It was reported last week that, for the first time, surgeons in the U.K. have successfully treated an extremely ill heart patient with a combination of an artificial heart and his own stem cells.  The patient was fitted with a mechanical pump and then injected with 6 million of his own stem cells, in hope that those cells would repair damage in the patient’s heart.

This success raises questions for us in the United States.  First, why are embryonic stem cell advocates—and the President and his administration—still pushing for destructive research that has yet to successfully treat a single human person, while ignoring the need for substantial funding of adult stem cell research?  Once again, AUL is here to point out that adult stem cells have been used to treat or cure patients with over 70 different diseases and conditions, while there have been absolutely no successes with embryonic stem cell research.  We’re starting to feel like a broken record.

Yet the message is still not getting across.  To date, only sixteen states promote or encourage the use of umbilical cord cells and/or other forms of adult stem cells for research.

But an underlying question is also raised, one that is timely as we wait to find out what kind of health care we will be left with once the federal government takes over. 

In relaying the patient’s story, Sky News reported that NHS in the U.K. will not pay for this life-saving treatment.  Instead, the patient said he “relies on charity funding—or travels abroad to implant pumps in countries where governments are prepared to fund the £60,000 devices.” 

Interesting.  This patient—in a country with nationalized healthcare that is the predecessor to what President Obama is seeking for the United States—has to travel outside of the U.K. to other countries that are willing to pay for his treatment.

The surgeon himself stated, “I am very frustrated that all the work that I have done back home in the UK has to be translated into patient care in other countries,” and “”[w]e have helped to develop implantation programmes in France, Greece and Japan. It’s time we did it in the UK.”

He believes that this treatment protocol for heart patients could save 12,000 patients each year.

The article continues:

The Greek government has recently agreed to fund pumps for some patients with serious heart failure.

Professor Papakonstantinou [a heart surgeon at the Ahepa University Hospital in Thessaloniki] said they offer good value for money because patients are able to leave hospital and do not need drug treatment.

But in Britain, the NHS will only fund pumps in transplant patients who are waiting for a donor heart. Around 100 a year are implanted.

In a statement, the Department of Health said: “Before making such technology more widely available as an indefinite long-term treatment in end-stage heart failure, the NHS needs to ensure there is clear evidence of benefit.

Apparently 11,900 extra lives saved isn’t a clear enough benefit.
I’m not sure this is what most Americans have in mind when they think “health reform.”

The article from Sky News can be viewed at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Artificial-Heart-And-Stem-Cells-Save-Mans-Life-In-Pioneering-Surgery-By-British-Surgeon/Article/200909415387553?lpos=Health_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15387553_Artificial_Heart_And_Stem_Cells_Save_Mans_Life_In_Pioneering_Surgery_By_British_Surgeon

Americans United for Life (AUL) criticized President Obama’s recent decision to disband the President’s Council on Bioethics and replace it with a new bioethics commission having a mandate to offer “practical policy options.”

The President’s Council on Bioethics was created in November 2001 by President Bush after his decision to allow human embryonic stem-cell research for the first time while limiting the research to existing cell lines.

“Why try to fix something that wasn’t broken?” said AUL’s President & CEO Charmaine Yoest.

Daniel McConchie, AUL Vice President of Government Affairs said, “This was the most balanced bioethics council in history with two leaders, Leon Kass and Edmund Pellegrino, who went out of their way to ensure the council was reflective of all the major perspectives on the issues,” he said. “We have to ask why the President has disbanded this effective and well-regarded council. Is this a move toward a council that is more of a rubber stamp of his administration’s priorities, rather than a group that actively debates current issues with all perspectives having a seat at the table?”

AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe said it was “a shame” that the council was dismissed. “The council leaves a rich legacy of reflection on the ethical and legal aspects of the most important questions of biomedicine and biotechnology facing the country. But despite the council’s balance — or perhaps because of it — many liberals and libertarians never appreciated the important books and reports published by the Council. When it conducted wide-ranging discussions of important bioethical issues, they dismissed it as a ‘debating society.’ And when, after such discussions, they issued policy recommendations, they dismissed it as ‘political.’”

If such a thoughtful and balanced bioethics council is to be disbanded, Forsythe said, the likelihood is that the President doesn’t want such thoughtful deliberation on bioethics or intends “to create a new council with only one, utilitarian ideology that will simply provide reasons to approve embryonic research, human cloning, et cetera.”

RELATED: Joe Carter comments at First Things on what he believes the Obama administration means by planning a new commission that will offer “practical policy options”:

In other words, the Obama administration already knows where it stands on all those pesky moral issues like human cloning, chimeras, and euthanasia, and just needs a group to provide advice on how to implement its preferred policies. Whereas the previous councils wrestled with such questions as “What is the nature of human dignity?” the new one will most likely be addressing more practical policy options, such as “How much should we pay women to harvest their eggs for cloning?”

Taxpayers in New York may soon be paying women to put their lives at risk.

The ethics committee of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board recently recommended that taxpayer money be given to researchers who have paid women for the harvesting of their eggs for research purposes.  If the full stem-cell board agrees, New York will become the first state to allow such reimbursement.

But the ethics committee shirked a glaring problem: egg harvesting endangers women’s health.  Egg donation requires preliminary hormone treatment, and this hormone therapy is accompanied by serious health risks including an increased risk of ovarian cancer and complications with future pregnancies.  Other risks include ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS), which can cause loss of fertility, organ failure, and death.

And in the current economic climate, more women will be putting their lives at risk.  At a “reimbursement” rate around $10,000, women hard-hit by the economy will be more likely to take risks they would not have otherwise taken.  The result is the commoditization of eggs and the exploitation of women.

What’s more is that there is no benefit in sight, and certainly not to the women involved.  Quoting Dr. David Prentice, Wesley Smith in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century explains that it is not possible to obtain even enough eggs to treat diabetic patients in the U.S., let alone all of the other patients who have been promised (intangible) benefits from embryonic stem cell research.  Dr. Prentice has computed that it would take 800 million eggs just to treat the 16 million Americans suffering from diabetes.  Smith concludes, “There simply aren’t enough women of childbearing age to supply all these eggs.”

In other words, the harvesting of eggs will not help produce cures, and women’s lives are placed in danger simply to satisfy scientific curiosity.  This can be categorized as nothing other than the exploitation of women.

In 2008, AUL, in conjunction with Dr. Prentice, provided an extensive report to New York’s stem cell board demonstrating that therapies utilizing adult stem cells are already treating patients and that any taxpayer money should be used for treatments that are already proven to be working.  The ethics committee ignored these hard facts.

Apparently, scientific whim is more important than the lives of women.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Oklahoma City, OK — Last night, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry vetoed Oklahoma House Bill 1326, a bill making it illegal for any Oklahoma business to conduct research that would kill a human embryo or subject an unborn child to a substantial risk of death or injury.  The Oklahoma House of Representatives immediately overrode the veto; however, the Oklahoma Senate failed to follow suit.

The bill would have banned research requiring the destruction of unborn children.  Maressa Treat, AUL Oklahoma State Director, stated, “This life-saving bill was vital to keeping Oklahoma a leader in the pro-life movement.  The veto is disappointing to all who support life issues, such as banning embryonic stem cell research.”

Daniel S. McConchie, AUL Vice President of Government Affairs, added, “This important legislation was the victim of a disinformation campaign designed to scare the public and prevent them from understanding its true purpose:  saving human lives.  We look forward to educating the people of Oklahoma about why this legislation is vital to the state.”

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.  The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

AUL President, Charmaine Yoest, was on the G. Gordon Liddy Show on March 10th, the day after President Obama lifted the embryonic stem cell research restrictions of the Bush administration. Liddy and Yoest discuss the ramifications of this action and the slippery slope of stem cell research.

They discuss the reasons why we allow the destruction of embryos as a society and Yoest explains that it “is a question of our humanity, of who we are as a culture. To me, the fact that the media didn’t want to talk about the fact that we crossed this line yesterday of human experimentation…That speaks to something about our culture and our civilization and we like to think of ourselves as being the most advanced civilization ever.”

Liddy and Yoest continue by explaining the benefits of adult stem cell research and the fact that they supersede those of embryonic stem cell research.

The interview concludes with both Yoest and Liddy answering questions from both supporters and those in opposition of embryonic stem cell research.

The entire interview is available at RadioAmerica.org.

In today’s Human Events

Despite his talk of economic hardship, President Obama has been on an ideological spending spree — expanding government, increasing taxes, and doubling the national debt. New money pits are dug daily. Consider Obama’s commitment to government controlled health care and the possible nationalization of banks. But little discussed has been the financial ramifications of taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research.

The morality of such life-destroying science aside, it is a prime example of pork barrel spending as it funds the kind of stem cell research that has the least chance of leading to real therapies for real patients. While it’s “only” a billion dollars so far — chump change, perhaps, out of a $3 trillion budget — at a time of fiscal crisis, it’s an “investment” in failure.

Continue Reading at Human Events

Washington, DC — President Obama is set to sign an executive order today authorizing more federal taxpayer spending for human embryonic stem cell research, overturning limits on federal funding for such research in place since 2001.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life responded, “Embryonic stem cell research is the research of the past.  Millions of dollars have been spent on embryonic stem cell research and it has failed.  To pour more money into it is simply a waste.”

Dr. Yoest continued, “Even more, this research destroys lives at the very earliest stage of development.  Adult stem cell research is helping people now.  If we’re going to put tax dollars into research — particularly at a time of unprecedented federal deficits — it needs to be research that protects life and helps patients now.
There is a critical difference between adult (or better, non-embryonic) stem cells and embryonic stem cells.  Non-embryonic stem cells have a clear record of medical success without ethical controversy.  Despite years of research, human embryonic stem cells have yet to be used in real therapies for patients.

Recent advances in reprogramming cells — induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) — only bolster the case that this new policy is nothing short of wasteful.  Researchers are moving to the field of iPSC research because these cells are relatively easy to produce and do not require the use of human eggs or the destruction of human embryos.

Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life, stated, “It’s very troubling that, one by one, the Obama Administration is needlessly pulling down effective laws that protect human life.  We expect the Administration will soon move to completely pull down the moratorium against federal funding for human embryo research that has been in place since the National Research Act of 1974.”

For additional background, please see http://action.aul.org/escr

UPDATE: the video is now available

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life (AUL), is scheduled to appear on the FOX News program FOX & Friends Weekend on Sunday, March 8 at 9:20 AM Eastern, 8:20 AM Central.

Charmaine is set to debate Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania on President Obama’s coming Executive Order to overturn President Bush’s limits on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  The order is expected Monday.

Also, please visit AUL’s YouTube Channel to see other recent media appearances, such as when Charmaine and Art Caplan last debated bioethics issues on FOX News program Huckabee.

By Clarke D. Forsythe and Denise M. Burke

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius has been nominated to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  If confirmed, she will be in a position to profoundly influence American healthcare including federal and state policies regarding abortion, healthcare rights of conscience, bioethics and biotechnologies, and end-of-life issues.

On balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position to make such important policy determinations including:

• Whether to rescind, modify, or retain HHS rules requiring that recipients of certain federal funding certify their compliance with existing federal law supporting healthcare fights of conscience;
• Whether to expand the over-the-counter availability of abortifacients such as “Plan B” (so-called “emergency contraception”) to allow minors to obtain these controversial and dangerous drugs without a prescription or doctor’s involvement; and
• Whether to rescind approval for or, at a minimum, review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 (“the abortion pill”) which has killed at least 7 women in the U.S. since it was approved by the FDA in September 2000.

So, what is her record on these critical issues?

Gov. Sebelius served four terms (1987-1995) in the Kansas House of Representatives and two terms (1995-2003) as the state’s elected Insurance Commissioner.  She was then elected Governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.

In the 1980s and 1990s then- State Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods and informed consent.

However, her record as Governor is – in substantial part – even more extreme in its support for abortion.

She has routinely opposed or vetoed several abortion-accountability bills, including medically-supported clinic regulation legislation which she vetoed in both 2003 and 2005.  The need for this critical legislation was predicated, in large part, on evidence of shocking conditions in Kansas abortion clinics.  For example, two inspections of the same Topeka abortion clinic discovered fetal remains stored in the same refrigerator as food; a dead rodent in the clinic hallway; overflowing, uncovered disposal bins containing medical waste; unlabeled, pre-drawn syringes with controlled substances in an unlocked refrigerator; improperly labeled and expired medicines; carpeted floor in the surgical procedure room; and visible dirt and general disarray throughout the clinic. Dr. Krishna Rajanna, who operated the unsanitary clinic, also consistently violated the practice guidelines for conscious sedation.

Recently, in 2008, she vetoed a measure that would have strengthened the state’s existing parental notification law by 1) requiring that any adult accompanying a minor show identification, declare in writing their relationship to the minor, and identify the father of the unborn child; 2) requiring the minor to show some form of photo identification providing identity and place of residence; and 3) if the minor chooses to seek a judicial waiver, prohibiting any employee of an abortion provider or clinic from assisting her with the requisite court filings and proceedings.

More shocking, however, is her continuing and unyielding support for late-term abortions including post-viability abortions.  Over the past three years, she has vetoed measures:

• Requiring explicit medical reasons for late-term abortions;
• Requiring abortion providers to report the diagnosis or the nature of the condition which necessitated a post-viability abortion; and
• Permitting injunctive relief for either a completed or about-to-be-performed illegal late-term abortion and adding certain prosecutors (in addition to the Attorney General) to prosecute violations of existing prohibitions on late-term abortions

Interestingly, in the face of these controversial vetoes, Gov. Sebelius honored late-term abortionist George Tiller, 25 friends and employees of Tiller’s abortion clinic, and Nebraska partial-birth abortionist LeRoy Carhart, at the Governor’s mansion in April 2007.  As documented by Associated Press (AP) reporter John Hanna, after the AP filed a request for documents under the Kansas Open Records Act, Gov. Sebelius is shown in photographs, pointing with gratitude to Tiller who is holding a campaign t-shirt featuring her name.  Tiller is currently facing criminal prosecution for 19 counts of illegally performing late-term abortions.  His trial is set to begin on March 16, 2009.

Gov. Sebelius not only honors radical abortion supporters and renegade practitioners at the Governor’s mansion, she also appoints them to important state positions.  For example, she appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller’s Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later in May 2008.  See http://kansasmeadowlark.com/2008/05/05/sebelius-withdraws-appointment/.

She also appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary charges.  Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records. See http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/2569646.html.

A fair and honest review of her record shows that she has signed some important pro-life legislation since becoming Kansas governor in 2003:

• In 2004, legislation promoting morally-responsible growth of the biotechnology industry.  The state has specifically indicated that the terms “bioscience,” “biotechnology,” and “life sciences” shall not be construed to include 1) induced human abortions or the use of cells or tissues derived therefrom, and 2) any research the federal funding of which would be contrary to federal laws that are in effect.  However, the specific language excluding destructive biotechnologies was included at the insistence of several Kansas legislators and local pro-life groups and did not have the support of Gov. Sebelius who nonetheless signed the legislation.
• In 2005, legislation that required any physician performing an abortion under a girl 14 years or younger to retain fetal tissue and turn it over to Kansas Bureau of Investigation for use in potential prosecutions for sex crimes against children; and legislation providing $300,000 in state funding for abortion alternatives.  Notably, in 2005, Gov. Sebelius used all of her political capital fighting against legislation that sought to mandate medically-supported regulation of abortion facilities.  Specifically, the clinic regulations bill passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities, but was adamantly opposed by Tiller.  Gov. Sebelius vetoed it and later lobbied Democrat legislators to change their vote and not override her veto.  Thus, according to Kansas pro-life groups, she then had little to no political capital available to oppose these measures.
• In 2006, the Pain Patients Bill of Rights which specifically permits opiate dosages necessary to eliminate pain, but did not legalize assisted suicide.
• In 2007, unborn victims of violence protections, criminalizing the homicide of and assault upon unborn children at any stage of gestational development.  However, Gov. Sebelius has a long history of opposing this legislation.  She finally signed it after it was attached to a crime bill that she wanted and after significant pressure from the media and the family of a young woman killed in a murder for hire scheme while she was 8 months pregnant.

However, on balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position in influence American healthcare policy for years to come.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, is scheduled to appear on Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Fox News show Huckabee. She is set to discuss the Nadya Suleman octuplet case.

Huckabee airs on Fox News channel several times over the weekend:

• 8:00 pm et / 7:00 pm ct Saturday
• 2:00 am et / 1:00 am ct Sunday
• 8:00 pm et / 7:00 pm ct Sunday
• 11:00 pm et / 10:00 pm ct Sunday

Yesterday, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that the State will invest $5 million in promising adult stem-cell research.  Specifically, the funds will be used to expand and recruit researchers to the Texas A&M Health Science Center (TAMHSC) College of Medicine’s Institute of Regenerative Medicine at Scott and White. The governor also urged the Texas Legislature to continue to appropriate funds to the Texas Emerging Technology Fund (ETF).

“Commercialization of adult stem cell research will provide much-needed solutions for Texans suffering from various tissue and organ disorders while protecting the unborn from exploitation,” Gov. Perry said. “This investment will promote innovation and commercialization in this evolving biotechnology sector and attract top researchers and outside investment to the Institute of Regenerative Medicine.”

Texas is one of 15 states that have passed legislation or taken other action encouraging the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood for research.

Adult stem cells have a proven record of effective clinical remedies, which cannot be said for embryonic stem cells.  No clinical use of human embryonic stem cells has yet been published in the scientific literature.  Medical remedies involving embryonic stem cells are still conjectural.  In contrast, adult stem cells are being used in numerous therapeutic procedures.

Conversely, proponents of embryonic stem-cell research have created a false impression that these cells have a proven therapeutic use. In fact, embryonic cells have never helped a human patient; any claim that they may someday do so is mere speculation.

Given the lack of medical evidence to support the claims being made by proponents of embryonic stem-cell research and other forms of life-destroying research, bans on such procedures have the indirect benefit of allowing research money and effort to be directed to the already productive field of adult stem-cell transplantation and somatic cell gene therapies.  Importantly, these procedures are free of the ethical dilemmas associated with destructive human embryo research.

For more information, see the Governor’s press release at http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11935/

Over the last two weeks, there has been much debate over the conception and premature birth of the California octuplets.  This debate and the outrage it has provoked have primarily been directed at the choices of the mother, Nadya Suleman, and the actions of her doctor, Dr. Michael Kamrava of the West Coast IVF Clinic.  Just this week, the Medical Board of California announced that it was investigating Dr. Kamrava in an attempt to “substantiate if there was a violation of the standard of care.”  The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has express interest in assisting in this investigation.

ASMR guidelines recommend that a woman of Suleman’s age only have 2 or 3 embryos implanted in any one in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycle.  In this case, Dr. Kamrava is reported to have implanted 6 embryos – two of which divided and became two sets of twins, resulting in eight babies.

While an investigation of Dr. Kamrava’s actions and medical judgment certainly seems warranted, most of the numerous news stories and commentaries have failed to address a critical contributing factor to this controversy: the lack of any meaningful regulations of artificial reproductive technologies (ART), specifically the IVF industry.  However, this is a discussion that we must have as more and more women and families turn to ART as a means of having biologically-related children.

Currently, there is little data about the nature and growth of ART and very little federal or state regulation of it.  ART needs to be regulated, in large part, to protect the health of mothers and the children conceived and to preserve parental relationships and the dignity of human procreation.

A March 2004 report by the President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility, constitutes the most in-depth review and analysis of the fertility industry in the United States since 1978.  The report’s critical findings and conclusions include:

• There is no uniform, comprehensive, and enforceable system of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for the biotechnologies affecting human reproduction.
• There is minimal direct governmental regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction.
• There is extensive professional self-regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction, but compliance with the standards invoked is purely voluntary.
• There is no comprehensive, uniform, and enforceable mechanism for oversight of how the new reproductive biotechnologies affect the well-being of the children conceived with their aid, the egg donors, or the gestational mothers.
• There are no nationally uniform laws or policies relating to access of assisted reproduction.
• Given the present framework of regulation, novel technologies and practices that are successful move from the experimental context to clinical practice with relatively little oversight or deliberation.  Once in practice, these techniques are used at clinicians’ discretion, with little or no external oversight.

Clearly then, it is important that we move forward and seek to provide meaningful oversight and regulation of ART and the IVF industry.  AUL already advocates such regulation and has produced model legislation entitled “Assisted Reproductive Technologies Disclosure and Risk Reduction Act“.

For more information about ART and IVF, the lack of current regulation, and the need to regulate these industries, see Clarke Forsythe, “Preserving Human Dignity:  Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).”

The Republican National Committee has just chosen a new leader for their party – Michael Steele, the former lieutenent governor of Maryland.  He is the first African-American to hold this position.

The party’s current platform includes the strongest pro-life language ever seen:

“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

So how do the views of the new RNC chair match up to the party platform?

———————-

Q: African-American. Republican. Catholic. Pro-life. Does that put you in a little box?

A: It puts me in the mainstream of America, baby. What you just laid out is one way to describe Michael Steele. The other way to describe him is he’s a brother who cares about the working man and woman. As an African-American, I think it’s time that we respect the fact that there is a wide range of opinion and diversity of thought. Kweisi Mfume doesn’t represent every black voice in Maryland. I don’t represent every black voice in Maryland. And Ben Cardin certainly doesn’t either. The reality is that this will be an election about voices, and the people of this state will get to hear a lot of voices. They’ll gravitate to the one that resonates in their hearts and in their minds.

Q: Is there an element of the black community to whom social conservatism has real appeal?

A: The majority of African-Americans are conservative. They’re God-fearing, church-going conservatives when it comes to a host of issues.
Source: Len Lazarick, The Examiner, “Power of the individual” Apr 28, 2006

—————————–

Q: Would you hope the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade?

A: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point.
2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006

—————————–

Steele says that he is proudly “pro-life” but seemed to equivocate when I asked if he favors greater restrictions on abortion or its outright ban. “The dance we do is, we put too much pressure and weight on one decision,” he said, referring to Roe v. Wade. “We have to re-evaluate that.” He claimed that he was not advocating overturning the decision, only asking if we “have to live with the reality of a decision that was made 33 years ago.”
Why Is Michael Steele a Republican Candidate? By Michael Sokolove, New York Times, Mar 26, 2006

—————————–

I do support stem cell research. Where I have drawn the line is federal funding for research that destroys the embryo. And, and I’ve been very much an advocate and supporter of advancing research that will allow us to do the – do what we need to do without destroying that, that embryo.
2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006

—————————–

Q: Why are you opposed to using embryonic stem cells? Taking of a life?

A: Yes, I see that as a life, and I don’t think that we should use federal funds to do that.
2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006

—————————–

I won’t close down the fertility clinics. We have options there. We could, we could set up adoptions for those, for those embryos. There are so many other options that we can pursue that we don’t. The key thing to keep in here is that science moves us in a certain direction, and it pushes the envelope, as it should. But as a society, we also must, must consider the, the, the religious, the moral, and the ethical values of that society, and that needs to be a part of this as well.
2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006

—————————–

Q: Should we pursue embryonic stem-cell research?

STEELE: I am four-square for stem-cell research, and accelerating the funding, with respect to cord blood and adult stem cell research. But I draw the line at embryonic research because I respect the life that that embryo represents.
MD 2006 3-way Senate Debate on NewsChannel 8 Oct 25, 2006

—————————–

Q: Do you support easing federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research?

A: I am very encouraged by innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos. We have a lot to gain through furthering stem cell research, but medical breakthroughs should be fundamentally about saving, not destroying, human life. Therefore, I support stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo.
Responses to Baltimore Sun Survey Aug 7, 2006

Today the biotech company Geron will make an unprecedented announcement: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to allow the company to conduct human trials utilizing human embryonic stem cells.

Ironically (or perhaps not), the FDA’s decision came right after President Obama’s inauguration.  It is just one of the many steps planned by the new administration to tear down the walls protecting human life.

Geron plans to conduct its trial on 8 to 10 people with spinal cord injuries.  The embryonic stem cells will be injected into the spinal cord at the injury site.  Geron has emphasized that the focus of this first trial will be safety (rather than efficacy), but it’s difficult to see how Geron can “safely” protect patients from the disastrous effects embryonic stem cells have had in mice, as well as the devastating results we have seen in the use of more advanced fetal stem cells in human trials.

For example, in animal testing, embryonic stem cells cause a significant number of recipients to develop tumors.  Using more developed fetal stem cells, a 52-year-old man died when the cells implanted in his brain became hair, cartilage, and connective tissue.  In another case, a group of patients with neural degenerative diseases with violent, uncontrollable shaking received fetal cell transplants into their brains.  Rather than improving, 15-25 percent developed severe dyskinesia (worse shaking than they had before).  This failure of more specialized fetal cells is an indicator of how much more difficult it likely will be to get less specialized embryonic stem cells to work.

Furthermore, as we report in Defending Life:

One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation.  If a transplanted cell’s DNA is even minorly different from the person’s being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off-much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response.  Without the use of drugs to depress the patient’s immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn’t survive but a few hours or days.

– Daniel McConchie, “Working for Cures, Not Clones,” Defending Life, available at http://www.aul.org/Cures_Not_Clones.

Even other researchers in the industry are skeptical of the safety and effectiveness of Geron’s first trial.  See Andrew Pollack, “F.D.A. Approves a Stem Cell Trial,” New York Times (Jan. 23, 2009), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html.

The lack of success in animal trials, the lack of success in human trials using more advanced fetal cells, and the skepticism of researchers in the field beg the question: Why, in this time of economic trouble, is the FDA allowing clinical research that is dangerous and ineffective?  All the while, more prominent research using adult stem cells-which has already helped human patients with over 70 different conditions and diseases-remains underfunded and underutilized.

Perhaps the answer lies in the timing of the decision — on the inauguration of the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history.

I had a good debate with U. Texas Law Professor John Robertson last night at Yale Law School. The debate was co-sponsored by Yale Law Students for Life and Yale Students for Reproductive Justice.

John is author of Children of Choice and a number of legal articles on reproductive technology. For 30 years, he has advocated a fundamental right to virtually unlimited “procreative freedom” that encompasses using technology to obtain children through virtually any means. He is also a Fellow with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), which advocates for fertility practitioners.

We debated regulating assisted reproductive technology (ART), a very broad topic. With only 15 minutes to present my case, I proposed 3 rather modest regulations, because we were asked to debate regulating ART and because I sought to identify regulations for which the medical data was the strongest: (1) adequate, timely data collection and reporting to protect the public health; (2) limits on the number of embryos conceived and transferred in any reproductive cycle; and (3) prohibiting the buying and selling of human eggs. I also argued the constitution does not protect a right to IVF and states have broad authority to regulate ART and protect human life.

As expected, he rejected all, though John is a very amiable fellow and not a harsh partisan. To counter every proposed regulation, he advocated self-regulation by doctors and offered countervailing interests of individuals who want to procreate through IVF. The debate demonstrated the need for strong medical data in support of any regulation of ART.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports on the agenda of the incoming Congress. Near the top of the list is expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. We’ve released the following statement in response.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Unethical Waste of Taxpayer Money Says Americans United for Life President

Washington, DC — Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life released the following statement in response to news that leaders in Congress plan to make funding embryo destructive stem cell research a priority.

Given the current state of the economy, to squander taxpayer resources on research that destroys human embryos, that shows no actual therapeutic results, and that in fact runs counter to the latest stem cell discoveries (induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSCs) is nothing more than ideologically-driven government at its very worst.

It is mystifying why Speaker Pelosi and other leaders in Congress continue to push for funding to destroy human embryos in the face of continued success with stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cords, and other non-embryonic sources.

On November 4, 2008, the pro-life movement suffered losses on five state ballot initiatives. Yet there is much we can learn from the three pro-life ballot initiatives defeated (in California, Colorado, and South Dakota) and the two anti-life ballot initiatives passed (in Michigan and Washington). 

Specifically, these losses demonstrate that legislative efforts at the state level must remain at the forefront of the cause for life during the coming Obama administration. With dangerous legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act—a radical bill Obama has promised to sign—looming, pro-life forces continue to enact laws protecting women and the unborn from the negative impact of abortion and take immediate action to counter the increased efforts by abortion advocates to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law. We have learned that our greatest successes—as demonstrated in South Dakota—have come not through ballot initiatives, but through such state legislative action.

To read the entire article, please visit the Culture of Life Foundation’s website at http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/519/1/

During the 110th Congress, at least 97 bills and resolutions were considered in the areas of abortion, contraception, stem-cell research and cloning, artificial reproductive technologies, genetic counseling, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Read the full article at AUL.org/110Review

Americans United for Life (AUL) today released analysis of the results of yesterday’s life-related ballot initiatives. The election saw pro-life ballot initiatives on abortion defeated in California, Colorado, and South Dakota while initiatives legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Washington state and destructive embryonic stem cell research in Michigan were approved.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL said: “We applaud the work of those who strove to protect human life through state ballot initiatives this year. We will continue working at both the state and federal levels in the days ahead to advance the culture of life. These results do not square with an American electorate that is increasingly pro-life. The life movement will reassess and regroup for the next election cycle with new ways to communicate that even the weakest amongst us should be welcomed in life and defended in law.”

California: Defeat of Proposition 4 (Parental Notice)
For the third time in six years, California voters failed to pass Proposition 4, or “Sarah’s Law,” an amendment to the California Constitution that would have protected parental rights and the safety of minors by ensuring that parents are notified of their minor daughter’s abortion at least 48 hours prior to the abortion.

“The defeat of Proposition 4 is a loss for California parents and children who remain vulnerable to sexual abuse, coerced abortions, and inadequate care at abortion facilities” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs. “Proposition 4 would have put California in line with the rest of the nation, as the vast majority of the states have enacted parental involvement laws.”

Washington: Approval of Initiative 1000 (Physician-Assisted Suicide)
In Washington state, I-1000 was approved by voters, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The newly enacted measure creates financial incentives for healthcare insurance companies to deny coverage for life-saving treatment and to pressure vulnerable patients to choose physician-assisted suicide. In addition, the measure does not provide adequate safeguards for those suffering from treatable mental illnesses, and requires physicians participating in patient suicides to falsify death certificates.

“The approval of Washington Initiative 1000 poses dangers for the rest of the nation,” stated J. Margaret Datiles, AUL Staff Counsel. “Now that physician-assisted suicide has been legalized in a state other than Oregon, assisted-suicide advocates will be working relentlessly to legalize the practice across the country.”

Michigan: Approval of Proposal 2 (Embryonic Stem-Cell Research)
Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, the “Stem Cell Initiative.” The amendment legalizes destructive research on human embryos, and will allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics.

“It’s deeply troubling that a state would vote to legalize destructive embryonic stem-cell research at a time when research using adult stem cells is making such progress. It is truly a waste,” added Smith.

South Dakota: Defeat of Initiated Measure 11 (Abortion Ban)
South Dakota failed to pass Initiated Measure 11, a constitutional amendment that would have banned abortions in South Dakota, except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when continued pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health. In 2006, South Dakota voters failed to pass a similar ban.

“Although ultimately unsuccessful, Initiated Measure 11 furthered the debate over the impact of abortion on women, the unborn, and our nation,” said AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe. “Given the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion, this is a discussion that we must continue to pursue in the days ahead.”

Colorado: Defeat of Proposition 48 (Human Life Amendment)
Colorado voters failed to pass Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” which would have amended the Colorado Constitution to define “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization,” impacting actions undertaken by the State and its officials.

“As with the South Dakota abortion ban, the Colorado Human Life Amendment sparked needed debate and discussion within the pro-life movement,” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, “We are confident that the pro-life movement will emerge from this election cycle stronger, wiser, and more determined.”

With today’s election, the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. We need every pro-life American to vote today!

But after we’ve voted and the dust settles, what will we do next? Please join me and our AUL experts for a post-election conference call (toll free) on Wednesday, November 5 at 3pm ET (2pm CT, 1pm MT, 12pm PT) for 30 minutes of pro-life election summary and analysis, followed by a time of Q&A.

We will discuss the impact of the new President, the changed makeup of Congress, countless state legislative races, and the five pro-life state ballot measures.

To join the call, you must register. Visit http://tinyurl.com/5gfebx to sign up ASAP.

And please invite your friends to join us.

In the comments, Gary asks:

I heard Mr. McConchie on KTOK in OKC this morning and I understood him to say that we have no proof of embryonic stem cell research producing any results but there is alot of evidence adult stem cell research helping people. Can you please provide links to these statistics.

Thanks for asking, Gary. Great question.

Our friends at the Do No Harm coaltion have a website devoted to the successes of adult stem cells. They list 73 diseases and conditions where patients are experiencing benefits from adult stem cells. They include a list of peer-reviewed resources (PDF) to back their claim.

In contrast, the number of conditions being treated with embryonic stem cells is 0.

For more on stem cell research, see Working for Cures, Not Clones: An Overview of Cloning and Stem Cell Research from our book Defending Life, Mr. McConchie’s testimony before the Oklahoma House this week, and Adult Stem Cells from The President’s Council on Bioethics.

While the Presidential election has naturally garnered the majority of the media’s and the public’s attention, there are also critical races and issues being considered in the states.  Five states, California, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, and Washington are considering ballot initiatives that directly implicate important life issues:  abortion, biotechnologies, and the end-of-life.

California Proposition 4: Parental Notice

Proposition 4, or the “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative” (also known to its supporters as “Sarah’s Law”), will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California.  Proposition 4 proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure that parents are notified (and involved) when their minor daughters are considering abortion by requiring abortion providers to notify the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative family member.  Once the parent or guardian is notified, the provider may not perform an abortion on the minor for 48 hours.
In addition, the initiative mandates that abortion providers report statistical information about all abortions (including abortions on minors) to state officials, requires the minor’s non-coerced consent for an abortion, and authorizes monetary damages against physicians if any portion of the new law is violated.

For more information, click here.

Colorado Proposition 48: Human Life Amendment

Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”  This definition of “personhood” would apply to specific sections of the Colorado Constitution and would inform future actions take by the State, the state government, and state officials.

For more information, click here

Michigan Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

The “Stem Cell Initiative,” also known as “CureMichigan,” will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposal 2.  This amendment would allow unregulated and unrestricted destruction of human embryos for research purposes.  It would also allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics and could open the door for the legalization of human cloning.

Proposal 2 would drastically alter existing Michigan law.  Michigan currently prohibits “nontherapeutic research” on a “live human embryo, fetus, or neonate,” fetal experimentation, and human cloning.

For more information, click here (PDF, pages 14-16).

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11: Abortion Ban

An abortion ban initiative, known as “Initiated Measure 11,” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment.  If voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution would ban all abortions except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health.  Anyone performing an abortion in violation of the amendment could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

For more information, click here (PDF, page 8).

Washington Initiative 1000: Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Washington Initiative 1000, also known as “I-1000,” purports to give “mentally competent, terminally ill adults, medically-predicted to die within six months,” the legal choice to request and self-administer a lethal overdose of medication prescribed by a physician.  The measure requires two oral and one written requests by the patient, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of the patient decision.  Physicians, patients, and others acting in “good faith compliance” with the measure would not face criminal or civil liability.

For more information, click here.

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) Vice President Daniel McConchie is scheduled to testify before the Oklahoma House of Representatives Health Subcommittee on Thursday, October 16 at 2:30 pm. Mr. McConchie will be addressing the moral and ethical issues surrounding stem cell research

AUL President Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “The only stem cell research that State governments should be promoting is stem cell research that upholds the dignity of every human being. Oklahomans can be proud that their state is taking a lead in pro-life stem cell research.”

Oklahoma this year passed the Advancement in Stem Cell Cures and Therapies Act (HB 3126), which is designed to encourage and foster stem cell research using only adult stem cells. The bill was sponsored by Rep. John T. Enns, who suffered a spinal cord injury in a farming accident in 2004.

Mr. McConchie said, “We are seeing amazing advances from stem cell research every day. What most people don’t realize is that all of these advances are from adult stem cell research, not embryonic. Oklahoma can be a leader in cutting-edge research that doesn’t violate the sanctity of human life, and Representative Enns’ bill leads the way.”

The Health Subcommittee is hearing testimony as part of an interim study on the bill.

Mr. McConchie is available for interviews.

Last week, long-time friend of AUL, Representative (Dr.) David Weldon went to the House floor and stated with authority, “[T]here is no medical reason to proceed with research into cloning human embryos for their stem cells because that science is obsolete, it is more cumbersome, it is more expensive.  We have a better, quicker, easier way to do it.”

Dr. Weldon was referring to recent breakthroughs this summer, which he termed “breath-taking” and thought to be “impossible” just a few short years ago.  Specifically, he highlighted two such breakthroughs.

First, Dr. Weldon explained that researchers at Harvard University recently used mice to show that it is possible to directly reprogram adult cells in the pancreas into insulin-producing cells, without removing any cells from the pancreas.  In other words, these researchers were able to directly and specifically transform one adult cell type into another adult cell type.  AUL reported on this breakthrough here.

Dr. Weldon added that these researchers have “shown that, in principle, it is possible to induce the body to heal itself by reprogramming one cell type into another.”  In other words, we don’t need cloning, and we don’t need embryonic stem cell research, in order to reach cures and treatments for the millions of suffering patients in the U.S.

The second breakthrough reported by Dr. Weldon also involved a reprogramming technique.  In this breakthrough, researchers from Harvard and Columbia were able to create 21 disease-specific stem cell lines that will enable researchers to study diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Type I diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.  And again, through the reprogramming technique, researchers will be able to study these diseases—in the quest for cures and treatments—without the creation, use, or destruction of any human embryos.

Dr. Weldon noted that both of these breakthroughs occurred despite the fact that federal funding was extended only to embryonic stem cell lines that were created prior to August of 2001.  This research is moving forward at “breakneck speed,” leaving embryonic stem cell research far behind.

In concluding, Dr. Weldon remarked, “Science is moving beyond the debate.  Science is taking us in a direction of ethically responsible research.”

Dr. Weldon’s speech can be viewed here.

Yesterday, the journal NATURE published a new breakthrough in stem cell technology.  For the first time, researchers have been able to directly reprogram adult stem cells in mice into a different needed cell type.  Specifically, the Washington Post reported that the scientists pinpointed “three crucial molecular switches that, when flipped, completely convert a common cell in the pancreas into the more precious insulin-producing ones that diabetics need.”

But what does this mean—in plain English?

The scientists were able to go in, reprogram adult cells inside the pancreas of the subject mice, causing those cells to become and function as insulin-producing cells needed by the diabetic mice.  This finding raises hope for future treatments of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and other ailments in humans.  It means that patients will be able to have some of their own cells reprogrammed without the need for drugs, transplants, or other therapies.

But it also means much more than that.

It means that destructive embryonic research is definitely on the way “out.”  No embryos were necessary for this breakthrough.  In fact, even the breakthrough from last year—the finding that adults stem cells could be reprogrammed back into the embryonic state (iPS cells)—was unnecessary here.  Instead, the breakthrough announced yesterday skipped the intermediary step of iPS cells and directly transformed cells within the subject mice into the desired cells.

Stated George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children’s Hospital in Boston, “This experiment proves you don’t have to go all the way back to an embryonic state.  You can use a related cell.  That may be easier to do and much more practical to do.”

Indeed, in addition to practicality is the fact that reprogramming a patient’s own cells—rather than using embryonic stem cells—will reduce the risk of tumor formation.

Finally, it also means that the time is now for states to pass legislation prohibiting the funding of destructive embryo research and cloning.  Not only are there moral and ethical issues surrounding such research, but scientists are continually proving it to be obsolete.  State and federal funds should be spent on research that holds the most promise.  And as demonstrated by these scientists, that research certainly is not destructive embryo research.  Every dollar spent on embryo research means a dollar not spent on research that is actually developing treatments and cures.

True, this initial breakthrough was conducted on mice and not humans.  However, Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the research team, stated that he hopes to start planning the first studies involving humans with diabetes within one year, with human trials starting within five years.  The prospects look good for human patients, as the pancreatic development of mice and humans is closely related.

Other scientists have started preliminary testing with other cells which could be used to treat spinal cord injuries and neurodegenerative disorders such as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

As stated by Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “This is a ‘win-win’ situation for medicine and ethics.”

We’re back this morning at the Minneapolis Convention center as the GOP platform delegates continue their consideration of amendments to the platform.  This morning has been devoted to the national defense section. 

But it still provided a great example of how life issues affect so many different areas:  in a section focused on international organizations, language was inserted to reaffirm the Mexico City policy barring funding to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

All in favor, say AYE.

The motion passed.

We break for lunch in a little while and will come back this afternoon to consider the Health sections which include the Rights of Conscience sections and a portion that references stem cell research and human cloning.  The hall is buzzing with rumours that the stem cell section might be watered down.

More later.

It is a shame that contemporary debate about stem cell research is driven by ideology rather than data.  A straightforward examination of the data shows that embryonic stem cell research has yielded little to no results.  Any type of treatment using embryonic stem cells remains aloof.  Yet the same cannot be said of research done with adult stem cells, as highlighted by www.stemcellresearch.org. As noted in a publication by www.stemcellresearch.com, such research has already led to promising treatments.

In a recent study done by researchers at Harvard and Columbia, Lifenews.com reports that motor neurons were created using a new technique that reprograms human adult skin cells into cells that resemble embryonic stem cells.  Studies performed last November in Japan and Wisconsin revealed that doing so was possible with skin cells from healthy humans.  At that time, however, it was unknown if motor neurons could be created from skin cells from chronically-ill patients.  The recent study shows this is possible because the motor neurons were created using skin cells from ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) patients.  (The study was published in the July 31 edition of the medical journal Science.)

Chris Henderson, a professor of pathology, neurology and neuroscience at Columbia said, “Our paper now shows that we can generate hundreds of millions of motor neurons that are genetically identical to a patient’s own neurons. This will be an immense help as we try to uncover the mechanisms behind this disease and screen for drugs that can prolong life.”

Bioethicist Wesley Smith hails these results as yet another example of the fruitful research performed with adult stem cells as a result of President Bush’s courage not to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research.  This courage has led to highly successful research alternatives.  Comparing the ineffective results of embryonic stem cell research to the more recent and successful adult stem cell research, Smith said, “[S]o far no human cloned embryonic stem cells have been derived despite years of trying. . . . But in less than one year since the first iPSC human line was created, that precise achievement has already been accomplished.” 

In fact, as reported by Lifenews.com, Dr. David Prentice, a Family Research Council fellow and former Indiana State University biology professor, notes that this is not the first time researchers have successfully made patient-specific and disease-specific stem cell lines.

Just think: Treatments for diseases without a single human being destroyed.  This is not a dream.  Such treatments already exist and this study reveals the immense promise of further research using adult stem cells.