Listing of Comments on Draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines
Entire Comment Period: 04/23/2009-05/26/2009

Browse Comments Beginning With:
Record ID:
Entry Date:
On April 23, 2009, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published draft stem cell guidelines for public comment in the Federal Register. The purpose of these guidelines are to implement President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13505 “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells,” which was issued on March 9, 2009.

NIH received 49,015 comments by May 26, 2009, the closing date of the comment period, and have compiled these comments on this website. Any comments received via email or mail after the May 26 deadline are not included on this website. In reviewing the comments, NIH determined that 60 comments were inappropriate (i.e., contained SPAM responses or offensive language), and these comments have been excluded from this website. In addition, to protect the identities and personal information of individuals who submitted comments, NIH has removed personally identifiable information from the comments on this website even though individuals consented that the information provided could be made available for public review and posting.



|First 100 Records   Back 1000 Records   Back 100 Records   Records 20786 - 20885 of 49015 Forward 100 Records   Forward 1000 Records   Last 100 Records|

ID Entry Date Affiliation Organization
Name
Organization
Address
Comments Attachment
20786 05/13/2009 at 10:31:01 PM Self     -Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

 
20787 05/13/2009 at 10:31:25 PM Self Hadassah   I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20788 05/13/2009 at 10:32:15 PM Self     My comments refer to Section II B of the draft guidelines.

This refers to Sec. II B of the draft guidelines. I commend you for allowing more stem cell research than in the immeadiate past. In particular, I agree with opening the research to use of surplus embros from fertility clinics. However, I believe that the final guidelines should allow federal funding of research from other than IVF embryos, specifically from somatic cell nuclar transfer (SCNT). The narrow religious views of some should not be imposed upon the general public. The general public should have access to the benefits of research from all sources.

 
20789 05/13/2009 at 10:32:15 PM Organization Hadassah Chicago Chapter Skokie, IL 60076 I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20790 05/13/2009 at 10:32:35 PM Self     I am totally against stem cell research unless they are adult stem cells.

 
20791 05/13/2009 at 10:32:49 PM Organization Hadassah   I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20792 05/13/2009 at 10:33:23 PM Self     As a child of a parent suffering from a dibilitating neurological disease, I am pleased that Section II B of the draft guidelines appear to permit federal funding of some existing stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines that will be created from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that all current stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding. I believe the final guidelines should allow federal funds for research using any existing stem cell lines that were created under ethical guidelines. This will allow research to build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cell lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways.

 
20793 05/13/2009 at 10:36:14 PM Self     "Embryos are humans at their earliest developmental stage. There is no such thing as an excess life. And the fact that a human lacks some particular capacity, or even is going to die, does not justify experimenting on that individual, or exploiting him or her as a natural resource." This quote is taken directly from the January 2007 White House Domestic Policy Council Report.

I am opposed to the current administration's draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research that destroys innocent human lives. Adult stem cell research has already produced numerous cures for the exact diseases that the researchers promoting embryonic stem cell research claim to be “researching” for.

So, not only is embryonic stem cell research morally wrong, (since it uses human beings as scientific experiments) but it is a complete waste of money. The REAL cures and the REAL promise of therapies lie in ADULT stem cell research.

Please, redirect the funds so that science wins, not politics.

 
20794 05/13/2009 at 10:38:01 PM Self     Embryonic stem cells are human. The use of living humans, even in a state in which the human being is microscopic, is unethical. Advances in the use of adult human stem cells and umbilical stem cells pose a much greater benefit and should be advanced ahead of embryonic stem cells.

 
20795 05/13/2009 at 10:38:55 PM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20796 05/13/2009 at 10:40:54 PM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20797 05/13/2009 at 10:41:44 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20798 05/13/2009 at 10:41:57 PM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20799 05/13/2009 at 10:45:58 PM       Please do not stand in front of the progress that I and most americans have voted for. My grand daughters life depends on this science and I am sure many other families have this same hope. We voted for it we want it we need it lives depend on it so let the people have this science for saving lives.

 
20800 05/13/2009 at 10:47:38 PM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20801 05/13/2009 at 10:47:56 PM Self     Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of Americans suffering from many diseases and disorders. I am not a scientist, but I have been following progress in this field with great interest. Significant strides have been made over the past decade, and the final guidelines issued by NIH must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.

I am pleased that these draft guidelines -- in Section II B -- would appear to permit federal funding of stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that any current stem cell line will meet the criteria outlined and thus be eligible for federal funding. It will be important for the final guidelines to allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived. This will ensure that the final guidelines build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding and I recommend that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ways. If not, it is essential that the NIH continue to monitor developments in this exciting research area and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.

NIH Draft Guidelines

Background On March 9th, President Obama issued an Executive Order instructing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines to establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The NIH, in implementing the Executive Order, recently published draft guidelines in the Federal Register. The full text can be obtained at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-9313.pdf. The public has thirty days to submit comments on the draft guidelines; comments must be received by NIH by May 26th. Once the comment period is over, NIH will review the content and volume of comments as it drafts its final guidelines, expected to be issued on or before July 7th.

Summary The draft guidelines establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created for reproductive purposes and were in excess of clinical need. In addition, to be eligible for federal funding, the guidelines impose significant eligibility criteria on the donation process of the embryo used to derive the stem cell line. The criteria include: · All options for the use of the embryos were explained to the donor; · No inducements were offered for the donation; · A policy was in place at the facility where the embryos were donated that ensures that the decision to donate embryos for research would not affect the quality of care provided; · There was a separation between the donor’s decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes and the donor’s decision to donate embryos for research; · Consent for the donation was obtained at the time of donation from the individual who sought reproductive services; · Whenever practicable, the physician responsible for the donor’s reproductive clinical care was not the same person as the researcher deriving the stem cells; and · Written informed consent was obtained from individuals who sought reproductive services and who elected to donate embryos for research purposes (specific criteria is listed for the informed consent process).

We believe that these ethical parameters are appropriate for new stem cell lines that are created in 2009 and thereafter. Unfortunately, the draft guidelines do not explicitly ensure that current lines that are already being used in research will be eligible for federal funding. It is our recommendation that the final guidelines include a provision that allows for inclusion of current lines, already being used in very important research, if those lines were derived using the prevailing ethical practices at the time.

The draft guidelines prohibit federal funding of research using embryonic stem cells derived from other sources such as somatic cell nuclear transfer ( SCNT ), IVF embryos created for research purposes, and parthenogenesis. It is our belief that these very promising research techniques have potential that is beyond what is possible with embryonic stem cell lines that are derived from the IVF process and should be eligible for federal funding.

 
20802 05/13/2009 at 10:48:35 PM Organization Hadassah   I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20803 05/13/2009 at 10:50:18 PM Self     Dear President Obama, Your stated policies and actions regarding abortion and stem cell research are offensive to me. You are my President, but you do not represent me. There's not much I can do about that, except to keep telling you how I feel about what you are doing. I pray that you will wake up one of these days and realize that you have been wrong about these issues and many others. May God forgive you.

 
20804 05/13/2009 at 10:51:37 PM Organization Kol Tikvah Hadassah Lake Worth, FL 33467 I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20805 05/13/2009 at 10:52:11 PM Self JDRF   For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

Please help us find a way to help our children find a cure for their disease.

 
20806 05/13/2009 at 10:52:34 PM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20807 05/13/2009 at 10:55:06 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20808 05/13/2009 at 10:55:08 PM Self     -I am OPPOSED to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which FORCE me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the DESTRUCTION of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

President Obama's your order that allows MY tax dollars to be spent on the destruction of human life is unconstitional.

 
20809 05/13/2009 at 10:57:16 PM Self     -I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20810 05/13/2009 at 10:57:34 PM Self     We are opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which forces us as taxpayers to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. We think support should be directed to the adult stem cell research and treatments which do not destroy human life and which are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes. We know that embryo-destructive stem cell research has been shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, often forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

The proposed regulations also leave open a loophole that could allow future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. We want this loophole closed immediately.

 
20811 05/13/2009 at 11:00:52 PM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20812 05/13/2009 at 11:02:24 PM Self     While there is legitimate proof that adult stem cells show promise in the cure of some diseases, there is none that show the same for embryonic stem cells. The cost for this research (embryonic stem cell) cannot only be measured simply in dollars, but more importantly in the destruction of human life. This policy creates a slippery slope which is unnecessary and costly and as a tax-paying citizen of the United States, I object to it.

 
20813 05/13/2009 at 11:03:57 PM   Hadassah   I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20814 05/13/2009 at 11:04:26 PM Self     Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of Americans suffering from many diseases and disorders. I am not a scientist, but I have been following progress in this field with great interest. Significant strides have been made over the past decade, and the final guidelines issued by NIH must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.

I am pleased that these draft guidelines -- in Section II B -- would appear to permit federal funding of stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that any current stem cell line will meet the criteria outlined and thus be eligible for federal funding. It will be important for the final guidelines to allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived. This will ensure that the final guidelines build on progress that has already been made.

 
20815 05/13/2009 at 11:06:28 PM Organization Hadassah of Greater washington 1220 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20816 05/13/2009 at 11:09:16 PM Self     i oppose NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines Draft on moral grounds: Each human embyo is a unique and compete human being, in process of development. Another human being has no right to purposefully destroy a very early human life for scientific experimentation. A society in which the stronger members can destroy the weakest among us will destroy itself. Respect for every human life is the core value of the American experiment in human government. Without that, we will destroy ourselves. In addition, IPS cell technology has made it unnecessary to destroy the early human child to obtain stem cells. Thus we don't even have a "scientific" excuse for our immorality.

 
20817 05/13/2009 at 11:09:33 PM Organization Hadassah of Greater Washington 1220 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20818 05/13/2009 at 11:14:42 PM Self     To the Obaba administration,

-I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

Sincerely,

 
20819 05/13/2009 at 11:16:59 PM Self     It's wrong to destroy human life to further science. That's what Hitler's henchmen did with "nonpeople Jews". It's pouring salt into a wound to require all taxpaying citizens to pay for these murders.Just say no!

In response to April 23, 2009 Federal Register Notice.

 
20820 05/13/2009 at 11:18:23 PM Self     I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20821 05/13/2009 at 11:18:48 PM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20822 05/13/2009 at 11:19:49 PM Self     As a brother of a patient suffering from diabetes, I am pleased that Section II B of the draft guidelines appear to permit federal funding of some existing stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines that will be created from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that all current stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding. I believe the final guidelines should allow federal funds for research using any existing stem cell lines that were created under ethical guidelines. This will allow research to build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cell lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways.

 
20823 05/13/2009 at 11:22:40 PM Self     I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20824 05/13/2009 at 11:23:30 PM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20825 05/13/2009 at 11:27:54 PM Self     PLEASE - do NOT approve of embryonic stem cell research. It is so reprehensible to me as a taxpayer to think that my taxes will support the destruction of the tiniest and most innocent among us that it makes me sick.

Adult stem cells are PROVEN, SAFE, EFFECTIVE. And they do not destroy existing lives.

AbuGraib labeled us as inhumane and other things. What does embryonic stem cell research say??? Especially when there's a very effective alternative!! Please, let us respect all human life, and not one at the expense of the other. Thank you.

 
20826 05/13/2009 at 11:29:30 PM Self     Please do not approve the funding of stem cell research. Thank You.

 
20827 05/13/2009 at 11:29:33 PM Self     -I AM OPPOSED to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

Please use your time and research on adult stem cells, which have shown great success, and do not require the killing of embryonic children.

Sincerely,

 
20828 05/13/2009 at 11:30:42 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20829 05/13/2009 at 11:31:07 PM Self     Approving the funding of stem cell research is morally wrong. Please do not let this happen. Thank you.

 
20830 05/13/2009 at 11:31:46 PM Self     Please do not fund stem cell research that destroys human life. The promise of adult stem cells should be advanced.

 
20831 05/13/2009 at 11:31:48 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20832 05/13/2009 at 11:32:11 PM Organization Hadassah NY, NY I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20833 05/13/2009 at 11:32:36 PM Self     Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of Americans suffering from many diseases and disorders. I am not a scientist, but I have been following progress in this field with great interest. Significant strides have been made over the past decade, and the final guidelines issued by NIH must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.

I am pleased that these draft guidelines -- in Section II B -- would appear to permit federal funding of stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that any current stem cell line will meet the criteria outlined and thus be eligible for federal funding. It will be important for the final guidelines to allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived. This will ensure that the final guidelines build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding and I recommend that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ways. If not, it is essential that the NIH continue to monitor developments in this exciting research area and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.

 
20834 05/13/2009 at 11:36:32 PM Self     "As a member of a family in which several members have suffered from diabetes and several neurological diseases (Parkinsons, MS, and ALS), I am pleased that Section II B of the draft guidelines appear to permit federal funding of some existing stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines that will be created from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that all current stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding. I believe the final guidelines should allow federal funds for research using any existing stem cell lines that were created under ethical guidelines. This will allow research to build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cell lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways.

 
20835 05/13/2009 at 11:37:36 PM Self     Please - NO EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH! It is so reprehensible to think that my tax dollars would support the destruction of the MOST INNOCENT and weakest among us that it makes me sick.

Adult stem cell research is SAFER, already PROVEN, EFFECTIVE. It's unnecessary, let alone immoral, to destroy tiny humans.

AbuGraib humiliates us but this is far far worse. Please reconsider.

 
20836 05/13/2009 at 11:39:42 PM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20837 05/13/2009 at 11:39:42 PM Self     I appreciate this opportunity to submit comments.

We know that human life begins at conception. I hope we know that it is inherently unjust for the strong to deliberately take the lives of the weak. This suggests that the deliberate destruction of human life at any stage of development for research is inherently unjust and, consequently, ethically irresponsible.

Furthermore, adult stem cells have actually produced cures in patients while embryonic stem cells produce lethal tumors. Vaccines can be produced without destroying human life. Please use taxpayer dollars on research that is both ethically responsible and scientifically worthy.

Thank you for your time.

 
20838 05/13/2009 at 11:39:45 PM Self     Dear People, No human life (at any stage) should be disrespected so cruelly as to be used for scientific research. Would you experiment on a condemned prisoner, "who's just going to die anyhow?" No government has the right nor should it assume the right to designate which "classes of humans" can be targeted as "not useful to society" and dispensable. It offends us that our tax dollars would be used in such a brutal and inhumane manner. Have our hearts hardened to this extent? We are outraged that such an evil science should even be considered in our America. No federal tax dollars should ever be used for the heinous Embryonic Stem Cell Research!! You don't need to listen to us only. Read the whole story from doctors and scientists themselves at the website www.stemcellresearch.org.

 
20839 05/13/2009 at 11:40:41 PM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that harm no one and are already producing good results. In no case should government support be extended to human cloning or other morally reprehensible creation of human embryos for research purposes.

Thank you,

 
20840 05/13/2009 at 11:44:06 PM Self     Scientists in Portugal1, 2 are using olfactory enshething glial cells from the lining of a patient’s nose to treat spinal cord injuries. Senator Brownback recently held a press conference where he introduced two young ladies, Susan and Laura, who were paralized, one a quadriplegic. Both of them are now able to walk with braces, due to adult stem cells.

In South Korea a 20-year-old quadriplegic woman received transplanted umbilical cord stem cells to the site of her spinal injury. She’s now mobile with a walker.3

In Germany, stem cells have been used to help repair skull bone damage in a seven-year-old girl. Unlike other bones, skull bones do not regenerate, hence the use of metal plates to repair the damage. Using adult stem cells, the missing bone plates were replaced by thin, solid bone. Bits of the child’s own bones, mixed with adult stem cells, produced the healing.4

London researches have been using adult stem cells in trials to treat damaged livers. They hope to colonize and grow new liver cells allowing the liver to function again.5

In the US6, Germany7, Brazil8 and France9, human patients have been treated with their own stem cells to regenerate heart muscle destroyed during a heart attack or injury. In most cases this was successful.

Twenty-three patients regained their eyesight following limbal (adult) stem cell transplants.10 This treatment has helped many suffering from blindness for years, including victims of Iraqi mustard gas attacks.

Patients with Crohn’s disease have apparently been cured after treatment with stem cells from their own blood.11

Ninety percent of 19 patients with various autoimmune disorders, such as systemic lupus, are in remission or have improved after treatment with their own blood stem cells.12

One patient with multiple sclerosis improved after being treated with adult stem cells from his own blood.13

One study of Parkinson’s patients showed an average improvement of sixty-one percent increase of coordination, as well as fewer symptoms after transplants of the patient’s own neuronal stem cells.14

Doctors added adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood to the treatment of leukemia patients. This freed fourteen of eighteen patients of the disease.15

Hematopietic stem cell transplants successfully treated over two hundred sickle cell patients. The success rate has been eighty to eighty-five percent.16

A 52-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis in 38 joints was treated with adult stem cells from her sister. While still in the hospital, her morning stiffness ceased. One year later she is free of the disease and off medication.17

Innsbruck, Austria, doctors have used adult stem cells from patients’ muscles to successfully treat urinary stress incontinence. Eighteen of twenty remain continent one year later.18

Researchers found that adult stem cells in the pulp of baby teeth may be extremely useful in growing replacement brain tissue to overcome stroke damage and other neurological disorders.19

Chagas disease is a potentially lethal parasitic condition attacking and destroying the heart and other tissue. It kills six million people worldwide every year. The parasite can be killed with treatment, but the damage remains. Now scientists in Buenos Aires, using adult stem cells from patients’ own bone marrow, have been repairing heart damage.20

Scientists in New York are exploring the real possibility of using adult stem cells to regenerate teeth that have been removed.21

Toronto researchers reported finding adult stem cells not merely in umbilical cord blood, but also a “jackpot” of adult stem cells in the tissue mass (Warton’s Jelly) surrounding the three umbilical cord blood vessels. They anticipate using these adult stem cells to regrow bone and connective tissue in knees that have been damaged in an accident.22

In Argentina, stem cells from a diabetic patient’s own bone marrow were fed into his pancreas through an artery. His glucose levels returned to normal with no need for medication.23

Pennsylvania and Louisiana scientists have coaxed adult stem cells from bone marrow to differentiate into the type of cells that line lungs and air passages. This may lead to effective treatments for cystic fibrosis.24

Adult stem cells hold a promise to treating baldness in humans. A study at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine reports using them to grow hair on bald mice.25

Chicago researchers are looking at a new adult stem cell technique that will replace implants for reconstructive surgery and body augmentation. This could have profound commercial implications for cosmetic surgery.26

Many of the above studies are preliminary and several have been done in animal models, although many have been used in human trials. A single report of a success (e.g. of skull bone) is not considered official until other scientists replicate the same study. Then trials must succeed in human subjects using adult stem cells before such treatments will be available for you and your loved ones. This being said, however, we can hardly conceal our excitement at these new discoveries. Most of the above have been reported within the last year, with some much more recent. In stark contrast to this, we have no reports of such successes using embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic Stem Cells Objections to the use of embryonic stem cells are both medical and moral. The moral dimension is evident. The only way to obtain these cells is to directly kill a five-day-old living human embryo, cutting him or her open and extracting embryonic stem cells. From an ethical, moral standpoint, this alone should rule out their use.

Medically speaking, there are several major problems. One is this tissue is from another living human, with a different DNA and can be rejected just like a transplanted kidney. Another is that they can carry infection from the donors; a worse case would be AIDS. Finally, and most importantly, researchers have not discovered a way to regulate or target their growth, for they are “very plastic.” They can uncontrollably grow into many types of cells. For instance, implanted embryonic stem cells have turned into bone, skin, kidney and other tissues when researchers had hoped they would turn into brain cells. This tendency for tumor formation has, as of yet, been uncontrolled.

Can these problems be solved? That is the challenge scientists hope to solve if and when they are given free reign to kill human embryos and use these cells in unrestricted and usually lethal experimentation. Their hope is the curative value of embryonic stem cells might even exceed all of the above adult stem cell successes. This, however, is just a hope. A number of highly scientific experts in this field have predicted such hopes are pipe dreams and that embryonic stem cells will never be able to be harnessed for curative reasons.

The above dim prospects are specifically the reason almost no private venture capital has been flowing into embryonic stem cell research, whereas, substantial amounts have been invested in the adult stem cell research.

Why then is there an almost exclusive push by liberal sources for embryonic stem cell research, and a near total blackout of the above adult stem cell successes? One reason is that killing five-day-old human embryos does not pose a problem for many scientists and certainly not for much of the media. If you can abort them before birth, you can snuff out their lives in a research lab. For scientists, the unknown is a challenge, a horizon that needs to be explored. They want to boldly go where no man has gone before. Whether or not palatable results seem reasonably obtainable is irrelevant. Exploring the unknown is a goal in itself. They are, however, faced with the obvious fact that private money will not subsidize such questionable investigations. This is why there is tremendous pressure from scientists, the liberal media and, very clearly, a powerful and well-financed biotech industry to appropriate tax money for such research. We should be in the forefront, telling the world the exciting possibilities of ethical ADULT stem cell research. Further, this should be contrasted with the fact that embryonic stem cell research is done by killing living humans in the very limited hope of someday helping another.

CURRENT CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ADULT STEM CELLS

CANCER TREATMENTS

BRAIN TUMORS Combination of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant from the patients themselves shows good response in treatment of brain tumors. Reference: Dunkel, IJ; “High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue for malignant brain tumors”; Cancer Invest. 18, 492-493; 2000.

“Patients with recurrent medulloblastoma had a significant improvement in long-term survival (median: 34 months) as compared with historical reports; two patients with glioblastoma survive beyond four years without progression.” Reference: Abrey, LE et al.; “High dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue in adults with malignant primary brain tumors”; J. Neurooncol. 44, 147-153; Sept. 1999

“Review of HDCT and stem cell transplant for children with brain tumors. Studies demonstrating durable disease- free survival for a proportion of patients with recurrent malignant gliomas and medulloblastomas/PNET, as well as encouraging data in some of those patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors.” Reference: Finlay, JL; “The role of high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue in the treatment of malignant brain tumors: a reappraisal”; Pediatr. Transplant 3 Suppl. 1, 87-95; 1999

RETINOBLASTOMA A localized retinoblastoma of the left eye in a 7-year-old girl, was treated by enucleation. She received no additional therapy. Four months later, metastases of retinoblastoma in the lymph nodes, bone and bone marrow were diagnosed. Relapse chemotherapy consisting of three courses of vincristine, cyclophosphamide, etoposide and carboplatin led to a second complete remission. Subsequent high-dose chemotherapy with thiotepa, etoposide and carboplatin and autologous stem cell transplantation with CD34-selected stem cells were successful, with no adverse effects. No radiotherapy was given and the girl remains in continuous second remission with a follow-up of more than 4 years. Reference: Hertzberg H et al.; “Recurrent disseminated retinoblastoma in a 7-year-old girl treated successfully by high-dose chemotherapy and CD34-selected autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation”; Bone Marrow Transplant 27(6), 653-655; March 2001

Patients with metastatic retinoblastoma have a poor prognosis with conventional treatments. This study used intensive conventio nal chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, with autologous stem cell rescue, and radiation therapy. The treatment strategy was effective for all four patients with metastatic retinoblatoma that does not involve the central nervous system, surviving event free from 46-80 months after diagnosis. Reference: Dunkel IJ et al.; “Successful treatment of metastatic retinoblastoma”; Cancer 89, 2117-2121; Nov. 15, 2000

OVARIAN CANCER Report studying whether patients benefit more from autologous stem cell transplantation. “Some patients with ovarian cancer seem to have good outcomes after autotransplantation”. Reference: Stiff PJ et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for ovarian cancer: An autologous blood and marrow transplant regis try report”; Ann. Intern. Med. 133, 504-515; Oct. 3, 2000

“Developing data suggest that this approach in both of these settings merit further evaluation for the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma.” Used autologous, purified peripheral blood stem cells Reference: Schilder, RJ and Shea, TC; “Multiple cycles of high-dose chemotherapy for ovarian cancer”; Semin. Oncol. 25, 349-355; June 1998

SOLID TUMORS Use of patients’ own bone marrow or blood stem cells leads to long-term recovery from various types of solid tumors. Reference: Nieboer P et al.; “Long-term haematological recovery following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation or peripheral stem cell transplantation in patients with solid tumours”; Bone Marrow Transplant 27, 959-966; May 2001

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare cutaneous tumor with neuroendocrine differentiation; there is no standard protocol for treatment of the metastatic disease. This study used high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation to achieve complete remission that lasted for 6 months. Reference: Waldmann V et al.; “Transient complete remission of metastasized merkel cell carcinoma by highdose polychemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transpla ntation”; Br. J. Dermatol. 143, 837-839; Oct. 2000

Patients with metastatic or locally advanced, unresectable soft tissue sarcoma are seldom curable, with 5- year survival rates of less than 10%. Used high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant; “a high survival rate was observed in HDCT-treated patients who were in complete remission after conventional chemotherapy.” Reference: Blay JY et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for advanced soft tissue sarcoma in adults”; J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 3643-3650; Nov. 1, 2000

“The prognosis of metastatic malignant mesenchymal tumors (MMT) remains poor.” Used high-dose chemotherapy with bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplant. “A response exceeding 50% was observed in 6/18 patients (response rate 33%).” Reference: Lafay-Cousin L et al.; “High-dose thiotepa and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatricmalignant mesenchymal tumors: a phase II study”; Bone Marrow Transplant 26, 627-632; Sept. 2000

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous haematopoietic rescue is widely used in the treatment of patients with paediatric malignancies. It is now well established as a major component for the treatment of children with metastatic neuroblastoma over the age of one at diagnosis. Its place for other tumours, such as metastatic Ewing and rhabdomyosarcoma, needs to be better established.” Reference: Michon, J and Schleiermacher, G. “Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for paediatric solid tumors”, Baillieres Best Practice Research in Clinical Haematology 12, 247- 259, March-June 1999.

Used for malignant solid tumors. Overall response rate 96%, complete clinical response rate 67%. Treatment described as safe, feasible, and active. Reference: Schilder, RJ et al.; “Phase I trial of multiple cycles of high-dose chemotherapy supported by autologous peripheral-blood stem cells”; J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 2198-2207; July 1999

TESTICULAR CANCER “Thirty-seven (57%) of the 65 patients are continuously disease- free. Three additional patients are disease- free with subsequent surgery. High-dose chemotherapy was associated with significant morbidity but no treatment-related mortality. High-dose chemotherapy as initial salvage chemotherapy achieved impressive long-term survival with acceptable toxicity in patients with relapsed testicular cancer.” Reference: Bhatia S et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy as initial salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed testicular cancer”; J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 3346-3351; Oct. 19, 2000

“High-dose chemotherapy with the transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) has been performed for the treatment of advanced testicular cancer patients.” “After mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells with G-CSF alone, sufficient amounts of MNC were obtained from testicular cancer patients who had undergone chemotherapy several times.” Reference: Hanazawa, K et al.; “Collection of peripheral blood stem cells with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor alone in testicular cancer patients”; Int. J. Urol. 7, 77-82; March 2000.

MULTIPLE MYELOMA, LEUKEMIAS Umbilical Cord Blood Effective At Treating Adult Blood Disorders A new report shows that umbilical cord blood can provide effective treatment of various blood disorders in adults. It had previously been assumed that there were too few stem cells in cord blood to treat adults, and only children were treated. The results of this study show that cord blood stem cells can proliferate extensively and provide sufficient numbers of cells for adult treatments. Reference: Laughlin MJ et al.; “Hematopoietic engraftment and survival in adult recipients of umbilical-cord blood from unrelated donors”, New England Journal of Medicine 344, 1815-1822; June 14, 2001

Bone marrow/peripheral blood stem cell treatments can be used to treat older patients Reference: Tabata M et al.; “Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients over 65 years old with malignant lymphoma--possibility of early completion of chemotherapy and improvement of performance status”; Intern Med 40, 471-474; June 2001

Successfully treated lymphoma using patient’s own stem cells. Reference: Koizumi M et al.; “Successful treatment of intravascular malignant lymphomatosis with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation”; Bone Marrow Transplant 27, 1101-1103; May 2001

This retrospective study included 21 children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 15 with acute myelogenous leukaemia and one each with chronic myelogenous leukaemia, refractory anaemia with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia (JMML). These data confirm that HLA-mismatched, unrelated Cord Blood Transplant is a feasible procedure to cure a significant proportion of children with leukaemia, especially if conducted in a favourable phase of the disease. Reference: Ohnuma K et al.; “Cord blood transplantation from HLA- mismatched unrelated donors as a treatment for children with haematological malignancies”; Br J Haematol 112(4), 981-987; March 2001

Angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy with dysproteinemia (or dysgammaglobulinemia) (AILD) is a lymphoproliferative disorder with abnormalities characteristic of malignant T-cell lymphoma (angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma -- AITL). We report the clinical course of a 58-year-old male patient with unusually aggressive AILD, At relapse, treatment with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation (APSCT) with CD34 selected cells was shown to be successful. The patient is alive and disease-free 3 years after diagnosis and 32 months after APSCT. Considering the poor prognosis of the majority of patients with AILD, intensive treatment followed by APSCT, may be a subject for further studies. Reference: Lindahl J et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy and APSCT as a potential cure for relapsing hemolysing AILD”; Leuk Res 25(3), 267-270; March 2001

Patients given high-dose chemotherapy followed by allogeneic stem cell transplants. Peripheral blood stem cells rather than bone marrow results in higher rates of overall and disease- free survival, and restores blood counts faster. Patients in whom the benefit of peripheral-blood cells was most apparent were those with advanced hematologic cancer. Other studies have also shown that the use of peripheral-blood cells is associated with fewer days of hospitalization and lower overall costs. Reference: Bensinger WI et al.; “Transplantation of bone marrow as compared with peripheral-blood cells from HLA- identical relatives in patients with hematologic cancers”; New England Journal of Medicine 344, 175-181; Jan. 18, 2001

**Review of new procedures involving stem cell transplantation. The authors note that “Stem cell transplantation has been successfully used to treat a wide variety of hematologic malignancies. New and exciting strategies being developed for use in conjunction with transplant will be useful in overcoming tumor resistance.” Reference: Margolis J et al.; “New approaches to treating malignances with stem cell transplantation”; Semin. Oncol. 27, 524-530; Oct. 2000

**Study notes that “autologous stem cell transplantation is a potential therapeutic approach in patients with acute myelocytic leukemia over 60 years of age.” Reference: Gorin NC et al.; “Feasibility and recent improvement of autologous stem cell transplantation for acute myelocytic leukaemia in patients over 60 years of age: importance of the source of stem cells”; Br. J. Haematol. 110, 887-893; Sept. 2000

“Infants with acute leukemia have a poor prognosis when treated with conventional chemotherapy.” 5-year overall survival 64%. “SCT is a valid option in the treatment of infant acute leukemia, and it may overcome the high risk of relapse with conventional chemotherapy showing very reduced toxicity.” Reference: Marco F et al.; “High Survival Rate in Infant Acute Leukemia Treated With Early High-Dose Chemotherapy and Stem-Cell Support”; J Clin Oncol 18, 3256-3261; Sept. 15, 2000

“Actuarial survival and disease-free survival at 34 months are 56% and 50% respectively, with 95% confidence interval (25-78%).These results suggest that nonmyeloablative conditioning significantly reduces transplant-related toxicity, thus making a second transplant feasible.” Reference: Nagler A et al.; “Second allogeneic stem cell transplantation using nonmyeloablative conditioning for patients who relapsed or developed secondary malignancies following autologous transplantation”; Exp. Hematol. 28, 1096-1104, Sept. 1, 2000

Review of autologous stem cell treatment strategies. “Controlled clinical trials have demonstrated a long-term disease- free survival of 40%-50% for patients treated with at least two courses of HIDAC. Other studies have demonstrated that postremission autologous bone marrow transplantation results in a disease-free survival equal to or better than conventional chemotherapy. However, autotransplantation with mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) would now be preferred instead of autologous bone marrow, due to the shorter hematopoietic reconstitution period.” Reference: Bruserud O et al.; “New strategies in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia: mobilization and transplantation of autologous peripheral blood stem cells in adult patients”; Stem Cells 18, 343-351; 2000

Study to evaluate high-dose melphalan followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. High-dose therapy with melphalan 200 mg/m(2) is feasible with high response rates (58% overall) and an OS of 19 months in patients with refractory multiple myeloma.” Reference: Vesole, DH et al.; “High-Dose Melphalan With Autotransplantation for Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Southwest Oncology Group Phase II Trial”; J Clin Oncol 17, 2173- 2179; July 1999.

BREAST CANCER The “data suggest that high-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell rescue is safe and can be beneficial to patients with high-risk primary breast cancer and for those with metastatic breast cancer achieving complete response/no evidence of disease.” Reference: Damon LE et al.; “High-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell rescue for breast cancer: experience in California”; Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant 6, 496-505; 2000

Stem cells in circulating blood can be isolated, expanded in number in culture, and provide better clinical results. Reference: Paquette, RL et al., “Ex vivo expanded unselected peripheral blood: progenitor cells reduce posttransplantation neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia in patients with breast cancer”, Blood 96, 2385-2390; October 2000.

“The collection of small aliquots of bone marrow (BM), followed by ex vivo expansion for autologous transplantation may be less morbid, and more cost-effective, than typical BM or blood stem cell harvesting. Passive elimination of contaminating tumor cells during expansion could reduce reinoculation risks.” “It is feasible to perform autotransplants solely with BM cells grown ex vivo in perfusion bioreactors from a small aliquot.” “This procedure could reduce the risk of tumor cell reinoculation with autotransplants and may be valuable in settings in which small stem cell doses are available, eg, cord blood transplants.” Reference: Stiff P et al.; “Autologous transplantation of ex vivo expanded bone marrow cells grown from small aliquots after high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer”; Blood 95, 2169-2174; March 15, 2000

“This report is the first describing infusion of autologous MSCs with therapeutic intent. We found that autologous MSC infusion at the time of PBPC transplantation is feasible and safe. The observed rapid hematopoietic recovery suggests that MSC infusion after myeloablative therapy may have a positive impact on hematopoiesis and should be tested in randomized trials.” Reference: Koc, ON et al.; “Rapid Hematopoietic Recovery After Coinfusion of Autologous-Blood Stem Cells and Culture-Expanded Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients Receiving High-Dose Chemotherapy”; J Clin Oncol 18, 307-316; January 2000

NEUROBLASTOMA “According to initial reports, stage 4 neuroblastoma patients with amplification of the MYCN protooncogene developed progressive disease within 8 months. The prognosis for such patients, however, should now be reevaluated in light of recent results achieved with up-to-date combination chemotherapy. Not all patients with advanced neuroblastoma who have more than 10 copies of MYCN will die. The requisites for survival in such patients seem to be intensive induction chemotherapy, effective surgery, irradiation, and the use of SCT” (stem cell transplant). Reference: Kawa, K et al.; “Long-Term Survivors of Advanced Neuroblastoma With MYCN Amplification: A Report of 19 Patients Surviving Disease-Free for More Than 66 Months”; J Clin Oncol 17:3216-3220; October 1999

NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA Tabata M et al.; “Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients over 65 years old with malignant lymphoma--possibility of early completion of chemotherapy and improvement of performance status”; Intern Med 40, 471-474; June 2001

“To determine differences in prognosis between primary progressive Hodgkin's disease (HD) and aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), we retrospectively analyzed patients with progressive lymphoma who were treated with different salvage chemotherapy regimens including high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem-cell support (ASCT). There are striking differences in the prognosis of patients with progressive HD and aggressive NHL. The prognosis of progressive NHL patients is dismal. Most patients have rapidly progressive disease after salvage treatment and are, therefore, excluded from HDCT programs. In contrast, progressive HD patients can achieve long-term survival after HDCT.” Reference: Josting, A; “Treatment of Primary Progressive Hodgkin’s and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: Is There a Chance for Cure?”; J Clin Oncol 18, 332-339; 2000

“Patient achieved complete remission and has survived in continuous complete remission for more than 72 months to date. Marrow-ablative chemotherapy facilitated by PBSCT is thought to be useful as part of the primary therapy for patients with NHL who have poorer prognoses.” Reference: Kirita T et al.; “Primary non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of the mandible treated with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation”; Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 90, 450-455; Oct. 2000

“These results suggest first that ex vivo expansion of hematopoietic stem cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is feasible without incurring the parallel risk of amplifying tumor cells; second, that Flt3-L did not stimulate the growth of tumor cells while it clearly favored the growth of normal progenitors.” Reference: Yao M et al.; “Ex vivo expansion of CD34-positive peripheral blood progenitor cells from patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: no evidence of concomitant expansion of contaminating bcl2/JH-positive lymphoma cells”; Bone Marrow Transplant 26, 497-503; Sept. 2000

“Nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem-cell transplantation can induce sustained regression of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in patients who have had no response to conventional immunotherapy.” Reference: Childs R et al., “Regression of Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Nonmyeloablative Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood Stem-Cell Transplantation”, New England Journal of Medicine 343, 750- 758; Sept. 14, 2000

“The complete regression of metastatic disease, which has now been maintained for more than 1 year, is compatible with a graft-versus-tumor effect.” Reference: Childs, RW; “Successful Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With a Nonmyeloablative Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood Progenitor-Cell Transplant: Evidence for a Graft-Versus-Tumor Effect:; J Clin Oncol 17, 2044-2049; July 1999

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES –multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis

Adult Stem Cells Treat Potentially Fatal Skin Disorder A man with scleromyxedema, a rare and potentially fatal skin disease, is reported free of symptoms after receiving a transplant of adult stem cells taken from his own bone marrow. Like scleroderma, scleromyxedema causes the skin to thicken and become hard. Prior to the adult stem cell treatment, the patient could not completely close his eyes, and had lost the ability to eat. Three months after treatment the patient could once again close his eyes and open his mouth to eat. The results are reported in the August issue of Archives of Dermatology. References: A.M. Feasel et al., "Complete remission of scleromyxedema following autologous stem cell transplantation," Archives of Dermatology 137, 1071-1072; Aug. 2001."Stem Cell Transplant Treats Rare Skin Disorder," Reuters Health, August 17, 2001

Patients’ own stem cells to treat severe multiple sclerosis Use of combined therapy with using a patient’s own stem cells for treatment of severe cases of multiple sclerosis. Treatment decreased tissue damage in the patients, and had the capacity to completely suppress further tissue damage, an effect that is sustained with time. Reference: Mancardi GL et al.; “Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation suppresses Gd-enhanced MRI activity in MS”; Neurology 57, 62-68; July 10, 2001

Adult Stem Cells Show Success in Treating Another Autoimmune Disease—Crohn’s Disease Physicians at Chicago's Northwestern Memorial Hospital report initial success in using adult stem cells to treat two patients with Crohn's disease, a potentially disabling inflammatory bowel disease. One patient was said to be doing "phenomenally well" 2 ½ months after undergoing the procedure using the adult stem cells, which were extracted from her blood, leading doctors to try it on a second patient. Results in both patients were very encouraging, according to Dr. Richard Burt, who performed the procedures. Burt noted that results of similar procedures on multiple sclerosis patients have also shown progress, and that adult stem cell therapy on patients with lupus had repaired damage to their organs. According to Burt: " 'If you're able to use your own stem cells,' the embryonic stem cell issue is 'not just ethically moot, it's practically moot.' " Reference: "Adult Stem Cells Hold Hope for Autoimmune Patients," Reuters Health, Aug. 13, 2001.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT is feasible and safe, and can result in longterm improvement of disease activity in patients whose condition previously did not respond to conventional antirheumatic drugs or TNF blocking agents. The persistence of active disea

 
20841 05/13/2009 at 11:47:17 PM Self     We oppose the use of my taxpayer dollars for experiments that rely on killing embryonic human beings.

 
20842 05/13/2009 at 11:47:22 PM Self     To those concerned; As a child of a mother suffering from diabetes and a father who has already passed away but suffered from Parkinsons disease. I personally am in the process of recovering from two types of cancer (Hodgkins lymphoma and skin cancer),yet I'm acutely aware of those who would benefit even greater and more immediately from every type of Stem Cell research that exists in this world both today and tommorrow. I am pleased that Section II B of the draft guidelines appear to permit federal funding of some existing stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines that will be created from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that all current stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding. I believe the final guidelines should allow federal funds for research using any existing stem cell lines that were created under ethical guidelines. This will allow research to build on progress that has already been made. I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cell lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways. Don't back down! Democrats, moderate republicans, every thinking, caring human being should be empathetic to the human suffering and work to pass legislation that opens the doors to all ethical research that may lead to a chance for a cure and/or a solution to the health concerns of those living with these terrible diseases. Thank you for your time and hard work. Please!

 
20843 05/13/2009 at 11:47:31 PM Self     I am very opposed to these draft guidelines allowing the useless destruction of human embryos for research that is ineffectual and unprofitable. Adult stem cells are already being used to treat diseases and conditions making research on embryonic cells completely unnecessary and morally/ethically wrong. I am also opposed to the use of tax dollars to fund this research- the destruction of human life at any stage of development is against everything I believe and knowing that my tax dollars are aiding in these crimes against humanity is unthinkable. As a nurse, mother, woman, citizen of this great nation, I beg you to stop the creation and destruction of embryos and to stop using tax-payer dollars to fund such activity. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 
20844 05/13/2009 at 11:48:42 PM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20845 05/13/2009 at 11:49:36 PM Self     It is vital that funding be provided for embryonic stem cell research. Please be sure that stem cell lines derived fom somatic cell nuclear transfer is eligible for federal funding.

Thank you.

 
20846 05/13/2009 at 11:51:12 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20847 05/13/2009 at 11:52:21 PM Self     Much research has been done using adult stem cells that has produced very good results and usable therapies have been and are being developed. The results from embryonic stem cell research has been much less successful to this point. Because there are many who object to research being done using human embryos, and since the results of research to this point using other types of stem cells has been very successful, it seems to me inappropriate to use public funding for embryonic stem cell research. If private individuals wish to fund this research, that should be their prerogative. No one should be required to fund, through taxes that he or she is required to pay, that which he or she finds to be morally wrong.

 
20848 05/13/2009 at 11:52:46 PM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20849 05/13/2009 at 11:53:51 PM Self     Regarding your consideration to draft NIH Human Stem Cell Guidelines, I am deeply grieved by the decision to use embryonic stem cells for research, no matter what their origin. These cells are the beginnings of human life, and as such, ought to be protected by our health systems and government rather than being utilized as experimental matter. There are other sources of stem cells which can be used for research without causing the death of an individual human life. These other lines of research have been very promising. Why must we turn like cannibals to these tiny seeds of our own humanity? My heart is broken that our society has become so indifferent and callus towards the sanctity of human life. We desperately need firm guidelines re-establishing a committment to protect and revere human life, especially in embryonic form, and in the most helpless among us. Thank you, ***** from Oregon

 
20850 05/13/2009 at 11:54:47 PM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20851 05/13/2009 at 11:54:59 PM Self     I am a 54 retired Navy, looking forward to retire from my second career in the civilian word. However due to connective tissue disease that has attacked my lungs my golden years may not be that golden. There is no treatment for the damage that has been done to my lungs. The only thing that has any promise for treatment is stem cell to repair the damage in my lungs. I wish that the fanatics would be drowned out and allow science to do there research that have a chance of helping people live better lives.

May God help these sciencetist find speedy break throughs.

PS: I have never smoked, done drugs, and very seldom have a drink. I have worked hard, help others, and lived a clean life. In other words I think these fanatics are brained wash, if they are agaist Stem Cell, then they have a right not to have it, but don't denie others that right.

 
20852 05/14/2009 at 12:02:06 AM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20853 05/14/2009 at 12:04:04 AM Self     My mother died four years ago. The last several years of her life were very hard. She suffered from a number of things, but Parkinson's Disease was what caused her quality of life to be diminished dramatically in the end. So I am pleased that Section II B of the draft guidelines appear to permit federal funding of some existing stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines that will be created from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that all current stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding. I believe the final guidelines should allow federal funds for research using any existing stem cell lines that were created under ethical guidelines. This will allow research to build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cell lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways.

 
20854 05/14/2009 at 12:04:32 AM Self     I am personally opposed to using federal funds for use in research in human embronyic stem cell. All the results from the past 25 years have been in ADULT stem cell research - which doesn't cost a life.

 
20855 05/14/2009 at 12:05:10 AM Self     If life doesn't begin at conception then when does it begin? If embronic research goes the way of Roe vs. Wade then the (when does life begin issue) will see us taking babies up to the point they are being born for embryonic research. There is no one that does not know that a baby being born is a human life and yet there are those that say it is OK to kill a baby using partial birth abortion. They will undoubtedly also sanction taking unborn babies at any stage for medical research once the embryonic stem cell hurdle is overcome. Where will the immoral conduct of this nation stop. Surely once it is OK to kill a baby being born, then there is no stopping where it will end. People have already said that a baby is still not a viable being until it is over one year old. Even one year old is not where it will end. My new 11 month old grand daughter is an incredible human being loved by me and by God. Once the restraints of concience are cast off, there is no limit to where the evil will go. Only the concience of moral men and women will preserve our nation and its people. Proponents of partial birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research are going to destroy this nation and freedom as we know it. If we are no longer a moral nation, how can we lead the rest of the world which has shown again and again that it is more than willing to decend into the dark and hopeless pit of immorality.

I for one refuse to have my tax dollars spent in a way that is morally repugnant to me.

 
20856 05/14/2009 at 12:05:18 AM Self     Because I believe that every baby has received life at the time of conception and should be protected to the full extent of our Constitution, I find it reprehensible that my taxes are being used to fund the destruction of embryonic cells for research. What is even more reprehensible is that none of this embryonic research to date has born any fruit. More than 70 conditions have been effectively improved through research using adult stem cells.

As a country, we should be trying to protect the lives of all who are conceived, not deciding that this one is valuable only for being killed to continue research that has not proven anything. We need to be compassionate towards all babies from the time of conception. We should not be establishing or condoning any guidelines or procedures that will lead to mass-production of in vitro fertilizations so there will be plenty of "crop" for researchers to harvest and to argue over in order to continue to get government funds for their failed research.

To fund death over life using anybody's money, especially monies taken from taxpayers who believe in protecting all life as I do, I find it despicable and shameful. I hold in contempt all officials promoting and all researchers taking this funding. It is unacceptable to the way I was raised, to the way I have raised my family and to the way I believe our country was founded, to not respect all life.

I support funding of adult stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell research because this research has proven successful and does not destroy life. Any and all other types of research should be stopped or be highly restricted to protect all life from conception.

 
20857 05/14/2009 at 12:10:45 AM Self Hadassah 50 W. 58th Street, NY, NY 10019 I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20858 05/14/2009 at 12:12:17 AM Self     If you do your research into the subject from the thousands to tens of thousands of trained doctors on the subject, such as Dr. Oz, you will discover that stem-cell research simply does not offer the success rate that umbilical cord or adult stem cells can offer. To me, this is just another lame political way of making abortion acceptable, and speaking on behalf of the millions of us Americans who have a moral conscience, I would strongly urge all of you politicians to keep any stem-cell research from happening, for it's not only unethical, it's also ineffective. Thank you.

 
20859 05/14/2009 at 12:12:21 AM Self     I am concerned about the upcoming draft to support human stem cell research. I recognize that stem cell research has unexplored capabilities that may improve human life, but biomedical research crosses ethical boundaries when improving human life comes at the cost of innocent lives. In the public health sector, embryos are protected by the preventing risky pregnancies, reducing low birth weight deliveries, reducing the prevalence of smoking and drinking during pregnancy. We recognize that embryonic life is something to be guarded and protected, yet we are willing to sacrifice this life for peer reviewed studies, as if human life itself were no more important than frog or rat specimens. I urge you to continue adult stem cell research, and to think creatively to expand the knowledge we have to improve lives without destroying or devaluing human life itself. I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that harm no one and are already producing good results. In no case should government support be extended to human cloning or other morally reprehensible creation of human embryos for research purposes.

 
20860 05/14/2009 at 12:13:01 AM Self     I applaud these guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Please ensure that the final draft includes language stating that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding. Clear and well-crafted guidelines will lead to sooner therapies and cures for millions of deserving patients. Thank you.

 
20861 05/14/2009 at 12:16:51 AM Self     Do not use any taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research. This is offensive to many US citizens that do not want to see human life destroyed.

 
20862 05/14/2009 at 12:17:31 AM Self     I support the funding of stem cell research.

 
20863 05/14/2009 at 12:21:02 AM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes. -Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life. -The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20864 05/14/2009 at 12:21:56 AM Self     I am all for women's rights. Paramount among them are the rights of unborn women. I will defy any advocate of the murder of unborn women.

 
20865 05/14/2009 at 12:24:26 AM Self     Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of people suffering from many diseases and disorders. I am not a scientist, but I am a member of the Parkinson’s community and have been following progress in this field with great interest. Significant strides have been made over the past decade, and the final guidelines issued by NIH must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.

I am pleased that these draft guidelines -- in Section II B -- would appear to permit federal funding of stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from surplus embryos at fertility clinics. However, as drafted, Section II B does not ensure that any current stem cell line will meet the criteria outlined and thus be eligible for federal funding. It will be important for the final guidelines to allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived. This will ensure that the final guidelines build on progress that has already been made.

I also believe that the final guidelines should permit federal funding for stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit such federal funding and I recommend that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ways. If not, it is essential that the NIH continue to monitor developments in this exciting research area and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.

 
20866 05/14/2009 at 12:30:18 AM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20867 05/14/2009 at 12:38:34 AM Self     I do not support the governments need to force embryonic stem cell research on the public as the only viable option. And as one who believes in the sanctity of life, I feel I am being forced to support a method that I feel is morally wrong, with my tax dollars.

 
20868 05/14/2009 at 12:41:21 AM Self     Sorry I took so long to reply as I am loosing my eyesight due to my diabetes,

For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20869 05/14/2009 at 12:46:38 AM Self     We are opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research which would make us as taxpayers subsidize research destroying human life. There are treatments that do not destroy human life and are effective so we should be supporting only those, so no human cloning goes on which is wrong. This loophole must be closed at once. We should not fund research that destroys human life when we have other options that are better and do not destroy human life.

 
20870 05/14/2009 at 12:48:58 AM Self     I don't understand why federal dollars should be used for research that has proven ineffective as the embryonic stem cell research has proven. Let's put our money where it has proven itself, adult stem cells.

 
20871 05/14/2009 at 12:50:00 AM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20872 05/14/2009 at 12:54:08 AM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20873 05/14/2009 at 12:54:33 AM Self     Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my objection to tax payer funding of Embryonic stem cell research & these guidelines that promote it. The concept alone of creating life then killing life for the sake of possibly saving life or possibly finding cures is incomprehensible. I understand the need for responsible scientific research but this is not it. Embryonic stem cell destruction has not yielded any results as of yet & even if it did, it's an immoral exchange. Please consider modifying your guidelines to exclude federal funding for any research that uses embryonic stem lines created after 2001. Thanks.

 
20874 05/14/2009 at 12:58:54 AM Self     As a citizen of these United States I would like to go on record in opposing any type of funding for more embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) that creates an incentive to create and destroy human embryos. I especially oppose my tax dollars being used to experiment on stem cells taken from human embryos that are supposedly "leftover" from in vitro fertilization. I believe that it is morally wrong to experiment in such a way that it causes death to these potential persons and I strongly urge the promotion of adoption for these human embryos. There are many, many families that are unable to conceive and would welcome the opportunity to adopt these potential babies.

 
20875 05/14/2009 at 01:01:51 AM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20876 05/14/2009 at 01:09:49 AM Self     The National Institutes of Health should rescind its guidelines proposing to use federal funds for stem cell research that requires destroying live human embryos. It is especially troubling that some supporters of this research are urging the NIH to endorse an even broader policy, encouraging the deliberate use of in vitro fertilization or cloning to produce human embryos for stem cell research. Such creation of new life solely to destroy it would mark the final reduction of human beings to mere objects or commodities.

My tax dollars should not be used to promote destructive embryonic stem cell research or any form of human cloning. Instead support should be directed to adult stem cell research, which is ethically sound, harms no one, and is already helping suffering patients with dozens of conditions.

 
20877 05/14/2009 at 01:10:11 AM Self     -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

-Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life.

-The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately.

 
20878 05/14/2009 at 01:10:51 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20879 05/14/2009 at 01:11:37 AM Self     I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes. Thousands of childen are born in the united states every day, whom are attached to their mothers with an umbiblical cord. Stem cells are available in the cord! Why not have the mother donate the cord for stem cells. Thats an idea, far more practical then creating life then taking it away for the sake of harvesting stem cells. When they are already available everyday from a more natrual and moral way.

 
20880 05/14/2009 at 01:11:40 AM Self     I am an RN, a Christian, mother, pro-choice activist, sister to a Type I Diabetic and aunt to a Type I Diabetic. I strongly support federal funding for stem cell research which should ABSOLUTELY COME FROM EVERY TYPE OF IVF embryos, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Sections II B and IV of the draft guidelines do not permit this type of federal funding. Since new breakthroughs to create stem cells lines occur regularly, it is crucial that the final guidelines provide federal funding using stem cell lines derived in other ethical ways. "

 
20881 05/14/2009 at 01:12:40 AM Self     Please do NOT kill babies!! Do Adult stem cell research only & only have taxpayers paying for that research. We should NOT have to pay for killing babies!!

 
20882 05/14/2009 at 01:20:50 AM Self     As a research nurse, I am pleased with the guidelines that establish a framework for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. And I hope that the final draft includes language that clarifies that stem cell lines derived using the prevailing ethical standards at the time they were derived are eligible for federal funding. Also, please include language stating that stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer will be eligible for federal funding as well.

Thank you.

 
20883 05/14/2009 at 01:23:12 AM Self     For many Americans with a personal connection to type 1 diabetes, the Administration’s expansion of the federal policy on embryonic stem cell research has renewed our hope for a cure. I am writing today to support the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) draft guidelines and suggest a change to ensure promising, ethically conducted research currently underway will be eligible for federal funding in the future.

The Administration’s Executive Order on stem cell research restored scientific decision-making to its rightful place at the NIH. In these guidelines, the NIH has demonstrated its capacity to formulate a research framework that will unleash the potential of embryonic stem cell research while maintaining the highest safety and ethical standards. I would encourage the NIH, however, to grandfather into this policy stem cell lines that have received federal funding, as well as existing lines that were derived in an ethically-responsible manner according to the best practices at the time. Research on these stem cell lines should be eligible for federal funding so that scientists can maximize the scientific advancements already achieved through research on these lines.

Research should be vigorously pursued on all promising stem cell sources that could potentially lead to a cure for type 1 diabetes. While embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, this research has already yielded impressive results in our continuing effort to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. Recent research suggests that embryonic stem cells can be differentiated to produce the insulin-producing beta cells that could reverse the course of type 1 diabetes.

We do not yet know which stem cell sources may ultimately lead to a cure or be the most clinically useful or practical for patients with type 1 diabetes. It is clear, however, that the more knowledge we gain about embryonic stem cells, the better we can assess the full therapeutic potential of all stem cell sources. These draft guidelines allowing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using excess embryos from fertility clinics will ensure that this research matures and its potential is more fully realized. I commend the NIH for allowing this important research to expand in a scientifically and ethically appropriate manner.

 
20884 05/14/2009 at 01:23:47 AM Self     As the grandfather, son and grandson of Type I diabetics, I wonder why I was spared and why my seven-years old grandson was not. I see the devastation this lifetime affliction has wrought upon our entire family and I despair. If modern medicine can develop the likes of CIALIS and VIAGRA, surely stem cell research can bring about a cure for juvenile diabetes.

 
20885 05/14/2009 at 01:25:51 AM Self     Do not appropriate any more funds for stem cell research under any circumstances.Thank you.

 



Go to NIH Stem Cell Information Page