private-research investments.

"If they lift the restrictions we will see an acceleration in development of stem-cell applications and medical products."

Two weeks ago, a California company became the first to receive federal approval to use a treatment derived from embryonic stem-cell research in a clinical trial - 10 years after the cells were first isolated.

The political debate over embryonic stem cells dates to 2001, when President George W. Bush agreed to allow the use of federal funds for research, but limited support to existing cell lines, which numbered 22.

Most were in far-from-ideal condition and unsuitable for clinical work.

Scientists remove stem cells from excess embryos that would be thrown away by fertility clinics.

Opponents say that killing any embryo for cells equates to abortion and argue that so-called adult stem cells should be used instead.

"Whether the (adult) stem cells can mimic embryonic stem cells impeccably is the question," said Eli Y. Adashi, an endocrinologist at Brown University and a member of the National Academy of Science Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee.

To find out, "We need the reference point, the real McCoy."

Research was slowed here by a ban in Ohio as well.

While California, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York used state dollars to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in embryonic studies, former Ohio Gov. Bob Taft banned state funding.

Ohio has yet to fund embryonic stem-cell research, said Kelly Schlissberg, a spokeswoman for the Department of Development.

The Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine in Cleveland has been studying adult stem cells, with state funding, since 2003.

At Nationwide Children's Hospital, Brian K. Kaspar is studying the basic biology of stem cells. He is using one of the approved lines to study such things as spinal-cord damage and Lou Gehrig's disease.

Kaspar said he expects discoveries will come faster as more cell lines become available.

"Each line has different advantages."

“We can do this in a win-win situation,” Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado said. Both President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have made repealing Bush administration restrictions announced in 2001 a top priority. But they have yet to determine if Mr. Obama should quickly put his stamp on the issue by way of presidential directive, or if Congress should write a permanent policy into statute.

The debate is not academic. Democrats who oppose abortion say such a legislative fight holds the potential to get the year off to a difficult beginning, even though the outcome is certain given solid majorities in both the House and the Senate for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

“It is a very divisive issue, and it is a tough way to start,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat from Nebraska. “You don’t want to stumble out of the box.”

In addition, many of the Democratic gains in Congress, particularly in the House, have come in more conservative areas, with strategists estimating that up to 70 Democrats could find themselves in competitive races in 2010. Those potentially vulnerable lawmakers provide another consideration for leaders weighing whether to set an early test vote on what for some is a politically sensitive subject back home.

At the same time, officials note that increasing federal spending on stem cell research is widely popular and has been a signature issue for Congressional Democrats in the last two elections, helping them defeat Republicans opposed to the concept. Many lawmakers would like to see it through to its legislative conclusion.

“I myself would favor legislation, so it is the law,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said this week.

In the end, Ms. Pelosi and representatives of the incoming Obama administration say it is likely that Mr. Obama will move quickly to roll back the Bush policy, with Congress following with a comprehensive initiative that addresses a more far-reaching federal provision limiting the scientific work.

That result would be welcomed by Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and an author of the stem cell measure twice vetoed by Mr. Bush — once in 2006 when Republicans still controlled Congress and again in 2007 after Democrats took over.

Ms. DeGette said her view was that Mr. Obama should act to hasten any new research rather than see a bill get tied up in the early days of the session. Congress can then draft its own, more detailed version providing money for new research and dealing with ethical issues surrounding the stem cell question.

“I think we can do this in a win-win situation,” she said.

Democrats also say they hope to reduce the divisiveness of the debate by framing the stem cell policy as more of a health care issue with the potential to provide new treatments, and less of a fight that spills over into the abortion arena.

But anti-abortion leaders in Congress say that they are determined to resist changes in the stem cell policy and that their opponents will be held accountable at home, even if the political climate in Washington has shifted.

“Pro-life members in both caucuses will fight strongly to preserve sanctity of life ethics,” said Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania. “If they force it by legislation, those will be the votes the pro-life community will score to educate the voters as to where members stand on these issues.”

Last year, it seemed that the human embryo dispute was about to become moot. Two groups of researchers, followed shortly by a third, independently reported that they could convert human skin cells into embryonic stem cells, bypassing embryos altogether. And immediately, the field of embryonic stem cell research began to explode. Laboratories that had steered clear of the field because of the sheer difficulty of working within the constraints of the ban on federal financing realized they could simply make their own stem cells from skin cells and study them, with no impediments.

But stem cells from human embryos are still very much needed, researchers say. The federal ban has meant that only a small group of researchers has worked with those cells, but if the ban were lifted, it is likely that more laboratories would get involved and science would move forward faster.

“At this point, adult cell reprogramming is still new enough that it is conceivable that there will be a fly in the ointment,” said Sean J. Morrison, director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Michigan.

In the meantime, those who have the facilities to work with both types of stem cells are doing so.

Stem cells from human embryos, “are the gold standard,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital in Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Before they can be replaced by cells derived from skin cells, researchers have to know, at a detailed molecular level, how similar the two types of stem cells are, and how different.

“There are still so many unknowns,” Dr. Daley said. “I am going to continue to have my lab use both at the same time.”

What is certain, Democrats say, is that they will, at minimum, reverse Mr. Bush’s policy and open the way to more federal aid to such research.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents — part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.

"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end — an effort Obama supports, But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.

"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."

Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.

Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.

Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.

"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."

Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.

In other transition matters, Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would not say whether Obama would return to the Senate for votes during the postelection session this month. Obama's presence would be extraordinary, given his position as president-elect, especially if Congress takes up a much-anticipated economic stimulus plan.

"I think that the basic approach has been he's going to be here in Chicago, setting up his economic, not only his economic team, but the policies he wants to outline for the country as soon as he gets sworn in, so we hit the ground running," Emanuel said.

Also, Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.

Podesta appeared on "Fox News Sunday," as did Pence, and CNN's "Late Edition," where Reid also was interviewed. Emanuel spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation."

Michigan voters on Tuesday approved Proposal 2, which changes state law to allow people to donate embryos left over from fertility treatments for scientific research. Those embryos, which may or may not be suitable for implantation, would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste.

With 93 percent of the precincts reporting early Wednesday, 52 percent, or 2,258,806 people, voted "yes" on Proposal 2. Forty-eight percent, or 2,052,596, opposed it.

"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.

The findings were based on analysis of information from voters interviewed as they left polling places. The interviews were conducted for The Associated Press by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

Voters rejected arguments of the opposition, who warned the measure could mean backdoor tax increases, unlimited research and cloning in a series of ads, mailers and public forums.

They ran ads that included images of humans with hooves instead of hands and fictional company logos such as "Cloneway" and "Human Double Inc." The Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan largely funded the opponents' campaign.

Stem cell research advocates countered that the critics were concocting wild stories and scaring voters. They said Proposal 2 actually would impose restrictions that don't exist in many other states and would build upon existing federal restrictions.

Dave Doyle, spokesman for the opposition group Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, said he was disappointed with the results and speculated that a big voter turnout and big spending by supporters could have affected the outcome.

"I think that legislative leaders ... need to take a look at this," he said. "Proponents have said this will be highly regulated. We'll have to see. The constitutional amendment doesn't give us comfort that it will regulated in Michigan."

The exit poll also found that people who described themselves as white evangelicals or born-again Christians made up nearly three in 10 of all voters. Of those, about seven in 10 were opposed to the measure. White Catholics made up one-fourth of the electorate, and they were evenly divided.

Other groups that gave the measure strong support included blacks, people under 30 and self-described liberals.

Some embryonic stem cell research was allowed in Michigan, but only on stem cell lines already established by researchers in other states. The state also allows research on adult stem cells and those taken from umbilical cords, but Proposal 2 advocates say embryonic research has more potential for treatments and cures for such illnesses as cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.

John Henry, 52, who lives in Eaton County's Windsor Township, opposed the measure.

"I have a lot of moral issues because I don't trust the people who would have that power" to do the research, he said.

Abbas Ammar, 23, of Dearborn Heights, supported the proposal because he believes "it's going to help humanity in a big way."

"People should have the right to choose what they want to do with their embryos," he said.

Veterinarians are already doing it with injured horses, and research into human applications is well under way.

The National Institutes for Health seem to think regenerating human muscle and bone using a person's own adult stem cells is nearly ready for prime time. The NIH announced to its staff that it's creating a bone marrow-stem cell transplant center within the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Researchers at the NIH labs in Bethesda, Maryland, are already growing human muscle, cartilage and spinal disks in vitro. The tissue isn't mechanically sound yet, says lead researcher Rocky Tuan, but that will come with further work.

The ban puts Michigan at a decisive competitive disadvantage with states that permit embryonic stem cell research; firms that want to do stem cell research just have another reason to stay away from here, and our universities have a harder time attracting and retaining top researchers. And it doesn't save "life,' as some of its proponents have long argued. The embryos subject to research are generally extras leftover from couples involved in artificial insemination; clinics usually discard them anyway.

But the biggest reason the ban makes no sense is more principled than practical. The ban is about allowing moral and religious objections to restrict public and scientific policy about an area of exciting and promising discovery, rather than letting science take the lead in figuring out what works, and why.

The danger there is manifest. No one's saying morality ought not guide scientific exploration, or set important guardrails against abuse or, in rare cases, evil.

But in this case, the moralizing has gone much further. It has taken a minority view - one that equates embryos with viable human life - and used it to preclude an entire realm of research that could yield far-reaching benefits for humanity. That's just awful policy-making.

Last year, another scientific breakthrough with mature cells, rather than stem cells, suggested that they might be used as readily to cure disease as stem cells, giving new voice to those who oppose stem cell research in Michigan.

But Dr. Robert Kelch, executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Michigan and CEO of U-M Health System, wrote in the Free Press that “several problems need to be overcome” before such cells become useful for new disease treatments.

“Scientists need to show that the cells are stable over time," he said. "

They need to learn whether the new type of stem cell really possesses the powerful traits of embryonic stem cells, which can become any type of cell in the body. Scientists also need to find different ways to reprogram the human skin cells to become stem cells … At this early stage in stem cell exploration, it makes no sense to abandon any avenue of research, especially if that would delay the life-changing therapies for which people are waiting.”

Here again, the debate ought to be shaped by science - to fully explore both paths to see which is superios - rather than solely by the moral view that stem cell research is somehow unacceptable.

Michigan should join the scientific 21st century, and leave the stem cell ban behind.

The National Conference of Brazilian Bishops wrote a statement following the decision which said it "regretted" the decision and added its opposition "is not a matter of religion, but of the defense of human life, beginning with conception."

Five of the opposing Supreme Court justices said that the research should be undertaken "with restrictions" and that each and every case should be cleared by a committee.

An Australian man paralysed from the neck down in a sporting accident 14 years ago has claimed he can breathe again unaided for the first time after having stem cell treatment in India.

Perry Cross is the highest profile patient so far to claim success for the treatment offered by a medical centre in south Delhi which, if true, would represent a remarkable breakthrough.

However, his claims have not been authenticated by other medical experts and details of his treatment have not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Mr Cross met the actor Christopher Reeve, who was similarly injured until his death in 2004, and became his ambassador for stem cell research in Australia, appearing regularly on radio and TV and speaking at the UN.

Mr Cross was left quadriplegic after an accident playing rugby when he was 19 and has been dependent on a ventilator ever since. But after treatment at the Delhi clinic run by Dr Geeta Shroff, he has apparently been able to discard the machine that has been his lifeline.

"After 14 years of no change at all since my accident, I can now breathe on my own," he told Sky News yesterday. "You know you put your lottery numbers in each week and I feel by coming here my lottery numbers have finally come up."

Sky News yesterday broadcast footage showing him moving around the clinic in a motorised chair and travelling down a Delhi street. But it was not possible to tell whether he was permanently free of the ventilator, or needed to return to it at intervals.

Dr Shroff, who claims to have developed her stem cell treatment alone, starting in a small lab set up in her garage, has aroused the ire of the international medical establishment because she has refused to reveal details of the treatment or to publish her results. Instead, she has applied for a patent.

Critics say there is no way of assessing her work, or even verifying that she is treating her patients with embryonic stem cells as she claims. They warn that there is a disturbing trend for clinics around the world to promote stem cell treatment as a miracle cure, charging large sums, and rely on the placebo effect for their "success".

Quadriplegic patients are desperate, vulnerable and eager to believe they are making progress, however slight – especially if they have invested time, money and effort in travelling halfway across the world for treatment. Their carers are equally anxious not to disappoint them. A member of Mr Cross's team said that the progress made by his charge was "massive".

"We have tried so many times over the years to get him off the ventilator but never could. It's amazing," he told Sky News.

Previous patients who have sought treatment at the clinic include Sonia Smith, 46, an Australian mother of three children, who broke her back in a car accident three years ago. Mrs Smith claimed last year to have begun walking with callipers following the treatment, after being told by doctors in Brisbane she would never walk again.

Dr Shroff has angrily dismissed claims that she is exploiting patients. "How dare scientists around the world refer to this as the placebo effect? They are rubbishing my work without seeing my patients," she told The Observer last year. She came up with an Alice-in-Wonderland defence of her refusal to publish her results. She said: "Peer review – what is that? Review by people who understand what you are doing. But no one understands what I am doing because I am the first."

Scientists at Edinburgh University hope to develop embryonic stem cell therapies which will remove the need for hundreds of liver transplants each year.

Prof John Iredale, of the university's MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, said: "This would have a significant impact on reducing the need for donated organs.

"It would also provide less invasive and traumatic treatment for those patients for whom transplantation is currently the only option."

The university are also studying how embryonic stem cells could be used to repair damaged bone and cartilage.

This could dramatically reduce the number of people needing hip replacements.

A university spokesman said: "Cartilage damage from injury or diseases, such as osteoarthritis, is a major problem in the UK.

"If we can prevent cartilage from breaking down or repair it, then we could reduce the need for hip replacements.

"Equally, there are patients in traumatic accidents where bones have been shattered.

"If we can find a way of healing the bone using stem cells we can dramatically improve their quality of life."

The university received £3.6million funding from Scottish Enterprise, the Medical Research Council and the UK Stem Cell Foundation.

Stem cells are immature but powerful cells which can be stimulated in a laboratory to develop into any type of body cell or organ, including bone, muscle and body tissue.

There she was, the Telders' youngest child, Leah, walking towards them in the airport lobby late Monday amidst the disembarking passengers, grinning and waving a greeting.

"That was amazing. She walked off. ... I mean, there she was, actually walking," said Jacky of the moment.

Leah Telder's health has been almost restored following chemotherapy and experimental stem-cell treatment for MS. Ian Smith/Vancouver Sun

Email to a friend

Printer friendly Font:****Months earlier Leah, 24, had taken a similar flight, in the opposite direction.

That time, she was among the last to board the plane, hobbling unsteadily on a walker like an old woman.

The multiple sclerosis that has afflicted her since her teens had, by that point, robbed her of most of her independence, blurring her vision, muddling her thinking and sapping her strength.

"It was hard to use a knife and fork to even cut my own food," said Leah.

At its worst, the disease - a highly unpredictable auto-immune disorder - had rendered the former ballet dancer temporarily confined to a wheelchair, unable to stand on her own two legs.

"Her body just fell apart," said her mother.

Hope for Leah came last October, when she became only the 17th - and the youngest - MS patient in Canada to undergo a stem cell transplant specifically aimed at curbing the progress of the disease.

Two weeks earlier, she'd checked into the Ottawa Hospital to take part in an experimental medical study, led by Ontario neurologist Dr. Mark Freedman and Dr. Harold Atkins, a bone marrow transplant specialist.

Like the patients before her, Leah was required to undergo heavy doses of chemotherapy - enough to completely wipe out her immune system and cause her shoulder-length hair to fall out in chunks.

Twice, she endured an uncomfortable six-hour procedure that saw her strapped to a chair, unable to even flinch, as a team of specialists carefully siphoned stem cells from her blood.

"If she moved even a little, alarms would beep," said Jacky of the extremely delicate procedure.

The stem cells were then sent to a laboratory where they were "cleaned" before being pumped back into her body.

The theory behind the $4-million study is that the pure stem cells will find their way into the bone marrow and build up a new immune system in the patient, free of MS.

To date, 17 patients from across the country, including three from B.C., have been accepted to take part in the trial, which began in 2001 and is funded by the MS Scientific Research Foundation.

Qualifying patients are all between the ages of 18 and 50 and have either failed conventional MS drug therapy, or like Leah, been too sick to ever begin conventional treatment. Patients must show a rapid progression of the disease, yet must still have enough strength to walk, at least with a cane.

Study coordinator Marjorie Bowman said early results of the trial - which aims to treat 24 patients in total - will be published this summer.

According to Bowman, one patient died as a result of the chemotherapy (which is so strong, patients have a one in 20 chance of dying). Of the 16 living patients, three have reported some progression of the disease since undergoing treatment, while the remaining 13 have experienced improvements in their health.

Leah is lucky enough to be in the latter category.

"I haven't felt this good since before I was diagnosed," she said in an interview from her Surrey home, her first trip back to B.C. since beginning treatment.

She can walk on her own again and talk without difficulty. She can make herself a cup of coffee - something she hasn't been able to do since she was 21.

And though nerves in her right eye have been irrevocably damaged by the disease, the majority of her vision has been restored and she looks forward to returning to work some day soon.

Leah's lively personality is back too, said her mother.

"Leah always had a bit of an attitude and it was gone for a while, and that was sad," she said. "Now she is herself again."

Leah plans to spend three weeks in Surrey before heading back east for the final leg of the trial. In order to take part in the study, she had to commit to living in Ottawa for an entire year as researchers continue to monitor her progress.

She lives in a Rotary Club-run hotel that caters to hospital patients and their families.

Leah still continues to take medications to boost her immune system, and goes to the hospital once a month as an outpatient.

To date, her recovery has proven remarkable, even to the physicians leading the study.

At the end of a recent appointment, Leah noted one doctor told her: "I just wanted to tell you that, yes, you do still have MS, but no one would be able to tell."

The University of California-Irvine researchers said their findings will make it easier for scientists to study and potentially treat thousands of disorders, including Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy and diabetes.

They said the technique, for the first time, blends two existing cell-handling methods to improve cell survival rates and increase the efficiency of inserting DNA into cells. The new approach is up to 100 times more efficient than current methods at producing human embryonic stem cells with desired genetic alterations.

"The ability to generate large quantities of cells with altered genes opens the door to new research into many devastating disorders," said Professor Peter Donovan, "Not only will it allow us to study diseases more in-depth, it also could be a key step in the successful development of future stem cell therapies."

The study that included UCI Assistant Adjunct Professor Leslie Lock and researcher Kristi Hohenstein; April Pyle of UCLA; and Jing Yi Chern of Johns Hopkins University is detailed in the online edition of the journal Stem Cells.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The vast majority of people in Brazil are in favour of utilizing embryonic stem cells for scientific purposes, according to a poll by Ibope. 75 per cent of respondents completely support this practice.

There are three different types of human stem cells. Some of them come from embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization, which are habitually destroyed. These cells can develop into various tissues in the human body. Some scientists believe the research could be useful in the creation of new organs and in the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

In 2005, then-Brazilian attorney general Claudio Fontelles asked Brazil’s Supreme Court to issue a ruling on embryonic stem cell research. Fontelles argued against a law that sought to allow research using embryos that have been frozen for at least three years, claiming it is unconstitutional and violates the right to life.

Current attorney general Antonio Fernando Souza also believes embryonic stem cell research should be banned in Brazil, because the process involves destroying embryos.

On Mar. 4, Bernard Siegel, the executive director of the Florida-based Genetic Policy Institute commented on the expected ruling in Brazil, saying, "Brazil has the potential to be a significant leader in this field. And if the Supreme Court decides to allow this kind of research, then Brazil will become the Latin American leader in this field."

On Mar. 5, Brazil’s Supreme Court postponed its decision on the case after one of the judges asked for more time to assess the issue.

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells?

Completely support... 75%

Partially support... 20%

Oppose... 5%

Researchers discovered a new method to insert DNA into cells, which decreases the chance of cells dying after insertion.

In the past, chemicals were used to put DNA in cells, but the new method makes tiny holes in the outer layer of a cell, which allows DNA to enter smoothly.

Using what they call growth factor/nucleofection, researchers estimate for every one altered cell with the chemical method, they could create 10 to 100 successfully.

“This is a stepping stone for bigger things to come,” said Kristi Hohenstein, a scientist part of professor Peter Donovan’s lab team.

According to researchers, the discovery could help develop treatments for monogenic diseases — Huntington’s disease, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis — which are the result of modifications to a single gene occurring in all cells of the body. The diseases are rare, officials say, but affect millions worldwide.

Researchers exposed metastatic melanoma and breast cancer cells to a type of protein secreted only in human embryonic stem cells and not in any other types of stem cells, including those isolated from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood or adult bone marrow.

In an earlier study, the Northwestern team found that aggressive melanoma and breast cancer produce a protein called Nodal, which may serve as a marker of aggressive behavior in human cancers.

The new study, made by researchers at Northwestern University in Chicago, adds to the team's previous efforts to identify the genes and cellular pathways involved in cancer metastasis, and may help lead to new kinds of cancer treatments.

The team at Bristol University led by Dr Maeve Caldwell, Senior Research Fellow, will investigate whether they can turn human embryonic stem cells into nerve cells that produce dopamine, by adding proteins called Lmx1a and Bcl-xl which can protect the nerve cells from damage.

Stem cell therapy offers great hope for repairing the brain in people with Parkinson’s. It may ultimately offer a cure, allowing people to lead a life that is free from the symptoms of Parkinson’s.

Researchers have already investigated the potential of using human embryonic stem cells derived from nerve tissue for Parkinson’s stem cell research, but these dopamine producing cells have died after being transplanted into animal models of the condition.

Dr Caldwell comments:

“If successful, we will then transplant these cells into an animal model that has the symptoms of Parkinson’s to see if they are indeed dopamine producing nerve cells which can survive in the brain, even possibly reversing the symptoms of the disease. This could be a major step forward in developing an eventual cure for Parkinson’s Disease.”

Stem cells are the building blocks of the human body. They are like ‘blank’ cells that eventually turn into every type of cell in the body including brain, blood, skin and bone. Researchers know that the symptoms of Parkinson’s appear when 80% of the nerve cells in the brain that make the chemical dopamine die. The aim of stem cell therapy is to replace the dead dopamine-producing nerve cells with new, healthy cells. This will restore the supply of dopamine to the brain and allows it to work normally again.

Scientists have already shown that stem cells can be grown in the laboratory. However, one of the many technical challenges scientists need to overcome, before stem cell therapy can become an effective treatment for people with Parkinson’s, is ensuring that cells produce dopamine neurons and survive after transplantation.

Dr Kieran Breen, Director of Research at Parkinson’s Disease Society said:

“Stem cell research is an important area of study for people with a range of conditions, including Parkinson’s. It offers a significant – but as yet not fully explored – avenue of hope for the 120,000 people living with Parkinson’s in the UK. This research will increase our knowledge of what is required for stem cells to grow with the ultimate goal of transplanting nerve cells into the brain to replace those which have died.”

The patent office said last year it was preparing to toss out all three patents but the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds the patents, appealed. This week's ruling is the first in the appeal process.

"The battle is hardly over. We're in this for the long haul," said John Simpson of the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, one of two groups fighting the patents.

The patents are for discoveries made by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist James Thomson. He was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells, which have great medical potential because they can turn into any type of cell in the body.

The research foundation obtained patents in 1998 and 2001 for the cells themselves and the techniques used to isolate them. Since then, the group has required other researchers to obtain licenses to use them.

The groups argue Thomson's work should not qualify for patents and that patent enforcement has hampered U.S. stem cell research.

In a ruling dated Monday, hearing examiner Gary L. Kunz rejected claims that Thomson's technique for isolating primate and human embryonic stem cells was obvious given previous research on mice and other animals. He cited the "highly complex and unpredictable nature" of the field.

The research foundation, which has aggressively defended the patents, praised the decision. If allowed to stand, the patents could generate a windfall of royalties that would benefit research at the university.

"We're extremely pleased with this decision," the foundation's managing director, Carl Gulbrandsen, said Thursday. "It affirms what (the foundation) has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions."

The foundation's stem cell research affiliate says it has shipped stem cells to more than 550 researchers across the world.

"Any candidate is going to have a better policy on stem cells than our current president," said Ren Benjamin, biotech analyst for Rodman & Renshaw. "If that's the case, then it will be good news not only for the companies working in the space, but for the space in general."

The three leading presidential candidates - Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barak Obama of Illinois - have all come out in support of expanded federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cells taken from human embryos, created primarily through in vitro fertilization, are favored by many scientists for their ability to regenerate and to morph into different types of tissue. In theory, stem cell-based therapies could repair traumatic injuries like severed spines and brain damage, or reverse the affects of debilitating diseases including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. So far, these types of therapies are in the earliest stages of experimentation.

President Bush created federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research back in 2001, but he limited support to only those cell lines that existed at the time in order to "not encourage the destruction of embryos." But these limits are likely to be lifted under a new regime.

"The next president can expand [funding] and remove the road blocks," said Stephen Brozak, biotech analyst for WBB Securities. "It removes the stigma from Bush."

Bush has twice vetoed legislative attempts to expand the funding, including those backed by McCain, Clinton and Obama. In reference to Bush's policies, Obama has said, "Stymieing embryonic stem cell research is a step in the wrong direction." Clinton has called for funding for "additional cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for research." McCain has said "stem cell research has the potential to give us a better understanding of deadly diseases and spinal cord injuries affecting millions of Americans."

Following his second veto in 2007, Bush said the legislation "would compel American taxpayers - for the first time in our history - to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos." Instead, the president touted the therapeutic potential of stem cells taken from adult tissue.

But proponents of embryonic stem cell research - including the presidential candidates - have emphasized that only those stem cells slated for destruction as medical waste would be used. In his support for stem cell research funding in 2006, McCain said the legislation provides funding only for "scientists who use embryos originally created for reproductive purposes" and those that are "now frozen or slated for destruction by in vitro fertilization clinics."

Many of the stem cell biotechs, like Aastrom (ASTM), Cytori Therapeutics (CYTX), Stemcells (STEM) and Osiris Therapeutics (OSIR), are buffered from the controversy because they use stem cells taken from adult tissue, such as organs, skin, or umbilical cords. But other biotechs, like Geron (GERN), Advanced Cell Technology, Novocell and Neuralstem (CUR), derive stem cells from human embryos. Many of these companies are showcasing their technologies at the 3rd annual Stem Cell Summit in New York on Tuesday.

Neuralstem, Geron and Advanced Cell Technology all plan to begin testing in humans this year. In theory, they have the most to gain from a president who's friendlier to the use of embryonic stem cells.

But since investors don't often distinguish the nuances between the various stem cell companies, however controversial they may be, a rising tide may lift all boats.

"I think that all these names are going to do well going into the election," said Benjamin of Rodman & Renshaw. "The entire stem cell space is likely to benefit with the additional funding, because you're likely to see a spillover effect."

Jamie Thomson, the first member of the scientific team at the research facility, will be the director of regenerative biology. Thompson is currently a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health and will retain that position in addition to his new role. The announcement was made at a news conference at the UW Health Sciences Learning Center on Monday afternoon, WISC-TV reported.

"The opportunities at the Morgridge Institute come at a remarkable time for the course of my research, as well as for the advancement of science," Thomson said. "Biologists now have access to instrumentation that creates an unprecedented depth of data, and we're not, as a group, trained to deal with it. Research synergies among the sciences are more important to the study of human biology now than at any other point in history."

Thomson said that he looks forwards to working along side other scientists and to collaborate on research efforts.

University leaders said that they hope Thomson's appointment will help them recruit scientists to conduct breakthrough research.

Thomson's decision will keep him and his research team in Wisconsin, WISC-TV reported.

Thomson made headlines worldwide in 1998, when be became the first ever to isolate human embryonic stem cells, often times referred to as the building block of the human body. Stem cells act like "blank slates" and are capable of becoming virtually any specialized cell in the human body, WISC-TV reported.

Last year, Thomson and his researcher team successfully turned skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. The discovery lifted ethical and political barriers on embryonic stem cells, because they're derived from skin, not human embryos.

"We are extremely pleased and excited about Dr. Thomson's decision to join the Morgridge Institute and help establish the agenda for the breakthrough research the institute will conduct in regenerative biology, as well as in other areas," said Carl Gulbrandsen, chair of the Morgridge Institute for Research's Board. "As the unequivocal leader in this seminal field, Dr. Thomson's commitment and contributions will be crucial to establishing our new institute as a world-class research organization."

The new facility that will house the Morgridge Institute for Research and the public Wisconsin Institute for Discovery is being constructed on University Avenue and is expected to open in the fall of 2010. However, Thomson's work at the Morgridge Institute is expected to begin soon in a leased, temporary space.

The scientists, at the biotechnology company Novocell, turned the stem cells into cells that produced insulin in the mice. Those cells kept blood sugar in check after the mice’s own insulin-producing cells were destroyed.

“For those who say there is not much evidence that embryonic stem cells can cure diabetes, there you go,” said Dr. Camillo Ricordi, director of the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research.

Still, a small number of the mice developed tumors, and some experts said the cells might not be well-characterized enough for use in people. In any event, Novocell said it would be several years before any human tests could begin.

Doctors are already experimenting with transplants of insulin-producing islet cells from cadavers for patients with Type 1 diabetes, a disease that destroys a person’s own islet cells. In some cases, the transplant recipients have not needed daily injections of insulin, at least for a while.

But there are too few donors to provide cell replacement to more than a small percentage of diabetics. Embryonic stem cells, which can potentially be turned into any type of cell in the body, could be a source of islet cells.

Novocell, which is based in San Diego, reported in 2006 that its researchers had turned human embryonic stem cells into insulin-producing cells in culture dishes, something others have also reported doing. But Novocell’s cells did not vary insulin production in response to glucose, a crucial requirement for implantation.

In the latest work, published online Wednesday by Nature Biotechnology, the researchers got assistance from the mice themselves. Instead of implanting the insulin-producing cells into mice, they implanted precursor cells that were a step short of developing into insulin-producing cells.

The mice’s bodies apparently provided the proper signals to turn the implanted cells into functioning insulin-producing cells in about 90 days.

When the scientists used a toxin to destroy the mice’s own islet cells, the animals that had received the human cells continued to produce insulin and control their blood sugar while mice without the implants quickly became diabetic. After about 100 days, the scientists removed the implanted cells from the mice, and blood sugar levels shot up.

“This for the first time validates that you can use human embryonic stem cells to produce fully functional human islets,” said Emmanuel E. Baetge, the chief scientific officer of Novocell and senior author of the report.

But Dr. Mark A Magnuson, a professor at Vanderbilt University and director of its stem cell biology center, said the Food and Drug Administration might not allow the transplant into people of cellular material that would have to “mature” in the body.

“Would this happen reproducibly in different people, and would it be the same in all transplant sites?” Dr. Magnuson said in an e-mail message. “If it wasn’t totally predictable, could there be adverse effects, such as tumors?”

Indeed, in the Novocell experiment, 7 of the 105 mice with the implants developed a sort of tumor called teratomas. Dr. Baetge said Novocell could probably have reduced or eliminated the teratomas if it had purified the cells before implanting them.

Far from vindicating the current U.S. policy of withholding federal funds from many of those working to develop potentially lifesaving embryonic stem cells, recent papers in the journals Science and Cell described a breakthrough achieved despite political restrictions. In fact, work by both the U.S. and Japanese teams that reprogrammed skin cells depended entirely on previous embryonic stem cell research.

At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion. President Bush's repeated veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has twice passed the House and Senate with votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, further ignores the will of the American people.

Efforts to harness the versatility of embryonic stem cells, and alleviate suffering among people with an array of debilitating disorders, began less than 10 years ago. Since then, scientists have continued to pursue embryonic stem cells because of their ability to transform into blood, bone, skin or any other type of cell. The eventual goal is to replace diseased or dysfunctional cells to help people with spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other conditions.

Since 1998, many strategies for addressing sanctity-of-life concerns have been pursued. While commendable, these efforts remain preliminary, and none so far has suggested a magic bullet. In the same way, the recent tandem advances in the United States and by Shinya Yamanaka's team in Japan are far from being a Holy Grail, as Charles Krauthammer inaccurately described them [" Stem Cell Vindication," op-ed, Nov. 30]. Though potential landmarks, these studies are only a first step on the long road toward eventual therapies.

Krauthammer's central argument -- that the president's misgivings about embryonic stem cell research inspired innovative alternatives -- is fundamentally flawed, too. Yamanaka was of course working in Japan, and scientists around the world are pursuing the full spectrum of options, in many cases faster than researchers in the United States.

Reprogrammed skin cells, incorporating four specific genes known to play a role in making cells versatile, or pluripotent, did seem to behave like embryonic stem cells in mice. But mouse studies frequently fail to pan out in humans, so we don't yet know whether this approach is viable for treating human diseases. We simply cannot invest all our hopes in a single approach. Federal funding is essential for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, even as promising alternatives are beginning to emerge.

Unfortunately, under the policy President Bush outlined on Aug. 9, 2001, at most 21 stem cell lines derived from embryos before that date are eligible for federal funding. American innovation in the field thus faces inherent limitations. Even more significant, the stigma resulting from the policy surely has discouraged some talented young Americans from pursuing stem cell research.

Discomfort with the notion of extracting stem cells from embryos is understandable. But many of the life-changing medical advances of recent history, including heart transplantation, have provoked discomfort. Struggling with bioethical questions remains a critical step in any scientific advancement.

A solution that might be more comfortable for many people already exists but cannot be pursued unless the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act becomes law. Some percentage of the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos from fertility clinics will eventually be destroyed. American couples meanwhile are not being given the choice to donate their frozen embryos to federal research to help others through stem cell advances.

It remains to be seen whether reprogrammed skin cells will differ in significant ways from embryonic stem cells. We remain hopeful, but it's too early to say we're certain.

We hope Congress will override the president's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Further delays in pursuing the clearly viable option of embryonic stem cells will result in an irretrievable loss of time, especially if the new approach fails to prove itself.

Alan I. Leshner is chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science. James A. Thomson is a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. He was the first scientist to create human embryonic stem cells and is the senior author on the recent Science paper describing a method for reprogramming skin cells.

While fantastic, the breakthroughs in stem cell research announced last week should not change everything overnight. And the news media needs to stop heralding every new stem cell discovery as a way past the political controversy.

To many of us, the political controversy is inane. The pro-choice versus anti-choice debate is one thing, but stretching an anti-choice position to stand in the way of medical research and possible cures for cruel diseases is mindless. Suffice it to say there's a serious disconnect when you think it's okay for fertility clinics to destroy thousands of embryos on a daily basis and then oppose allowing those same embryos to be used for stem cell research.

Last week, two different teams of scientists announced they had found a way to make adult human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. It appears to be a giant breakthrough that could lead to some of the same developments that had been hoped for through embryonic research.

However, the technique has not been perfected, and even if it is, it might not completely supplant the need for embryonic stem cell research. Right now, the adult cell approach creates the potential for cancer, and until that can be safely avoided, it most likely couldn't be used to treat diabetes, Parkinson's or spinal cord injuries. Those are three of the conditions where embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise.

The news stories announcing the discovery, of course, talked about how this new approach could end the "intense political controversy." If it were to prove every bit as effective as the embryonic method, perhaps it could. But we have no way of knowing that now, and until we do, it's wrong to pretend.

It's also wrong for the media to assume that everyone agrees we have to get past the controversy by doing away with embryonic stem cell research. If it still offers hope that other methods don't, that would be a huge mistake.

Furthermore, I don't think the No. 1 goal needs to be getting "past the controversy." The goal for those of us on the pro-stem cell side of the debate needs to be winning more races. We need to make sure we're electing people who won't stand in the way of the research.

If George Bush had not been elected president in 2000, we'd be a lot further down the road to finding cures. But since the beginning of his first term, he has played politics with this issue and done everything possible to slow progress. He has not been alone. Many other elected officials at all different levels have touted their Christian bona fides and done their best to confuse the issue.

As far back as anyone can remember, people have been using religious arguments to stand in the way of medical breakthroughs. At one point, Christians opposed blood transfusions because they believed it was evil to mix human blood. You don't hear that argument a lot these days. And when people start walking again and living quality lives because of stem cell treatment, the ridiculous arguments against it will likewise vanish.

In research published in two journals, Cell and Science, teams from Kyoto University in Japan and the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States, said they had created cells that shared many physical, growth and genetic features of embryonic stem cells in a series of lab tests.

Scientists are trying to create embryonic stem cells because they can turn into virtually any kind of cell in the body and genetically match the donor, meaning tissue would be transplantable into that person without fear of rejection.

'It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold' — Dr. Robert LanzaWhile scientists warn that any such payoff from this technique would be far in the future, the process used by the two teams avoids the obstacles that have halted embryonic stem cell research through embryonic cloning. For example, it doesn't require a supply of unfertilized human eggs, which are destroyed in the cloning process, leading to ethical, religious and political opposition.

The Japanese team used skin cells from the face of an unidentified adult woman, while the U.S. team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Both labs used similar methods to achieve what they call "direct reprogramming," using viruses to carry four genes into the skin cells. The genes were known to turn other genes on and off, but how they produced the embryonic stem cell-like cells is a mystery.

The two teams used two of the same genes and two different ones. The resulting cells are induced pluripotent stem, or iPS, cells.

The study revives hope, previously dashed by fraud, that a similar process using cloned human embryos could create transplant tissue genetically matched to patients, thus avoiding the risk of rejection.

Until the early release of the study, originally slated for publication in the British scientific journal Nature on Nov. 22, scientists were beginning to doubt that it would ever be possible to clone the embryos of primates - the biological order that includes monkeys, apes and human beings.

South Korean researchers had claimed in 2005 to have created stem cells from cloned human embryos, but that highly publicized effort turned out to be a giant fraud.

While the faux-science of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk was grabbing headlines, researchers at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, in the Portland suburb of Beaverton, were quietly making headway in cloning rhesus monkey embryos. Their technique involves hollowing out a monkey egg and placing inside it the nucleus from another monkey's skin cell.

Until now, however, the research had not produced a cloned monkey embryo that did more than divide a few cycles before dying. This year, for the first time, the Oregon team created monkey embryos rugged enough to produce stem cells - the mark of a successful clone.

Having cleared the hurdle of cloning a functioning primate embryo, the path is now open once again for cloning of human embryos. People are primates, too.

"I'm quite sure it will work in humans," lead investigator Shoukhrat Mitalipov told reporters during a telephone press conference. The researcher at the Oregon center said the newly published experiment was "a proof of principle." He told reporters that process has been patented.

Human embryonic stem cells, created shortly after a fertilized egg begins to grow, have the potential to become virtually any organ or tissue under the right conditions, and researchers hope that they will one day serve as reservoirs of replacements for human parts worn out by age, trauma or disease. In theory, stem cells made from such embryos could be chemically coaxed to make a new heart for a dying child, or to forge a patch for a severed spinal cord of someone paralyzed in an accident.

Mitalipov's ultimate goal is to clone a living rhesus monkey, and produce copies of the clone with genes removed or "knocked out" to imitate human diseases. Researchers are currently limited to the use of knock-out mice to study human diseases in the lab, but mice are biologically quite different from humans.

So far, the goal of cloning a monkey remains out of reach. In 2002, Mitalipov reported implanting 165 rhesus monkey embryos created by an older cloning technology, but none of them developed into a fetus.

He said he has no interest in cloning a human being - a feat that would be more complex technologically and, scientists agree, ethically indefensible.

Scientists do hope they can adapt the latest techniques to produce human embryos for the harvest of stem cells - so-called therapeutic cloning. Although President Bush has banned the use of federal funds for such research, it lies at the core of studies to be paid for by the $3 billion stem cell initiative approved by California voters in 2005.

Renee Reijo Pera, director of human embryonic stem cell research at Stanford University School of Medicine, receives funding through the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the grant-making authority for the state stem cell program.

"This is a first," she said of the work by the Oregon researchers. "A lot of people said it couldn't be done."

Reijo Pera was so impressed with the work that she hired the study's lead author, James Byrnes, who joined Stanford in July. He will be working on developing techniques to coax stem cells out of human embryos.

Crucial to the success of the Oregon primate project was the development of new tools for manipulating the microscopic elements involved in cloning. Previously, technicians used ultraviolet light to illuminate egg cells while they stripped them of genetic material, and installed a new set of genes from a donor cell - such as one from the skin. But ultraviolet light could itself damage the delicate molecular material.

The Oregon team, which is affiliated with Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, got around that problem by using new equipment that did not use ultraviolet light. It seems to have made all the difference.

Reijo Pera said it was the right tool for the right job. "You can't plow a road with a shovel," she said.

Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, director of the Institute for Regeneration Medicine at UCSF, said the Oregon work is a major milestone, but a great deal of work remains before the technique might find a place in the clinic.

"One caveat is, they used a lot of eggs," he said. The experiment yielded two stem cell lines from a supply of 304 rhesus monkey eggs. Human eggs are much more precious commodity, and scientist said it will require a vast improvement in efficiency - perhaps one successful stem cell line for every five human eggs - before the technology will become practical in the medical clinic.

"It needs some tweaking," said Kriegstein. "But that's the normal history of things like this."

Polling in the state overwhelmingly supported the controversial science. And additional state budget allocations allowed for the creation of a state stem cell institute, for which Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine broke ground a month ago.

So what happened on Tuesday, when voters in the pro-choice, Democrat-controlled state overwhelmingly turned down a bond initiative that would have allowed the state to borrow $450 million over the next decade to support stem cell research?

New Jersey voters had not voted against a ballot initiative in 17 years. But on Tuesday, they voted 53 percent to 47 percent against the stem cell initiative.

Is voter support for stem cell research eroding across the United States, leaving California, with its $3 billion stem cell initiative, to become an island in a sea of disinterest and skepticism?

People on both sides of the stem cell debate said the key factor in New Jersey's failed initiative was taxpayer fatigue.

Or, more precisely, taxpayers were not keen on taking on more debt until the legislature in New Jersey does something about a $3 billion budget deficit.

“This government can't manage itself out of a paper bag; how is it going to oversee the complexities of stem cell research?” said Steve Lonegan, Republican mayor of Bogota, N.J.

“I truly believe the people saw through the promises that we can cure all kinds of disease by throwing $450 million at stem cell research,” said Lonegan, who formed Americans for Prosperity, which raised $450,000 to support a campaign opposing the initiative.

Lobbyists, consultants and stem cell advocacy groups outside New Jersey point to other contributing factors.

Voter turnout was low, with no major statewide races at stake. In such years, opponents of a measure are much more likely to go to the polls than those who support a measure, said Michael J. Werner, a Washington-based lobbyist and biotechnology industry consultant.

“I think the New Jersey vote demonstrates how difficult it is for individual states to make a substantial financial commitment to stem cell research,” Werner said.

“It's just difficult for a state to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to research generally. And I think it is particularly true because stem cells are so controversial. And that underscores why it is crucial why support from the leadership of the federal government and full investment by the National Institutes of Health is so important.”

California's $3 billion initiative, known as Proposition 71, was an effort to circumvent federal funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. Its success, and the threat that California would attract scientists from other states, prompted several other states to put dollars behind the science.

Those states include Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin, as well as Massachusetts, which earlier this year announced a research initiative that includes stem cells.

In 2004, then-New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey earmarked $6.5 million in the state budget for stem cell research.

A year ago, Corzine signed into law a bill providing $270 million to build research facilities in New Jersey, with $150 million earmarked for the state's Stem Cell Institute in New Brunswick. In June, nearly $9.2 million in predevelopment funding was approved for the institute.

In the past year, $10.5 million in research grants was approved by the state's Commission on Science and Technology, with $5.5 million for two core facilities and nearly $5 million in individual grants to 16 researchers from university and nonprofit institutions in the state.

New Jersey lawmakers could still fund more research through a line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. And they could decide to place another ballot question before voters next fall, when turnout will be high for the presidential election.

The failed campaign for New Jersey's bond initiative was largely backed by Corzine, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive who pumped $150,000 of his own considerable wealth into it.

The opposition had the heft of the Catholic church, which mounted an advertising campaign, as well as anti-abortion groups.

But it never really became a debate over the morality of human embryonic stem cell research. And the vote did not seem to generate much interest outside the state's boundaries, unlike the campaign for the 2004 California stem cell initiative, said Tom Matsusaka, who heads the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

Stem cell advocates were disappointed their message did not appear to resonate with New Jerseyans.

“One would like to think that if, in the end, stem cells are as good as we hope they will be for helping to improve health, in the long run it is a tremendous investment into reducing medical costs and producing new products to help the state economy,” said Richard Murphy, interim president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which oversees the state's $3 billion initiative.

But cNew Jersey'svote onsumer watchdog groups have questioned whether financial analyses and projections provided to California's taxpayers during the Proposition 71 campaign are really sound. Some of those groups are doubtful that Proposition 71 would pass if presented to voters today.

“Proposition 71 succeeded because of the political shine of embryonic stem cell research,” said Jesse Reynolds of the Foundation for Genetics and Society, based in Oakland. “In 2004, you probably couldn't get Californians to approve a $3 billion initiative for all medical research, but that shine allowed the stem cell initiative to win approval. It was like a magic bullet, aimed at Washington.”

But may indicate that the intensity of that attitude is waning, he said. People are now looking at issues such as financial accountability, and that's long overdue, Reynolds said.

“I am skeptical if Proposition 71 would pass again here now,” he said.

At about one-tenth the size of California's financial commitment to stem cell research over the next decade, observers of the stem cell issue said the New Jersey initiative was unlikely to pose much competition to California. More than 50 scientists have already moved to California since the passage of Proposition 71.

While states are competing for the best scientists and the business benefits that could eventually flow from their work, the scientific community sees all research as beneficial.

“We want every state to be able to put their best minds to this field,” Murphy said. “Unfortunately New Jersey, which has some great scientists, is not going to have the ability to participate in the stem cell revolution as robustly as they might have if this money was provided. And that hurts everybody.

As Texas voters consider providing $3 billion in public funding for cancer research, the president of the Texas Freedom Network today denounced extremist attacks on sound, ethical medical research by an array of far-right pressure groups.

"These cynical attacks on funding for cancer research are an example of political extremism at its worst," TFN President Kathy Miller said. "Once again we see pressure groups pushing political obstacles in the way of sound science and hope for so many patients fighting for their lives."

Proposition 15 would provide $3 billion in public funding for cancer research in Texas . Even Gov. Rick Perry and House Speaker Tom Craddick have supported the measure. Yet fringe pressure groups like Vision America , Texas Eagle Forum and Texans for Life Coalition on the far right say they oppose the measure because medical researchers might someday use the money to fund research into how embryonic stem cells could treat or cure cancer.

In 2005, legislative opponents of embryonic stem cell research were willing to block critical funding for higher education facilities in an attempt to bar that promising form of medical research. Now those opponents are willing to block even hope for cancer patients and their families, Miller said.

Some of those opponents, such as Lufkin-based Vision America , have even used their opposition to Proposition 15 to solicit donations from supporters who oppose stem cell research.

"Their stubborn, single-minded opposition to promising stem cell research jeopardizes medical progress and hope for so many Texas families suffering from serious medical conditions," Miller said. "Even worse, those groups are cynically using their opposition to Proposition 15 as a fund raising tool to attack stem cell research in the future."

Supporters Lance Armstrong and Gov. Rick Perry immediately issued statements:

“We celebrate a milestone in Texas history today, and I’ve never been more proud to be a Texan.” Armstrong said. “Proposition 15 is the most important effort in which I have ever been involved, and I am deeply grateful to the people of this state for joining our campaign by voting to make Texas a global leader in cancer research and prevention.”

From Perry: “Everyone has a stake in the fight against cancer and Texans have taken matters into their own hands by passing Proposition 15, funding ten years of cancer research in our state. I believe that we will look back on this day as a turning point in the war against this deadly disease.”

Each year, 95,000 Texans are diagnosed and 37,000 die from the disease.

Supporters of Proposition 15 say it is about saving lives. Opponents worry about the lives of the unborn.

Tour De France winner and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong has ditched his bike for a bus. He's crisscrossing Texas in "Survivor One," urging Texans to approve Prop 15.

"Now is the time to accelerate our efforts," said Armstrong. "Based on the latest numbers, you still have 560,000 Americans that die every year. We can't stop now. Science is ready."

Governor Rick Perry and former President George Bush are also on board with the proposition.

But conservatives like Cathie Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum oppose Prop 15. They claim it wouldn't keep embryos from being used for taxpayer-supported stem cell research.

"The moral issue is indeed that this money could be spent for human cloning, which is embryonic stem cell research," said Adams. "That is really a big problem because I don't think the majority of Texans agree with that research."

Governor Perry opposes taxpayer-supported embryonic stem cell research, and his office says the legislative intent was to prevent it.

Opponents also express concerns about the cost. The money would be paid for in a bond, and they say interest and finance charges would cost an additional $1.6 billion.

But some, like Cliff Parker, said that's a small price to pay. "I'm a survivor. I've had skin cancer twice, and I've had a sister with breast cancer. My parents had cancer as well," said Parker. "I feel like we need to find a cure."

Both companies are preparing to submit applications to the FDA to begin human testing of experimental treatments that are based on ESCs. If the companies get the go-ahead, they could begin tests as soon as next year.

In the past, the FDA has approved human tests of products based on stem cells taken from adult tissue. But Geron and ACT would be the first to begin human testing of treatments based on the more controversial research using stem cells derived from embryos.

Human tests are the most advanced form of testing and one of the final hurdles before the FDA approves a drug.

Geron has already met with the FDA and will submit its plans for human testing to the agency by the end of this year, according to Sion Rogers, a spokesman for the company.

"We expect to be in the clinic [for human testing] next year," said Rogers.

ACT plans to submit its application for human testing to the FDA by the middle of next year, said Chief Executive Robert Lanza, who spoke at the 7th International Stem Cell Conference on Tuesday.

His company is developing potential treatments for vision loss diseases, including macular degeneration and Stargardt's, based on studies involving monkeys.

Geron and ACT will not compete with each other because their potential products are unrelated.

"We think that it doesn't matter who gets to the clinic first, because the entire stem cell space will benefit when someone gets there," said Ren Benjamin, analyst for Rodman & Renshaw.

"It will create a lot of excitement in investors, because it's a big milestone for the embryonic stem cell space."

Novocell, another privately-held biotech based in San Diego, uses embryonic stem cell research in developing treatments for diabetes. Chief Executive Alan Lewis said that he is a couple of years behind Geron and ACT, and he is yet to finish studies using mice.

As the Nov. 6 election nears, the Rutgers-Eagleton poll found 57 percent of voters support the stem cell question while 36 percent oppose it.

The money would fund adult and federally restricted embryonic stem cell research for 10 years. The Catholic church strongly opposes embryonic research.

"We speak out against embryonic stem cell research and the allocation of moneys for research which in our judgment fails to respect the sacredness of human life at its beginning," Archbishop of Newark John J. Myers wrote in a recent letter to parishioners.

The church plans to run radio ads this weekend against the measure.

"I ask everyone to pray that the people of New Jersey will vote against the funding of embryonic stem cell research this November and that we will all continue to support and respect life, especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us," Bishop of Trenton John M. Smith wrote in another letter to parishioners.

The church doesn't oppose research on adult stem cells and plans to show a DVD to parishioners explaining the difference.

Still, the poll found New Jersey Catholics support the ballot question by 48 percent to 41 percent. It also found evangelicals and those who described themselves as born-again Christians supporting the measure by 48 percent to 42 percent.

Two-thirds of Democrats and 57 percent of independents support the borrowing, with Republicans split on the question, the poll found.

Tim Vercellotti, director of polling at the Eagleton Institute of Politics, said those findings "speak to the strength of public support."

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who signed the law putting the question on the ballot, predicted the public support would hold.

"I always am concerned when there is thoughtful and careful opposition which the church brings to bear from their perspective," Corzine said. "But we'll hopefully find that people want to advance science in a way that protects the lives and improves the lives of every individual."

Many believe stem cell research will bring cures for ailments such as spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, sickle cell anemia and multiple sclerosis.

The multimillionaire governor who has spent about $105 million of his own money on his election campaigns said he's ready to spend again to answer opposition.

"I'm more than prepared to put resources into a campaign, if it's necessary, to make sure that the public knows there is an opportunity to do what I believe they really want to do, which is advance mankind and maintain and support the economic vitality of the state," Corzine said.

The poll also found voters preferring Democratic Assembly and Senate candidates. All 120 legislative seats are up for election this year. Democrats control the Assembly 50-30 and the Senate 22-18.

The telephone poll of 856 registered voters was conducted from Oct. 18-23 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.4 percent

In July, Corzine signed a bill authorizing the referendum. The state Assembly in June voted 50-27 and the Senate voted 31-3 to approve the legislation. If approved by voters, the funds would be used to award grants to institutions -- including colleges, universities, and state and local government agencies -- that conduct research on both adult and human embryonic stem cells, and umbilical cord blood, according to state Rep. Neil Cohen (D). Borrowing for stem cell research could increase the state's debt by as much as $37 million annually, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/17).

"Ethically and morally, we're doing the right thing," Corzine said, adding, "If ever there was a reason to vote, to go out and push for cures," it is the Nov. 6 referendum (Bergen Record, 10/24). He was speaking at a ceremony in New Brunswick, N.J., to mark the groundbreaking of the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey, the AP/CNNMoney.com reports (AP/CNNMoney.com, 10/23).

Corzine in December 2006 signed into law a bill (S 1471) allowing the state to borrow $270 million for the expansion of embryonic stem cell research and facilities, including $150 million for the New Brunswick facility (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 12/22/06). The facility, which is expected to be completed in spring 2011, will have research and clinical study facilities, as well as outpatient treatment facilities (AP/CNNMoney.com, 10/23).

Court Challenge The Legal Center for the Defense of Life on Monday asked a state appellate court panel in Newark to remove the referendum from the Nov. 6 ballot and put it before the Legislature (Bergen Record, 10/24). The group last month filed a lawsuit on behalf of New Jersey Right to Life and 15 New Jersey residents in Trenton, N.J., Superior Court, alleging that the ballot question is deceptive because it does not explain that the borrowed funds would pay for human cloning or that the debt could be repaid with property taxes. The suit sought to stop printing of the ballot and to bar the question from going to voters.

Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster ruled that the referendum must remain on the Nov. 6 ballot. Shuster ruled that the ballot proposal appears "fair, balanced and neutral" and rejected the argument that it is misleading to voters. He also rejected the groups' request to delay the printing of ballots for the election, allowing county clerks to begin printing the ballots late last month. A three-judge panel of a New Jersey Appeals Court earlier this month said it would hear an appeal in a case asking that votes on the referendum not be counted and that voting machines be adjusted to not accept votes on the referendum (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/17).

The panel is expected to rule quickly on the case, the Record reports (Bergen Record, 10/24). Marie Tasy, executive director of NJRTL, said supporters of the referendum are "shamelessly exploiting the sick and infirmed with empty promises of miracle cures and false economic benefits" (AP/CNNMoney.com, 10/23).

The anti-cures crowd alleges the summary statement issued by the secretary of state's office last week is misleading because it states that their proposed measure would "repeal the current ban" on human cloning.

Stem cell research opponents ignore the fact that their own language submitted to the secretary of state begins by stating that the initiative "may change, repeal or modify" the state constitution.

The truth is that stem cell opponents do want to repeal the Constitution's existing ban and outlaw what the medical community believes is one of the most promising forms of stem cell research that Missouri's constitution protects as the result of last year's approval of the stem cell amendment.

Our constitution now makes it a felony, punishable by 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, to even attempt to clone a human being, while ensuring that federally approved stem cell research can be pursued within strict, ethical boundaries.

The truth is that stem cell opponents wish to ignore the thousands of Missourians who suffer from medical conditions, such as diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injury. I ask you not to do the same. Reject the opponent's deliberately deceptive initiative.

"All avenues of research need to be pursued," Zerhouni says in the newest edition of Medline Plus, a journal published jointly by the NIH and Friends of the National Library of Medicine. He adds: "We must continue the research at all levels."

Those views put Zerhouni, who serves at the pleasure of President Bush, at odds with his boss. Bush has twice vetoed legislation to do what Zerhouni wants.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that the Senate will begin debating the fiscal 2008 appropriations bill for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education (HR 3043, S 1710) on Tuesday.

Reid hopes to finish the bill this week, in order to clear the schedule for debate on a massive and contentious farm bill (HR 2419), even if the Senate has to work into the weekend.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sounded accommodating. “We need to try to complete it as rapidly as possible,” he said about the Labor-HHS-Education measure. Some members of his party may not be as cooperative, however.

The bill would provide $606 billion for the agencies under its jurisdiction, including $149.9 billion in discretionary spending. The discretionary figure is $5.4 billion more than in fiscal 2007 and $9.6 billion more than President Bush requested. It is $1.9 billion less than in the House-passed bill.

Bush has threatened to veto both versions, as part of a promise to reject any spending bill that exceeds his proposed budget.

Republicans are expected to attack the more than 1,000 earmarks in the bill.

“We’re in a war on terror and we’re trying to be fiscally responsible,” a Senate GOP aide said. “Museums and aquariums are not a national priority.”

The bill includes $150,000 in earmarks for the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center in Virginia Beach, Va., and millions of dollars for individual museums and parks around the country.

Conservatives also are expected to try to strip a provision that would allow expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research. Under an order Bush issued Aug. 9, 2001, federal funding for the research is restricted to stem cell lines created before that date. Bush opposes such research on moral grounds because it requires the destruction of human embryos.

Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who is a strong advocate of embryonic stem cell research and wrote the Labor-HHS-Education bill, says Bush’s policy made only six viable cell lines eligible for federal research funding. Harkin, who calls the order’s cutoff date arbitrary, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote bill language that would open funding to any cell lines created before June 15, 2007.

Although conservatives may slow the bill’s passage, they are unlikely to stop it. The Appropriations Committee approved the bill June 21 on a 26-3 vote, and a similar bipartisan majority is expected to support it on the floor.

The House passed its version, 276-140, on July 19 — just two votes shy of the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.

She says she also would bar political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions from government research without a legitimate reason for doing so.

The New York senator was to announce these and other proposals of her science agenda in a speech in Washington on Thursday.

The address to the Carnegie Institution for Science was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. The launch, which caught U.S. scientists by surprise, helped start the U.S.-Soviet space race and led to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

"For six and half years under this president, it's been open season on open inquiry," Clinton said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy. I believe we have to change course, and I know America is ready."

On the campaign trail, Clinton has repeatedly slammed what she calls Bush's "war on science" and accused the administration of allowing conservative political ideology to interfere with research and scientific evidence. She cites administration officials who have questioned the scientific evidence of global warming and who have suggested a link existed between abortion and breast cancer.

Clinton's goal was to spell out specific priorities for scientific innovation that would also enhance U.S. economic interests, advisers said.

As president, Clinton said she would:

_ Expand human and robotic space exploration and speed development of vehicles to would replace the space shuttle.

_ Launch a space-based climate change initiative to combat global warming.

_ Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

_ Comply with a legal requirement that the executive branch issue a national assessment on climate change every four years. She would also expand the assessment to reflect how U.S. regions and economic sectors are responding to the challenges posed by climate change.

_ Name an assistant to the president for science and technology, a position that was eliminated in the Bush White House.

_ Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.

The unanimous vote by the Public Health Council - whose members were appointed by Governor Deval Patrick - should help restore the state's reputation as being hospitable to the work of stem cell scientists, members of the council said.

The repeal of the Romney-imposed rule involved a seemingly modest alteration to a single sentence in the regulation.

"It's important for us to be as competitive as possible and allow research to occur," said Public Health Council member Harold Cox, an associate dean at Boston University School of Public Health. "Changing that one sentence seems to make a world of difference to the people doing the research."

The reversal, which ended 14 months of debate on the ethics of stem cell research in the state, generated praise from Patrick, relief from the biotechnology sector, and condemnation from right-to-life organizations.

In March, Patrick called for the restrictive regulations to be reversed as part of his initiative to strengthen the state's position in the burgeoning field of stem cell research.

When the restrictions drafted by Romney's aides were adopted in August 2006, critics pointed to the rules as an example of the Republican governor's use of public health policy to strengthen his appeal to social conservatives as he embarked on a presidential bid.

The controversy dates to 2005, when the Legislature embraced a law intended to remove most obstacles to human embryonic stem cell research. But that framework made clear that legislators did not sanction the production of embryos for the express purpose of scientific exploration.

The Legislature, though, did not say anything about scientists using stem-cell lines developed in states with less restrictive laws. In New York, for example, scientists hunting for treatments for a disease can produce embryos using sperm and eggs donated by families stricken with the ailment. The resulting stem cells can then be used to understand a disease and to look for treatments.

When the Public Health Council was called upon last year to implement portions of the law, the Romney administration inserted a restriction stating that embryos could not be produced "with the sole intent of using the embryo for research." The pivotal part of that rule - and the part that troubled scientists - was the word "using."

Scientists routinely share stem cell material, and researchers feared that the rule crafted by the Romney administration could place them in legal peril if they accepted stem cell lines from outside the state that had been derived for scientific use.

Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach said in an interview yesterday that leading scientists told him that since the restriction was adopted, research centers outside Massachusetts had attempted to poach young talent, promising an environment more amenable to stem cell work.

"They were worried if this was not cleaned up, they could find a situation where the most promising research was shifting out of Massachusetts," Auerbach said.

Yesterday, the Public Health Council altered the sentence that was regarded as troublesome, striking the word using and replacing it with language that council members said reflected the original intent of the Legislature. The rule now refers to a prohibition against donating embryos specifically for research.

Advocates of expanding stem cell research said yesterday's vote may foreshadow an easing on that ban, as well.

"We would hope now there may be an appetite to review that whole concept of the prohibition on donation," said Kevin Casey, director of governmental relations for Harvard.

In a statement, Patrick hailed the vote, saying that "our leadership in life sciences, as well as our opportunity to grow this economy, depends on eliminating unnecessary barriers like these."

During recent public hearings, the change in the stem cell rule drew robust opposition from some religious groups, as well as Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Family Institute, organizations that oppose abortion and the use of embryos in stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body, and scientists predict that the research could lead to insights into diseases and, potentially, to treatments. But the work has provoked opposition from antiabortion groups because current methods of obtaining cells require destroying embryos.

"The unfortunate action of the state Public Health Council to amend the Romney regulations by removing the restriction on embryonic stem cell research casts a vote for unethical scientific research and raises false hope of ill people desperately seeking cures by suggesting to them that their future treatment lies in embryonic stem cell research," said Dr. Mildred F. Jefferson, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Paperwork creating the Stem Cell Research Ballot Question Committee was filed last week with the Secretary of State. But the director of an affiliated organization said Thursday no decision has been made about whether to mount what would almost certainly become a multimillion-dollar campaign to overturn the state’s ban on research involving the destruction of human embryos.

Marcia Baum, executive director of Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research, said her organization continues to press for action in the state Legislature on bills to lift the restrictions while backers explore the possibility of a ballot proposal.

Members of Baum’s organization believe embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatments for a wide array of chronic conditions, including diabetes and spinal cord injuries. They also point to the potential economic benefits to the state from stem cell research and the development of treatments.

But supporters of Michigan’s current law, led by Michigan Right to Life and the Michigan Catholic Conference, say they are confident majorities in both the state House and Senate oppose changes that would lift the ban on research that results in the destruction of embryos or permission to clone human embryos.

Catholic Conference spokesman Dave Maluchnik said, “Any proposal that seeks to clone or kill human embryos in this state must be defeated. The Michigan Catholic will continue to advocate for proven and ethical adult stem cell research."

A stem cell ballot proposal campaign easily could become one of the most expensive in Michigan history. A similar campaign in Missouri in 2004, which was narrowly approved by voters, topped $30 million in spending, most of it by backers of the measure.

The trio, who worked independently of one another, were honoured for discovering how to genetically manipulate mouse embryonic stem cells, leading to lab rodents that replicate human disease, the Nobel jury said.

Their "ground-breaking discoveries concerning embryonic stem cells and DNA recombination in mammals... led to the creation of an immensely powerful technology," the committee said.

The discovery is technically called gene targeting but is commonly known as gene "knockout."

Evans said the prize was "a boyhood dream come true."

Engineered mice provide researchers with a lab model that yields insights into the fundamentals of diseases ranging from Alzheimer's to cancer and the response to new drugs, the jury said.

Thanks to their work, scientists can now determine the role of specific genes, a breakthrough that has "revolutionized life science," the jury said.

"Gene targeting in mice has pervaded all fields of biomedicine. Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come."

To date more than 10,000 mice genes -- approximately half of the genes in the mammalian genome -- have been knocked out.

Disabling, or knocking out, a gene is a two-step process.

The first is to snip out a functioning gene from the animal's genome, using chemical "scissors" such as an enzyme.

The next is to replace that gene with the modified one -- the gene whose flaws will cause the disease to be studied.

The big challenge is getting this introduced stretch of DNA to find the corresponding slot in the chromosome and then fit in snugly.

Little more than two decades ago, the prevailing wisdom was that the task was impossible in mammalian cells and that the DNA would insert itself in the chromosome almost randomly.

But the Nobel laureates found a way to do this. In the 1980s, Evans isolated mice embryonic stemcells -- the all-purpose master cells whose manipulation could create in theory any mutation of choice.

In the meantime, Capecchi and Smithies, working separately, found a way to target genes by a technique called "homologous recombination."

"Homologous" means that the introduced DNA sequence lines up with its mirror target sequence in the mouse chromosome, while "recombination" means the incoming and target sequences break and then rejoin.

"The award is very exciting and particularly appropriate," observed Steve Brown, a leading scientist at the Mammalian Genetics Unit of Britain's Medical Research Council (MRC).

"Our ability to knock out -- to lose the function -- of a gene in the mouse genome has been absolutely critical in understanding the genetic basis of human disease in all areas."

Evans, 66, who has been knighted in Britain, is the director of the School of Biosciences and professor of mammalian genetics at Cardiff University in Britain.

"I'm very pleased that British science is being honoured in this way. It is a pleasure and it is the highest honour in science," Evans said in a statement.

Italian-born Capecchi, who celebrated his 70th birthday on Saturday and is a human genetics and biology professor at the University of Utah, told AFP the prize a "marvelous honour."

"Right now we do all our work in mice," Capecchi said. "I would like to see whether I can extend this technology to other organisms that are much more difficult to study.

"How do we fight diseases through our immune systems? Some organisms do that much better than others and how do they do that?" he said.

Capecchi spent part of World War II living on the streets of his hometown of Verona and begging for food after his mother was arrested by the Gestapo and placed in the Dachau concentration camp.

British-born Smithies, 82, who said he was inspired to become a scientist after reading about an inventor in a comic strip, is a professor of pathology at the University of North Carolina.

Smithies said he is currently studying kidney function and hopes that his Nobel-winning research can be used to "correct a gene in a useful way to help humans."

The medicine prize is the first award to be announced in this year's Nobel season.

The physics prize is to be announced on Tuesday followed by the chemistry prize on Wednesday. The literature prize will be announced on Thursday and the peace prize on Friday. The economics prize wraps up the season on October 15.

The laureates receive a gold medal, a diploma and 10 million Swedish kronor (1.53 million dollars, 1.08 million euros) which can be split between up to three winners per prize.

Dr Robert Clarke and his team at the University's Cancer Studies research group have been investigating human breast cancers for the presence of stem cells - cells that generate new tumours and can cause the cancer to recur - in a series of studies funded by the charity Breast Cancer Campaign.

One third of women who are successfully treated for breast cancer find that the disease recurs some years later because some of these cancer cells survive the treatment and begin to grow again.

The team's research into these 'breast cancer stem cells' revealed that the cells are stimulated by the Notch gene. The team, who published the study in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, is now hoping to develop new drug therapies to target this gene and thus stop the growth of any surviving breast cancer stem cells.

One drug that is known to attack Notch is already used for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease so, having undergone health and safety checks, its clinical trial for use on breast cancer patients could be sped up and lead to a treatment in hospital clinics within a few years. Herceptin, by contrast, took more than 15 years to go from the discovery of its gene target to treatment.

The team is also aiming to identify other new pathways of controlling breast cancer stem cells by using a genetic library to shut down other genes at random to see how it affects them, in a study with Rene Bernards at the Netherlands Cancer Institute.

The team, along with Professor Tony Whetton, are using a state-of-the-art mass-spectrometry based proteomics facility at the Paterson Institute of Cancer Research to identify proteins that control breast cancer stem cells. The facility - one of only a few in the UK - enables them to break up breast cancer stem cell proteins and analyse the sequence of amino acids to identify novel proteins that control the cells' growth.

Dr Clarke says: "Our work has revealed the importance of several pathways not previously known to regulate stem cell survival and self-renewal, which is tremendously exciting. Inhibitors of signalling pathways that regulate cancer stem cells could represent a new therapeutic modality in breast cancer, to be used in combination with current treatments in the near future."

This research is being presented at the National Cancer Research Institute conference in Birmingham October 1, 2007.

The University of Manchester team includes Professor Robert Clarke, Dr Gillian Farnie and Professor Nigel Bundred and Dr Keith Brennan.

The campaign, Finding Cures & Protecting Life, is the church's attempt to explain to Catholics why it supports adult stem cell research but opposes research on embryonic stem cells. The campaign includes a 12-minute DVD that will be sent to the homes of 500,000 registered Catholics statewide.

"Adult stem cell research is ethical because it does not harm the individual and has been shown to find treatments for over 70 medical conditions," said Paul Long, vice president for public policy of the Michigan Catholic Conference. "Embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it necessitates the destruction of the human embryo and it's unproven: It has no treatments or cures."

Stem cell advocates are pleased the campaign will heighten awareness of the stem cell debate, but say there are errors.

The embryos that researchers want to study in their quest for cures to debilitating diseases are already being destroyed, said Marcia Baum, executive director of Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures.

Scientists want to study unused embryos originally created for fertility clinic patients, Baum said.

Only about one-third of the fertilized cells from prospective parents are actually used in conception and the remaining two-thirds are frozen and eventually disposed of as medical waste.

"Proponents of embryonic stem cell research want to prevent the destruction of those embryos," Baum said. "Many people believe that's really pro-life."

Baum added that the 70 treatments developed through adult stem research come from a study that has been under fire in the scientific community.

"It's important for the church to lay out its position," Long said. "It's never morally right to kill a human being for the benefit of another human being for scientific purposes."

The campaign comes as advocates are discussing putting an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that would lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in Michigan, one of the most restrictive states in the nation.

The Michigan Catholic Conference, which represents seven dioceses, has lobbied and prevailed in its opposition to a number of political issues, such as Medicaid-funded abortions and assisted suicide.

But it launched this campaign because it is an issue that has come into the forefront of human life issues, not for political reasons, Long said.

The topic will be focused on by 800 parishes statewide this weekend during Respect Life Sunday, the church's day to teach about its anti-abortion position in the context of contemporary issues.

However, according to Professor Stephen Livesey, the CEO of the Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC), a unified global approach made up of stem cell networks like the Australian model is the key to real sustained international success for the sector.

"The ASCC is a unique, well-funded and highly regarded stem cell initiative, which attracts outstanding researchers from within Australia and abroad, to collaborate on all areas of stem cell research," said Professor Livesey.

Livesey, also co-chair of the International Consortium of Stem Cell Networks (ICSCN), said that the ICSCN was established in 2004 and received funding from the Victorian State Government to bring together major stem cell initiatives around the world to exchange knowledge, to create harmony and to accelerate stem cell outcomes.

It aims to unify international efforts to accelerate opportunities to make stem cell therapy a reality for a broad range of debilitating diseases by:

-- providing a forum for scientific and other discussion;

providing a forum for exchange of best practice and development of international equivalents of national initiatives;

-- organizing and promoting international workshops and symposia;

-- encouraging and facilitating the exchange of researchers between network members; and

-- facilitating communications to help in the coordination of research and translation between different countries.

The ICSCN currently has sixteen members from around the world including the Stem Cell Network, Canada, the UK National Stem Cell Network and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

"Stem cell science is an exemplary case study in the globalization of scientific research," said Livesey.

"Following in the footsteps of the human genome project, stem cell scientists across the world are overcoming boundaries imposed by distance and disparity of interests, funding and legislation, to work in a more coordinated way, while maintaining the healthy competition necessary for acceleration of research towards a real clinical result."

Livesey said Australia had a long history of success and leadership in both IVF and stem cell research and had considered and faced the legal, translational and regulatory challenges, together with the value and potential they offered.

"The ASCC, is the flagship of Australia's stem cell research efforts, and is an excellent example of what can be achieved through a focused, long-term funding strategy and provides the basis for Australian stem cell scientists to take a prominent position on the world stage," said Livesey.

With secure long-term funding, a multi-disciplinary approach and collaborative environment, the creation and application of technology and therapeutic products surrounding stem cells is both fostered and accelerated at ASCC.

The Centre has partnered with ten leading Australian research institutes and universities to focus on a number of major scientific initiatives, one being a multi-institutional haematology program which provides a major opportunity for Australian scientists to pave the way in solving the international problem of blood supply shortage.

Indeed the Australian model has produced many world leaders in this space including embryonic stem cell pioneer researcher and IVF expert, Professor Alan O. Trounson, who has just been appointed as president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is the centerpiece of California's stem cell program worth US$3 billion.

Kelly Sims, Life Sciences Investment Director, Invest Australia North America, said, "Australia, with its long history of success and leadership in IVF technologies, was one of the very first countries in the world to identify the value and potential of stem cell research and to embark upon a legislative process to support this endeavor."

"Australian research is underpinned by nationally consistent legislation that supports embryonic stem cell research and is being updated to include somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This legislative framework combined with the world class science being generated from the ASCC and its partners makes Australia one of the most impressive and attractive destinations for investment in stem cell research," Sims said.

A significant tribute to Australia's strength in this field was marked in July 2007 when the Australian city of Cairns hosted the fifth conference of the International Society for Stem Cell Research - the first time this major event has been held outside North America

The Stem Cell Summit conference, sponsored jointly by the Genetics Policy Institute, Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Burrill Life Sciences Media Group, gathers the world's leading researchers and minds to address the IP, translational and regulatory challenges impacting the development of stem cell products and proposes solutions to advance commercial applications.

Cognate Bioservices of Long Wharf Drive, an outpost of a Maryland cell-culture manufacturer, submitted one of 92 letters of intent submitted to the state, says Nancy Rion, director of technology initiatives for Connecticut Innovations Inc. (CII), the agency that administers the funds.

The governor and legislature pledged $100 million in state money toward stem cell research in 2005, with $20 million awarded the first year to set up programs and $10 million a year for the subsequent eight years. Grant requests totaled more than $40 million this year, Rion says.

"What has happened is the first round of funding helped fund core facilities at both UConn and Yale; now researchers are beginning to use those facilities and talk about stem cell work," Rion explains. "There's a lot of interest."

Last year's money jump-started stem cell efforts across the state and helped universities set up dedicated research centers.

Yale chose Haifan Lin, a co-founder of the Duke University stem cell program, to lead a new group of six scientists as part of a stem cell program. A least ten labs at Yale are currently using embryonic stem cells in research, Lin told the Hartford Courant last month.

UConn used $2.5 million of state money to fund a "stem cell core" to create new lines of the cells along with Middletown's Wesleyan University.

To avoid violating President Bush's ban on creating new embryonic stem cell lines using federal money, much of the state-funded research must be conducted off campus, using privately funded equipment.

The state also hosted an international stem cell conference this spring in Hartford that drew top researchers. The gathering, called "StemConn07," also featured presentations by university scientists who had benefited from last year's state grants.

"It's more a reality than it was a year ago," Rion says. "Stem cell research is really happening in Connecticut."

Rion adds that she expects more interest from biotech firms as the research moves beyond basic science and into applications. Many of the letters of intent say that stem cells show promise in treating everything from malaria to cancer.

"I think the businesses are going to be willing to get more involved and collaborate with universities," Rion says. "I think there's a real desire to have more companies involved."

As was the case last year, Bush appears likely to make his veto stick. Several Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday that supporters of the bill appear to lack the two-thirds majority needed to override him.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a leading advocate of the legislation, did not dispute that assessment in an interview. "If he does veto it again it will just show his complete unwillingness to look at this research that holds the potential for cure of these diseases," she said.

Both houses passed legislation on the subject earlier in the year. The final vote is expected Thursday in the House.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections. Supporters of the research say it holds great promise in the quest for treatments of Alzheimer's and other illnesses.

Critics counter that it is immoral because it involves the destruction of human embryos. In threatening a veto this year Bush said it "crossed a moral line that I and many others find troubling."

There was no federal money for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make it available for lines of stem cells that were in existence. Elected with the strong support of abortion foes and other conservatives, he said at the time his decision was designed to balance concerns about "protecting life and improving life."

He also limited the funds to cell lines derived from embryos that were surplus at fertility clinics, and that had been donated from adults who had given informed consent.

Bush vetoed legislation to allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells last year when it passed over the objections of Republicans then in control.

But next week, officials will dredge up a controversy that has dogged the Janelia Farm Research Campus for years: a tax break totaling more than $3.6 million this year -- the largest tax exemption for a single property owner in the county.

On June 5, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider whether to renew the exemption, which eventually could exceed $6 million a year.

"It's a poor use of our citizens' tax dollars," said Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R-Dulles). "I could use that money for our young people. I want that money for affordable housing."

Some, however, say the controversy has less to do with money and more to do with the organization's support of embryonic stem cell research, which many supervisors oppose.

"In my opinion, philosophical differences on Howard Hughes Medical Institute's ideas on stem cell research might be part of the objection," said Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who supports the tax exemption. "It's an ideological objection."

Snow and Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), another critic of the tax break, said they were not familiar with the institute's stem cell efforts. Staton stressed that he supports the institute's presence in Loudoun but not the tax break.

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has a $15 billion endowment and is one of the world's largest philanthropies.

"I don't think anyone can argue having them in Loudoun County is a bad thing," Staton said. "What I'm saying is they don't need a tax exemption."

Though the institute funds scientists who engage in embryonic stem cell research, that is not the mission of Janelia Farm, said Avice Meehan, a spokeswoman for the organization.

"It is part of our broader research program, but it is not even an anticipated area of research at Janelia Farm," she said. "This a very technology-, neuroscience-focused campus."

Named after the farm that once operated there, the research center opened last year with great fanfare. Nearly 4,000 visitors lined up to take a peek at the rambling, glass-encased building, designed by architect Rafael Viñoly and sculpted into the side of a hill overlooking the Potomac River.

Modern and minimalist, with Italian furniture, stone fireplaces and man-made ponds, it was designed to foster collaboration and inspire great ideas in the 400 or so scientists who work there. Officials hope the experimental facility will yield major advances in brain research.

In 2003, after the institute had bought property in Loudoun, organization officials asked the county for a partial exemption from real estate and property taxes, as did several other Loudoun nonprofits, Meehan said.

H. Roger Zurn Jr. (R), Loudoun's treasurer, was among skeptics of the exemption.

"I was very opposed to it at the time," he said. "I felt that a multibillion-dollar organization should not be granted an over-$3.5 million exemption and that everybody else would have to pay for it."

But he does not support revoking it. "I don't believe it would send a very good message to the business community to undo the deal," Zurn said.

Todd Kaufman, the county assessor, said Loudoun expects to forgo about $4.7 million in taxes from 10 nonprofits because of board-approved exemptions. Janelia Farm accounts for about three-fourths of that, according to a report prepared this year by Kaufman.

The exemption is acceptable under county criteria, Kaufman said.

"I'm not certain why they're singling out the Howard Hughes Medical Institute," he said. "A lot of organizations have a healthy cash flow, and that's not one of the criteria."

Even with the exemption, Howard Hughes is a "substantial taxpayer in Loudoun County," Meehan said. The group has paid about $2.2 million in county taxes for some commercial buildings it owns on the property, and it gives the school district $1 million a year for science education, she said.

Last week, the chairman of the county's Economic Development Commission sent a letter to supervisors criticizing them for targeting Howard Hughes and none of the other tax-exempt groups.

"We are not aware of any reason this exemption should have been singled out," Tamar Datan Johnston wrote, speculating that the review might have "other, more political purposes."

Snow and Staton questioned the timing of the approval of the exemption by the previous board, just after the November 2003 election and weeks before a new slate of supervisors was to take office.

They deny that the stem cell issue plays a part in their decision to bring up the matter for discussion again.

"That wasn't anything I considered as much as giving the money back to the citizens," Snow said.

Andrew, who was suffering from PD for more than 15 years, came to Manipal Hospital as a last resort after having undergone treatment in US hospitals. After stem cell therapy last year, Andrew has shown remarkable recovery in his symptom as he has started walking without support, there has been significant reduction in the tremors and above all, he has a feeling of well being and personal comfort. His medication for PD has been withdrawn since the last months. This successful recovery of Andrew, will give new hope to many others suffering from debilitating Parkinson's disease.

"The successful clinical outcomes have given us the confidence to share the outcome with a greater number of people"

Said R Basil, MD and CEO, Manipal Health System, "The successful clinical outcomes from our stem cell research programme have given us the confidence to share this new hope with the public at large so that a greater number of people can participate in the clinical research for getting relief from major diseases and disabilities."

Led by the Chief Scientific Officer of Stempeutics Research Pvt Ltd, Dr Satish Totey, a team of accomplished stem cell research clinicians will be exploring the full ability of stem cells to address certain diseases and disabilities with limited possibilities of recovery as of today and offer a new hope. The Stem Cell Research Center's goal is to develop stem cell based therapeutics, using human adult stem cells.

Dr NK Venkataramana, HOD, Neurosurgery, who has been treating Andrew Kisana, presented his case and about the remarkable recovery. While delivering his presentation, Dr Venkataramana said, "Stem cell research seems to be promising in regenerating hope to cure PD. This will motivate innumerable patients across the world to explore this new modality. However, we need to observe the long-term clinical effects in large number of patients to decide its role in the treatment of the degenerative diseases."

According to Dr Nagendra Swamy, Group Director- Medical Services, Manipal Health Systems, "Stem cell research has attracted wide attention from all medical fields in the world. The research involving human pluripotent stem cells promises new treatment and possible hope for many devastating diseases. This research Centre will promote cutting edge research which can be translated into clinical applications. This would support the in treating the diseases affecting heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone, spinal cord and vascular. This promises to be the future of medicine in coming years and Manipal is proud to be a leader in this science."

PD typically affects people over the age of 50. The primary treatment of the disease at best removes some of the symptoms but does not stop the progression of the disease.

The clusters might help treat type 1 diabetes, the form that usually strikes children or young adults and affects 700,000 to 1.4 million Americans. Even when treated with daily insulin injections, the disease can lead to complications, including heart, eye and nerve disease and limb amputations.

"This is science that's being translated from theoretical expression to potential commercial viability," said Stephen Brozak, an analyst with WBB Securities in Westfield, N.J., who rates Geron shares "strong buy" and doesn't own any. "That's what every biotechnology company looks to do."

The shares rose $1.24, or 15 percent, to $9.48 in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading Thursday, after touching $9.64. It was the biggest one-day percentage gain since Dec. 4. The stock has climbed 40 percent in 12 months.

People with type 1 diabetes don't make insulin and must inject it daily. With type-2 diabetes, common inoverweight adults, the body either makes too little insulin or doesn't respond to the available supply.

Scientists at the University of Alberta, who collaborated with Geron, have been leaders in experimenting with transplantation of pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into people with diabetes. While the treatment has shown promise, supplies of the islet cells are limited and the grafted cells sometimes need to be replaced.

The study will be published in the August issue of the journal Stem Cells.

Human embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell in the body. Making islet cells from them might give more patients access to transplantation, Geron said in the statement.

"The islet-like clusters contain the major cellular components of islets and are sensitive to glucose, the key sugar to which they must respond to be therapeutically beneficial," said Anish Majumdar, Geron's senior director of immunology, in the statement. "Our major goal moving forward is to improve the purity, yield and maturational status of these cells."

Human embryonic stem cells are controversial because scientists must destroy the embryos from which the cells are harvested. Organs and tissues in adults also contain stem cells, which have less ability to mature into diverse cell types needed for treatments.

Geron and Alameda-based Advanced Cell Technology Inc. are both using human embryonic stem cells to develop treatments for diseases, including heart disease, spinal cord injuries, arthritis and bone loss.

Advanced Cell moved its headquarters to Alameda in part because of the state's $3 billion stem cell institute, established by Proposition 71. The California Supreme Court on Wednesday removed the last legal impediment blocking financing for the institute when it refused to review two lawsuits challenging the institute's constitutionality.

"California voters made their intentions clear three years ago by voting for Proposition 71: They want California to be in the forefront of supporting stem cell research, which has the potential to cure a host of diseases and degenerative conditions," Advanced Cell Chief Executive William Caldwell said in a statement. "(Wednesday) at long last, the final roadblock to implementing the will of the people of the Golden State has been cleared. (The) decision means that California is now on its way to becoming the world's single largest backer of stem cell research."

Wins Award at International Film Festival

The 15 minute documentary, Regenerative Medicine: Pathways to Cures produced by The Alliance for Medical Research, Education for Life (TAMR-Ed) was honored with a REMI at the Grand Awards Gala, April 28th, from WorldFest-Houston, one of the longest-running, most significant film festivals in the world.

WorldFest's mission is to recognize and honor outstanding creative excellence in film & video, validate brilliant abilities and promote future filmmaking in Texas as well as enhance cultural tourism for Houston.

During the 10-day festival, over 500 filmmakers from more than 32 nations around the world were in attendance to personally accept their various awards from this year's WorldFest's competition of thousands of submitted category entries.

Dr. Ralph Dittman, researcher and President of The Alliance for Medical Research, accepted the award with the "hope that Regenerative Medicine: Pathways to Cures will give viewers a basic understanding of one of the most misunderstood issues of our day: stem cell research, which has the potential to end suffering for millions with degenerative diseases and conditions. With more than 4,500 category entries in the film and video competitions, TAMR-Ed, an organization of scientists, physicians, health professional, bioethicists and educators is honored to be among the 15% of the entries that won an award."

Regenerative Medicine: Pathways to Cures can be viewed on the home page of the TAMR website.

http://www.txamr.org

Heather Burcham, a stage 4 cervical cancer patient, waited and waited on Feb. 19 to speak in favor of mandatory human papilloma virus vaccinations. Finally, after having been told for three hours that she would be the next to speak, she gave up and left. But once Nina Brown of suburban Houston got to the Capitol, she had to wait about 10 hours for the State Affairs meeting to start, and about four more to testify. By that point – about 2 a.m. – her motor skills were so far gone she had to be lifted to the podium to speak.

"I'm so passionately involved with this issue that I was willing to risk my health to be there," said Mrs. Brown, who, despite a two-decade battle with the debilitating disease, stayed at the meeting until it adjourned – at 5:21 a.m. "I don't think I've ever been up that late. For most people, how can they stay?"

Critics of the Legislature's committee system say lawmakers are practicing democracy after dark, delaying votes on hot issues until the last, late-night minute, and dragging out favorable testimony to silence opposition.

The committee process – where bills are first heard, debated and amended – is so unpredictable that the process at the very least raises questions of equal access in some observers' minds.

Who other than a paid lobbyist can afford to sit at the Capitol all day and night, waiting for a loosely scheduled meeting to begin? Who other than Austin insiders will know when a bill will be taken out of order or voted on unexpectedly? And how many people with children, day jobs or serious health conditions can drive across the state on short notice and wait until 4 a.m. to testify?

Committee chairs call this criticism preposterous. They agree the hearings and unpredictable schedules can be inconvenient – they don't like to be up until 5:20 a.m., either – but they say it's simply the nature of the legislative beast.

Committee members work around the schedules of the full House and Senate, and they can't control when those meetings begin or end. They're committed to taking testimony from everyone who wants to speak, which is why many of the meetings run on ... and on. And the late-night testimony isn't reserved for people on the losing side of a bill, they say – it's generally first-come, first-served.

Keeping late hours

Almost every committee can expect a few late-night meetings while the Legislature is in session.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee spent close to 10 hours on the Texas Youth Commission in March. A House Human Services committee meeting on Child Protective Services in February lasted more than 11 hours. And the House Natural Resources Committee took testimony on reservoirs one night last month until 3:20 a.m.

But the House State Affairs Committee – the clearinghouse for many of the Legislature's hotly contested bills, including those on abortion rights and stem cell research – consistently wins the award for the longest and latest meetings.

So far this session, the panel has had six meetings run past midnight and four meetings that lasted more than 10 hours. A March hearing on residential construction rules lasted close to 12 hours, ending at 3:54 a.m. An 11-hour meeting on abortion bills this month adjourned at 4:15 a.m.

And a nearly eight-hour stem cell hearing – the one Mrs. Brown attended – ran until 5:21 a.m.

Lawmakers said they had little choice. The meeting began around 8 a.m., recessed about 9 a.m. when the full House met and didn't reconvene until almost 11 p.m. Chairman David Swinford had to choose who would testify first: opponents and advocates of state funded stem cell research or exhausted elementary-age children waiting to speak about religious freedom in school.

The school bill, a holdover from the previous week, was heard first – what Mr. Swinford, R-Dumas, has called a "grandfather decision" – even though it wasn't originally on the committee docket. Mrs. Brown and other stem cell research advocates have accused Mr. Swinford of purposely pulling the school item onto the agenda and allowing the kids to speak with no time limit to delay stem cell testimony.

"It had to be intentional. I can't understand why [the kids] would be brought in at that time, when they could've been brought in on any other day," said Mrs. Brown, 65, the vice president for the Texas Parkinson's Action Network. "It was a blatant political move to prevent those in attendance from having a fair hearing."

Mr. Swinford vehemently denies that.

Although he had hoped the meeting would start earlier, he said, the State Affairs Committee prides itself on letting everyone who's made the effort to attend speak without a time limit. This applies to children as well.

"My policy is, if they come, they will be heard," Mr. Swinford said.

And, he said, as often as people complain about the length of a hearing, they thank committee members for being so thorough. At a 2005 hearing on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the committee took testimony from 998 people, Mr. Swinford said, starting at 2 p.m. and ending at 9:30 the next morning. Even though opponents of the gay marriage ban knew committee members had decided against them, he said, they still thanked them for allowing everyone to speak.

Time limits

Opponents say they have no problem with allowing everyone to testify. They just want reasonable time limits for testimony, weekend meetings on the most controversial issues and special consideration for people with special circumstances.

Like 31-year-old Heather Burcham, who, with stage 4 cervical cancer, made the arduous trek from Houston in February for a House Public Health hearing about mandatory human papilloma vaccinations for Texas schoolgirls.

When the meeting started at 7 p.m., lawmakers, who overwhelmingly favored a bill to block Gov. Rick Perry's executive order for the vaccines, knew Ms. Burcham was in the audience. Mr. Perry's office had arranged a media briefing with her that morning, and TV cameras in the hearing room were trained on her.

But after three hours of being told she was next in line to speak – and multiple requests from Mr. Perry's staffers that she be taken out of order – Ms. Burcham still hadn't been called to testify. At 10 p.m., doubled over in pain and hardly able to keep her eyes open, Ms. Burcham left without testifying.

James Cooley, a spokesman for Public Health chairman Dianne Delisi, said the committee's longstanding tradition is to allow expert witnesses invited by the bill's author to testify first.

He said once lawmakers learned of Ms. Burcham's condition, she was moved up the list to follow the expert witnesses – but those individuals testified for close to three hours.

"There was a request, and she was moved up," Mr. Cooley said. "She was called just a few minutes after she left."

Of late, Mr. Cooley said, the committee has begun using a timer to keep testimony to a reasonable length. And at a recent hearing on when hospitals should be able to remove a terminal patient's care, he said, a few mothers with young kids in the audience were moved up to speak before anyone else.

That meeting, on April 25, ran 10 hours, until after 5 a.m.

The committee meetings are generally a lost cause for people who live far away or work regular, 9-to-5 jobs, said Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of the advocacy group Public Citizen.

"They can't participate in democracy with that kind of schedule," he said.

But late meetings are no walk in the park for lobbyists either. Mr. Smith left a 2001 hearing at 5:20 a.m., he said, and returned to the same hearing room three hours later to find a lobbyist asleep in his suit on the floor.

"At some point, you have to question whether it's really designed to drive away witnesses," he said.

Geron plans to file an investigational new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for using cells derived from embryonic stem cells for treating spinal injuries.

Advanced Cell Technology, which previously said it planned to file an IND this year for using stem cell-derived therapies for treating macular degeneration, announced this week it has developed a technique to generate a type of progenitor cell that could move into the clinic in 2008 for treating a variety of ills.

Robert Lanza, Advanced Cell's vice president of medical and scientific affairs, told United Press International that the cells -- called hemangioblasts that his group derived from human embryonic stem cells -- have proven their ability to repair vascular damage in the eyes and limbs of animals. This indicates the cells could prove beneficial for treating heart attacks, reversing vascular damage that now requires limbs to be amputated, and other conditions.

"We're planning to file with the FDA next year to use them in patients," Lanza said.

Advanced Cell's technique is described in the online issue of Nature Methods. Although it's still in the early days, he said the hemangioblasts also could be used to create immune tolerance so the body does not reject the cells as foreign.

"This would allow us to transplant any type of replacement cell or organ generated from a specific stem cell line without rejection," Lanza said. "It would make therapeutic cloning unnecessary and obviate the need for millions of human eggs."

Lanza said animal studies his firm currently has in progress indicate the hemangioblasts could help repair lung damage and generate enough red blood cells for transfusion.

Other potential indications include treating strokes, microvascular complications of diabetes and atherosclerosis.

Advanced Cell, whose California facility could be a benefactor of the $3 billion stem cell program in that state, also may reap the rewards on the other coast where its Worcester, Mass.-based facility is located. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick Tuesday announced his proposal to make $1.25 billion available for funding stem cell and other research in the state over 10 years.

Under the terms of the proposal, the majority of the funding would come from the state, while $250 million would come from private businesses.

UPI could not reach Geron CEO Thomas Okarma by press time Wednesday, but the company has said it anticipate filing an IND for GRNOPC1 for treating spinal-cord injuries around the December timeframe.

GRNOPC1, which consists of oligodendroglial progenitor cells derived from human embryonic stem cells, has been shown to stimulate the regeneration of damaged neurons in pre-clinical studies.

Lazard analyst Joel Sendek, who rates the stock a "hold," notes Geron's products, since they are cellular-based therapies, carry substantially more risk than conventional drugs or protein therapies.

Despite that uncertainty, the company's GRNOPC1 may have an advantage over stem cell-based therapies aimed at other indications.

"We believe the bar for signs of efficacy is low, given that (spinal-cord injury) patients have no other options for restoration of function," Sendek stated in a research report.

However, the FDA is concerned about the potential for stem cell-derived therapies to cause tumors in humans, so Geron will have to overcome that barrier with the agency, Sendek said.

He anticipates the company will file the IND for GRNOPC1 in the fourth quarter and start a phase 1/2 program in the first half of 2008.

The phase 1/2a trial, which Sendek anticipates will take two years to complete, will initially involve 75 patients with spinal-cord injuries. GRNOPC1 cells will be injected into the spinal-cord lesion and the patients will also be given an immunosuppressant drug to prevent rejection of the cells.

Mark Monane, an analyst with Needham, thinks the IND filing for GRNOPC1 and advancement of its other pipeline candidates will be significant events for Geron, but added they probably won't add much value to the stock.

"Given the current technology value of $288 million, we believe that the market has already priced in the expected pipeline progression," Monane stated in a research report. "Going forward, we believe that the stock will perform in line with the overall market until (generation of) further clinical efficacy data from Geron's multiple product candidates."

The company's other candidates include GRN163L for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A potential catalyst for the stock is Geron's slated presentation of early phase 1/2 data for GRN163L at the Pan Pacific Lymphoma Conference in June.

Now, in the American Association of Anatomists’ plenary lecture and symposium, at Experimental Biology 2007 in Washington, DC, Dr. Hendrix describes new research that used an innovative experimental approach to provide unique insights into how scientists can change human metastatic melanoma cells back to normal-like skin cells - by exposing the tumor cells to the embryonic microenvironment of human embryonic stem cells, the zebra fish and the chick embryo.

Dr. Hendrix’s plenary lecture on April 29 is a highlight of the scientific program of the American Association of Anatomists. Her presentation is titled "the convergence of embryonic and cancer signaling pathways: role in tumor cell plasticity." Plasticity refers to the ability of the tumor cell, like the embryonic cell, to express or change into multiple, different types of cells.

First, a quick primer on the shared characteristics of aggressive tumor cells and embryonic stem cells: Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they are able to differentiate into any of the more than 200 cell types in the adult body. Which type of cell they become depends on the signals they receive from their microenvironment. Similarly, during cancer progression, malignant cells receive and release signals from their own microenvironment, cues that promote tumor growth and metastasis.

In order to better understand what signals the melanoma cells are sending and receiving, Dr. Hendrix and her colleagues used the microenvironment of the zebrafish to study whether the tumor cells could communicate with the zebrafish stem cells and affect their early development. The zebrafish is a widely-used organism for genetic and developmental studies because of its prolific reproduction, rapid development, and transparent embryo that develops outside the body (making it especially easy to simply watch development), and the fact it develops organs and tissues comparable to those in humans, such as heart, kidney, pancreas, bones and cartilage.)

Using the zebrafish model, and the extraordinary technologic advances made in microscopy and molecular biology in recent years, the team was able to show that the aggressive melanoma cells secrete Nodal, a critical component underling the two-way communication between tumor cells and the embryonic microenvironment. Nodal is an embryonic factor (also called a morphogen) responsible for maintaining the pluripotency of human embryonic stem cells: their ability to develop or "morph" into one of a variety of body cells. When aggressive melanoma and other tumor cells (recent findings also report Nodal expression in breast cancer and testicular cancer) regain the ability to express a potent embryonic morphogen like Nodal, the presence of the Nodal and the signals it sends and receives appear to play a key role in tumor cell plasticity and progression.

Most noteworthy, Dr. Hendrix’s team’s also has shown that inhibition of Nodal signaling leads to a reduction in melanoma cell invasiveness and ability to create new tumors. In fact, with inhibition of Nodal, the metastatic melanoma cells are reverted to a more benign skin cell without the ability to form tumors.

Findings from the zebrafish study were further confirmed in the human embryonic stem cell model and the chick embryo model - where inhibiting Nodal signaling led to the reversal of the melanoma cells to a more normal cell type.

This is a promising area of research, says Dr. Hendrix. The discovery of a new signalizing pathway in melanoma and other tumor cell types and the ability to inhibit Nodal and thus reverse the melanoma cell back toward a normal skin cell provide a previously unknown target for regulating tumor progression and metastasis.

Dr. Hendrix’s distinguished lecture is part of a session titled the cell microenvironment in development and cancer.

Alyssa, who is 10, and her mother, Pam Younts, along with 10 other families from the Victoria area, traveled to Austin on Tuesday to speak to local legislators about living with diabetes, and also to lend support to stem cell research in Texas. The children, ranging in age from 8 to 15, wore blue T-shirts with orange and yellow lettering that identified them as members of the Lifesaver's Diabetes Support Group. Alyssa dressed differently for her big moment standing in front of everybody, to be honored on the Senate floor.

Registered nurse and diabetes educator Hilda Ramirez - who herself has Type 1 diabetes - founded the Lifesaver's group more than two decades ago to help local parents answer common questions and solve common problems about diabetes. Group members lobbied under the name "Victorians for the Advancement of Medical Research," part of a statewide group that drew about 70 families total to the Capitol on Tuesday.

Armed with the motto of "Promise to Remember Me," the 11 families from Victoria had private meetings with Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria) and Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy). The children told them about their struggles with the disease, which include an ever-present fear of falling into seizures.

Geanie Morrison could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Hegar has authored legislation, SB 1835, that would prohibit state funding of stem cell research not OK'ed by a 2001 executive order by President George W. Bush. Embryonic stem cell research, for example, would not be eligible for state funding under Hegar's bill. SB 1835 is still in committee, but an identical bill on the House side, HB 225 by Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney), has passed committee and could be debated soon on the House floor.

"I think that they shouldn't be able to do this because they don't know what it's like to live with diabetes 24/7," Alyssa said. "It's just really tough."

Houstonian Judith Haley of Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research said adult stem cell lines, like those approved by Bush, do not show nearly the same promise of treating or curing diabetes as does embryonic stem cell research.

"People against it should try to live with it all of their life, and see what they think then," Alyssa said.

Bush's executive order precludes funding of, but does not outlaw, embryonic stem cell research. Texas does not currently have any state laws that either mandate or prohibit funding of embryonic stem cell research. Neither Hegar's nor Paxton's bill would make illegal private embryonic stem cell research.

The youngest advocate Tuesday, Michael Brasher, 8, said he receives insulin shots in the arms, legs and stomach. Sometimes he gives them to himself. What did he think of his first visit to the Capitol building? "It's a cool place." Of meeting Sen. Hegar? "He's a nice person."

She was in Hill City to give a talk Wednesday at Presbyterian Church.

“The purpose of my presentation is to educate people about stem cell research, and that includes, adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer,” Hutfles said.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is often referred to as “cloning.” The process is the same as used to produce Dolly the sheep, but the process never has been used to produce a human being.

“The most common source of embryonic stem cells are derived from in vitro fertilizations that are no longer intended for implantation,” said David Crouse, a professor of genetics and cell biology for the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Crouse, an advocate for stem cell research, is involved with stem cell studies at UNMC.

Adult stem cells are those extracted from an adult. Research into the uses of adult stem cells has yielded many cures, such as bone marrow transplants used to save the lives of people with leukemia.

Recent work with stem cell studies yielded an unexpected, but exciting discovery, Hutfles said.

A study funded by “Project ALS” found embryonic stem cells might provide a new tool for studying disease mechanisms and for identifying drugs to slow ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

“The wonderful thing they discovered along the way is that they can study diseases in a petri dish,” Hutfles said.

Most researchers believe adult stem cell work probably has gone as far as it can in finding cures for diseases, Hutfles said.

Embryonic and somatic cell nuclear transfer are believed by some to hold the best hope for finding cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. The research also offers hope for spinal cord injury victims, Hutfles said.

That’s because adult stem cells only will form into certain types of cells.

“Embryonic stem cells haven’t differentiated,” Hutfles said. “They haven’t decided what they’re going to be when they grow up.”

Hutfles also educates people about legislative issues, such as bills addressing stem cell research discussed in the Kansas Legislature during the 2007 session.

“These bills are not dead,” Hutfles said. “They will be back next year.”

One would criminalize any medical treatment involving somatic cell nuclear transfer research. Another would prohibit any state funding for any form of somatic cell nuclear transfer research.

The coalition, whose membership list includes national foundations such as the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Cancer Research, the National Parkinson Foundation and others, doesn’t seek money for research, Hutfles said. What it seeks is for Kansas to have open access to do stem cell research, Hutfles said.

She said the coalition is interested in finding cures for diseases that now cannot be cured.

“There was a study done in Japan last year where they induced Parkinson’s in monkeys, and they injected stem cells into that portion of the brain that had the Parkinson’s cells,” Hutfles said. “There are monkeys that no longer have the symptoms of Parkinson’s. When they studied their brains, that portion of the brain was healed.”

Hutfles said she’s aware of the subjects of embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer are the topic of ethical debate. Many churches have spoken out in opposition to these forms of research.

“If you believe life begins at conception, then you aren’t going to agree with us, and I can respect that. But the vast majority of people are going to have someone in their lifetime that will be affected by this,” Hutfles said.

In the United States, researchers using federal money are limited to excess embryos from in vitro fertilzation, Crouse said.

“In some countries, they do allow the production of embryos for research,” Crouse said. “That is not proposed in this country right now. Some people would like to do it, but it’s not proposed at the federal level.

“At the University of Nebraska Medical Center, we have some scientists working with the Bush-approved cell line.”

One study is looking at liver stem cells, and the other is focusing on lungs, Crouse said.

“The hope is that there may be a series of diseases, most of which are currently not effectively treated or cured, that might be impacted significantly by the application of embryonic stem cell use,” Crouse said. “Animal studies support that that has happened.”

Crouse is well aware of the opposition.

“One of the claims that is made by people who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research is that adult stem cells can do all the same things,” Crouse said. “That’s not true. There are some areas in which adult stem cells are effective, but some of the worst diseases cannot be treated with adult stem cells.”

"It leaves the impression with the scientific community that Texas does not encourage this sort of research," says Joe Brown, vice president of Texans for Advancement of Medical Research, a stem cell advocacy group.

Brown says this could affect the state's economy. A recent study points out that while states such as California have passed legislation to fund stem cell research (to the tune of $300 million a year for 10 years), Texas has gone the other way, attempting to pass laws that would essentially criminalize it. If that doesn't change, the state could lose out on billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.

The recent study, authored by two University of North Texas economics professors, concluded that Texas' biotechnology industry is on track to grow to $30.4 billion within seven years, but it could be twice as big if the state did more to promote stem cell research.

"If regenerative medicine is the next big thing, don't we want to be a player?" Bud Weinstein, one of the study's authors, asked at a news conference last week.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research say no. Extracting stem cells from embryos—one means of acquiring the cells—means destroying an embryo. To some people who believe life begins at conception, that's akin to murder. Both President Bush, who has promised to veto for the second time a stem cell bill currently before the U.S. Senate, and Governor Rick Perry are against embryonic stem cell research.

"Although the governor is always looking for ways to expand and promote Texas' economy, he hesitates at what cost," spokeswoman Krista Moody recently told the Associated Press. "There are other opportunities for us to bring money into our economy."

Brown believes regenerative medicine is the future. Already, he says, doctors can regenerate human heart, brain, lung and many other human cell types. And while so far those cells are limited to petri dishes, it won't be long before they are ready for use in actual treatments, meaning a new heart could be created, or the effects of Parkinson's reversed.

When this happens—a shift toward regenerative medicine, as Brown calls it—Texas will be left behind. Already top scientists and researchers in the field have been recruited to other states, he says. As these scientists leave, the Texas medical and research infrastructure will diminish. "The real message here," Brown says, "is Texas is going to pay the price if we don't do something positive."

The Basics

65: Percent of the American public that approves of medical research using embryonic stem cells.

79.4: Percentage of funding for stem cell research that comes from the federal government.

55: Estimated percent of embryonic stem cell research funding through 2018 designated for research on outdated stem cell lines.

$4 million: Amount by which National Institutes of Health funding for stem cell research will have decreased from FY2006 to FY2008.

NIH v. the States

$641 million: Amount to be spent by NIH on all stem cell research in FY2007

$147 million: Amount to be spent by NIH on embryonic stem cell research in FY2007

18.2: Percent of all stem cell funding to date that NIH has designated for embryonic stem cell research.

61.2: Percent of all stem cell funding to date that NIH has designated for non-embryonic stem cell research.

2.4: Percent of all stem cell funding to date that state governments have designated for embryonic stem cell research.

11.4: Percent of all stem cell funding to date that state governments have designated for general stem cell research.

0.6: Percent of all stem cell funding to date that state governments have designated for non-embryonic stem cell research.

States are Aggressively Funding Research, but They Cannot Do it Alone

$4,107.2 million: Total amount that is projected to come from the nine states that are providing public funds for research by the year 2018. This amount is for all types of stem cell research.

$1,829.6 million: Amount California plans to spend on embryonic research by 2018.

$600 million: Amount New York plans to spend on stem cell research by 2017.

Unfulfilled promises...

60: Number of stem cell lines President Bush said were eligible for research funding under his policy.

21: Number of stem cell lines that are actually eligible for research funding under his policy.

House State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford, R-Dumas, defended Friday's vote, saying it came after people had their say in a meeting that began Thursday and lasted through the night.

At the controversy's center is House Bill 225 by Rep. Bill Paxton, R-McKinney, to prohibit state funds from being used for biomedical research if the use of federal funds on the research was prohibited as of Jan. 1, 2007.

Advocates of embryonic stem cell research said that would tie Texas' hands if Congress or a future administration lifts U.S. restrictions on federal funding for such research. Advocates of the bill want just that.

Stem cell research advocates said the legislation wasn't discussed at the hearing until at least 1:30 a.m. and that the vote came hours after testimony concluded while the committee was focused on an unrelated border-security bill.

Swinford said the committee sandwiched its work around the House's meeting schedule. His panel met in the morning and reconvened Thursday night.

The vote came Friday because he was waiting for a quorum, Swinford said. The panel also approved several other measures.

"This vote was a sneak attack on patients and families. It's a shameful case of putting politics ahead of science as well as patients and their families," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

Judy Haley, president of Texans for the Advancement of Medical Research, said, "Those of us who rely on the hope stem cell research holds, and anyone who cares about an open public dialogue, should be outraged at the manner in which the vote was taken on Friday afternoon — without discussion and while two members opposed to the bill were absent."

Swinford voted for the bill.

While Swinford said he supports adult-stem cell research, he said, "I'm not for embryonic stem cell research, because I believe that life begins at conception and that's killing a living human being."

Paxton, committee vice chairman, said he wasn't present to vote on his own bill because he wasn't expecting to meet Friday.

Paxton said, "In my opinion, we shouldn't be funding research with taxpayer dollars that, first, is a problem morally with people and two, I really believe that that kind of research is better done by the private sector."

The bill goes to the House Calendars Committee, headed by Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, to be scheduled for debate by the full House.

The 63-34 vote was shy of the margin that would be needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition, despite gains made by supporters in last fall's elections.

''Not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick,'' said Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a senator less than 100 days following a tough 2006 campaign in which the stem cell controversy played a particularly prominent role. ''It is a noble cause,'' she added.

''We're going to use federal money, indirectly or directly, to destroy embryos,'' countered Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., echoing Bush's argument against the measure. Coburn said claims of imminent scientific breakthroughs from embryonic stem cell research are unsubstantiated and that adult stem cells have been shown to be useful in a variety of cases.

The House, which passed similar legislation earlier in the year, is expected to adopt the Senate's version in the next several weeks for Bush's veto.

The Senate bill, Bush said, ''is very similar to legislation I vetoed last year. This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it,'' the president said in a statement after the vote.

Despite the criticism, the bill's chief sponsor urged the president to give the bill another look. ''I urge him to reconsider this bill and sign it. Unleash America's scientists,'' said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Capping two days of debate, the Senate also voted 70-28 to pass a separate measure backed by Republicans. It supported research in adult stem cells.

Bush said this legislation builds on ''ethically appropriate research'' and he urged Congress to pass the measure ''so stem cell science can progress, without ethical and cultural conflict.''

The Senate's action was the latest act in a drama that blends science and politics on an issue that affects millions of disease sufferers and their families.

''It's extremely frustrating to go through this Kabuki dance a second time with the president,'' said Peter Kiernan, head of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which funds research.

''The one thing we know is we will outlast him.''

Stem cells are created in the first days after conception. They are typically culled from frozen embryos, which are destroyed in the process. According to the National Institutes of Health Web site, scientists have been able to conduct experiments with embryonic stem cells only since 1998.

The embryonic stem cells have the ability to transform into a ''dazzling array of specialized cells,'' the Web site says -- the property that scientists and others say offers the potential for the development of treatment for diseases as varied as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

There was no federal money for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make it available for lines of stem cells that were in existence. Elected with the strong support of abortion foes and other conservatives, he said at the time his decision was designed to balance concerns about ''protecting life and improving life.''

He also limited the funds to cell lines derived from embryos that were surplus at fertility clinics, and that had been donated from adults who had given informed consent.

Advocates of the veto-threatened legislation argue that the number of stem cell lines available for research is smaller than needed, and that some of the material has become contaminated over time by mouse embryonic skin cells that typically are placed at the bottom of culture dishes used in the research.

The bill would permit funding for research on embryonic stem cells regardless of the date of their creation, so long as they were donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics, they would ''otherwise be discarded'' and donors gave their approval.

Bush cast the only veto of his presidency on a stem cell bill last year, but public support for the research is strong, and Democrats sought to use that to their advantage in the 2006 election campaigns.

Missouri became a testing ground, McCaskill challenging GOP Sen. Jim Talent, who opposed expanded federally funded research. Michael J. Fox appeared in a television ad advocating greater research, and the visual image was arresting -- the 45-year-old actor swaying from his Parkinson's disease.

With federal funding limited, several states and private institutions have moved into the void.

California, New York and New Jersey have programs. Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts recently announced he hoped to overturn restrictions left in place by his Republican predecessor.

''We in Massachusetts increasingly see this as a competitive issue,'' said Dr. George Daley of Children's Hospital and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said private institutions compete to hire promising scientists drawn to the field.

''I would say it's revolutionized biomedical research,'' he said. Rebutting claims by critics, he said, ''You can't expect a cell which burst on the scene only as recently as 1998 to have found its way into patients yet. I don't know of any biological technology that translates into patients that soon.''

But Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family, said that apart from the issue of embryo destruction, the inevitable result of the contested legislation would be to reduce funding available for adult stem cell work, which she said is more advanced.

''To our knowledge there are no clinical trials with human embryonic stem cells under way and there are 1,300 adult stem cell trials,'' she said, adding, ''The destruction of embryos is not necessary for the advancement of regenerative research,'' she added.

The economic impact study, authored by Bud Weinstein, a professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, points out that while states such as California have passed legislation to fund stem cell research (to the tune of $300 million a year for 10 years), Texas has gone the other way, attempting to pass laws that would essentially criminalize stem cell research. So far, the state legislature hasn’t passed any laws on stem cell research, meaning there are no regulations to govern it. Tomorrow, the House State Affairs Committee is expected to consider multiple bills on the subject, a number of which are designed to promote research involving both embryonic and adult stem cells. Stem cell research could result in treatments, even cures, for serious medical conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

Joe Brown, vice president of Texans for Advancement of Medical Research, which paid for the study, says Texans will pay a price if the state turns its back on stem cell research for ethical reasons. “The problem is,” he says, “the message we’re sending to our scientific community is Texans are not interested in this and not friendly to it.”

Brown, whose wife suffers from Parkinson’s, says the state has already lost key scientists, most notably a researcher from Baylor who left for Colorado to pursue studying stem cells. Brown believes that stem cells are the future of medicine. Where pills and surgery are now the answer, in the future doctors will turn more and more to regenerative medicine. Already, Brown says, doctors can regenerate heart and brain cells. And while so far those cells are contained to petri dishes, it won’t be long before they are ready for use in actual treatments, meaning a new heart could be created, or the effects of Parkinson’s reversed.

When this happens — a shift toward regenerative medicine, as Brown calls it — Texas will be left behind. Scientists will leave, doctors will follow, hospitals will become smaller. Texas Medical Center in Houston, for example, now one of the largest employers in the state, will shrink in size, Brown says: “The real message here is Texas is going to pay the price if we don’t do something.”

Currently, the debate both locally and nationally is not over stem cell research — most everyone agrees that is good idea — but over embryonic stem cell research. Brown says there is much confusion over exactly what that is, and the fierce debate concerning it has prevented the state from passing any sorts of laws relating to stem cell research.

Lengthy negotiations with opponents of publicly funded research using human embryos produced an agreement under which senators would vote on two bills - one similar to the version that passed last Congress, inspiring the lone veto of President Bush's tenure in office. It would lift Bush's 2001 ban on taxpayer-funded research using stem cells developed after that point in time.

To win the consent of all senators for a floor vote on that bill, negotiators agreed to a vote on a second bill more palatable to abortion opponents and other critics of embryonic stem cell research.

The alternative bill, sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., would direct the Health and Human Services Department to establish guidelines for stem cell research on embryos that have naturally lost the ability to develop into human beings. It also would ban most procedures by which embryos are created for the purpose of research.

The bills are scheduled to come to the floor April 10 for as much as two days of debate, according to aides to the sponsors, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Isakson.

The debate, one of the most emotional topics to come before Congress, centers on the still-in-development process of extracting material from days-old human embryos that can morph into any tissue in the body. Many scientists say this type of research, years away from being tested on humans, could cure diseases and injuries afflicting millions of people.

Opponents say the process is immoral because the process of extracting the stem cells kills the embryo.

Both chambers of Congress passed a bill last year lifting Bush's ban on new embryonic stem cell research paid by the government. Bush vetoed the bill and neither chamber could muster the two-thirds majority required to override the veto.

In recent days, the officials have struck a consent agreement which would give senators a choice between two bills with a 60-vote threshold for passage.

This time, however, the bill favored by proponents has been changed to make it more palatable to skittish lawmakers. Rather than simply lift the president's ban, it also states that Congress supports all types of stem cell research, including studies performed on adult stem cells and those culled from umbilical cords.

Polls have shown that more than 70 percent of the public supports public financing of embryonic stem cell research. The issue was key to deciding Missouri's Senate race in last fall's midterm elections, when incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who opposed the embryonic stem cell bill, was ousted in favor of Democrat Claire McCaskill, who supports it.

Tijuana, Mexico (PRWeb) February 17, 2007 -- The International Spinal Cord Regeneration Center has been spearheading research and clinical use of pure cord blood stem cells since March 2003. Recently breakthrough developments were documented involving Alzheimer's disease and progressive multiple sclerosis.

Alzheimer's: A 72 year old female Alzheimer's patient from the U.S. (Mrs. M.) who had little short term memory ability by mid-summer 2006 experienced the recovery of this vital mental function in the months following a catheter infusion of purified cord blood stem cells in Mexico.

MRIs of the patient's brain during July 2006 showed that her brain had shrunken considerably, one of many markers that led her neurologists in Michigan to diagnosis her has having Alzheimer's disease. Her blood and all other vital organs were normal and showed no sign of disease.

On August 28, 2006 Mrs. M. received approximately 40 million pure cord blood stem cells by catheter infusion directly into her brain at the International Spinal Cord Regeneration Center in Tijuana Mexico (Fernando Ramirez, MD, Founder & Director). A team of doctors including an interventional radiologist, a anesthesiologist, and a surgeon performed the procedure which took approximately 30 minutes.

Within five weeks of having received the cells, Mrs M's husband was reporting improvements in her ability to form new memories and recall them hours and days later. This ability has persisted and even improved since Mrs. M's treatment almost 6 months ago.

Medical records and post-treatment tests showing Mrs. M's remarkable turnaround are being used to draft a formal paper for submission to a major peer-reviewed medical journal.

A 2nd treatment for Mrs. M. is being planned for the near future.

Multiple Sclerosis:

Jim Haverlock, 67, has struggled for thirteen years with progressive multiple sclerosis, an insidious neurologic disease which has steadily eroded his balance, energy and ability to speak clearly and walk without a cane.

During November 2006 Jim received an IV (intravenous) drip infusion of cord blood stem cells that had been genetically modified to express a growth factor called ciliary neurotrophic growth factor (CNGF). This particular growth factor has been shown to encourage remyelination of demyelinated nerves in animal models.

By early February Jim was reporting high levels of physical and mental energy, better balance and the ability to crisscross his house on foot without a cane (Something nearly impossible prior to the stem cell treatment).

Jim , who is very active in terms of helping out fellow MS sufferers and their families, welcomes queries by phone at 1-509-997-0204 (9 AM to 5 PM Pacific Time). Jim has posted a chronicle of his response to stem cell therapy online at http://14ushop.com/flyin-blind

International Spinal Cord Regeneration Center (Tijuana, Mexico) founder and director, Fernando Ramirez, M.D. has done over 400 cord blood stem cell treatments during the past 4 years. A pilot study on the positive effects of cord blood stem cells on cerebral palsy in children during 2004 was published in the online biomedical journal, "Medical Research & Hypotheses" and is available for access by the public by going to http://www.journal-mhr.com/PDF_Files/vol_3_2/3_2_PDFs/3_2_2.pdf

In addition, a 90 minute documentary concerning the International Spinal Cord Regeneration Center's cord blood stem cell program is available from the producer, Dr. Burton Goldberg www.burtongoldberg.com A eight minute clip from this documentary can be seen free-of-charge by going to Dr. Goldberg's website.

In the high-stakes race for the next biotechnology breakthrough, one that will produce a cure for cancer or Parkinson's disease or some other debilitating malady, politics matter.

They matter enough that the $3 billion cancer research initiative announced by Gov. Rick Perry, cycling champion Lance Armstrong and others this week could hang in the balance. Top researchers believe that research using embryonic stem cells hold the best prospect for those breakthroughs, but Perry and some legislators oppose any state funding for such research.

There is an international arms race underway for the world's top researchers, with various states and nations bidding for the best scientific minds. Those minds are expected to lead the way to enormous advances in medicine, which will spawn an industry generating wealth, jobs, tax base and acclaim.

Texas' initiative, which would pour $300 million a year into cancer research for a decade, is part of that arms race. California, New York and New Jersey are also in the hunt for the world's best researchers and laboratories, as are Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

It's a tight market, so if Perry and the state Legislature restrict research on embryonic stem cells by policy or law, Texas could lose out. Many top scientists won't go where their work is inhibited by law or politics.

State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, is among the lawmakers working on the cancer research plan and he understands that Texas is in a stiff competition. "We need to make sure we are open for all research," said Watson, a cancer survivor. "We need to focus on the possibilities, not the limitations."

Former state Comptroller John Sharp, leading the group studying how to make the initiative a reality, said a ban on stem-cell research is "the elephant in the room." But he believes cancer research is bigger than the stem-cell debate and any official animus towards it.

Dr. Kenneth Shine, executive vice-chancellor for health affairs at the University of Texas System, agrees that cancer research embraces a wide spectrum that doesn't necessarily include stem cells. The advantage of so much state research money will be attactive by itself, though Shine acknowledges that leading researchers don't like prohibitions. "Scientists would like to see the broadest range of opportunities to take the research where it leads."

Stem cells could be the replacement cells for organs damaged by cancer, and millions of dollars have been earmarked for cancer research using stem cells. Banning such research could cripple Texas' plan to become a world leader in finding a cure for cancer — and the great economic boom that would follow.

Robert Klein, chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said about 30 notable scientists have come to California in the past 12 months to work with stem cells. Although California's $3 billion fund for stem cell research has been stymied by lawsuits, universities and research institutes continue to push forward with stem cell work.

"Those other states and nations know that if they are going to participate," Klein said, "they must participate at our level. So they have tremendous pressure to either completely drop out of the field or immediately bring in the public or private dollars to participate at our level."

Texas should be in the running for this ideal economy — a clean industry that produces wealth, work and potential life-saving health benefits. But it won't be if it restricts research by refusing to fund work on embryonic stem cells.

If that happens, the best researchers will make their breakthroughs elsewhere, and Texas may have little to show for its huge investment.

New Jersey was first out of the gate, pledging millions of dollars for stem cell research in the state. California raised the stakes with a huge $3 billion bond initiative, and other states followed with ballot initiatives or legislation to give scientists grants or to build research centers. Those efforts, supporters promised, would also bring in new jobs and tax revenue.

But New York — home to leading research universities, medical centers and biotechnology companies — has remained absent from the list. Legislative efforts in recent years to direct state money to embryonic stem cell research have stalled, and then fizzled.

Now, state lawmakers are preparing to move forward on what would be the most ambitious government-financed stem cell project on the East Coast.

In his first address to the Legislature, Gov. Eliot Spitzer called this month for passage of a $2 billion 10-year bond initiative for research and development, at least half of which would be set aside to pay for stem cell research. And the project is being tailored as an economic development effort in the hopes of attracting support from upstate Republican lawmakers.

Advocates for stem cell research say that if successful, the initiative — by pledging a sizable investment over a sustained period — would catapult New York to the forefront of the field. They also say that bringing the state’s academic and scientific institutions more into the research mix could have significant ripple effects across the country.

“The real value is that if New York is involved, you suddenly have an ability to make a leap in progress across the country’s best minds,” said David Bluestone, a spokesman for Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures, a national advocacy group. “You never get advances from one lab in one state. You need this to be happening across all the states with the best research institutions. California can’t go it alone.”

The initiative, a centerpiece of the Spitzer administration’s economic development agenda, would have to meet the approval of the State Senate and Assembly before it could go before voters. Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson, a former state senator, is to be in charge of shepherding that effort through the Legislature.

Besides the bond measure to pay for stem cell research, the administration has proposed a law to ensure the legality of the research within New York State.

Polls commissioned by supporters of the embryonic research show that overwhelming majorities of New York voters support state financing for it. But the administration may still face significant hurdles in the Capitol, and beyond.

Several times, the Democratic-controlled Assembly has passed legislation to finance embryonic stem cell research and ensure its legality.

Similar legislation proposed in the Senate in previous years by two Democrats from Manhattan, Mr. Paterson and Liz Krueger, never made it to the Senate floor, where legislative business is tightly controlled by the Republican majority leader, Senator Joseph L. Bruno.

Many members of Mr. Bruno’s caucus, however, support such research, especially senators from upstate cities desperate for the public and private investment it could spur.

In remarks in Albany last year to advocates of stem cell research, Mr. Bruno said he would support state funds for the research. He and Mr. Spitzer’s predecessor, Gov. George E. Pataki, called for an $800 million public-private research fund for research in medical and life sciences, to which the state would contribute about $200 million. But that never came to fruition.

Moreover, that proposal did not specifically protect or authorize money for embryonic stem cell research, instead leaving grant decisions to a board appointed by the governor and legislative leaders.

“We thought this approach was responsible and balanced,” said John McCardle, a spokesman for Mr. Bruno.

He said the Senate leader would wait until the Spitzer administration produced a formal proposal before taking a position. Mr. McCardle would not say whether Mr. Bruno would specifically support state financing for embryonic stem cell research, but said, “We’re wide open in terms of looking at what the governor will support.”

In a speech on the campaign trail last year, Mr. Paterson laid out details that the administration hopes will help assuage some voters’ moral qualms about the new proposal. The legislation, he told an audience at NewYork Presbyterian/Columbia hospital, would ban reproductive cloning and create an independent review board to devise guidelines for what research could be financed.

The grants themselves would be subject to peer review by a new Stem Cell Commission, which would also be responsible for enforcing the research guidelines. Those measures, Mr. Paterson said, would ensure that all embryonic research in New York was “legal, vital and ethical.”

Opponents of the research dismiss the precautions as insufficient and say that taxpayer money should go only to research on adult stem cells, which does not require the destruction of embryos.

Many scientists say, however, that adult stem cells are of limited value to researchers because they are less able than embryonic stem cells to develop into other kinds of cells, like skin or bone tissue, and do not multiply as readily.

The opponents also point to a study published online this month by the journal Nature Biotechnology indicating that some stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women could be as potent as embryonic stem cells, a breakthrough that may make the use of embryos unnecessary. A spokeswoman for a group opposed to the Spitzer initiative, Kathleen Gallagher of the New York State Catholic Conference, said: “We are gravely concerned, and we would oppose such a bond act. We recognize that they say they will ban cloning, but what they’re talking about is banning the cloning of live born babies, but funding the cloning of human embryos that will be destroyed for research.” The conference is the public policy voice of the state’s Catholic bishops.

The stiffest resistance to the initiative, however, may come from voters worried less about the proposal’s moral implications than its cost. New York voters have historically been skeptical of bond measures, and according to a memo prepared last year by advocates of embryonic stem cell research, only half of the bond referendums proposed over the previous three decades earned voter approval.

Should the Legislature approve a referendum for this year, the measure would also be opposed by the state’s Conservative Party and by anti-abortion forces.

“The bond issues that are successful tend to be the ones that are very focused on tangible public services,” said Edmund J. McMahon, a fiscal analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a nonprofit conservative public policy center. “Bond issues that are soft-focused generally don’t do well.”

The stem cell initiative, he said, is “a mixed bag.”

“You have someone in office who is about change and fiscal discipline,” Mr. McMahon said of Mr. Spitzer. “But you have a state that already has a huge amount of debt.”

To win support for the initiative from upstate lawmakers, the administration is promoting it as primarily an economic measure. In his speech, Mr. Paterson cited upstate research universities and centers in Albany, Buffalo and Rochester, whose officials have lobbied heavily for more state money for the research.

“The best stem cell researchers in the country are in California, Wisconsin and New York,” said David A. Carmel, a supporter of the research who helped create the Spitzer administration’s proposal. “To have major restrictions on federal funding, and no state funding here — many talented researchers in New York are disgruntled with this state of affairs.”

"Some may be interpreting my research as a substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative medicine therapies, such as those involving embryonic stem cells. I disagree with that assertion," wrote Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, the author of a study published this week and widely seized upon by opponents of embryonic stem cell research as a more moral option.

Atala and other researchers reported Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

In a letter to sponsors of legislation up for a House vote Thursday, Atala wrote that it was "essential that National Institutes of Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells."

The bill, which would clear the way for federally funded embryonic research, is expected to pass but without the required 2/3 majority required to override Bush's expected veto. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he expects same bill to reach that veto-proof threshold when it comes up in his chamber in a few weeks.

Atala's study and the letter add a dose of drama to round two of Congress' battle with President Bush over whether taxpayers should fund embryonic stem cell research. Bush and a minority of Americans say believe the research is immoral because the process of culling the stem cells kills the embryo.

Opponents of the legislation, which Bush vetoed last year, say Atala's study bolsters their argument that science need not advance at the expense of budding human life.

"We're talking about saving lives here," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., an obstetrician and staunch opponent of embryonic stem cell research. "We don't have to split the nation on this if we've got an alternative."

He won't have much luck peeling off support from the bill, said one of its sponsors. "We won't lose anyone who was going to support the bill," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., one of her party's vote-counters in the House. In fact, she predicted, "several" lawmakers who voted against the bill in the last Congress will vote for it on Thursday.

The research reported this week suggests that stem cells extracted harmlessly from the amniotic fluid that cushions a fetus in-utero hold much the same promise for disease-fighting as embryonic stem cells. Scientists hope that someday stem cells may be used against diseases such as for Lou Gehrig's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer.

Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. And scientists aren't sure that stem cells shed by a fetus and extracted from the surrounding fluid carry the same possibility for treatments and cures of diseases as those culled from embryos.

The scientific community says embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

Whatever the effect of the discovery on the policy debate, Bush is all but certain to cast a second veto of the embryonic stem cell bill if it reaches his desk.

White House spokesman Tony Snow on Monday stopped short of issuing an endorsement of the amniotic process, but he made clear that Bush views it favorably.

"Obviously, there is a difference between using amniotic stem cells that do not, by design, involve the destruction of a human life, and embryonic stem cell research, which does," Snow told reporters.

Co-sponsored by DeGette and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the legislation would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. Bush cast the lone veto of his presidency against an identical stem cell bill six months ago, saying he did not want to destroy life in the name of science.

Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. But because the culling kills the embryos, Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

The House of Representatives is expected to take up the stem-cell bill on Thursday, identical to one passed last July that called for broader federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which Bush vetoed.

Senate action is expected to follow shortly and Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin told reporters: "I predict it will pass overwhelmingly."

"We should pass the bill again and again and again until we get a president who will sign it," added California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Stem cells are the body's master cells, found throughout the tissue and blood. Researchers hope that stem-cell research could lead to treatments for diseases such as juvenile diabetes and cancer and to perhaps replace damaged organs.

Embryonic stem cells are one of several types of these cells, and considered potentially the most powerful. They are the most controversial source of the cells, and current federal law greatly restricts the use of taxpayer money to pay for experiments using them. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research, including Bush, say it is unethical to experiment on human embryos, even those never destined to become a baby.

Delaware Republican Rep. Mike Castle said backers may change the bill to win more support from their fellow lawmakers by including provisions such as an oversight body and funding to encourage the adoption of frozen embryos left over at fertility clinics -- currently the main source of human embryonic stem cells.

Backers also said a new approach relying on stem cells from the amniotic fluid that protects unborn fetuses, could complement but not replace existing methods that rely on embryonic cells.

But other supporters said they are not eager to kowtow to a White House that has refused to meet with them.

"I frankly see no need to change the bill with the hopes that the president might accept it," said Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette. "We have the momentum, we have the votes, we have the support of the public."

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who has repeatedly expressed outrage that Bush will not support the expanded use of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research, said he was "confident" it would pass the Senate with enough votes to override any White House veto.

"There ought to be a million-person march on the Mall ... that can be heard in the living quarters of the White House," he said.

DeGette was less certain the votes in the House could be enough to override a veto.

Last month in Portland, Ore., doctors for the first time transplanted stem cells from aborted fetuses into his head in a desperate bid to reverse, or at least slow, a rare genetic disorder called Batten disease. The so-far incurable condition normally results in blindness and paralysis before death.

Doctors don 't know if the neural stem cells taken from fetuses donated to a nonprofit medical foundation by women aborting early-stage pregnancies will save Daniel 's life. But the boy has sufficiently recovered from his 8-hour surgery to be expected to return to his Orange County, Calif., home Friday  the first day of Hanukkah. "We don t think that is a coincidence", said Marcus Kerner, who said a deep faith in Judaism and long hours of prayer prompted the family to volunteer Daniel for the risky procedure. Daniel was diagnosed two years ago and has since lost the ability to walk and talk. Daniel is the first volunteer of an experiment that plans to operate on five more afflicted children over the next year. "He was a little boy who was basically waiting to die, now he s waiting to get better, " said Kerner. He said Daniel recently called him Dad for the first time in two years. The stem cells injected into Daniel 's head aren 't human embryonic stem cells, a research field for which President Bush has limited federal funding because of moral objections. Nonetheless, the new cells in Daniel 's brain do carry their own ethical baggage. Opposition to procedure Anti-abortion groups oppose the research, which was banned from federal funding by President Reagan in 1988. President Clinton removed the prohibition in 1993. "They are trying to give an aura that this is good when this is the most grisly of examples that can be given about abortion," said Gayle Atteberry, executive director of the Oregon Right to Life, the state 's leading anti-abortion group. They are taking the brains from babies. Research opponents argue that beyond their moral opposition, there is the long list of failed fetal tissue transplant experiments most notably those involving hundreds of Parkinson's patients over the last decade, none of whom have shown dramatic improvements. "But Martin McGlynn, chief executive of Stem Cells Inc., which developed and owns commercial rights to the experimental Batten treatment", said the current operation differs dramatically from previous fetal tissue transplant attempts. The Palo Alto-based company is paying for the experimental operations.

McGlynn said the injections Daniel received were highly purified stem cells selected for their ability to obey commands from the brain to replace damaged cells. McGlynn said previous transplants were crude by comparison because those researchers simply injected fetal brain tissue with little selectivity of needed cells.

Batten disease is caused when defective genes fail to make enzymes needed to dispose of waste made by brain cells. The waste piles up in the brain and kills healthy cells until the patient dies. Most victims die before they reach their teens.

The company 's idea is to inject the sick kids with healthy, fetal neural stem cells that will engraft in the brain, which will direct the new cells to turn into cells able to produce the missing enzymes.

Treatment never tried in children The company 's treatment showed promise in Batten-afflicted mice, but such an ethically charged test has never been tried before in children.

Stem cell therapies for diseases still years away. Stem cells help dogs with muscular dystrophy

That 's why Oregon Health Sciences University researchers have been trying to temper expectations since they first operated on Daniel on Nov. 14, steadfastly refusing to discuss the experiment except for a brief press conference two days after the operation.

"We don 't want people thinking this is the best thing since sliced bread", said Dr. Robert Steiner, the lead Batten researcher in Portland.

The goals of the Portland experiment are modest and the results won 't be known for at least a year. The researchers are mostly looking to see whether the stem cell injections harm Kerner and the other patients.

If they're satisfied that the side effects are mild enough, they will enroll more children in additional trials designed to measure whether the fetal stem cells are succeeding in loosening Batten s fatal grip. Batten afflicts roughly 3 out of every 100,000 children in the United States.

Doling out $20 million to 21 research projects, Connecticut is moving faster and further than other states to take the most controversial form of stem-cell research, that involving tissue from human embryos, from the political arena to the laboratory. The money will flow beginning next year, and is just a start: the state has allocated $100 million over the next decade.

Connecticut leads several states that have started to take more aggressive steps to support stem-cell research since President Bush vetoed a provision last summer to spend federal money on it. That veto came after a White House move in 2001 to restrict federally funded research to a limited number of stem-cell lines.

Soon California will begin to decide how to distribute nearly $150 million. New Jersey has already awarded nearly $10 million, though most of the research projects there do not involve embryonic cells; the state plans to allocate millions more for additional research facilities. Maryland and Illinois have also agreed to finance stem-cell research.

Private companies and foundations have also paid for some projects.

It will take years, if not decades, for the research proposals Connecticut is supporting to be translated into clinical trials for therapies or cures. Each proposal reflects the high expectations for the use of embryonic cells, which scientists believe can be developed into any type of body tissue and thus provide the basis for comprehensive treatments.

Opponents of such research, which uses destroyed embryos, want it to be severely restricted or banned outright as inhumane.

The first round of grants will pay for research at the University of Connecticut — which received $12 million, more than half the total — Yale University and Wesleyan University.

“Certainly we put an emphasis on research that cannot or is not being done elsewhere, which means embryonic stem cells,” said Dr. J. Robert Galvin, the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Public Health and chairman of its stem-cell advisory board. “We want to create an atmosphere here where we are showing that this is welcome in Connecticut. We are operating under the belief that if we build it, they will come.”

More than 70 proposals were considered by scientific review boards before being submitted to the research advisory committee appointed by the state.

One rejected proposal included a plan to clone a human embryo and use it to produce new stem cells. Dr. Galvin said that it was turned down because it received low marks from the review board, and that there was no vocal opposition to the idea of cloning embryos in principle.

The committee made a special effort to finance scientists who are only beginning such research.

Dr. David W. Rowe, a professor of genetics and developmental biology at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, who will get $3.5 million for experiments on healing serious war wounds, said he was confident that such work would bring attention to the university.

Like several other researchers receiving the grants, Dr. Rowe has done some research using adult stem cells, but is hoping that embryonic cells will be stronger and more efficient to repair the most serious wounds.

“What’s going on with soldiers now is that injuries are so catastrophic, massive injuries and losing large segments of bone,” Dr. Rowe said. “This really is transformative for us because we can look at ways of doing things we had only thought about so far.”

Laura Grabel, a professor of biology at Wesleyan, whose $800,000 research project focuses on epilepsy, has done some similar work using stem cells in mice, and said that using human stem cells would take the research one step closer to an ability to apply it in patients.

“We’re not anywhere near the level of this happening in humans, and there are many roadblocks,” Dr. Grabel said. “But there are some models of the system that look very promising, and we’re just at the very beginning. This is going to be far beyond what we were able to do before.”

Like other scientists pushing for such research, Dr. Grabel said she was thankful for the “extremely supportive political climate” in the state and said she expected other researchers to take notice.

“There is no question that more money is going to translate into more research, and we will be in an excellent position to get more dollars from the federal government if the funds ever become available,” she said.

While the financing is widely praised in scientific circles and many advocates view it as a potential boon for local economies, some caution that financial support from states alone could result in a patchwork and haphazard approach to the research.

“There are many states moving money around, but the implementation is not the same everywhere, so while we are grateful for state governments filling the void, it points to real problems,” said Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research and a leading lobbyist in Washington for stem-cell research funding.

In less severe coronaries, dead cardiac cells are replaced by connective tissue cells that form scar tissue in the damaged heart. But the result is never very satisfactory. Scarred ventricular walls are thin, and don’t contract very well — a problem in a workhorse organ designed for sustained pumping.

Inadequate heart repair concerns British-trained developmental biologist Christine Mummery, who has made cardiac cells her specialty. She’s the Harvard Stem Cell Institute Radcliffe Fellow, and will be in residence at Harvard for a semester. (Most Radcliffe Fellows — who number about 50 a year — stay through May.)

Mummery is group leader at the Hubrecht Laboratory of the Netherlands Institute for Developmental Biology, and a specialist in converting stems cells to heart and vascular cells that act like new ones. Heart cells, Mummery believes, have an untapped regenerative capacity that can be enhanced by transplanting stem cells that grow into efficient heart muscle.

Mummery is interested in using laboratory heart cells as a model for cardiac activity — which someday might help scientists identify novel genes, or screen new drugs inexpensively.

To explain her ideas last week (Sept. 26), Mummery led about 100 listeners through the ABCs of stem cell research. The lecture, in a crowded second-floor colloquium room at 34 Concord Ave., near Radcliffe Yard, was the second in a series of public talks by 2007-08 Radcliffe Fellows.

“I’m going to tell you about stem cells, warts and all,” said Mummery. She also hoped that some scientific grounding in the issue would give her lay audience critical perspective on promising therapies — including medical “breakthroughs” that are nothing of the kind.

A lot of conditions are already popularly associated with stem cell therapy, including Parkinson’s disease and diabetes, said Mummery. But many of them don’t belong in that arena, she said, because too many cells or kinds of cells are affected. Among the conditions unlikely to be mitigated by stem cell therapies are Alzheimer’s, stroke, and multiple sclerosis (MS).

Stem cells are different from other cells in the human body because they can change — “differentiate” — into other cell types. This variability makes stem cells exciting, since they could in theory replace damaged or defective cells.

There are two basic types, explained Mummery, whose Radcliffe talk was illustrated with slides of pictures, graphs, and text.

Adult stem cells, from bone marrow and elsewhere, do not present ethical problems. They can be used — though with difficulty — in conditions affecting the skin, hair, pancreas, bone, and perhaps the brain and heart. But there are too few adult stem cells to do much good, she said. They also change unreliably, and only into a limited number of other cell types.

On the other hand, embryonic stem cells “are ethically very sensitive,” said Mummery, because the embryo has to be destroyed to harvest them. But these versatile cells can transform into all of the human body’s 200 cell types.

Adult stem cells are close to being used in human clinical applications for brittle (unstable) diabetes, for making bone and cartilage, and for skin cell transplantation. But for heart disease, so far, adult stem cells have been a bust.

Skeletal muscle stem cells transplanted into the heart sometimes cause cardiac rhythms to go haywire. And injecting bone marrow cells into the heart carries the risk of creating bone matter there. After four clinical trials on humans, said Mummery, “we haven’t solved the problem of where we’re going to get contractile heart cells from.”

Cord blood — blood that remains in the umbilical cord and placenta after birth — is talked about in the press as a source of embryonic-like blood cells, said Mummery. For a price, some European firms will even store cord blood in hopes of medical advances.

But there is never enough to “treat more than a child,” said a skeptical Mummery. Cord blood — likely storable for up to 15 years — is also impractical for adult conditions, like heart disease, which occur much later in life. Still, bogus stem cell “treatments” are still out there, said Mummery — for MS (in Turkey, using untested cord blood) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (in China, using fetal olfactory neurons).

In the Netherlands, Mummery has induced heart attacks in mice, then injected human cardiac cells into the affected area. Grafts developed, and new cells survived for more than six months — “but we still cannot cure a mouse,” said Mummery. “Why? That’s one of the reasons I’m here [at Harvard],” she said.

Twice a week she works with researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital. This month, they’ll start a series of experiments transplanting cells into mouse hearts. They’ll use human adult cardiac progenitor cells, which are undifferentiated and have some capacity for self-renewal. And endothelial cells from the lining of blood vessels, which form pavement-like layers of tissue and are thought to be strongly adaptive.

Mummery will also use her time as a Radcliffe Fellow to work with Kevin Kit Parker, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, where he directs the Disease Biophysics Group.

Their working hypothesis: Cells transplanted to the heart do not exact enough force, and may be too isolated to be effective. Mummery and Parker will investigate how the shape of a transplanted heart cell affects its electrical properties — and therefore the relative force of heart contraction.

“The idea is to exchange materials and ideas,” said Mummery of her dual experiments while at Harvard. She’ll visit again in the spring.