|  |  |  | | | | | TE-RegenMed-StemCell feed | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Last week the blue-ribbon panel reviewing the programs at the $3 billion California stem cell agency released its report. We carried an item on the group's recommendations and asked for comment from our readers, promising to carry them verbatim. The following was submitted by an exective/scientist from a California biotech firm who must remain anonymous.
"The review by the external panel is | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | As of late Sunday afternoon, 25 readers of The Sacramento Bee had filed comments on the newspaper's Web site dealing with the California stem cell agency, ranging from violent opposition to mild disgust with the research effort.
The readers were reacting to two pieces on the front page of the Bee's Sunday Forum section dealing with the agency – one by yours truly and one by Larry Goldstein of | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The California stem cell agency drew attention this morning on the front page of The Sacramento Bee's Sunday opinion section in two articles – one by yours truly and one by a San Diego stem cell researcher.
The scientist is Larry Goldstein of UC San Diego, who has received more than $14 million in grants from CIRM. Goldstein wrote that that "viewed against scientific principles, medical need, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Here is the overview piece on the California stem cell agency that appeared Nov. 28, 2010, on the front page of The Sacramento Bee's Sunday's opinion section. The version in The Bee can be found here. The author is also the publisher/editor of the California Stem Cell Report.
With a review pending, the state's stem cell agency looks for new leadership, new therapies and more money
By David | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment