“Latest Stem Cells News”

The use of human embryos for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to the human embryo and are useful to it is patentable, but their use for purposes of scientific research is not patentable

Mr Oliver Brüstle is the holder of a patent, filed on 19 December 1997, which concerns isolated and purified neural precursor1 cells produced from human embryonic stem cells used to treat neurological diseases. According to the information supplied by Mr Brüstle, there are already clinical applications, particularly for patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

On application by Greenpeace e.V., the Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court, Germany) ruled that Mr Brüstle’s patent was invalid in so far as it covers processes for obtaining precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells.
The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), hearing Mr Brüstle’s appeal, decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of, in particular, the concept of ‘human embryo’ which is not defined in Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions2.

Incoming search terms:

A new stem cell ban advanced by the government and under discussion in the conference between the State and Regional governments, would contain the explicit exclusion of projects that study human embryonic stem cells, reports the Luca Coscioni Association.

“A ban such as this,” underlined the association in a note, “has no scientific foundation and is in contrast with the orientation of all of the leading countries in scientific research, now also including the USA. In the original version of the ban, prepared by a group of scientists instituted by the Berlusconi government did not mention the types of stem cell that could be studied and simply suggested to finance quality scientific projects and to not finance those that are simply not valid.”

The association pointed out “that law 40 on assisted fertilization, if it is true that it introduced the absurd ban on the use of embryos destined to rot in refrigerators for scientific research, does not prohibit research on cellular lines that have already been extracted before law 49 or that have been extracted abroad”.

Incoming search terms:

“Behind the embryonic stem cell war is just a war of patents,” led an article in the Osservatore Romano newspaper by Angelo Vescovi, a geneticist at the Niguarda Hospital in Milan and a professor at the Università Bicocca, who has always been against embryonic stem cell research and supporter of ‘law 40’ (recently declared unconstitutional by authorities). “The production of embryonic stem cells by reprogramming adult cells discovered recently is not only better than methods that use human embryos, but is also based on new techniques, which are not protected by patents that currently govern the use of stem cells derived from embryos. Many countries are leaders only in manufacturing embryonic stem cells.”

According to Vescovi, who despite his last name (which means bishop in Italian) is notoriously secular, “numerous labs, billions of dollars in investments, an entire chain of patents, scientific techniques, and entire careers are based on the use of embryos”. “In a situation like this,” observed Vescovi, “it would be naïve to think that all of this could be abandoned in order to embrace different techniques, just because they are more efficient and ethically acceptable.” Basically, “there are too many interests for the use of human embryos to be abandoned without any reaction”.

Vescovi also says that it is “questionable” to present choices made on this basis “as the response of the ‘moral authorities’, who try to create opposition based on alleged moral or religious beliefs which are irrational and unreasonable” .These actions are branded as anti-scientific and against the interests of the sick and require these outdated people to look at the facts”. “This position,” he concluded, “cannot be defended and is distorted, since the facts cannot be denied. Nothing will slow the development and research of possible treatments, the use of human embryos is in no way a solemn necessity.”

MONSIGNOR BETORI, WE MUST CALMLY REEXAMINE THE GALILEO MATTER. IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING

“It is completely possible to calmly and objectively reexamine the Galileo matter, a “tragic reciprocal incomprehension” and a “painful misunderstanding”. As John Paul II said in 1992, the situation not only condemned the founder of modern science, but one of the most incredible minds in the past millennium,” said Monsignor Giuseppe Betori, Archbishop of Florence, during the inaugural ceremony of an international conference on “The Galileo Case”, which opened today in Florence at the Santa Croce church, and was attended by Italian President Giorgio Napolitano.

“Unfortunately, this painful misunderstanding has often been erroneously interpreted as an opposition between science and religion. I hope that this event,” added Betori, “demonstrates that this opinion is unfounded.” Monsignor Betori also hoped that “the important dialogue between faith and reason can be restored and resumed creatively, aiming for a permanent and constructive collaboration between the church and the institutes of scientific research, economic development, and social promotion”.

“Faith does not benefit from a refusal of rationality, but is part of a wider reasoning. Reason, without faith, risks reducing itself to calculations,” said Bertori, “and without a conflict, it is often unaware or blind of sources of important questions, fundamental values, and dramatic human situations. Therefore, dialogue between faith and reason must continue.”

Incoming search terms:

Misleading advertisements by Swedish company Labo promising hair growth and to remove wrinkles have been pulled. The jury of the self-regulating body for the advertising industry (IAP) ordered the advertisements, which were found in two important Italian newspapers, to be stopped since they were “in violation of article 2 of the self-regulatory code for advertisements”.

According to the group’s conclusions (ruling number 13/09), the statements made in the message, as noted by the IAP Surveillance Committee, “did not overstate, they were misleading”.

This is due to the fact that “they were characterized by a technical and scientific language aimed at convincing consumers that Labo products, differently from other similar cosmetic products, are able to obtain miraculous effects against hair-loss and skin ageing.

These claims were not supported by any documentation produced by Labo Europa. “The advertisements in reality were perplexing and called dubious by experts.

The IAP’s ruling followed the request of the Surveillance Committee in March regarding Labo’s advertisements: “‘New frontiers for Labo researchers’, ‘Active Labo vegetable stem cells’, and ‘Losing hair?’ ‘The results of Labo research’ in Corriere della Sera on January 7, 10, and 27 2009, and ‘Wrinkles and hair: these are the applications of Labo vegetable stem cells’, in Repubblica on February 2009, believed to be in violation of articles 2 and 23 of the self-regulatory body’s code” as reported by the Surveillance Commission.

After the Committee’s report, the jury’s responsibility was to evaluate “if the advertisements in question contained statements that could lead consumers to believe that the active substances in the vegetable stem cells could produce effects on skin and hair follicles, which are impossible to produce,” as the Surveillance Commission reported.

For the jury, “the entire context of the information aims to tell the reader that Labo researchers with a patent request have made important discoveries with great effects on the skin and hair. The fact that the information in question is general in nature, scientific in style, and a broad theme that goes beyond single products on the market, imposes specific exactness in the choice of expressions used”.

The jury believes “that in light of available research, the use of vegetable stem cells, although they are totipotent, is incompatible with the effects of human stem cells. If they were, the medical field would have made important developments (for example on tumors) and obviously it would be well known in the international scientific community”.

“Although it can be said” that the use of products derived from vegetable stem cells “can have some non-specific secondary effects that are exclusively cosmetic, it is very clear,” read the sentence, “that the emphatic expression in a context attempting to appear scientific and as Labo says, ‘institutional’, induce the reader, which is mainly ignorant in scientific research (like most educated readers), to believe that vegetable stem cells, as totipotent stem cells, can transfer their properties and contribute to producing relevant effects in humans”. Instead, in the jury’s view, the expression ‘Patent obtained by Swedish researchers’ disputed by the Surveillance Committee “cannot be censured since the company has provided documentation of having done so”.

Incoming search terms: