Pay for Eggs?

This is from today's The Scientist online blog.

It raises interesting questions about where to get oocytes for hESC research.
Some of the issues are:

• serious risks for egg donors? Anestheis, hyper-stimulation, what are the long-term effects?
• should egg and sperm donor's consent?
• what are the terms for confidentiality and anonymity?
• Moore v. Regents of the University of California?
• Is payment for eggs ok for IVF and not hESCR?
• Chain of custody of eggs?
• and so on

Lindaland
CIRM to pay for eggs?

Posted by Elie Dolgin

[Entry posted at 27th March 2008 06:22 PM GMT]

Recent comments by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) President Alan Trounson imply that the agency may be looking for ways to pay women for their eggs for stem cell research. Currently, laws in California and Massachusetts — two leader states in stem cell research — prohibit compensation for eggs. But with a shortage of available human eggs for research purposes, the issue remains a national sticking point to the progress of stem cell research and cloning science. At a meeting of CIRM's Standards Working Group (SWG) on February 28, Trounson called on the CIRM to explore ways to reimburse women for eggs, according to the transcripts of the meeting. "The demand for oocytes may be way beyond what we can possibly deliver," said Trounson, in response to the growing number of applications to use human eggs in research. He cited the failure of many researchers to obtain eggs through donation without financial reward. "Women are not prepared to go through those procedures without some form of compensation," he said. Proposition 71, which was passed as a statewide ballot initiative by voters in 2004 established CIRM as an agency to award grants and loans for stem cell research. Although the legislation established stem cell research as a state constitutional right in California, it prohibits compensation for eggs, but allows reimbursement of direct expenses. One idea that arose at the meeting was to subsidize the cost of fertility treatment for women donating eggs, as is currently done in other countries, such as the UK. However, opponents of this move argue that covering the costs of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is another form of paying for eggs. "[If] a person gets a discount in IVF, it's compensation," said Susan Fogel of the Pro-Choice Alliance at the meeting. Trounson "called for a discussion to look into various options," said Don Gibbons, CIRM's chief communication officer. "There are no pre-conceived notions of what we want [the SWG] to do." There is currently "no regulatory proposal on the table," said Geoff Lomax, senior officer for the SWG, who described the February 28th meeting as a "thinking out loud session." He said that plans are underway for a meeting in the late summer or early fall that will bring together scientists and special interest groups to look into different options for obtaining human eggs. "There needs to be a future meeting to talk about the issue of egg donation," Lomax told The Scientist. Kevin Eggan of Harvard University's Stem Cell Institute told The Scientist he was "heartened" by Trounson's comments, but doubts that CIRM can do much in its role as a regulatory agency within the existing legislation. He called on the National Academy of Sciences to revisit the issue, stating that women should be compensated for providing eggs for stem cell research, just as they are for donating eggs to treat infertility and as they were in the early days of IVF research. "Clearly that's the expectation of these women for egg donation," he said. "Human research donors, which is what these women are, should be compensated for their time, their effort, and any duress they incur." Jeff Sheehy, a CIRM board member, said he reacted "viscerally" to Trounson's announcement. "It seemed to fly in the face of Proposition 71," he said. Sheehy told The Scientist that Proposition 71 was approved following a campaign that promised a no-compensation policy for CIRM-funded research. "Why go against the will of the legislation in what voters thought they were approving?" he said. A good review of the issues raised at the Feb. 28 meeting can be found at the California Stem Cell Report blog.

Therapeutic Cloning and PD Hope

Latest news on SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) and Parkinson's Disease in mice. Will it translate to humans? We don't know yet. The article below is from the www.medicalnewstoday.com

Therapeutic Cloning Treats Parkinson's Disease In Mice

25 Mar 2008

Research led by investigators at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) has shown that therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), can be used to treat Parkinson's disease in mice. The study's results are published in the March 23 online edition of the journal Nature Medicine.

For the first time, researchers showed that therapeutic cloning or SCNT has been successfully used to treat disease in the same subjects from whom the initial cells were derived. While this current work is in animals, it could have future implications as this method may be an effective way to reduce transplant rejection and enhance recovery in other diseases and in other organ systems.

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

The new study shows that therapeutic cloning can treat Parkinson's disease in a mouse model. The scientists used skin cells from the tail of the animal to generate customized or autologous dopamine neurons the missing neurons in Parkinson's disease. The mice that received neurons derived from individually matched stem cell lines exhibited neurological improvement. But when these neurons were grafted into mice that did not genetically match the transplanted cells, the cells did not survive well and the mice did not recover.

The work was led by senior author Lorenz Studer, MD, Head of the Stem Cell and Tumor Biology Laboratory within the Sloan-Kettering Institute at MSKCC, and lead author Viviane Tabar, MD, Neurosurgeon and stem cell scientist at MSKCC. The work was performed in collaboration with scientists at the Riken Institute in Kobe, Japan.

Other MSKCC researchers who contributed to this study are: Mark Tomishima, Georgia Panagiotakos, George Al-Shamy, Bill Chan, and Jayanthi Menon. Scientists in Japan include group leader Teruhiko Wakayama and scientists Eiji Mizutani, Sayaka Wakayama and Hiroshi Ohta. This research was supported by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the Starr Tri-institutional Stem Cell Initiative, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the Michael W. McCarthy Foundation and an unrestricted grant from the Kinetics Foundation.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
1275 York Ave.
New York, NY 10021
United States
http://www.mskcc.org

James Thomson

Information on Jamie Thomson - having heard him speak several times here in Madison - in class and at 'events' this article hits the nail right on the head.

"Understatement is a character trait of Wisconsin’s most famous biologist. It drives reporters crazy. “I think of Jamie as the Chuck Yeager of biology — working at the very edge of the envelope, and yet curiously, almost maddeningly, laconic when pressed to talk about what he has done or plans to do next,” laments Rick Weiss, science reporter for the Washington Post. “The guy seems to have made it a personal challenge to understate his accomplishments, killing every effort to get a dramatic quote or a jazzy sense of where the science is going.”

The article is @

http://www.news.wisc.edu/on-wisconsin/soft-cell/


Enjoy, and boy am I happy this is happening in Wisconsin.

Lindaland

Impact of iPS cells

When Dr. Jamie Thomson and his team announced their success in reverse-engineering adult skin cells back to the nascent blueprint, embryonic stem cells, I knew there'd be quite a stir.

At first blush, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) might be the answer to the ethical conundrum that has stalled federal support of embryonic stem cell research: some feel the "potential for life" (i.e. the small cluster of cells inside the pre-implantation blastocyst) should be afforded the same constellation of human rights and protections that our constitution guarantees an existing, human life.

Adult cells that can be bit-banged back to their defining-formula, may be the answer.

Though, "Is this an instance of genetic-engineering?" comes to mind immediately. Just think of the uproar a few years back concerning genetically-engineered milk! (rBGH - for those of you not from the dairy state).

I can see no end to the ethical, moral, and political debates, not mentioning hard, scientific questions that need answers:

• what is "potential for life"? how should it be protected?
• are reversed-engineered adult cells as good as newly minted cells from the blastocyst?
• how will state and federal monies be divided up to study these approaches?
• is the 'life' that is engineered through the iPS process 'potential for life'?
• can iPS be understood without understanding embryonic stem cells?
• are all the scientists going to abandon embryonic stem cell research for iPS?
• will politicians chicken out of formulating sound regulatory guidelines for embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells? at state and federal levels?

Let's hope the hoopla of the last few years is done, and we can move forward in both areas of stem cell research: induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cell research.

There are too many people, suffering from conditions and diseases that have nothing but the hope of a stem-cell therapy breakthrough on the horizon, to allow this to become a duel between two potentially breakthrough technologies.

Lindaland

More on Stem Cell Patents

Posted today on The Scientist blog

Blog:

Stem cell patents upheld

Posted by Andrea Gawrylewski

[Entry posted at 11th March 2008 05:25 PM GMT]

The US Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the two remaining stem cell patents out of a contested trio held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), according to the final ruling posted last week by the USPTO. The third patent was upheld in a ruling last month (read more here) and can still be challenged by appeal. Last week's rulings are final and cannot be appealed. "The patent office has conducted a thoughtful and thorough review of all three patents and we applaud this final decision on our two most important base stem cell patents," Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF said in a statement. The two patents are known as "780" and "806" (for US Patents. 5,843,780 and 6,200,806) and cover technology on culturing and maintaining human embryonic stem cells from pre-implantation embryos. This was the original work of James Thomson, from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who led one of two research teams to successfully reprogram adult skin cells into pluripotent cells last November. The three WARF patents have been under examination by the USPTO, beginning in October, 2006, when challenges were brought by the Public Patent Foundation in New York and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) in Los Angeles. The two organizations have argued that the patents impede stem cell research and that the technology they cover has been pioneered by other researchers before Thomson. John Simpson, director of the stem cell project at FTCR, and Jeanne Loring, from the Public Patent Foundation, could not be immediately reached for this article. UPDATE: In regard to the decision on the patents, John Simpson told The Scientist: "This was already a huge victory for us on these patents. When they were confronted with our challenge last year, WARF substantially eased its licensing requirements. That change in behavior was tremendously useful for researchers." WARF made several amendments to the patent details last year. While the ruling on the two patents is final, "we can appeal the decision on the 913 patent and we will," Simpson added.

Posted from WKOW in Madison @ WKOW

Madison to Host World Stem Cell Summit in September

Hundreds of the world's top players in the field of stem cell research will gather in Madison for a summit in September.

Up to 1,000 researchers, philanthropists and business representatives are expected to attend the World Stem Cell Summit at the Alliant Energy Center on Sept. 22 and 23.

Genetics Policy Institute founder Bernard Siegel says he chose Madison to host the event because the city has been a launching pad for the field.

He says the event will coincide with the 10-year anniversary of University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist James Thomson becoming the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells.

Thomson will speak at the summit about a new technique in which ordinary skin cells can be turned into stem cells.

2008 World Stem Cell Summit to be in Madison

Posted from www.jsonline.com

WEDNESDAY, March 12, 2008, 11:03 a.m.
By Stacy Forster

UW to host stem cell summit this fall.

Madison - Wisconsin's capital city will host an international stem cell research summit this fall, which will bring up to 1,000 of the world's top researchers to Madison.

The World Stem Cell Summit, to be hosted by Wi Cell and the University of Wisconsin Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center on Sept. 22 and 23, will mark the 10th anniversary of James Thomson's isolation of human embryonic stem cells at UW-Madison.

Thomson is expected to give a keynote address about his latest breakthrough using human skin cells.

Gov. Jim Doyle, a major backer of the stem cell industry in Wisconsin, said the summit helps preserve Wisconsin's place as a leader in stem cell research.

"In Wisconsin, we are working hard to build innovative centers, to turn research into life-saving treatments in every corner of the state," he said in a news conference.

Madison beat out New York and Washington, D.C., to host the summit.

Good for Business in Wisconsin

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office upheld two of WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Association Foundation)-held stem cell patents this week.

The USPTO rejected claims from consumer groups that the discoveries were OBVIOUS given previous research, and thus not patentable.

The claims arose from two non-profit groups, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation, and argue that the patents hinder research.

Dr. James Thomson's pioneering stem cell discoveries are patentable inventions.

Go Wisconsin!

Life is for the Living

From lifeisfortheliving.org - the Trailer

"The stories of five American families living with the painful realities of Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Spinal Cord Injury set against the national debate over embryonic stem cell research.


As the debate continues in Washington and across the country, three generations reveal their challenges, their frustration with the President’s policy, and the hope that more funding for embryonic stem cell research will lead to new treatments and cures to relieve their suffering and save their lives.

Life is for the Living explores the science behind stem cell research and the political debate taking place across the nation.

The film includes an introduction by CBS 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace and interviews with the nation's leading scientific researchers, political leaders, and advocates."