Breaking Up is Hard to Do

Although scientists are in a long term relationship with federal funding, the two don't always get along.

By now, you are probably well aware of the debate over the use of stem cells for scientific research. For many people suffering from debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research offers hope for a future free from disease. For others, it represents a moral failure to protect embryos that, if implanted, might develop into a human fetus.

While it may seem that the public is divided on this controversial issue, a recent poll commissioned by Research!America shows that 72% of Americans favor expanding embryonic stem cell research.

This debate could rage for a long time, but what impact does it have on medical research? In the Spoonful of Medicine blog, Elie Dolgin points out that the on again/off again relationship between the US government and hESC research has left some scientists wondering if it’s time to break up with the feds and find a new partner.

Several states have attempted to stabilize the funding environment for this controversial research by awarding their own grants to scientists. The most notable example is California, whose Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) had, as of last July, awarded over $1 billion to stem cell researchers at more than 50 institutes.

There are now over 100 new faculty recruits in California who have CIRM funding for their research. Hundreds of CIRM-funded projects have also appeared in peer-reviewed articles published in respected journals.

A report by from the Berkeley Research Group, estimates that 24,000 jobs will be created in California by 2014 as a result of CIRM spending. Concentrating funding in California will also strengthen biotechnology clusters. Such clusters have been shown to encourage business formation and start-up employment as well as to attract venture capital.

While the controversy over hESC research continues to play out, California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin and Maryland have seized on the opportunity to woo scientists. If the new relationships prove fruitful patients and jobseekers may have these states to thank.

Do you know where your elected official stands on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Have you told them where you stand?

Lovely Weather, Rainy Day Reading

Comic credit: PhD Comics

The weather has been lovely this week in Washington, DC. As usual, as soon as we don't need to be at our desks (read: Saturday), the forecast turns gloomy. But, it means we'll have plenty of time to read up on stuff we missed this week. Here are five things we haven't missed (and don't think you should either):

1. Last week's budget deal made its way through Congress this week, and now awaits President Obama's signature. Read these Science stories for more on how the deal affects research funding overall, as well as the NIH and NSF in particular.
2. The royal wedding is just two weeks away, and Cell has an amusing, scientific perspective on the union of Prince William and Kate Middleton. (If you don't have a subscription, there's a summary here.)
3. Looking for a job in public service? This book tells you how you can get paid to change the world.
4. You've heard of the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, but is there a higher education bubble? If so, is it about to burst?
5. Ed Yong explains how breast cells may be able to revert to stem cells. What would that mean for the future of stem cell research?

Finally, if you like Earth Day activities, get a head start this year and submit a photo or video to the Consumer Electronics Association's contest to show what you'll be celebrating. Submissions are due April 17th, so be sure to get yours in soon!

Happy reading and we'll see you next week!

Urge Congress to Pass the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act

Take action now! Urge your representative and senators to pass the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act (H.R. 4808 in the House and S. 3766 in the Senate) this year. The U.S. must continue to invest in embryonic stem cell research and a legislative solution is necessary to ensure that federal funding for this important research is no longer vulnerable to political or ideological challenge.

The 111th Congress must act now: call on Congress to pass a bill in 2010 that explicitly authorizes the NIH to fund hESC research.

Write to your delegation in support of embryonic stem cell research now!

If it looks like a stem cell and smells like a stem cell...

Today, I attended my first Congressional briefing--how exciting! Senator Tom Harkin called together a panel of stem cell researchers to discuss the promise of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. I was excited to attend and see what this whole “politics” thing is really about. I am excited now because I think it’s important for people to understand just what is behind the stem cell debate.

I feel like a lot of misinformation is getting thrown around, particularly relating to what can and cannot be done with stem cells. Senator Wicker (of the infamous Dickey-Wicker amendment) insisted that adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells can be used in place of human embryonic stem cells. But, let me back up a little.

There are three types of stem cells that are being studied today: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells. The important characteristic of embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any cell type in the body, which makes them incredibly powerful tools for research and therapy. Adult stem cells are stem cells that have already begun the process of becoming a certain cell type, so they are no longer pluripotent. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are adult stem cells that have been genetically manipulated to be pluripotent. However, these cells do not behave the same as hESC.

So, many opponents of hESC research say that the latter two types of stem cells are just as good, so why should we do research on hESC? As many of today’s panelists pointed out, iPSC could not have been developed without knowledge from the study of hESC. The point is that the research of hESC and the other two types can’t so easily be segregated. In fact, researchers don’t even segregate themselves. These scientists advocate for research on all three types of stem cells because each type will probably be the best in a particular application. However, because we don’t yet know where each will be the most useful, we must continue to study them all.

One big issue that often gets overlooked is that we’re actually debating whether the government should fund this research. Senator Wicker actually stated that non-taxpayer money could continue to fund hESC research, just not federal money. However, as several of the panelists pointed out, the best research occurs in universities and hospitals, which are primarily funded by government grants. We may not want to admit it, but this is true. The private sector has no interest in the most basic research, on which treatments are built, because it’s not going to make enough money to even break even.

Relatedly, there is a huge fear that young scientists will not pursue hESC research because the funding is just too uncertain right now. Young scientists, in particular, are hugely dependent on government grants to move up the system and build an independent lab. It’s already a tough field without worrying whether your research will be shut down by some injunction or whenever there’s a change in office. These promising scientists might move into different fields or, worse yet, they might take their work overseas, which will really call into question the US’s preeminence in cutting-edge scientific research.

We clearly need legislation clarifying this issue. Tell your representatives and senators that the U.S. must continue to invest in embryonic stem cell research and a legislative solution is necessary to ensure this important research continues uninterrupted.

A=B; B=A

Ever wonder how connected science policy and science research is? About as much as Siamese twins attached at the head. Look at some of the current policy issues that affect research (and vice versa).

Climate Change
Serious health and environmental concerns may be triggered by increases in UV radiation and a depleted ozone layer. A climate change bill passed through the House in ‘09 but is facing obstacles in the Senate. The success or failure of current and future climate change legislation will be influenced by scientists and researchers

Stem Cell Regulation
In ’05 and ’07 the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was passed by Congress but was vetoed by the President. Although President Obama has lifted some barriers to stem cell research, the ‘09 version of the Stem Cell Bill has not passed either branch of Congress.

Genetic Testing
Should consumers have the right to personally administer genetic tests on themselves? In 2008 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) restricted employers and insurance company from discrimination based on results from genetic tests, but no federal policy regulates how the tests are conducted.

The Environment and Offshore Drilling
Researchers and engineers will play an integral role in determining the Congressional legislative reaction to the BP oil spill. In ‘08, a 27 year offshore drilling ban was lifted, which may now be reinstated.

Cloning
The FDA allows animals to be cloned and their meat sold for human consumption - should scientists be allowed to clone human organs for research or transplant? Should we be allowed to clone extinct or endangered species? Legislation addressing such issues will be framed soon.

Health Records and Internet Privacy
Should restrictions exist when accessing health records electronically? Do search engines have the right to save search data? In ‘10 an online privacy bill was presented in the House, which will effect digital privacy laws and medical record storage. Doctors and researchers will dictate these quality of these regulations.

Tax Credit for Research
The Federal Research and Development tax credit was worth $5.6 billion to U.S. companies in ‘09. The credit includes qualified research, computer time-sharing costs, and a percentage of contract research expenses. It is a temporary program that has been renewed annually for 28 years, but whether it becomes part of the permanent tax code has not been decided.

Competitiveness
The 2010 America COMPETES Act is currently being considered by Congress. It will not only affect NSF funding for the next five years, but legislate energy, STEM education, and technology transfer efforts.

No matter what field you're in or what type of research you do, you should work to affect the policies that affect research.


This is Part 3 of 3 in the Science of Advocacy series.
Part 1 - Senator PhD?
Part 2 - Baby don't cry, baby don't get no milk
Part 3 - A=B; B=A

Meet Jamie Vernon, PhD, Molecular Biologist

Today we're introducing you to New Voice Jamie Vernon, Postdoctoral Research Fellow with Dr. Lambowitz at The University of Texas at Austin.

NV: What do you do?

Jamie: I'm a Postdoctoral Fellow, NIH funded, and I work in a lab with Dr. Alan Lambowitz, a biochemist and microbiologist who studies mobile elements. Our lab is working on developing a gene targeting technology that could potentially be used for gene therapy and genetic engineering. This technology is based on something many people consider to be "junk DNA." These days it's becoming more and more evident that there is no such thing as "junk DNA." If it's conserved in our genomes, it probably serves a purpose.

Specifically, we study group II introns from bacteria and eukaryotic organelles. Our lab has determined that these mobile elements can be re-targeted to controllably insert into any DNA sequence. We call these re-targeted introns "targetrons" and they work very well in bacteria for creating gene knock-outs. My job is to make them target genes in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.

NV: How did you get started in outreach/advocacy?

Jamie: I think the Bush administration was a trigger. The policies related to stem cell research motivated me to act. I felt that the Bush administration's stem cell policies were not based on the best science. What was being touted was that we had all these existing stem cell lines, "why couldn't we do the research on those and get the answers we need?" But there were problems with those lines. We need a much broader collection of lines in order to deal with different diseases and different genomic backgrounds. There weren't adequate cell lines to address all these concerns. That's what sucked me in.

Now, climate change has become one area that needs to be addressed,the next calamity in science policy. Actually, there are countless science-related policy issues such as geoengineering, genomic privacy,forensic science and, of course the big one, alternative energy, that need to be carefully deliberated before we make the wrong policy decisions.

NV: What motivates you to do advocacy?

Jamie: My main motivation is that I think that science has so much to offer but it's being limited by the current policies. I truly believe that communicating science and gaining partnerships out in the public will have a positive effect on how much science is getting done.

The climate change bill is a huge issue for me. There's little room for compromise. If we don't act, the consequences down the road could be much greater than any financial investment we have to make today. You can't lose by investing in technologies that improve the environment. If the facts hold true, and I assume they will, the ramifications are dire for everyone.

NV: What limits your ability to do advocacy?

Jamie: I would say that I'm constrained by the same things as young professors. You have to produce to be considered effective. I have no incentive to do advocacy other my personal beliefs and desire to make science commonplace in the public discourse. I'm also limited by the fact that by the time I had graduated I had a family, a wife and a daughter, and that requires personal time. Mainly, I need to have a high level of productivity in order to compete and build my own research career.

There's little out there to support young scientists who wish to do outreach. For these reasons, I'm torn on which direction I want to go full-time. Science advocacy is very rewarding, but I'm a scientist at heart. It's difficult to be successful at both and it's almost an impossible decision to choose one over the other.

NV: Do you think outreach and advocacy should be required of scientists?

Jamie: No, I don't. I think there are enough scientists who care about outreach and have the communication skills to do it; rather, it should be incentivized in some way. If you force them, especially if they don't have the proper communication skills and don't want to be out there, they could make mistakes and say some stupid stuff. You need people who understand the sensitivities of the community and understand the arguments within the community. You need the public to feel that there position is being considered and appreciated when science policy decisions are being made.

Want to learn more about the issues Jamie mentioned above? Check out his blog!


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Stem Cell Awareness Day

Tomorrow – September 23 – is Stem Cell Awareness Day, and researchers are celebrating around the globe. Many research organizations are recognizing this day by taking part in The World Stem Cell Summit, being held at the Baltimore Convention Center in Maryland from September 21-23. This event has gathered leading innovators to discuss a wide range of stem cell-related topics, including the latest in research, medical applications, the role of business in stem cell therapy, and issues of law, ethics, and advocacy surrounding stem cell applications.

The clinical potential for stem cells is still unknown, but science suggests that these cells might aid in treating many diseases afflicting the population. The new administration’s relaxation of funding restrictions on stem cell research earlier this year will help to uncover what potential these cells truly hold. NIH estimates that grants receiving funding for research incorporating stem cells from the National Institute of Health in 2009 will total $2.1 billion. This has important implications for understanding the physiology of these cells and their clinical applications.

In June 2009, Research!America asked Americans if they would like an expansion of funding for embryonic stem cell research; 73% responded favorably. So, if you’d like to lend your voice to the cause, and celebrate Stem Cell Awareness Day, here are some activities for you to consider.

1. Look for local events in which to participate, or plan your own. A great place to start is http://www.stemcellday.com/, but also check with local universities and science organizations.
2. Contact your local paper and let them know why you support stem cell research.
3. Find out if your local representatives support stem cell research. If they do, send them a note to thank them; if not, then send them a letter to tell them why they should.
4. If you’re unsure of what stem cells are and how they work, then educate yourself. Here are some websites to get you started:

http://www.worldstemcellsummit.com/
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/StemCellBasics
http://dels.nas.edu/bls/stemcells/booklet.shtml
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage.asp

Majority of Americans Support Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research continues to fill the news as the science progresses in this exciting field of research. We recently learned that scientists have been able to create teeth using stem cells in mice; and another team activated stem cell genes without using a virus, eliminating some problems with earlier models.

With the public focus shifting away from the controversy of stem cell research and toward the scientific possibilities, New Voices was curious about where Americans stand on the issue of stem cell research. We turned to a recent poll commissioned by Research!America for the Your Congress-Your Health initiative. Here are some of our findings.

Support for federally funded embryonic stem cell research has increased

Summer 2009: 73% of Americans support expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Summer 2005: 57% of Americans supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Support for therapeutic cloning (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) has also increased

Summer 2009: 74% of Americans support therapeutic cloning (SCNT).

Summer 2005: 59% of Americans support therapeutic cloning (SCNT).


What explains the change in public opinion? Do more people understand stem cell research? Has the end of President George W. Bush’s term in office affected public opinion?*

Since 2005, the majority of the public has supported both embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Today, the majority of the public that support this research has grown significantly.

With that in mind, the minority--those opposed to expanded federal funding for stem cell research--is shrinking. Yet the shrinking minority has become even more vocal in their opposition to federal funding. We say this play out in the public comment period for the NIH stem cell guidelines.

In July 2009, President Obama ordered federal agencies to enact the new rules governing federally funded stem cells, updated by the NIH and originally mandated by his Executive Order. According to an ABC News/MedPage Today report written at the time:

"Of 49,000 public comments submitted to the NIH on its proposed guidelines, at least 30,000 were from groups and individuals who flat-out oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

These were determined to be non-responsive the question, said Dr. Kington, [the then acting Director of NIH]. 'We did not ask them if we should fund human embryonic stem cell research. We asked in what circumstances should we fund human embryonic stem cell research.'"

This leaves the majority of Americans who do support expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research with one choice--speak up!! Our voices won't be heard unless we use them.


*Recall that when the 2005 poll was administered, President Bush was holding strong on his restrictions for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Despite President Bush's objections, the public and Congress supported expanding federally funded stem cell research. Congress passed legislation to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research twice, only to be vetoed by President Bush.


This is Part 3 in our series highlighting data from the Your Congress-Your Health poll.
Part 1 - Can you name a living scientist?
Part 2 - Poll Methodology
Part 3 - STEM Education

Friday News Round-up

Image credit: I, Robot

Here it is! This week's edition of the Friday News Round-up. These are some of the articles, opinions and commentaries New Voices enjoyed reading this week. They all make perfect weekend reading.

A powerful and moving story of a capacity consult from NEJM. (subscription required)

An audio report from National Public Radio captures commentary on the latest stem cell research debate--funding the creation of embryonic stem cell lines.

A commentary from the Kansas City Star's Prime Buzz about Senator Sam Brownback's (KS) latest legislation to regulate science.

And finally, the robot takeover takes a big step forward.

Don't forget to vote in the sidebar for the coolest scientist ever!

NIH Final Stem Cell Guidelines (discussed in simpler terms)

On Tuesday, the National Institutes of Health released its final Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research. It's felt like a long time coming.

President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order in March directing the NIH to draft new guidelines to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. In April, the NIH released a draft of the guidelines and solicited comments on the draft guidelines from researchers and the public. The NIH received and reviewed approximately 49,000 comments from scientists, organizations, citizens, and members of Congress. NIH released a summary of the public comments and the NIH responses with the final guidelines. Reviewing the comments alone was a monumental task, and the NIH should be commended for completing the review ahead of schedule.

President Obama signing the stem cell Executive Order

The NIH Guidelines significantly change the research policy environment for the better from the restrictive years of the Bush administration. There is consensus among the scientific community that the final guidelines are a considerable improvement over the draft guidelines released in April. We’ve taken the liberty to summarize the highlights of the final guidelines.

Guidelines allow funding for stem cell lines created before June 30, 2009

A point of contention among the research community with the draft guidelines was the possible exclusion of funding for stem cell lines created before the guidelines were issued. Researchers were worried that years of discoveries would be excluded from further study. Thankfully, the NIH created a system to separate stem cell lines created before and after the effective date of June 30, 2009. A special review committee will review the informed consent procedures and ethical standards of stem cells lines created before the effective date to determine if they meet ethical requirements for funding.

NIH Registry will list approved lines created after June 30, 2009

For stem cell lines created after June 30, 2009, the NIH will establish a registry of approved lines. To be approved, these stem cell lines must (1) be created for reproductive purposes, (2) be donated with voluntary, informed written consent, and (3) provide documentation of other ethical requirements. The registry will take some of the “guess-work” out of using stem cell lines. This, in turn, will allow researchers to spend more time researching, and less time guessing about approval.

Federal funding not allowed for some types of stem cells
To the disappointment of many researchers, the final NIH Guidelines do not allow federal funds to be used for stem cell lines created for research purposes. The NIH determined that the use of stem cells from somatic cell nuclear transfer (also known as therapeutic cloning), for example, “involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged” (NIH Guidelines, 5).

It seems logical that the advocacy focus of the stem cell community will shift to building consensus for somatic cell nuclear transfer. According to Research!America polling, the stem cell community is well on their way—nearly 60% of Americans think therapeutic cloning should be allowed (slides 19, 24).

Stay tuned for more reaction from the scientific community. Share your thoughts about the NIH Guidelines in the comments section!

Call for Comments on NIH Draft Guidelines

Get your bumper sticker at cafepress.com

Show Your Support for Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
Submit Comments on NIH Draft Guidelines

Your voice is needed. NIH is requesting feedback from the public on new guidelines for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and significant opposition is expected.

President Obama's March 9 Executive Order lifted the Bush Administration's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and instructed the NIH to develop guidelines for federal funding. Please submit your comments on the guidelines by May 26 to show your support for federal funding of stem cell research - NIH will be considering both the content and the volume of the comments received.

We have provided sample comment text below that any advocate can submit to NIH. However, we encourage you to modify the comments based on your reasons for supporting stem cell research or expertise you may have in the field. To review the guidelines before you submit your comment, go to: http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009draft.

How to Submit Your Comments - Deadline May 26

• To access the NIH comment form, go to: http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm
• Provide your name, and select 'self' for Affiliation; and
• Copy and paste the text below into the comment box, edit as appropriate, and submit your comments.

Sample Comment Text

It is important for the federal government to support all types of stem cell research. Our nation's leadership in health-related research depends upon such funding, as does the health of its citizens. A majority of Americans (73%) favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research according to a Research!America poll. The final guidelines for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research must ensure that science can progress to the fullest extent possible.

I am pleased that the draft guidelines would expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are eligible for federal funding. However, the final guidelines should allow federal funding of all avenues of stem cell research. Specifically, the guidelines must ensure that any line that is currently eligible for funding should remain eligible so that research underway is not halted. It is also important for the guidelines to support funding of research on stem cell lines derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. The NIH should continue to monitor developments in the field and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.

Executive Order versus Legislation

Yesterday Matt Hanzlik shared his excitement over the executive order signed by President Obama. (Round of applause for Matt’s awesome post as New Voices' first guest blogger!) As exciting as the EO is, there will certainly be stem cell legislation soon as well. This begs the question though: If President Bush’s EO was strong enough to halt research for eight years, isn’t President Obama’s reversal equally powerful?

The short answer is yes. Of course it is. However, for long-term sustainability, congressional legislation is necessary.

The power to give executive orders is not expressly given in the Constitution of the United States. However, since 1789 the power has been derived from two places in Article II:

Section 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Section 3:
...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...

Whereas the Constitution is very clear about legislating the laws of the land in Article I:

Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...

Over time, the balance of power between the three branches of government has shifted in the U.S. government, rendering it less ideally balanced than the founding fathers intended. Due to this shift, it takes a new president to overturn an executive order. To overturn legislation (which is detailed in the Constitution) it takes an act of Congress (a new law) or a ruling that a law is unconstitutional from the Supreme Court.

So for stem cell research to continue without further interruption, legislation is the best policy solution because:

1. Legislation is not time sensitive. As we saw on Monday, all it takes is a new president to change the policy again without a law.
2. Getting a bill through Congress - particularly one that is likely to be controversial - can take a really long time. This gives advocates an opportunity to show elected officials that people support the issue.

For more on this issue and the details surrounding this specific executive order, see Sheryl Stolberg's piece in the New York Times.

An Exciting Day for Science in America

Guest blogger Matt Hanzlik at the inauguration in January.

Monday was an exciting day for science in America. As you know, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order removing the restrictions on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research imposed by President Bush in 2001. But Monday was more than an exciting day—it marked the beginning of a completely new era for science, research, and the possibility of cures for some of society’s most devastating diseases and conditions. I write today as a member of Research!America’s New Voices for Research initiative and as a patient advocate.

My mother was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2005 when I was a senior in high school. As a son, student, member of the Parkinson’s disease community, and member of New Voices for Research, I whole-heartedly thank President Obama for ending the intense ideological influence that has blocked promising science for the past eight years. For patients and families like mine, suffering from debilitating diseases and conditions, time is of the essence. Not only did President Bush’s blockade of stem cell research cause permanent damage to America’s global scientific competitiveness—it stole precious time from those who needed it most. But that was then, and this is now.

By signing the Executive Order, President Obama ended the legitimate frustration of scientists, researchers, medical professionals, patients and their families who courageously seek advancements towards cures. In place of frustration and anguish, scientists, patients and their families can now take comfort knowing that the President of the United States is once again on their side. President Obama’s Executive Order will allow stem cell scientists and researchers the backing of the federal government in their search for cures to debilitating diseases and conditions. We can all have hope for a healthier, brighter tomorrow.

As embryonic stem cell research (eSCR) moves forward with the support of the federal government, resistance and misinformation from groups opposed to eSCR is sure to intensify. Now more than ever, it is our duty as scientists, researchers, medical professionals, and patient advocates to spread the truth about eSCR. We don’t know where potential cures may lie, and for this reason it is important to explore every avenue of stem cell research—cord blood, adult stem cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer, induced pluripotent stem cells, and embryonic stem cells. Don’t ever let someone tell you that adult stem cell research has already cured Parkinson’s disease, for example. I know dozens of people who are still stiff and shaking from Parkinson’s. They are looking to all forms of stem cell research for a potential cure.

Please take a moment this week to join me in thanking President Obama for removing the restrictions on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research and offering hope to so many Americans. You can send the President a thank you note through www.whitehouse.gov/contact. I look forward to the journey towards cures we are about to embark on together.

--Matt Hanzlik is a junior at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. He serves as the National Advocacy & Government Relations Chair for the Student Society for Stem Cell Research (www.ssscr.org).

Additional resource: SSSCR’s statement on the Executive Order