NCER receives a portion of each sale when purchased through clicking the above link
Speeches highlight Walk for Life
Jan 1, 2007
(Copyright 2007 Omaha World-Herald Company)
LINCOLN -- Stem-cell research and cloning will be the focus of speeches at the annual Nebraska Walk for Life, set for Jan. 13 in Lincoln.
The walk will begin with a 10 a.m. ceremony on the west side of the State Capitol. Participants then will walk through downtown to the Nebraska Union, 14th and R Streets, where they will hear from the speakers.
Scheduled to speak are Dr. Sheryl Pitner, Chip Maxwell and Greg Schleppenbach, all board members for the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. Their topic will be "What the Public Isn't Being Told About Stem Cell Research and Cloning."
For more information, call 402-438-4802. -- Martha Stoddard
Public misinformed about stem cell issue
Posted 12/19/2006 8:30 AM ET
By Timberly Ross, The Associated Press
OMAHA — Research on embryonic stem cells continues to ignite national debate over the beginning of human life. And with the Legislature likely to take up the issue in its next session, many worry that inaccurate information is being perpetuated by stem cell proponents and their counterparts.
Dr. David Crouse, who oversees some stem cell research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, said both sides are "overselling wares."
The sentiment is shared by Chip Maxwell, executive director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. That group supports stem cell research, but not the kind involving embryos.
Maxwell said he is all for the free flow of ideas but that information should have balance. "I hope that the whole picture is explained," he said.
From a scientific standpoint, stem cells are building blocks that can turn into different types of tissue, such as kidney or liver cells. Research is being conducted on two types of stem cells — adult and embryonic — in hopes that they can lead to cures for diseases.
Adult stem cells can be found in bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, among other sources. Embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos in their earliest stages of development.
Embryonic stem cells in particular have made headlines, as scientists attempt to harness them to regenerate damaged organs or other body parts. They're essentially a blank slate, able to turn into any tissue given the right biochemical instructions.
But from an anti-abortion standpoint, human embryonic stem cell research is immoral, because isolating the cells destroys embryos, what some believe is the starting point of human life. Anti-abortion advocates cite the same argument in opposing abortion.
"The beef is that there is no question that embryos are destroyed in the harvesting of stem cells," Maxwell said. "Now you are destroying a human being."
Many scientists disagree. Crouse, who specializes in embryonic stem cells, said it boils down to a difference in perspective about when human life begins.
He said, "There is no baby, no abortion."
In fact, Crouse said, the embryos that are used are essentially medical waste.
Most embryonic stem cells used in U.S. research come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization — where a woman's eggs are fertilized outside the womb and the resulting embryos are implanted in the uterus. If the embryos are not implanted, they are typically destroyed.
"If it's unethical to destroy an embryo," Crouse asked, "why is it so much more evil to use a stem cell for a good purpose?"
Maxwell said that rationalization is simply intended to ease people's fears about using embryos.
The small number of embryos left from in vitro fertilization cannot satisfy the needs of the scientific community, and scientists will one day want to create embryos for use in research, according to his coalition.
Where the two men agree is in their frustration over false promises of medical breakthroughs from embryonic stem cell research. Crouse and Maxwell said many people have been led to believe those stem cells will lead to cures for diseases, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, in the near future.
In reality, the earliest results from embryonic stem cell research is five to 10 years down the road, Crouse said.
"With a cloud of political debate, there's not been a lot of progress," he said.
More research has been conducted on adult stem cells, which were discovered in the 1960s. There are commonly used today in bone marrow transplants.
In contrast, embryonic stem cells were first derived in 1998.
Crouse also said that opponents of embryonic stem cell research make weighty claims about the medical benefits of adult stem cells.
A July 2006 article in the journal Science refuted claims that there were 65 treatments that utilize adult stem cells. In truth, the article stated, there are seven.
"A great deal of research needs to be done," Crouse said.
Doctor pushes use of cord blood in research; Babies for Life founder will speak on the benefits of adult stem cells in the search for medical advances.
Oct 18, 2006
(Copyright 2006 Omaha World-Herald Company) by Julie Anderson
As an obstetrician and gynecologist at Atlanta's busy Northside Hospital, Dr. Gerry Sotomayor saw what he calls a "precious resource" being discarded with the delivery of nearly every new baby.
So Sotomayor five years ago started the Babies for Life Foundation with the aim of increasing donations of that resource: the blood collected from umbilical cords moments after babies' birth.
Like bone marrow and peripheral blood, cord blood contains adult stem cells used in stem cell transplants. And it's being used increasingly in such procedures.
Sotomayor is scheduled to discuss his efforts Thursday in Omaha. His talk, "Take It to the Bank: Saving Umbilical Cord Blood for Stem Cell Cures," is sponsored by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research.
The group opposes embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. But it supports research and treatments using adult stem cells, including those from cord blood.
Chip Maxwell, the coalition's executive director, said the group doesn't plan to talk about embryonic stem cells during the event.
"This is not a case where we're looking to pick fights," he said. "We're hoping this is a cause everybody can celebrate."
But Sotomayor's visit plays into, whether it's intended to or not, an ongoing debate about the potential that the two general types of stem cells -- adult and embryonic -- offer for research and treatment.
That debate flared this summer with discussions of President Bush's eventual veto of a measure that would have eased 2001 restrictions on funding for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998, and the research still is considered in its infancy.
Sotomayor said his foundation's mission includes educating expectant moms, doctors and others about the merits of adult stem cells in treating people. Embryonic stem cells so far have not produced treatments.
"My suggestion is, 'Why don't we invest in what has been proven for 33 years?'" he said.
But many researchers say both embryonic and adult stem cells should be studied because both have potential to lead to treatments for human health conditions and neither is likely to be the answer for every ill. Lessons learned from one type of stem cell, they say, can be applied to the other.
Embryonic stem cells are thought to have the potential to develop into all cell types, while scientists so far see adult stem cells, including those from cord blood, as having more limited abilities to divide and differentiate.
"It would be very hard for you to find a scientist who does not agree with the idea of working on every possible avenue" to help as many people as possible as quickly as possible, said Meri Firpo, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute.
"It doesn't seem like one type of stem cell is going to be the answer to everything, " said Firpo, a diabetes researcher who works with both types of stem cells but focuses on embryonic cells. She has spoken at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, where scientists now are using two Bush-approved embryonic stem cell lines in basic research on liver and lung disease.
Given that, many scientists support the idea of publicly banking cord blood to make it more available for transplantation and research, said David Crouse, associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at UNMC and a professor of genetics, cell biology and anatomy.
But a number of scientists have disputed claims of treatments attributed to adult stem cells. Three researchers wrote in a letter to the journal Science in July that most on one list Sotomayor cited "remain unproven," even posting a disease-by-disease analysis on the journal's Web site.
"There's not adequate evidence for a lot of these things," Crouse said.
At the same time, human cures generated by embryonic stem cells aren't just around the corner either, he said. While such treatments have worked in lab animals, scientists don't know whether those results will translate to humans. Some researchers also have begun to see embryonic cells as a tool to study the mechanisms of disease rather than as a cell therapy.
Transplants of adult stem cells, however, commonly are used to treat a number of blood and bone disorders and to replenish immune cells after cancer treatment.
Cord blood requires a less precise match than bone marrow, making it easier for patients to find a donor. But cord blood units often aren't large enough for adults, so it's not a first choice for adults.
Currently, those who want to save cord blood can either donate it to a public bank or pay to store it with a private bank. Private banking typically costs from $1,000 to $3,000 for initial storage, with an annual maintenance fee. A number of medical groups advise against paying for storage except in cases where a family has a history of illness.
Public banks have been set up to take donated cord blood in some parts of the country. Last December, Bush signed legislation to establish a national cord-blood banking network, a move aimed at increasing the number of cord blood units available for matches and for research.
But neither Nebraska nor western Iowa currently have a public cord bank. Expectant parents who want to donate have to seek out a bank that will take donations from afar.
Dr. Phyllis Warkentin, a professor of pathology and pediatrics at UNMC, said the main reason Nebraska doesn't have a public bank is the cost of collecting and storing the cells.
However, a UNMC-based group called FACT-NETCORD is one of two that has applied to serve as the accreditation organization for a national public bank. Warkentin serves as medical director for FACT- NETCORD, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary in November.
Maxwell said one reason his group chose to bring in Sotomayor is that he works in Georgia, where the governor in April created a commission to establish a network of cord blood banks.
"Wouldn't it be great to get something like that going in Nebraska?" Maxwell said.
Sotomayor said his foundation is establishing a public network in the Atlanta area. So far, it has collected more than 1,000 donated units, tapping 10 hospitals. The foundation sends the units to two established banks, where they're made available through existing registries.
One bank, Cryobanks International of Altamonte Springs, Fla., accepts donations from other regions, including Nebraska.
"The point is," Sotomayor said, "we're giving life to a lot of people."
Cord blood research What: Talk by Dr. Gerry Sotomayor, an Atlanta obstetrician and gynecologist who founded the Babies for Life Foundation five years ago. In the midst of debate over embryonic stem cell research in 2001, he wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal saying that the nation would have a wealth of stem cells for research if cord blood were collected systematically as the American Red Cross does with blood.
When: Thursday, 6:30 p.m. reception; 7:15 p.m. program, Thompson Alumni Center, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 67th and Dodge Streets.
Cost: Free.
Open to the public.
Sponsored by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. No reservations are required, but who plan to attend are asked to call ahead at 690-2299 or e-mail info@ethicalresearch.net
Research poll results present a strong case
Oct 12, 2006
(Copyright 2006 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Chip Maxwell
A Sept. 21 Midlands Voices column by a University of Nebraska Medical Center professor began: "Recent polls . . . reaffirm the previous ones that the majority of Americans approve of embryonic stem cell research."
There was no citation of any poll. Nor was there any indication whether those polls explained that embryos are destroyed in such research and that there is another branch of stem cell research (adult) in which harvesting of stem cells does not harm the donor.
The Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (NCER) hired Wilson Research Strategies, based in Washington, D.C., to poll Nebraskans on stem-cell research. The poll of 500 randomly selected frequent voters, conducted from Sept. 18-20, had a 4.4 percent margin of error. The poll began with the core question of this debate:
Do you support or oppose using tax dollars to fund stem cell research that requires destruction of embryos?
That's the primary focus of the debate: whether embryo-destructive research should be funded with taxpayer dollars and done at taxpayer-supported institutions. There are no restrictions on stem cell research in the private sector.
Current law allows federal funding for research using stem cells from embryos destroyed prior to August 2001. This year, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have allowed federal funding for stem cell research involving the destruction of so-called leftover fertility clinic embryos.
Passage of that bill would not have stopped the pressure to expand government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Researchers don't want to be limited to what fertility clinics or the 2001 compromise might provide. They want government funding to produce a larger and more genetically diverse supply of embryos.
For instance, Harvard must use non-government funds in its effort to clone embryos from people with diseases. The goal is to create embryos from which disease-specific stem cells can be harvested and studied.
To treat patients, some researchers want to clone them to get embryonic stem cells with the patient's DNA. Or they want a supply of embryonic stem cells that is large enough to provide adequate genetic matches for most patients.
Speaking of cloning, some advocates of embryonic stem cell research make it sound like cloning simply produces stem cells in a lab dish. Cloning produces human embryos that are destroyed to harvest their stem cells. The poll asked:
Do you support or oppose allowing scientists to use cloning to create human embryos that would be destroyed for stem cell research?
The main point in all this is: Using current techniques, for embryonic stem cell research to go where its advocates want it to go, systematic production and destruction of embryos would be necessary to develop the desired volume and specificity of stem cells. That's why NCER wanted to learn how Nebraskans felt about taxpayers funding the destruction of embryos for research.
Some say that all types of stem cell research should be funded. The poll asked:
How would you prefer that your tax dollars be used for stem cell research?
- Pursue all methods including embryonic stem cell research to see which will be most successful:21 percent. - Pursue only methods such as adult stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos:48 percent.
By more than 2-to-1, those who had an opinion preferred the option that does not destroy embryos.
Political candidates say they are being told that they will put themselves out on the extremist fringe if they say no to embryonic stem cell research. The poll asked:
Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports using tax dollars to fund stem cell research that requires destruction of embryos?
Somewhat more likely: 13 percent.
Much more likely: 9 percent. Combined more likely: 22 percent.
Somewhat less likely: 15 percent.
Much less likely: 46 percent. Combined less likely: 61 percent.
You may view the poll results at NCER's Web site, www.EthicalResearch.net. What you'll see is a clear consensus against using tax dollars for embryo-destructive stem cell research.
Doctor states case for stem cell work; The potential of the research outweighs social concerns, he says at a lecture.
Nov 12, 2005
(Copyright 2005 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Kevin Cole
Dr. Irving Weissman has a question for those who would ban embryonic stem cell cloning for medical research and treatment: "Which diseases shouldn't we do all we can to cure?"
Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology and Medicine, spoke Thursday as part of the Holland Lecture Series, presented by the First Unitarian Church of Omaha.
About 400 people heard his lecture, "Stem Cells Meet Politics and Religion: The Promise of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine," at the Scott Conference Center on the University of Nebraska at Omaha campus.
Stem cells are the body's basic building blocks and essentially fall into two major categories: embryonic stem cells, which can grow into any tissue, and adult stem cells, which are less flexible.
Using a slide-show presentation, Weissman patiently walked the audience through the variety of treatments derived from adult stem cells. Those include treatments for cancers and blood disorders.
Adult stem cells, however, have their limitations and can develop abnormalities that can hinder their medical usefulness.
"If someone tells you adult stem cell research is the same as embryonic research -- it's not if you do the research," Weissman said.
Research on embryonic stem cells, first isolated in 1998, is controversial because the only way to obtain them for research is to destroy an embryo. President Bush in 2001 severely limited federal money for studies involving human embryonic stem cells.
Weissman said it's time to advance embryonic stem cell research because there is growing evidence that people suffering from diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and various cancers could be helped.
Chip Maxwell, executive director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, attended Thursday's lecture and took exception with Weissman's assertion that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are responsible for the deaths of people who could have been helped.
"Our position is that you can't destroy one human life in order to help another," Maxwell said.
Weissman said not everyone agrees that a cloned embryo is a human life. That is something, he said, yet to be decided by society.
"Before it was OK to say, 'Well, let's not do this research,' because we couldn't see the benefits," Weissman said. "Now we can see the benefits."
Embryos are human, not disposable waste Jun 4, 2005
(Copyright 2005 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Chip Maxwell
Harold W. Andersen (May 29 column) said President Bush and some members of Congress who oppose destruction of fertility-clinic embryos for stem cell research are "poorly informed." Andersen seemed to figuratively shout in frustration that it's only "excess" embryos at issue.
We opponents get it, Mr. Andersen. What we reject is his underlying premise that you're only human if you're wanted.
Mr. Andersen said President Bush "staged a show at the White House" by surrounding himself with children who, as embryos in fertility-clinic freezers, were adopted and thereby rescued from the waste bin.
The president understands that in-vitro fertilization is reproduction. He invited the children to his office to demonstrate that frozen embryos are human beings, not disposable byproducts to be recycled as research material.
Mr. Andersen dismissed adoption of these embryos as something "rare." It's amazing that any are adopted given the all-out pressure to destroy them for their stem cells.
Check out www.snowflakes.org, the Web site of Snowflakes Embryo Adoption. There are people ready to find adoptive families for these tiny human beings on ice.
A society honest about human life would not produce "excess" embryos in the first place and would not leave embryos in frozen storage. With the demand of prospective adoptive couples for newborns, it would be exhilarating to see what could be accomplished if the dominant voices in our culture would champion embryo adoption.
Mr. Andersen dismissed as "irrelevant" the point that all of us started as embryos. That's the core of this debate. An embryo is more than a clump of cells. As the science of embryology states, an embryo is a new human being on a specific developmental track.
From its creation, an embryo is a self-directed human being progressing through stages of development, a process that continues throughout life. Our humanity does not depend on where we are on the human developmental track. Some people never reach certain stages of development. That doesn't make them less human.
Mr. Andersen said America "will be offered this sop: a bill funding research using stem cells derived from adults and umbilical cords." He went on to say that "the consensus of expert opinion in the research community is that such stem cells offer substantially less opportunity for productive research than do stem cells from the excess embryos."
Reality check: All the success so far in stem cell research has come from adult and umbilical cord stem cells.
A child's skull was repaired using stem cells from her own fat. A former paraplegic walks with a walker after stem cells from inside her nose were placed at the base of her spinal cord. A man with Parkinson's disease enjoyed five years of remission after treatment with stem cells from his brain. A mother was cured of leukemia with stem cells from the umbilical cord of her newborn child. At the Nebraska Medical Center, adult stem cell transplants have saved many cancer patients.
Not bad for a "sop."
Meanwhile, some embryonic stem cell research advocates tout biased polls "proving" that scientists and the public embrace embryonic stem cells and thumb their noses at adult stem cells.
Why are some people relentlessly trying to snuff adult stem cell research? Because they are pro-choice on abortion and they're worried that society will decide that yes, embryos are human beings, and no, we shouldn't destroy them for research, especially when adult stem cells are available. Pro-choicers want people to ignore adult stem cells and the humanity of embryos and focus only on the potential of embryonic stem cell research.
In March, Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska sent a fundraising letter to members of Nebraskans for Research, which supports embryonic stem cell research. Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska promised to "mobilize pro-choice voters" in favor of Nebraskans for Research's position.
Presumably, the response will be positive since the president of NFR is also the board chairman of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs.
Mr. Andersen concluded by complaining that the president ducked the "real" issue: Are we going to discard these "excess" embryos or use them for research?
The president gave a direct answer by presenting former frozen embryos alive and well in his office: Defrost them and let them resume living.
Stem cell expert makes case; Judiciary Committee to consider bills that would limit research
Mar 9, 2005
(Copyright 2005 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Nichole Aksamit
LINCOLN -- As one legislative committee prepared to hear testimony on three research-related bills, an internationally known researcher of adult stem cells advised state senators and scientists not to prohibit embryonic stem cell research in Nebraska.
Dr. Catherine Verfaillie -- a native Belgian, lifelong Catholic and director of the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota -- briefed senators and reporters Tuesday at the State Capitol.
She later gave a scientific lecture for researchers and others at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.
Her message was the same for all: Both adult and embryonic stem cell research have the potential to lead to treatments for human health conditions. And, because neither is likely to be a slam-dunk for all ailments, both should be pursued.
Verfaillie led a 2002 study that suggested certain adult stem cells may have flexibility similar to embryonic stem cells. Some who oppose research that involves the destruction of embryos have cited that study as a reason to ban embryonic stem cell research and focus efforts on nonembryonic stem cells.
Verfaillie, however, said she firmly believes both kinds of research are needed.
The institute in Minnesota conducts research with both kinds of stem cells in adjacent labs with different funding sources. She said insights gleaned from one type of research advance the other. And the institute is doing head-to-head comparisons to understand which is the better cell -- embryonic or adult -- when it comes to treating particular diseases.
She said that, although embryonic stem cells have the potential to create all cell types, adult stem cells have limitations. They are more difficult to isolate in older people -- so the prospect of using your own stem cells to heal yourself diminishes with age.
And, although adult stem cells from bone-marrow transplants have been successful in creating new blood cells in cancer patients, Verfaillie said scientists still have "a very difficult time" making heart muscle or other cells from adult stem cells.
"It is most likely that five or 10 years from now if you want to treat disease A, embryonic stem cells will be better. But if you want to treat disease B, adult stem cells will be better," Verfaillie said.
Chip Maxwell, executive director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, said Verfaillie's arguments still don't address his group's concern: human embryos destroyed in the name of science.
"No matter how much promise or potential she can stack up," he said, "in our view, you're destroying human beings to get that."
Verfaillie's advice came two days before three bills related to stem cell research were to be heard by the Judiciary Committee:
- LB 437, introduced by Sen. Adrian Smith of Gering, would ban the creation of human clones and the creation of embryonic stem cell lines through somatic cell nuclear transfer.
- LB 750, introduced by Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln, would ban the use of state funds for nontherapeutic research that destroys a human embryo -- effectively banning creation of embryonic stem cell lines.
- LB 580, introduced by Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, would ban human reproductive cloning but allow somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryonic stem cell lines.
All three are scheduled for 1:30 p.m. hearings on Thursday, also the annual lobby day at the Legislature for groups of abortion opponents.
"I grew up Catholic and am Catholic," said Verfaillie, who plans to leave Minnesota to establish a similar stem cell institute at Catholic University Leuven in Belgium.
She said she draws the line at human reproductive cloning -- the creation of human clones -- but supports the creation of stem cell lines from leftover embryos at fertilization clinics.
If embryonic stem cell research is banned in Nebraska, Nebraskans probably could still benefit from any health advances that come from such research -- which is being and will be conducted elsewhere. But Verfaillie said the state stands to lose researchers and the economic development that comes with research.
Sanford Goodman of Nebraskans for Research -- a group that supports embryonic stem cell research -- said a ban also would undermine the quality of medical education that future Nebraska students will receive.
Immigrant tuition backed; Plan would give grads of Nebraska high schools in-state rates
(skip to final paragraph for NCER reference) Mar 6, 2005
(Copyright 2005 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Bill Hord
LINCOLN -- Nebraska regents want to make it easier for undocumented immigrant graduates of Nebraska high schools to get a college education.
The regents adopted a resolution Saturday endorsing the idea of allowing such students, if they are trying to become permanent residents of the state, to pay resident tuition rates.
The resolution avoided direct endorsement of Legislative Bill 239, which is pending in the Nebraska Legislature. That proposal would allow undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition if they have lived in Nebraska for three years prior to graduating from high school and have applied for permanent residency.
"This resolution is a statement of our general support of the concept," said Regent Chuck Wilson of Lincoln, who offered the resolution. "The law would have to be passed by the Legislature."
The regent resolution and the legislative bill are intended to address the need to educate a growing number of children of illegal aliens who go to Nebraska high schools.
"These kids are not lawbreakers," said Regent Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons. "Their parents were."
Two regents -- Jim McClurg of Lincoln and Drew Miller of Papillion -- abstained from voting because of concerns about the potential consequences of treating immigrants as residents.
McClurg said the regents did not know enough about the proposal's impact on immigration to take a position. Miller said the lower tuition rate could send the wrong message to those who might consider entering the country illegally.
Under current federal law, undocumented aliens are considered nonresidents of the United States. A congressional proposal, called the "Dream Act," would make five-year resident illegal immigrants eligible for federal college financial aid and remove restrictions about paying in-state tuition.
In other developments at Saturday's Board of Regents meeting:
-
Chairman Howard Hawks announced the formation of a committee to study equity issues among minority faculty members. The committee, to be headed by Regent Randy Ferlic, will review trends of the ethnic and racial composition of the faculty and recommend policy changes.
- Chip Maxwell, director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, appeared to oppose a recently announced program to use embryonic stem cells at the University of Nebraska Medical Center for liver and lung research. Regents did not discuss the issue.
Big night for research ethics group; More than 600 attend a $50-a- plate fund-raiser for the Nebraska organization.
Jan 14, 2005
(Copyright 2005 Omaha World-Herald Company)
by Nichole Aksamit
Politicians from across the state, prominent physicians and the Catholic bishop from Lincoln were among more than 600 at an Omaha hotel Thursday night to hear the son of a former president speak.
Michael Reagan headlined the event, a fund-raiser for a Nebraska group that opposes embryonic stem cell research, with a speech perhaps more about religion, politics and his own life.
The 59-year-old conservative talk radio host scored laughs and applause with anecdotes about attending a Catholic school that he called "St. John's Miniature Alcatraz," meeting his Nebraska-bred wife and rekindling relationships with God and his father, the late President Ronald Reagan.
The event at the Holiday Convention Centre was to be a sort of "coming out" for the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research.
The nonprofit group believes that research involving the destruction of life at any stage -- even embryonic -- is unethical. It was formed more than two years ago after news surfaced that some University of Nebraska Medical Center researchers were using brain cells from aborted fetuses.
Executive Director Chip Maxwell said the group contemplated disbanding last summer but instead hired him and set its sights on raising money and spreading its message. Reagan's speech -- a $50-a- plate, $1,000-a-table dinner -- was a start.
Reagan said he believes that his father, who succumbed to Alzheimer's disease last year, was firmly against embryonic stem cell research.
He criticized his brother, Ron Reagan Jr., for "politicizing" the issue in a speech at the Democratic National Convention; scolded the news media for not telling more about the benefits of the alternative, adult stem cell research; and chided those who tout embryonic stem cell research as the key to future medical miracles.
Maxwell, a former state senator and a current Douglas County Board member, told the audience that adult stem cell research already is helping people with leukemia and other diseases. He said embryonic stem cell research, however, presents ethical problems and "appears to be a dead end" because of its failure in animal trials.
Sanford Goodman takes a different view and says he's not alone.
The Omahan is chairman of the public policy and advocacy committee of Nebraskans for Research, which supports embryonic stem cell research.
Goodman said Thursday afternoon that the full potential of such research can't be determined overnight and that it would be foolish to dismiss it based on findings from unreplicated animal experiments.
Goodman said most embryonic stem cell research involves cells from the leftovers at fertilization clinics -- eggs fertilized in a petri dish and never placed in the womb -- which would be destroyed if not used for research.
"We have the opportunity to use those stem cells to greatly advance our knowledge of human biology and advance our ability to find cures and treat diseases," he said. "Those who oppose this research are standing in the way of the future development of medicine."
Brand New Web Site Launched! Take a look around...it's all brand new. Our web
presence has received a major facelift -- and will help us continue to
create
and strengthen relationships with friends and supporters world-wide. ›Read more...
