Man’s hopes and thoughts and customs have changed. Our powers and achievements have become fantastic. Progress- it is one face of our country and our community which defines how we choose to live.
Yet today we face obstacles that challenge our dreams- specifically the struggle to overcome and end the devastating effects of MS.
The announcement of a virtuous idea can not exhaust our responsibility. It is a call that ignites hope. It reaches out from our heritage and our natural instinct.
The time to be free begins today. It is our right to live as one. It starts from the will of a group of free minded people. They share in the idea. They become engaged by a spirit of daring, the desire to break new ground, the promise in the legacy of our forbearers.
With a sense of style and sense of grace contact with the goal will remain true and genuine. Daily we are reminded that we can do better, that we can be better, and we can raise ourselves up and those around us. The quest to succeed is as common a theme and as old as civilization- the quest for equality, diversity and freedom.
In pursuit of our passion we drive onward. A journey fueled by human dignity as the source of purpose, human liberty as the source of action, the human mind as the source of invention.
It is good that we try until all of our capacities have been explored. Strength is in the faith, devotion, and energy brought forth to meet this challenge. Not as a creed or fixed promise but in an attitude and the belief in justice and in community.
MS is a story that needs to be told. More importantly, it is the story of hope, of promise, of possibility. It is a story with a great finish. It is a story that is cherished, that is revered. It is inside all of us, in our minds and in our hearts.
From:
Mitsubishi Motors MS 150 Team Webpage
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Letter from Senator Diane Feinstein re: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
Dear Mr. Austin:
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for embryonic stem cell research. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
At the dawn of this new era in medicine, I believe it is important to support medical research that offers hope for those living with serious diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis. While I oppose human reproductive cloning, I strongly support stem cell research, which has the potential to spur medical innovation and new medical treatments.
On April 11, 2007, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (S. 5), passed the Senate by a vote of 63-34. I was proud to be an original cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill. It would also allow Federal funding for research conducted on stem cell lines left over from invitro fertilization clinics, which I believe is an important step in advancing biomedical research. This legislation must now be reconciled with the House of Representatives "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007," (H.R. 3), which passed by a vote of 253-174 on January 11, 2007. I will keep your support for this legislation in mind as I continue to advocate for passage of a final version of this legislation.
Again, thank you for writing. I have included my floor statement on Stem Cell research for your review. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
In Support of S. 5
March 23, 2007
"Mr. President, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 that is known as S. 5. It is really the only bill of the two that will allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research.
I want to particularly thank Senators Harkin and Specter, Kennedy and Hatch, who have been in the leadership of this issue for the past several Congresses. I also want to point out, in the case of the distinguished Senator from Utah, he is very pro-life. I have listened to him over these many years. I have listened to the real wisdom he has espoused on this issue. I hope more people will pay attention to him because I think he is right with respect to this issue.
On August 9, 2001 -- that is 6 years ago -- President Bush limited Federal research funding to 78 stem cell lines already in existence. Nearly 6 years have passed, and in that time two things have happened. First, most of these 78 stem cell lines are no longer available for scientific work. Many lines developed abnormalities and mutations as they aged. Only 21 lines are available today. These lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and therefore are useless for research in humans. They do not have the diverse genetic makeup that is necessary to find cures that benefit all Americans, and researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases.
This was, in fact, the President's policy. It is now clearly established that policy does not work, that policy is moribund. Yet the President will not relent and Federal research on stem cells cannot go forward. Secondly, public support for stem cell research -- full-blown stem cell research -- has grown. Sixty-one percent of Americans responding to a poll in January of this year support embryonic stem cell research. This is also a bipartisan issue. Fifty-four percent of Republicans in an ABC News poll also support embryonic stem cell research. The majority of the American public support this bill. We know the current policy is handcuffing our scientists and is not allowing this research to move forward. So the solution is obvious. We should pass this bill.
I think the time has come for the President to come to this realization, and it is my hope he will see he has been mistaken.
The bill we are debating today offers a compromise. This bill will not destroy any embryo that would not otherwise be destroyed or discarded. It will allow promising research to move forward. It would end the impasse. It would take off the handcuffs.
President Bush had the opportunity to take a step forward 9 months ago when the House and Senate sent him the Castle-DeGette bill, on which this bill is based. He made it the first and, so far, only veto of his Presidency. My colleagues and I made a commitment that we would raise this issue again and again -- as long as it takes. Today we are fulfilling that promise. We know this bill will one day become law -- if not this year, then next year; if not next year, then the following year.
The majority of the American people, the majority of the scientific community, other nations, many of our States have embraced the promise of stem cell research. The President can stand in the way of such an overwhelming consensus for only so long.
With every passing week, the inevitability of this legislation grows clearer. Just since the President's veto, officials from his own administration have acknowledged the shortcomings of the current policy. More research has demonstrated the unique promise of pluripotent, multipurpose stem cells. States and private institutions are forging ahead without Federal support.
Finally, and importantly, more Americans are waiting for cures and treatments for catastrophic diseases. This is a very large lobby indeed.
So today we have another opportunity to move hope forward. The two bills before us today present a very stark choice. Only one bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, embraces all forms of stem cell research. This legislation provides a simple and straightforward way to provide American scientists and researchers with immediate access to the most promising stem cell lines.
It states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell research, no matter when they were created.
While opponents have suggested this bill will lead us down a slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are numerous and, in fact, strict. Let me give you some examples.
The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment. The people donating the embryos must provide written consent. The donors may not be compensated for their donation. Finally, it must be clear that the embryos would otherwise be discarded.
This legislation will not allow Federal funding to be used to destroy embryos. With restrictions in place, over 400,000 embryos could become available while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical standards.
Let's be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact, and everyone would agree these embryos have no future. When President Bush adopted his ill-fated policy in 2001, he allowed lines already in existence to be used for federally funded research because "the life-or-death decision" had already been made.
The same is true here. In terms of the basic ideology of the President's earlier policy, this bill is no different than the earlier policy because the life-or-death decision has already been made with respect to these particular embryos. These will never be implanted. They will never be adopted. They will never be used.
This bill has not been held up because it is flawed. There is nothing wrong with this bill. The bill has been held up because of ideology, not policy.
There is a clear scientific consensus on this issue. Embryonic stem cell research has been endorsed by 525 organizations and 80 Nobel prize laureates. These groups and these experts represent the entire panoply of American health care, the young and the old: the American Association of Retired Persons, which we know as AARP; the Society of Pediatric Research; the American Geriatrics Society.
They represent a wide range of medical experts. The American Medical Association supports this bill. The American Academy of Nursing supports this bill.
They are from varying regions in the country: the University of California system, the University of Kansas, the University of Arizona, the University of Chicago, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
They represent patients struggling with a wide variety of afflictions: the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Lung Cancer Alliance, the Arthritis Association, the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
They represent a variety of religious faiths, including the Episcopal Church and the National Council of Jewish Women.
These groups represent a variety of patients, medical disciplines, and religious faiths. They are from all over this country, and they all support expanding stem cell research. This consensus now even includes Bush administration officials. Last month, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni testified this:
From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that we find ways and the Nation finds a way to go full-speed across adult and embryonic stem cells equally.
That is a pretty unambiguous statement from the man who heads the Institutes of Health.
The Senate and the President should listen to the scientists who best understand this issue and give them access to the stem cell lines that successful research demands.
Jennifer McCormick of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics has said:
The United States is falling behind in the international race to make fundamental discoveries in related fields.
It is time to address and reverse that sentiment.
In a letter to President Bush, Nobel laureates called the discoveries made thus far by stem cell researchers a significant milestone in medical research.
They go on to say that:
Federal support for the enormous creativity of the United States biomedical community is essential to translate this discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases.
They are not alone. Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, and Laurence S.B. Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego recognize the promise and the need for embryonic stem cell research. These esteemed researchers have said:
We want to be very clear. The most successful demonstrated method for creating the most versatile type of stem cells capable of becoming many types of mature human cells is to derive them from human embryos.
This is the science.
You can quote a scientist here or a scientist there who will differ with that, but the bulk of people in this field worldwide believe as this statement reflects.
As Lucian V. Del Priore of Columbia University said:
This is important and exciting work.
It is time we use the wisdom of these respected scientists and embrace the promise of biomedical research using embryonic stem cells.
Scientists have learned more about stem cells -- how they work, how they may one day be used for cures -- since we last considered this issue, I guess some 10 months ago. This past August, scientists from the University of Edinburgh used embryonic stem cells from an African clawed frog to identify a protein that is critical to the development of liver cells and insulin-producing beta cells. This could lead to a better understanding of diabetes and liver disease as well as new treatments.
Then during the next month or two, in October, scientists at Novocell, a San Diego biotech company, announced the development of a process to turn human embryonic stem cells into pancreatic cells that produce insulin. This could be another significant step toward using stem cells to treat diabetes.
In September last, researchers used human embryonic stem cells to slow vision loss in rats suffering from a genetic eye disease that is similar to macular degeneration in humans. Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in people aged 55 and over in the world. It affects more than 15 million Americans. This research means stem cells could one day be used to restore vision in many of these patients. Just think of that: fifteen million people who are surely going to go blind, and that blindness might be stopped.
In March, a team at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA used embryonic stem cells in mice to a treat rare degenerative disorder called Sandhoff's disease. This condition, which is similar to Tay-Sachs disease, destroys brain cells. The mice treated with stem cells enjoyed a 70-percent longer lifespan, and the onset of their symptoms was delayed. The stem cells migrated throughout the brains of the mice and they replaced damaged nerve cells. No one ever thought that could be done before. This suggests that embryonic stem cells may effectively treat this disease as well as other genetic neurological conditions, including Tay-Sachs.
So all of this work is just beginning. Scientists will now work to translate these promising advances into cures for humans, and such a feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem cells. Unless the President's policy is overturned, these lines will not be available, and without access to additional stem cell lines, the cures and treatments will never move from mice to humans.
Many States, frustrated with Federal gridlock and the loss of their best scientific minds, are moving forward. I am particularly proud of my State of California. In 2004, California voters, by a whopping margin, approved Proposition 71 and created the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. That institute is spending $3 billion over 10 years supporting promising research conducted in California. This work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human reproductive cloning, something we can all agree is immoral and unethical. Over $158 million in research grants has now been approved, making California the largest source of funding for embryonic stem cell research in America.
Promising projects include creating liver cells for transplantation at the University of California at Davis, developing cellular models for Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, at the Salk Institute. This will give a better understanding of how these diseases work and yield possible treatments, as will work at Stanford to more effectively isolate heart and blood cells from embryonic stem cells. These are only some of the more than 100 labs in California now working.
One might say: All right, why not let the private sector and the State address this problem? Why do we need Federal research? I want to concentrate a few moments on that. The actions of California and the actions of other private and public institutions do not substitute for Federal funding and a standardized national policy. Much of this debate focuses on stem cell lines themselves, but scientists need much more to succeed. They need expensive equipment and lab space in which to work and collaborate, and there is the rub. For scientists working on embryonic stem cells, this means taking great care not to intermingle their work on approved stem cell lines with those that are not approved. If Federal funds, for example, built a lab or bought a freezer, a petri dish, or a test tube, these resources cannot be used on research involving lines not included in the President's policy. As I said, there are no lines left in the President's policy. Therefore, they can't be used. This has created a logistical nightmare.
The duplication and careful recordkeeping required is an enormous disadvantage faced by the U.S. stem cell scientists. Many have gone to extreme lengths to ensure they follow these regulations. The stakes are high: Any mistake could result in the loss of Federal grants for a researcher's lab.
Let me give a few examples. University of Minnesota researcher Meri Firpo buys one brand of pens for her lab that receives Government money and another brand of pens for use in her privately funded lab. This helps her ensure that a ballpoint pen purchased with Federal grant money is not used to record results in her lab that works with stem cell lines not covered by the President's policy.
UCLA is using a complex accounting system to allocate Federal and private dollars in careful proportion to the amount of time a researcher spends working on either approved or unapproved stem cell lines. A stem cell researcher, Jeanne Loring at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA, designed labels for all her equipment: Stem cells in a green circle denote equipment that can be used with all stem cell lines, while equipment bought with Federal funds is marked with a red circle with a slash through it.
At the University of California in San Francisco, biologist Susan Fisher worked for 2 years to cultivate stem cell lines in a privately funded makeshift lab. Unfortunately, the power -- the electricity -- in her lab failed. She couldn't move her lines into the industrial-strength freezers in the other lab because they were federally funded. The stem cell lines on which she had worked for 2 years melted and were gone. So 2 years of work was out the window because of this ridiculous situation.
Money that could otherwise be devoted to research is instead used to build labs and purchase duplicate equipment, and the cost is significant. Scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA, didn't want to fall behind international stem cell leaders, so they established a second lab. They had to buy a $52,000 microscope, two incubators which cost $7,500, and a $6,500 centrifuge. They already owned this equipment. They had the equipment, but they couldn't use it because that equipment was published with Federal dollars. To me, this makes no sense. I don't think we can afford this kind of wasteful duplication with what are very precious research dollars. Our scientists should be focused on investigating disease, not worrying about who pays for their pens or their test tubes. So bottom line: We need a reasonable Federal policy that includes funding for viable stem cell lines.
I don't need to tell my colleagues about the famous faces and the average people who are behind this legislation. It is nearly 70 percent of the population. I don't have to tell my colleagues about Michael J. Fox, who showed the Nation the true face of Parkinson's disease. I don't have to tell my colleagues about First Lady Nancy Reagan, who has spoken out in support of this and other legislation, or Christopher Reeve, who lived his life refusing to accept that his spinal cord injury would never be healed, or Dana Reeve, who stood by her husband and then tragically lost her own battle with cancer. Just as important are the millions of Americans who may not have a famous face, but put everything they have in us in the hope that we will do the right thing. The right thing is pretty simple. It is to give them a chance to live -- to live.
That is what we are talking about. I don't think there is any other piece of legislation that more involves the right to life than this piece of legislation.
These are people who are going to die. They live with catastrophic, often terminal diseases; they suffer immeasurably. Suddenly, there might well one day be a cure, or their disease might be put in remission. The kind of research might be done that can mend a broken spinal cord. How can we not support this? How can we look at the facts? Life or death is not involved for the embryo that is used. That is exactly what this legislation is. These are embryos that have no chance at life. All we ask is that they be put to work to protect human life. It seems to me that is not too much.
I hope this bill not only will pass here by a substantial margin but that some way, somehow, the 67 votes we need in this body to overturn a Presidential veto will be present. I think the American people demand no less.
I yield the floor."
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for embryonic stem cell research. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
At the dawn of this new era in medicine, I believe it is important to support medical research that offers hope for those living with serious diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis. While I oppose human reproductive cloning, I strongly support stem cell research, which has the potential to spur medical innovation and new medical treatments.
On April 11, 2007, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (S. 5), passed the Senate by a vote of 63-34. I was proud to be an original cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill. It would also allow Federal funding for research conducted on stem cell lines left over from invitro fertilization clinics, which I believe is an important step in advancing biomedical research. This legislation must now be reconciled with the House of Representatives "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007," (H.R. 3), which passed by a vote of 253-174 on January 11, 2007. I will keep your support for this legislation in mind as I continue to advocate for passage of a final version of this legislation.
Again, thank you for writing. I have included my floor statement on Stem Cell research for your review. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
In Support of S. 5
March 23, 2007
"Mr. President, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 that is known as S. 5. It is really the only bill of the two that will allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research.
I want to particularly thank Senators Harkin and Specter, Kennedy and Hatch, who have been in the leadership of this issue for the past several Congresses. I also want to point out, in the case of the distinguished Senator from Utah, he is very pro-life. I have listened to him over these many years. I have listened to the real wisdom he has espoused on this issue. I hope more people will pay attention to him because I think he is right with respect to this issue.
On August 9, 2001 -- that is 6 years ago -- President Bush limited Federal research funding to 78 stem cell lines already in existence. Nearly 6 years have passed, and in that time two things have happened. First, most of these 78 stem cell lines are no longer available for scientific work. Many lines developed abnormalities and mutations as they aged. Only 21 lines are available today. These lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and therefore are useless for research in humans. They do not have the diverse genetic makeup that is necessary to find cures that benefit all Americans, and researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases.
This was, in fact, the President's policy. It is now clearly established that policy does not work, that policy is moribund. Yet the President will not relent and Federal research on stem cells cannot go forward. Secondly, public support for stem cell research -- full-blown stem cell research -- has grown. Sixty-one percent of Americans responding to a poll in January of this year support embryonic stem cell research. This is also a bipartisan issue. Fifty-four percent of Republicans in an ABC News poll also support embryonic stem cell research. The majority of the American public support this bill. We know the current policy is handcuffing our scientists and is not allowing this research to move forward. So the solution is obvious. We should pass this bill.
I think the time has come for the President to come to this realization, and it is my hope he will see he has been mistaken.
The bill we are debating today offers a compromise. This bill will not destroy any embryo that would not otherwise be destroyed or discarded. It will allow promising research to move forward. It would end the impasse. It would take off the handcuffs.
President Bush had the opportunity to take a step forward 9 months ago when the House and Senate sent him the Castle-DeGette bill, on which this bill is based. He made it the first and, so far, only veto of his Presidency. My colleagues and I made a commitment that we would raise this issue again and again -- as long as it takes. Today we are fulfilling that promise. We know this bill will one day become law -- if not this year, then next year; if not next year, then the following year.
The majority of the American people, the majority of the scientific community, other nations, many of our States have embraced the promise of stem cell research. The President can stand in the way of such an overwhelming consensus for only so long.
With every passing week, the inevitability of this legislation grows clearer. Just since the President's veto, officials from his own administration have acknowledged the shortcomings of the current policy. More research has demonstrated the unique promise of pluripotent, multipurpose stem cells. States and private institutions are forging ahead without Federal support.
Finally, and importantly, more Americans are waiting for cures and treatments for catastrophic diseases. This is a very large lobby indeed.
So today we have another opportunity to move hope forward. The two bills before us today present a very stark choice. Only one bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, embraces all forms of stem cell research. This legislation provides a simple and straightforward way to provide American scientists and researchers with immediate access to the most promising stem cell lines.
It states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell research, no matter when they were created.
While opponents have suggested this bill will lead us down a slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are numerous and, in fact, strict. Let me give you some examples.
The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment. The people donating the embryos must provide written consent. The donors may not be compensated for their donation. Finally, it must be clear that the embryos would otherwise be discarded.
This legislation will not allow Federal funding to be used to destroy embryos. With restrictions in place, over 400,000 embryos could become available while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical standards.
Let's be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact, and everyone would agree these embryos have no future. When President Bush adopted his ill-fated policy in 2001, he allowed lines already in existence to be used for federally funded research because "the life-or-death decision" had already been made.
The same is true here. In terms of the basic ideology of the President's earlier policy, this bill is no different than the earlier policy because the life-or-death decision has already been made with respect to these particular embryos. These will never be implanted. They will never be adopted. They will never be used.
This bill has not been held up because it is flawed. There is nothing wrong with this bill. The bill has been held up because of ideology, not policy.
There is a clear scientific consensus on this issue. Embryonic stem cell research has been endorsed by 525 organizations and 80 Nobel prize laureates. These groups and these experts represent the entire panoply of American health care, the young and the old: the American Association of Retired Persons, which we know as AARP; the Society of Pediatric Research; the American Geriatrics Society.
They represent a wide range of medical experts. The American Medical Association supports this bill. The American Academy of Nursing supports this bill.
They are from varying regions in the country: the University of California system, the University of Kansas, the University of Arizona, the University of Chicago, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
They represent patients struggling with a wide variety of afflictions: the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Lung Cancer Alliance, the Arthritis Association, the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
They represent a variety of religious faiths, including the Episcopal Church and the National Council of Jewish Women.
These groups represent a variety of patients, medical disciplines, and religious faiths. They are from all over this country, and they all support expanding stem cell research. This consensus now even includes Bush administration officials. Last month, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni testified this:
From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that we find ways and the Nation finds a way to go full-speed across adult and embryonic stem cells equally.
That is a pretty unambiguous statement from the man who heads the Institutes of Health.
The Senate and the President should listen to the scientists who best understand this issue and give them access to the stem cell lines that successful research demands.
Jennifer McCormick of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics has said:
The United States is falling behind in the international race to make fundamental discoveries in related fields.
It is time to address and reverse that sentiment.
In a letter to President Bush, Nobel laureates called the discoveries made thus far by stem cell researchers a significant milestone in medical research.
They go on to say that:
Federal support for the enormous creativity of the United States biomedical community is essential to translate this discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases.
They are not alone. Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, and Laurence S.B. Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego recognize the promise and the need for embryonic stem cell research. These esteemed researchers have said:
We want to be very clear. The most successful demonstrated method for creating the most versatile type of stem cells capable of becoming many types of mature human cells is to derive them from human embryos.
This is the science.
You can quote a scientist here or a scientist there who will differ with that, but the bulk of people in this field worldwide believe as this statement reflects.
As Lucian V. Del Priore of Columbia University said:
This is important and exciting work.
It is time we use the wisdom of these respected scientists and embrace the promise of biomedical research using embryonic stem cells.
Scientists have learned more about stem cells -- how they work, how they may one day be used for cures -- since we last considered this issue, I guess some 10 months ago. This past August, scientists from the University of Edinburgh used embryonic stem cells from an African clawed frog to identify a protein that is critical to the development of liver cells and insulin-producing beta cells. This could lead to a better understanding of diabetes and liver disease as well as new treatments.
Then during the next month or two, in October, scientists at Novocell, a San Diego biotech company, announced the development of a process to turn human embryonic stem cells into pancreatic cells that produce insulin. This could be another significant step toward using stem cells to treat diabetes.
In September last, researchers used human embryonic stem cells to slow vision loss in rats suffering from a genetic eye disease that is similar to macular degeneration in humans. Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in people aged 55 and over in the world. It affects more than 15 million Americans. This research means stem cells could one day be used to restore vision in many of these patients. Just think of that: fifteen million people who are surely going to go blind, and that blindness might be stopped.
In March, a team at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA used embryonic stem cells in mice to a treat rare degenerative disorder called Sandhoff's disease. This condition, which is similar to Tay-Sachs disease, destroys brain cells. The mice treated with stem cells enjoyed a 70-percent longer lifespan, and the onset of their symptoms was delayed. The stem cells migrated throughout the brains of the mice and they replaced damaged nerve cells. No one ever thought that could be done before. This suggests that embryonic stem cells may effectively treat this disease as well as other genetic neurological conditions, including Tay-Sachs.
So all of this work is just beginning. Scientists will now work to translate these promising advances into cures for humans, and such a feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem cells. Unless the President's policy is overturned, these lines will not be available, and without access to additional stem cell lines, the cures and treatments will never move from mice to humans.
Many States, frustrated with Federal gridlock and the loss of their best scientific minds, are moving forward. I am particularly proud of my State of California. In 2004, California voters, by a whopping margin, approved Proposition 71 and created the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. That institute is spending $3 billion over 10 years supporting promising research conducted in California. This work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human reproductive cloning, something we can all agree is immoral and unethical. Over $158 million in research grants has now been approved, making California the largest source of funding for embryonic stem cell research in America.
Promising projects include creating liver cells for transplantation at the University of California at Davis, developing cellular models for Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, at the Salk Institute. This will give a better understanding of how these diseases work and yield possible treatments, as will work at Stanford to more effectively isolate heart and blood cells from embryonic stem cells. These are only some of the more than 100 labs in California now working.
One might say: All right, why not let the private sector and the State address this problem? Why do we need Federal research? I want to concentrate a few moments on that. The actions of California and the actions of other private and public institutions do not substitute for Federal funding and a standardized national policy. Much of this debate focuses on stem cell lines themselves, but scientists need much more to succeed. They need expensive equipment and lab space in which to work and collaborate, and there is the rub. For scientists working on embryonic stem cells, this means taking great care not to intermingle their work on approved stem cell lines with those that are not approved. If Federal funds, for example, built a lab or bought a freezer, a petri dish, or a test tube, these resources cannot be used on research involving lines not included in the President's policy. As I said, there are no lines left in the President's policy. Therefore, they can't be used. This has created a logistical nightmare.
The duplication and careful recordkeeping required is an enormous disadvantage faced by the U.S. stem cell scientists. Many have gone to extreme lengths to ensure they follow these regulations. The stakes are high: Any mistake could result in the loss of Federal grants for a researcher's lab.
Let me give a few examples. University of Minnesota researcher Meri Firpo buys one brand of pens for her lab that receives Government money and another brand of pens for use in her privately funded lab. This helps her ensure that a ballpoint pen purchased with Federal grant money is not used to record results in her lab that works with stem cell lines not covered by the President's policy.
UCLA is using a complex accounting system to allocate Federal and private dollars in careful proportion to the amount of time a researcher spends working on either approved or unapproved stem cell lines. A stem cell researcher, Jeanne Loring at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA, designed labels for all her equipment: Stem cells in a green circle denote equipment that can be used with all stem cell lines, while equipment bought with Federal funds is marked with a red circle with a slash through it.
At the University of California in San Francisco, biologist Susan Fisher worked for 2 years to cultivate stem cell lines in a privately funded makeshift lab. Unfortunately, the power -- the electricity -- in her lab failed. She couldn't move her lines into the industrial-strength freezers in the other lab because they were federally funded. The stem cell lines on which she had worked for 2 years melted and were gone. So 2 years of work was out the window because of this ridiculous situation.
Money that could otherwise be devoted to research is instead used to build labs and purchase duplicate equipment, and the cost is significant. Scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA, didn't want to fall behind international stem cell leaders, so they established a second lab. They had to buy a $52,000 microscope, two incubators which cost $7,500, and a $6,500 centrifuge. They already owned this equipment. They had the equipment, but they couldn't use it because that equipment was published with Federal dollars. To me, this makes no sense. I don't think we can afford this kind of wasteful duplication with what are very precious research dollars. Our scientists should be focused on investigating disease, not worrying about who pays for their pens or their test tubes. So bottom line: We need a reasonable Federal policy that includes funding for viable stem cell lines.
I don't need to tell my colleagues about the famous faces and the average people who are behind this legislation. It is nearly 70 percent of the population. I don't have to tell my colleagues about Michael J. Fox, who showed the Nation the true face of Parkinson's disease. I don't have to tell my colleagues about First Lady Nancy Reagan, who has spoken out in support of this and other legislation, or Christopher Reeve, who lived his life refusing to accept that his spinal cord injury would never be healed, or Dana Reeve, who stood by her husband and then tragically lost her own battle with cancer. Just as important are the millions of Americans who may not have a famous face, but put everything they have in us in the hope that we will do the right thing. The right thing is pretty simple. It is to give them a chance to live -- to live.
That is what we are talking about. I don't think there is any other piece of legislation that more involves the right to life than this piece of legislation.
These are people who are going to die. They live with catastrophic, often terminal diseases; they suffer immeasurably. Suddenly, there might well one day be a cure, or their disease might be put in remission. The kind of research might be done that can mend a broken spinal cord. How can we not support this? How can we look at the facts? Life or death is not involved for the embryo that is used. That is exactly what this legislation is. These are embryos that have no chance at life. All we ask is that they be put to work to protect human life. It seems to me that is not too much.
I hope this bill not only will pass here by a substantial margin but that some way, somehow, the 67 votes we need in this body to overturn a Presidential veto will be present. I think the American people demand no less.
I yield the floor."
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein United States Senator
Saturday, February 10, 2007
ATTITUDE-- a Ron Bird Favorite
"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company ... a church .... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past .... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way... We cannot change the inevitable.
The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude .... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you .... we are in charge of our Attitudes."
Charles Swindoll
The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude .... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you .... we are in charge of our Attitudes."
Charles Swindoll
Things to Remember from and by Ron Bird
1. DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
2. WHAT NOW?
3. WHEN YOU HAVE MS, YOU FORM A PARTNERSHIP WITH IT, AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE THE SENIOR PARTNER.
4. MS COLORS YOUR LIFE, YOU CHOSE THE COLOR!!!
5. IT'S NOT THAT THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL. INSTEAD, THE QUESTION IS WHY ISN'T THE GLASS THE RIGHT SIZE TO HOLD THE AMOUNT OF WATER IT'S GOT?
LEARN TO SIZE YOUR EXPECTATIONS APPROPRIATELY AND THINGS WILL BE BETTER.
Monday, February 05, 2007
How Common Are Neurological Conditions?
Migraine: 121 in 1,000 people
Epilepsy: 7.1 in 1,000 people
Alzheimer's disease: 67 in 1,000 people 65 or older
Parkinson's disease: 9.5 in 1,000 people 65 or older
Autism spectrum disorders: 5.8 in 1,000 children
Cerebral palsy: 2.4 in 1,000 children
Stroke: 10 per 1,000 people
Traumatic brain injury: No prevalence estimates available
MS: 0.9 in 1,000 people
Spinal cord injury: No prevalence estimates available
ALSALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease): 0.04 in 1,000 people
Tourette's syndrome: No prevalence estimates
Epilepsy: 7.1 in 1,000 people
Alzheimer's disease: 67 in 1,000 people 65 or older
Parkinson's disease: 9.5 in 1,000 people 65 or older
Autism spectrum disorders: 5.8 in 1,000 children
Cerebral palsy: 2.4 in 1,000 children
Stroke: 10 per 1,000 people
Traumatic brain injury: No prevalence estimates available
MS: 0.9 in 1,000 people
Spinal cord injury: No prevalence estimates available
ALSALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease): 0.04 in 1,000 people
Tourette's syndrome: No prevalence estimates
Sunday, January 28, 2007
From the Saturday January 27 LA Times
O.C. transit officials rethink contract for troubled Access paratransit program
Veolia Transportation has problems getting to riders on time and getting them to their destinations.
By David Reyes, Times Staff Writer
January 27, 2007
Dorothy Miller was getting blood drawn and a prescription filled when the white Access bus rolled up to Kaiser Permanente in Garden Grove to take her home.
Miller, 86, who doesn't drive and uses a walker, is among thousands in Orange County who rely on the Access paratransit program, paying just $5 for round-trip transportation.
"The Access bus has been a blessing to me," she said after van driver Maria Moser helped her to her seat. "I use it to go shopping, exercise and the doctors."
But seven months after Oak Brook, Il.-based Veolia Transportation, one of the nation's largest transportation companies, took over a $30-million-a-year contract to provide paratransit services in Orange County, Veolia is in trouble.
Drivers have been late with pickups and hazy on destinations, sometimes getting there an hour late or longer, prompting numerous complaints from disabled riders who have missed appointments or been left waiting at hospitals, medical centers and shopping plazas.
The Orange County Transportation Authority has fined Veolia $300,000 for failing to meet contract standards.
"The single biggest issue has been buses being excessively late, in addition to problems due to difficulties with scheduling the buses, and drivers having trouble getting to the pickup points," said Erin Rogers, OCTA manager of transportation services.
In one instance, a blind woman complained about a bus driver who asked her for directions and where to make turns. "Then they couldn't make her appointment because they were late and she was taken home instead," said Christie Rudder, an advocate for the disabled with the Dayle McIntosh Center, a Garden Grove agency that helps those with disabilities, which fielded the woman's complaint.
Arnie Pike, 68, of Placentia, who began using a wheelchair after suffering a stroke 10 years ago, said he recently scheduled a 5:30 p.m. pickup at Cypress College. During a phone call, the dispatcher told him not to worry, that the driver would be there shortly. The bus showed up at 6:45 p.m.
"We think the driver and dispatcher need to be more honest to the people who use this service," he said.
Veolia is under 90-day review by OCTA, which oversees the program and has hired a consultant to examine Veolia's paratransit operations and make a recommendation on Veolia's future to the board in mid-March. Veolia took over from Laidlaw Transportation in July after winning the bid.
The transportation company recently met with OCTA Chairwoman Carolyn Cavecche and pledged to improve its services.
"If Veolia can't fulfill its obligations, OCTA is willing to make some tough choices," Cavecche said, adding that Veolia was selected because its bid was $13 million less than the next-lowest bids and that it promised better bus scheduling than its competitors, including Laidlaw.
"As far as I'm concerned, they have not lived up to the contract," Cavecche said.
OCTA officials could recommend splitting paratransit operations with another company or even rebidding the contract, board members said.
Veolia officials have told the OCTA that they failed to hire enough bus drivers and had problems training them, and experienced scheduling difficulty because of new software.
"I think there were issues that Veolia could have prepared for better, and the preparation also had to do with getting [data] systems working," said Sharon Crenchaw, Veolia's project director in Orange County.
In addition, a majority of Access customers live in and travel to the northern part of the county where most of the hospitals, medical clinics and dialysis centers are located, she said. This means paratransit buses travel where traffic is heaviest.
Crenchaw stressed the sheer size of the paratransit operation and the difficulties of managing a program that picks up 4,500 riders daily, and dispatches more than 230 paratransit buses in an urban area with "very heavy traffic patterns."
"I come from the Washington, D.C., area," Crenchaw said. "Traffic is heavy there, but here, our drivers encounter very heavy traffic patterns that start to peak around 2 p.m."
Laidlaw faced heavy traffic as well but generally had a good record for on-time pickups, OCTA officials said.
Crenchaw said Veolia has tried to be innovative, adding taxis during peak hours and installing new software.
Paratransit services under the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority have five contractors administered through a nonprofit agency that oversees service in 41 cities, an MTA spokesman said. Cost is about $83 million a year.
For months, board members in Orange County have heard complaints from the disabled community about the transportation problems. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, transportation must be provided to riders certified as disabled who live farther than three-quarters of a mile of the nearest public bus stop.
To help keep fares low, funding comes from the state, a federal grant, and a portion of the county's Measure M, a half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax, an OCTA spokesman said.
Greg Winterbottom, a disabled Villa Park resident who helped found the Dayle McIntosh Center and is now on the OCTA board, has jokingly called Access "OCTA's expensive taxi service for the handicapped."
OCTA board members have held long discussions on Veolia's paratransit operation, some suggesting spending more on taxis or finding an alternative system. Under Veolia, OCTA spends about $24.21 per rider, down from $25.76 a year earlier.
OCTA officials say that in Las Vegas the cost per rider is $35.84, Seattle $25.48, and Washington D.C., $23.32.
Supervisor John M.W. Moorlach, who is on the OCTA board, said the program needed evaluation and suggested the board might consider a hybrid program, such as also having a fleet of taxis and exploring the use of existing dispatch services for buses and taxis.
If Laidlaw is called in, the company is ready, said Irwin Rosenberg, Laidlaw's vice president for business development.
Laidlaw also had rider complaints about service, he said. But the company's on-time performance was well above Veolia's, he said.
"Veolia said that they had people who could come in and perform miracles … and be more innovative," Rosenberg said.
"Well, the customers are the ones who are losing on this. They had something that worked, and it doesn't work now."
Veolia Transportation has problems getting to riders on time and getting them to their destinations.
By David Reyes, Times Staff Writer
January 27, 2007
Dorothy Miller was getting blood drawn and a prescription filled when the white Access bus rolled up to Kaiser Permanente in Garden Grove to take her home.
Miller, 86, who doesn't drive and uses a walker, is among thousands in Orange County who rely on the Access paratransit program, paying just $5 for round-trip transportation.
"The Access bus has been a blessing to me," she said after van driver Maria Moser helped her to her seat. "I use it to go shopping, exercise and the doctors."
But seven months after Oak Brook, Il.-based Veolia Transportation, one of the nation's largest transportation companies, took over a $30-million-a-year contract to provide paratransit services in Orange County, Veolia is in trouble.
Drivers have been late with pickups and hazy on destinations, sometimes getting there an hour late or longer, prompting numerous complaints from disabled riders who have missed appointments or been left waiting at hospitals, medical centers and shopping plazas.
The Orange County Transportation Authority has fined Veolia $300,000 for failing to meet contract standards.
"The single biggest issue has been buses being excessively late, in addition to problems due to difficulties with scheduling the buses, and drivers having trouble getting to the pickup points," said Erin Rogers, OCTA manager of transportation services.
In one instance, a blind woman complained about a bus driver who asked her for directions and where to make turns. "Then they couldn't make her appointment because they were late and she was taken home instead," said Christie Rudder, an advocate for the disabled with the Dayle McIntosh Center, a Garden Grove agency that helps those with disabilities, which fielded the woman's complaint.
Arnie Pike, 68, of Placentia, who began using a wheelchair after suffering a stroke 10 years ago, said he recently scheduled a 5:30 p.m. pickup at Cypress College. During a phone call, the dispatcher told him not to worry, that the driver would be there shortly. The bus showed up at 6:45 p.m.
"We think the driver and dispatcher need to be more honest to the people who use this service," he said.
Veolia is under 90-day review by OCTA, which oversees the program and has hired a consultant to examine Veolia's paratransit operations and make a recommendation on Veolia's future to the board in mid-March. Veolia took over from Laidlaw Transportation in July after winning the bid.
The transportation company recently met with OCTA Chairwoman Carolyn Cavecche and pledged to improve its services.
"If Veolia can't fulfill its obligations, OCTA is willing to make some tough choices," Cavecche said, adding that Veolia was selected because its bid was $13 million less than the next-lowest bids and that it promised better bus scheduling than its competitors, including Laidlaw.
"As far as I'm concerned, they have not lived up to the contract," Cavecche said.
OCTA officials could recommend splitting paratransit operations with another company or even rebidding the contract, board members said.
Veolia officials have told the OCTA that they failed to hire enough bus drivers and had problems training them, and experienced scheduling difficulty because of new software.
"I think there were issues that Veolia could have prepared for better, and the preparation also had to do with getting [data] systems working," said Sharon Crenchaw, Veolia's project director in Orange County.
In addition, a majority of Access customers live in and travel to the northern part of the county where most of the hospitals, medical clinics and dialysis centers are located, she said. This means paratransit buses travel where traffic is heaviest.
Crenchaw stressed the sheer size of the paratransit operation and the difficulties of managing a program that picks up 4,500 riders daily, and dispatches more than 230 paratransit buses in an urban area with "very heavy traffic patterns."
"I come from the Washington, D.C., area," Crenchaw said. "Traffic is heavy there, but here, our drivers encounter very heavy traffic patterns that start to peak around 2 p.m."
Laidlaw faced heavy traffic as well but generally had a good record for on-time pickups, OCTA officials said.
Crenchaw said Veolia has tried to be innovative, adding taxis during peak hours and installing new software.
Paratransit services under the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority have five contractors administered through a nonprofit agency that oversees service in 41 cities, an MTA spokesman said. Cost is about $83 million a year.
For months, board members in Orange County have heard complaints from the disabled community about the transportation problems. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, transportation must be provided to riders certified as disabled who live farther than three-quarters of a mile of the nearest public bus stop.
To help keep fares low, funding comes from the state, a federal grant, and a portion of the county's Measure M, a half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax, an OCTA spokesman said.
Greg Winterbottom, a disabled Villa Park resident who helped found the Dayle McIntosh Center and is now on the OCTA board, has jokingly called Access "OCTA's expensive taxi service for the handicapped."
OCTA board members have held long discussions on Veolia's paratransit operation, some suggesting spending more on taxis or finding an alternative system. Under Veolia, OCTA spends about $24.21 per rider, down from $25.76 a year earlier.
OCTA officials say that in Las Vegas the cost per rider is $35.84, Seattle $25.48, and Washington D.C., $23.32.
Supervisor John M.W. Moorlach, who is on the OCTA board, said the program needed evaluation and suggested the board might consider a hybrid program, such as also having a fleet of taxis and exploring the use of existing dispatch services for buses and taxis.
If Laidlaw is called in, the company is ready, said Irwin Rosenberg, Laidlaw's vice president for business development.
Laidlaw also had rider complaints about service, he said. But the company's on-time performance was well above Veolia's, he said.
"Veolia said that they had people who could come in and perform miracles … and be more innovative," Rosenberg said.
"Well, the customers are the ones who are losing on this. They had something that worked, and it doesn't work now."
The OCTA answer to the previous post!
Thank you so much for your email. OCTA is working directly with the contractor to resolve these problems. This means the staff is going to Veolia and working hand in hand with the Veolia staff. Some very positive staff changes have been made by Veolia within this last week. We are already seeing the effects of these changes. This morning at 7:00 am the contractor was at 96.8% for on time performance. Now this is raw data and will change slightly as the data is adjusted. The contract states 94%. The dispatching procedures and schedules have been revised to address all of the concerns that you stated. Now this won’t all be fixed over night but it is moving in a positive direction.
We had the programmer from Trapeze out and he adjusted settings which have speeded up the system. Trapeze is used by most large transit agency’s. We are in the process of cleaning up the schedule change that occurred in December. We will see a positive effect of this next week. Moving Mr. Jerry Dullack into scheduling as the Manager is one of the changes I mentioned. Also, Veolia has hired a Manager over dispatch which the effects have been immediate. Additional staff changes will be made as needed in the very near future.
I agree with you that most of us are not real coherent early in the morning. Because they did not get the schedules until almost 8:00pm the night before they were having to make over 700 phone calls. They did not want to call customers too late so some were made in the morning. The problem was caused by trying to fix run templates for efficiency. This has been corrected so that the customer knows at the time of the booking what time the bus will be there.
OCTA is always concerned when our customers are not getting the proper service they deserve. Please be assured we have monitored the service from day one. The OCTA staff monitors the service on a daily service. We hired the contractor to do the job and tried to stay out of there way. OCTA staff is now working as a team with Veolia to smooth things out. We are now moving in the right direction. We will be glad to come to your next meeting, if you like, to explain all of the changes that have been made. Please be assured we are working very hard to give good customer service.
We had the programmer from Trapeze out and he adjusted settings which have speeded up the system. Trapeze is used by most large transit agency’s. We are in the process of cleaning up the schedule change that occurred in December. We will see a positive effect of this next week. Moving Mr. Jerry Dullack into scheduling as the Manager is one of the changes I mentioned. Also, Veolia has hired a Manager over dispatch which the effects have been immediate. Additional staff changes will be made as needed in the very near future.
I agree with you that most of us are not real coherent early in the morning. Because they did not get the schedules until almost 8:00pm the night before they were having to make over 700 phone calls. They did not want to call customers too late so some were made in the morning. The problem was caused by trying to fix run templates for efficiency. This has been corrected so that the customer knows at the time of the booking what time the bus will be there.
OCTA is always concerned when our customers are not getting the proper service they deserve. Please be assured we have monitored the service from day one. The OCTA staff monitors the service on a daily service. We hired the contractor to do the job and tried to stay out of there way. OCTA staff is now working as a team with Veolia to smooth things out. We are now moving in the right direction. We will be glad to come to your next meeting, if you like, to explain all of the changes that have been made. Please be assured we are working very hard to give good customer service.
Email to OCTA Thursday January 25, 2007
I was informed that the contract with Violia might be in serious jeopardy. I would like to speak candidly about this development if it is indeed true. I believe there just might be an easier and less costly manner of achieving the desired result without having to endure the re-invention of the wheel. My observation of the January 8 Board of Directors Meeting left me with the sense that the Board was grappling with the issue and they weren’t aware of the root causes of many of the problems. The Trapeze software MAY be part of the problem? Is it? Is it simply a training problem? Will a new service provider be in any better position to master the software’s idiosyncrasies? Why did the Call-Center terminals slow down? What changed? Why? Whatever changed needs to be undone! Recover and/or revert to the previous system! It wasn’t perfect but it was much better than the current bottleneck! Contrary to popular belief, systems can regress!!
As was said during our face-to-face meeting at the Multiple Sclerosis Society, “We want OCTA to succeed in this endeavor!” There are some basic rules of Customer Service, etiquette, respect and common courtesy that OCTA needs to re-enforce. Little things like don’t call the customer by their first name! They are Mr. X or Ms Y. Do not call a customer at 6:50am to tell them the scheduled departure window when the request was made more than 48 hours earlier. I know fully able-bodied persons that can’t function at that hour let alone some that are disabled and/or senior citizen members of the community. Think about who the customer is. Think about their limitations. Then act accordingly! I don’t get the sense that there is anyone watching over the process in real time! Proactive management prevails, but when that model fails there is no reactive model to fall back on!
I maintain the opinion that this CAN be done! And, I have noticed a lot more cooperative chatter on the radios while riding the ACCESS bus. I deem that to be a step in the right direction.
Can you tell me this minute how many customers are still waiting for pickups with 30 minute windows that have expired? Can anyone tell me? Does anyone know and are they working to ensure that the customer whose window expires next is serviced within the 30 minute constraint? That’s a radio call I haven’t heard. Nor is one that questions a driver that is running late.
As was said during our face-to-face meeting at the Multiple Sclerosis Society, “We want OCTA to succeed in this endeavor!” There are some basic rules of Customer Service, etiquette, respect and common courtesy that OCTA needs to re-enforce. Little things like don’t call the customer by their first name! They are Mr. X or Ms Y. Do not call a customer at 6:50am to tell them the scheduled departure window when the request was made more than 48 hours earlier. I know fully able-bodied persons that can’t function at that hour let alone some that are disabled and/or senior citizen members of the community. Think about who the customer is. Think about their limitations. Then act accordingly! I don’t get the sense that there is anyone watching over the process in real time! Proactive management prevails, but when that model fails there is no reactive model to fall back on!
I maintain the opinion that this CAN be done! And, I have noticed a lot more cooperative chatter on the radios while riding the ACCESS bus. I deem that to be a step in the right direction.
Can you tell me this minute how many customers are still waiting for pickups with 30 minute windows that have expired? Can anyone tell me? Does anyone know and are they working to ensure that the customer whose window expires next is serviced within the 30 minute constraint? That’s a radio call I haven’t heard. Nor is one that questions a driver that is running late.
January 8, 2007 OCTA Board of Directors Meeting
Shirley Cero and I attended today’s OCTA Board of Directors Meeting. It was wrought with some bad vibes. Some of the Directors seemed to present a rather defeatist attitude with respect to Access’s ongoing customer satisfaction and poor performance statistics. It seemed to me that there was an underlying negative attitude toward the ACCESS customer base. Some of the Directors and OCTA staff seemed willing to accept the poor performance and excessive complaints as the norm when dealing with the ACCESS customer base. There were some vague references to, “Throwing money at the problem”, “Those people” and persons with developmental disabilities.
Looking around the room I noted an abundance of officials from a number of cities in the county, media and Orange County officials. Looked like a good opportunity to advocate so….Surprise, surprise… I couldn’t keep my damned mouth shut.
I rose to put a face on the customer, to tell them how important ACCESS is to its customers, that the customer wants them to succeed, to express my belief that the service level could attain a 94% on-time standard. That if “Brown” could make a nation-wide effort to eliminate left turns then OCTA could find a way to better their operational model. That some real-time, root cause analysis and monitoring of the current situation IN THE FIELD would help. And, I offered our help if the OCTA needed it. At least I was able to make a sincere and compassionate statement of our peer’s needs and I don’t think I came across as a person with developmental disability. I also praised Violia and OCTA staff, though not by name, for meeting with us to further our understanding of the current situation.
Hey, at least the LA Times reporter in the room listened and took good notes!
Violia management, including Eric Zandhaus and the General Manager, as well as the OCTA’s Erin Rogers approached me after the meeting to express their gratitude for the willingness to express my opinion during the meeting.
But I am somewhat bothered by the Board’s feeling that it can’t win this one. While I might not agree with all they do-- at least they do. Somehow that seems better than having them stick their collective heads in the sand.
Looking around the room I noted an abundance of officials from a number of cities in the county, media and Orange County officials. Looked like a good opportunity to advocate so….Surprise, surprise… I couldn’t keep my damned mouth shut.
I rose to put a face on the customer, to tell them how important ACCESS is to its customers, that the customer wants them to succeed, to express my belief that the service level could attain a 94% on-time standard. That if “Brown” could make a nation-wide effort to eliminate left turns then OCTA could find a way to better their operational model. That some real-time, root cause analysis and monitoring of the current situation IN THE FIELD would help. And, I offered our help if the OCTA needed it. At least I was able to make a sincere and compassionate statement of our peer’s needs and I don’t think I came across as a person with developmental disability. I also praised Violia and OCTA staff, though not by name, for meeting with us to further our understanding of the current situation.
Hey, at least the LA Times reporter in the room listened and took good notes!
Violia management, including Eric Zandhaus and the General Manager, as well as the OCTA’s Erin Rogers approached me after the meeting to express their gratitude for the willingness to express my opinion during the meeting.
But I am somewhat bothered by the Board’s feeling that it can’t win this one. While I might not agree with all they do-- at least they do. Somehow that seems better than having them stick their collective heads in the sand.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Friday, October 20, 2006
An OCTA Experience
I. On September 22, 2006 I sent the following text to the OCTA (Orange County Transit Authority) via an email:
Sometimes it is better to just state the facts, so here we go!
I scheduled 5 trips on the Orange County Transit Authority (ACCESS) service this week.
Trip 1, Tuesday 9/19:
I requested they get me to the Tustin Senior Center before 12:30 pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 11:43am and 12:13pm. The bus arrived at 1158 picked me up and arrived at my destination at 12:12pm. Just as advertised!!
Trip 2, Tuesday 9/19:
I requested that ACCESS pick me up at the Senior Center after 4:00pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 4:15 and 4:45pm. Then at 4:40 I called to check on the status of the ride. After spending 27 minutes on hold, Regina asked me to call back in 20 minutes if they still hadn’t shown up. Let’s see, if I just spent 27 minutes on hold, sit around another 20 minutes then call back for another 27 minute hold. We just stalled another hour! So I called my wife and she graciously changed her plans and came to my aid. As she was pulling into the Center my bus showed up. The time was 5:15pm. Oh, they’ve got a new automated service, you can check the status of your ride without speaking to an operator! I tried it and got nowhere! YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PIN before it is useable. So how do you get this PIN? I’ve found no direction or instructions to get one!!
Trip 3, Wednesday 9/20:
I requested an arrival at the destination before 9:30am. I was scheduled to be picked up between 8:36 and 9:06am. At 8:57am two ACCESS busses showed up for the trip (I guess they were trying to make up for the previous day)! I arrived at my destination at 9:10am. So I guess this was a satisfactory trip, of course someone could have used the services of the second bus.
Trip 4 Thursday 9/21:
I requested arrival at the destination before 9:30am (I had a 10:30 appointment), The pickup was scheduled to occur between 9:09am and 9:39am. At 9:30 I called ride check and got Regina again. She advised me that the driver had an ETA of 9:59am. At 10:00 (the bus had not arrived) my wife left her office to come deliver me to my doctor’s appointment. I arrived there at 10:25.
Trip 5 Thursday 9/21:
I requested to depart the doctors office after 12:00pm. The trip was scheduled for 12:15 to 12:45. I was picked up at 12:38 and arrived at my destination at 12:58. Another successful trip!
All in all, OCTA ACCESS failed to meet its Service Level Commitments 40% of the time! Ok, I’m being too negative. My years of service management taught me to always make a positive statement so… OCTA met its Service Level Commitments 60% of the time.
So how do you get a PIN for the automated ride check?
Several months ago the system seemed to be fullfilling its stated Service Level Commitments, what happened?
If a customer makes a driver wait 5-minutes they are marked as a no-show. How long must the customer wait? What are the consequences?
Why did I not receive a call advising me of the delay?
Frank Austin
II. The response to this email was:
“Mr. Austin,
Thank you for your email regarding your recent experience with the OCTA ACCESS service. We apologize for the inconvenience these service failures have caused you and your wife. As I am sure you are aware, ACCESS operations transitioned to a new service provider, Veolia Transportation, in July. OCTA and Veolia are working diligently to improve service and minimize the occurrence of service failures.
Please review the following information, which address the questions included in your email:
1 . PIN for automated ride check: OCTA recently implemented and has been testing the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. You may use your ACCESS ID number as your password the first time you use the IVR system. After entering the system, you may continue to use your password, or change the number, if you so desire. You may also contact OCTA Eligibility, Customer Relations, or an ACCESS reservation operator for assistance with using the IVR system.
2. Service level commitments: Veolia Transportation has not consistently met OCTA's services standards. Veolia has been required to submit a thirty and sixty day plan to remedy these issues.
3. On-time performance and consequences: Vehicles must arrive within the designated 30-minute pick-up window or it is considered a missed trip. If a vehicle does not arrive within 60 minutes after the end of the pick-up window, it is considered a service delivery failure. The contract with Veolia Transportation includes penalties for service delivery failures.
4. Calls for late trips: It is OCTA's expectation that customers be notified if a vehicle is delayed. You should have received a telephone call advising of the delays for trips to and from, as outlined in your email.
Again, I apoloize for your incoveniences these past weeks. I hope this information answers your questions and we invite you to continue to share your comments with us.
Thank You,”
Sometimes it is better to just state the facts, so here we go!
I scheduled 5 trips on the Orange County Transit Authority (ACCESS) service this week.
Trip 1, Tuesday 9/19:
I requested they get me to the Tustin Senior Center before 12:30 pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 11:43am and 12:13pm. The bus arrived at 1158 picked me up and arrived at my destination at 12:12pm. Just as advertised!!
Trip 2, Tuesday 9/19:
I requested that ACCESS pick me up at the Senior Center after 4:00pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 4:15 and 4:45pm. Then at 4:40 I called to check on the status of the ride. After spending 27 minutes on hold, Regina asked me to call back in 20 minutes if they still hadn’t shown up. Let’s see, if I just spent 27 minutes on hold, sit around another 20 minutes then call back for another 27 minute hold. We just stalled another hour! So I called my wife and she graciously changed her plans and came to my aid. As she was pulling into the Center my bus showed up. The time was 5:15pm. Oh, they’ve got a new automated service, you can check the status of your ride without speaking to an operator! I tried it and got nowhere! YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PIN before it is useable. So how do you get this PIN? I’ve found no direction or instructions to get one!!
Trip 3, Wednesday 9/20:
I requested an arrival at the destination before 9:30am. I was scheduled to be picked up between 8:36 and 9:06am. At 8:57am two ACCESS busses showed up for the trip (I guess they were trying to make up for the previous day)! I arrived at my destination at 9:10am. So I guess this was a satisfactory trip, of course someone could have used the services of the second bus.
Trip 4 Thursday 9/21:
I requested arrival at the destination before 9:30am (I had a 10:30 appointment), The pickup was scheduled to occur between 9:09am and 9:39am. At 9:30 I called ride check and got Regina again. She advised me that the driver had an ETA of 9:59am. At 10:00 (the bus had not arrived) my wife left her office to come deliver me to my doctor’s appointment. I arrived there at 10:25.
Trip 5 Thursday 9/21:
I requested to depart the doctors office after 12:00pm. The trip was scheduled for 12:15 to 12:45. I was picked up at 12:38 and arrived at my destination at 12:58. Another successful trip!
All in all, OCTA ACCESS failed to meet its Service Level Commitments 40% of the time! Ok, I’m being too negative. My years of service management taught me to always make a positive statement so… OCTA met its Service Level Commitments 60% of the time.
So how do you get a PIN for the automated ride check?
Several months ago the system seemed to be fullfilling its stated Service Level Commitments, what happened?
If a customer makes a driver wait 5-minutes they are marked as a no-show. How long must the customer wait? What are the consequences?
Why did I not receive a call advising me of the delay?
Frank Austin
II. The response to this email was:
“Mr. Austin,
Thank you for your email regarding your recent experience with the OCTA ACCESS service. We apologize for the inconvenience these service failures have caused you and your wife. As I am sure you are aware, ACCESS operations transitioned to a new service provider, Veolia Transportation, in July. OCTA and Veolia are working diligently to improve service and minimize the occurrence of service failures.
Please review the following information, which address the questions included in your email:
1 . PIN for automated ride check: OCTA recently implemented and has been testing the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. You may use your ACCESS ID number as your password the first time you use the IVR system. After entering the system, you may continue to use your password, or change the number, if you so desire. You may also contact OCTA Eligibility, Customer Relations, or an ACCESS reservation operator for assistance with using the IVR system.
2. Service level commitments: Veolia Transportation has not consistently met OCTA's services standards. Veolia has been required to submit a thirty and sixty day plan to remedy these issues.
3. On-time performance and consequences: Vehicles must arrive within the designated 30-minute pick-up window or it is considered a missed trip. If a vehicle does not arrive within 60 minutes after the end of the pick-up window, it is considered a service delivery failure. The contract with Veolia Transportation includes penalties for service delivery failures.
4. Calls for late trips: It is OCTA's expectation that customers be notified if a vehicle is delayed. You should have received a telephone call advising of the delays for trips to and from, as outlined in your email.
Again, I apoloize for your incoveniences these past weeks. I hope this information answers your questions and we invite you to continue to share your comments with us.
Thank You,”
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act
Proposition 1C is the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
Proposition 46 was the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002
Proposition 1C is a $2.85 Billion Bond Measure.
Proposition 46 was a $2.1 Billion Bond Measure.
Proposition 1C includes a $345 Million Multifamily Housing Program.
Proposition 46 included a $1037.8 Million Multifamily Housing Program.
Proposition 1C includes a $195 Million Supportive Housing Program.
Poroposition 46 included a $190 Million Supportive Housing Program.
Proposition 1C includes a $135 Million Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
Proposition 46 included a $135 Million Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
Proposition 1C includes $300 Million for the Calhome Program.
Proposition 46 included $108 Million for the Calhome Program.
Proposition 1C includes $200 Million for the Downpayment Assistance Program.
Proposition 46 included $112 Million for the Downpayment Assistance Program.
Proposition 1C includes $100 Million for the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund.
Proposition 1C includes $50 Million for the Emergency Housing Assistance Program.
Proposition 46 included $186 Million for the Emergency Housing Assistance Program.
Proposition 1C includes 1350 Million for infrastructure grants.
Proposition 1C is on the November ballot. Proposition 46 was approved by California voters in 2002.
Proposition 46 was the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002
Proposition 1C is a $2.85 Billion Bond Measure.
Proposition 46 was a $2.1 Billion Bond Measure.
Proposition 1C includes a $345 Million Multifamily Housing Program.
Proposition 46 included a $1037.8 Million Multifamily Housing Program.
Proposition 1C includes a $195 Million Supportive Housing Program.
Poroposition 46 included a $190 Million Supportive Housing Program.
Proposition 1C includes a $135 Million Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
Proposition 46 included a $135 Million Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
Proposition 1C includes $300 Million for the Calhome Program.
Proposition 46 included $108 Million for the Calhome Program.
Proposition 1C includes $200 Million for the Downpayment Assistance Program.
Proposition 46 included $112 Million for the Downpayment Assistance Program.
Proposition 1C includes $100 Million for the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund.
Proposition 1C includes $50 Million for the Emergency Housing Assistance Program.
Proposition 46 included $186 Million for the Emergency Housing Assistance Program.
Proposition 1C includes 1350 Million for infrastructure grants.
Proposition 1C is on the November ballot. Proposition 46 was approved by California voters in 2002.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
RUSSIAN ROULETTE ANYONE??
Where oh where has my ACCESS bus gone!
Sometimes it is better to just state the facts, so here we go!
I scheduled 5 trips on the Orange County Transit Authority (ACCESS) service this week.
Trip 1
I requested they get me to the Tustin Senior Center before 12:30 pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 11:43am and 12:13pm. The bus arrived at 1158 picked me up and arrived at my destination at 12:12pm. Just as advertised!!
Trip 2
I requested that ACCESS pick me up at the Senior Center after 4:00pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 4:15 and 4:45pm. Then at 4:40 I called to check on the status of the ride. After spending 27 minutes on hold, Ragina asked me to call back in 20 minutes if they still hadn’t shown up. Let’s see, if I just spent 27 minutes on hold, sit around another 20 minutes then call back for another 27 minute hold. We just stalled another hour! So I called my wife and she graciously changed her plans and came to my aid. As she was pulling into the Center my bus showed up. The time was 5:15pm. Oh, they’ve got a new automated service, you can check the status of your ride without speaking to an operator! I tried it and got nowhere! YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PIN before it is useable. So how do you get this PIN? I’ve found no direction or instructions to get one!!
Trip 3
I requested an arrival at the destination before 9:30am. I was scheduled to be picked up between 8:36 and 9:06am. At 8:57am two ACCESS busses showed up for the trip (I guess they were trying to make up for the previous day)! I arrived at my destination at 9:10am. So I guess this was a satisfactory trip, of course someone could have used the services of the second bus.
Trip 4
I requested arrival at the destination before 9:30am (I had a 10:30 appointment), The pickup was scheduled to occur between 9:09am and 9:39am. At 9:30 I called ride check and got Ragina again. She advised me that the driver had an ETA of 9:59am. At 10:00 my wife left her office to come deliver me to my doctor’s appointment. I arrived there at 10:25.
Trip 5
I requested to depart the doctors office after 12:00pm. The trip was scheduled for 12:15 to 12:45. I was picked up at 12:38 and arrived at my destination at 12:58. Another successful trip!
All in all, OCTA ACCESS failed to meet its Service Level Commitments 40% of the time! Ok, I’m being too negative. My years of service management taught me to always make a positive statement so… OCTA met its Service Level Commitments 60% of the time. FYI I recall being hauled on the carpet if my department’s success at fulfilling service level commitments fell below 90%! Private Sector vs Public Sector productivity standards!!
Sometimes it is better to just state the facts, so here we go!
I scheduled 5 trips on the Orange County Transit Authority (ACCESS) service this week.
Trip 1
I requested they get me to the Tustin Senior Center before 12:30 pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 11:43am and 12:13pm. The bus arrived at 1158 picked me up and arrived at my destination at 12:12pm. Just as advertised!!
Trip 2
I requested that ACCESS pick me up at the Senior Center after 4:00pm. I was scheduled to be picked up between 4:15 and 4:45pm. Then at 4:40 I called to check on the status of the ride. After spending 27 minutes on hold, Ragina asked me to call back in 20 minutes if they still hadn’t shown up. Let’s see, if I just spent 27 minutes on hold, sit around another 20 minutes then call back for another 27 minute hold. We just stalled another hour! So I called my wife and she graciously changed her plans and came to my aid. As she was pulling into the Center my bus showed up. The time was 5:15pm. Oh, they’ve got a new automated service, you can check the status of your ride without speaking to an operator! I tried it and got nowhere! YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PIN before it is useable. So how do you get this PIN? I’ve found no direction or instructions to get one!!
Trip 3
I requested an arrival at the destination before 9:30am. I was scheduled to be picked up between 8:36 and 9:06am. At 8:57am two ACCESS busses showed up for the trip (I guess they were trying to make up for the previous day)! I arrived at my destination at 9:10am. So I guess this was a satisfactory trip, of course someone could have used the services of the second bus.
Trip 4
I requested arrival at the destination before 9:30am (I had a 10:30 appointment), The pickup was scheduled to occur between 9:09am and 9:39am. At 9:30 I called ride check and got Ragina again. She advised me that the driver had an ETA of 9:59am. At 10:00 my wife left her office to come deliver me to my doctor’s appointment. I arrived there at 10:25.
Trip 5
I requested to depart the doctors office after 12:00pm. The trip was scheduled for 12:15 to 12:45. I was picked up at 12:38 and arrived at my destination at 12:58. Another successful trip!
All in all, OCTA ACCESS failed to meet its Service Level Commitments 40% of the time! Ok, I’m being too negative. My years of service management taught me to always make a positive statement so… OCTA met its Service Level Commitments 60% of the time. FYI I recall being hauled on the carpet if my department’s success at fulfilling service level commitments fell below 90%! Private Sector vs Public Sector productivity standards!!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Free Lunch?
As I was setting in the lobby of the Saint Joseph’s Pavilion, I couldn’t help but notice the parade of caterers coming into the facility just in time for the lunch hour! I also became aware of the fact that these caterers were arranged by drug companies and were serving lunch to the doctors and their staffs. Now why would they do that?
Monday, September 04, 2006
THE RENEWED MEASURE M
The Renewed Measure M is a 30-year $11.8 billion dollar TAX! IT PROMISES….
Project C: Improvements to I-5, the San Diego Freeway, between the El Toro interchange and SR-73
$627 Million
Project H: SR-91 improvements between I-5, the Santa Ana freeway and SR-57, Orange freeway
$140 Million
Project I: SR-91 improvements between SR-57, Orange freeway, and SR-55, the Costa Mesa freeway
$416 Million
Project J: SR-91 Improvements between SR-55 and the Orange/Riverside county line
$925 Million
Project K: Improvements to I-405, the San Diego freeway, between Los Alamitos and SR-55
$500 Million
Project L: I-405 improvements between SR-55 and I-5
$319.7 Million
Project M: I-605 access improvements
$20 Million
Project O:Regional capacity plan, unmapped improvements
$1132.8 Million
Project P: Regional Traffic Signal Syncronization
$453.1 Million
Project Q: Local fair share program, revenue to cities for local improvements
$2039.1 Million
Project R: High frequency Metrolink service
$1014.1 Million
Project S: Transit extensions to Metrolink
$1000 Million
Project T: Convert Metrolink stations to Regional Gateways that connect Orange County with High-speed Rail Systems
$226 Million
Project U: Expand mobility choices for Seniors and persons with disabilities
$339.8 Million
Project V: Community based transit/circulators
$226.5 Million
Project W: Safe transit stops
$25 Million
Project X: Environmental clean-up
$237.2 Million
Project A: Improvements to I-5, the Santa Ana Freeway, between SR-55 and the ”Orange Crush’
$470 Million
$470 Million
Project B:Improvements to I-5, the Santa Ana Freeway, between SR-55 and SR-133 $300.2 Million
Project C: Improvements to I-5, the San Diego Freeway, between the El Toro interchange and SR-73
$627 Million
Project D: Update and improve key I-5, San Diego Freeway interchanges
$258 Million
$258 Million
Project E: SR-22, Garden Grove Freeway interchange improvements
$122 Million
$122 Million
Project F: Add new lanes to SR-55, the Costa Mesa freeway, between SR-22 and the San Diego freeway I-405
$366 Million
$366 Million
Project G: Add north bound lane on SR-57, Orange freeway between SR-22 and Lambert Road in Brea
$258.7 Million
$258.7 Million
$140 Million
$416 Million
$925 Million
$500 Million
Project L: I-405 improvements between SR-55 and I-5
$319.7 Million
$20 Million
Project N: Freeway service patrol
$150 Million
$150 Million
Project O:Regional capacity plan, unmapped improvements
$1132.8 Million
$453.1 Million
$2039.1 Million
$1014.1 Million
$1000 Million
$226 Million
$339.8 Million
$226.5 Million
Project W: Safe transit stops
$25 Million
Project X: Environmental clean-up
$237.2 Million
Sunday, September 03, 2006
I'M TRYING, AT LEAST I KNOW I WAS HEARD
IN AN EMAIL SENT TO THE PRESIDENT ON MONDAY, AUGUST 28 2006 I WROTE:
MR PRESIDENT, YOUR ADMINISTRATION IS SENDING MIXED MESSAGES; IT'S BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND IT'S MAKING PURELY POLITICAL (REGARDLESS OF THE ETHICS) DECISIONS! And I'm a conservative Republican, imagine my disdane if I were a liberal Democrat.A short time ago you (George Walker Bush) vetoed the Stem Cell Initiative! Ok, I disagree with your decision but your concern for the dignity of life does merit consideration.Now you have voiced your support for your nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration and his decision to approve over-the-counter sales of the morning after, Plan B, birth control pill.Excuse the hell out of me, but didn't you just validate an embryo that has never graced a woman's reproductive system and then supported termination of an embryo that is present in a woman's reproductive system seeking to implant itself in the womb? What's wrong with this logic? MR PRESIDENT, you say you are a compassionate conservative, I don't think so! You're just another politician.Oh yeah, I've got a dog in this hunt! You vetoed hope for millions (myself included)!
Frank Austin
ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 I RECIEVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Mr. Frank Austin
!123^ Lane
!!!!!, 12345-6941
Dear Mr. Austin:
Thank you for writing to President Bush about the complex issue of human embryonic stem cell research. We appreciate hearing your views.
In making a decision on the use of Federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research, the President consulted with scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of the Congress and the Cabinet, and the American people. He spent a great deal of time studying and reflecting on this issue. The result is a balanced policy shaped by deeply held beliefs regarding both the sanctity of human life and the potential of science and medicine to help humanity.
The President's policy has allowed important research to go forward without using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos. There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell research, and the policy places no limits on the research itself. In fact, this Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research -- yet only on stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. The-Administration has also expanded funding for research of human non-embryonic stem cells, which can be drawn with no harm to the donor. This research has already led to treatments for thousands of patients and continues to show great promise. As the President has said, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life. President Bush believes that America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge.
Enclosed is a fact sheet concerning stem cell research and the President's position. Thank you again for writing. President Bush sends his best wishes.
Sincerely,
Darren K. Hipp
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence
Enclosure
FACT SHEET: STEM CELL RESEARCH
MR PRESIDENT, YOUR ADMINISTRATION IS SENDING MIXED MESSAGES; IT'S BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND IT'S MAKING PURELY POLITICAL (REGARDLESS OF THE ETHICS) DECISIONS! And I'm a conservative Republican, imagine my disdane if I were a liberal Democrat.A short time ago you (George Walker Bush) vetoed the Stem Cell Initiative! Ok, I disagree with your decision but your concern for the dignity of life does merit consideration.Now you have voiced your support for your nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration and his decision to approve over-the-counter sales of the morning after, Plan B, birth control pill.Excuse the hell out of me, but didn't you just validate an embryo that has never graced a woman's reproductive system and then supported termination of an embryo that is present in a woman's reproductive system seeking to implant itself in the womb? What's wrong with this logic? MR PRESIDENT, you say you are a compassionate conservative, I don't think so! You're just another politician.Oh yeah, I've got a dog in this hunt! You vetoed hope for millions (myself included)!
Frank Austin
ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 I RECIEVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 25, 2006
Mr. Frank Austin
!123^ Lane
!!!!!, 12345-6941
Dear Mr. Austin:
Thank you for writing to President Bush about the complex issue of human embryonic stem cell research. We appreciate hearing your views.
In making a decision on the use of Federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research, the President consulted with scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of the Congress and the Cabinet, and the American people. He spent a great deal of time studying and reflecting on this issue. The result is a balanced policy shaped by deeply held beliefs regarding both the sanctity of human life and the potential of science and medicine to help humanity.
The President's policy has allowed important research to go forward without using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos. There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell research, and the policy places no limits on the research itself. In fact, this Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research -- yet only on stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. The-Administration has also expanded funding for research of human non-embryonic stem cells, which can be drawn with no harm to the donor. This research has already led to treatments for thousands of patients and continues to show great promise. As the President has said, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life. President Bush believes that America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge.
Enclosed is a fact sheet concerning stem cell research and the President's position. Thank you again for writing. President Bush sends his best wishes.
Sincerely,
Darren K. Hipp
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence
Enclosure
FACT SHEET: STEM CELL RESEARCH
"Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibility that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions .... Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. "
-- President George W. Bush, July 19, 2006
-- President George W. Bush, July 19, 2006
The President's Policy
"In 2001, I spoke to the American people and set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. "
President Bush's policy aims to support stem cell research without creating an incentive for further destruction of human embryos.
- When President Bush took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy announced by the President 5 years ago, this Administration has become the first to make Federal funds available for this type of research. The funding provided is for research on human embryonic stem cell lines that were created before the policy was enacted, where the life-and-death decision had already been made.
- The policy places no limits on the research itself, and there is no ban on human embryonic stem cell research. The only limits in the policy are restrictions on using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos. Only research that uses Federal taxpayer dollars is affected by this policy.
- On July 19,2006, President Bush signed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of2006 to prohibit the trafficking of human fetuses that are created with the sole intent of aborting them to harvest their parts.
- Additionally, the President vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of2005. This bill attempted to overturn the President's balanced policy by compelling American taxpayers to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos in the hope of finding medical benefits for others.
Ethical Principle
"As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. "
- The balance the President struck is a sound one: the Federal Government will provide funding for stem cell research as long as Federal funds do not encourage the further destruction ofliving human embryos.
- This policy lets the government go as far as is ethically permissible in advancing research without crossing a crucial moral line. As the President has said, crossing the line would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both, and to our Nation as a whole.
Exploring the Promise of Stem Cell Research
"America pursues medical advances in the name of life, and we will achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life. "
The Bush Administration was the first to provide Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research and has strongly supported research using stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor. These stem cells have shown therapeutic promise and are already being used in medical treatments.
- The Bush Administration has provided more than $90 million since 2001 for human embryonic stem cell research pursued within clear moral bounds. As of July 2006, more than 700 shipments of eligible stem cell lines have been sent to researchers who requested the lines for use in scientific research, and thousands more are available upon request.
- An estimated $200 million in fiscal year 2006 will be provided for the following types of human non-embryonic stem cell research: adult, umbilical cord blood, placental, and bone marrow. This research has led to treatment for thousands of patients and continues to show great promise.
- The President has established new National Institutes of Health (NIH) stem cell centers of excellence to promote research on stem cells, as well as a National Stem Cell Bank that will reduce costs for researchers using approved lines. The Federal Government is also developing a network of cord blood stem cell banks to help physicians find matches for their patients and to help researchers explore the uses of cord blood stem cells in regenerative medicine .
- The President has directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director ofthe NIH to use all the tools at their disposal to aid the search for stem cell techniques that advance promising medical science in an ethical and morally responsible way.
Unprecedented Support for Medical Research
"In this new era, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life ... .I believe America's scientists have the ingenuity and skill to meet this challenge."
The NIH is giving unprecedented support to the effort to find cures and treatments for disease by supporting the full range of scientific opportunities. For example, funding for research into the following diseases has been dramatically increased:
- Alzheimer's Disease -- $525 million in fiscal year 2001 to $652 million estimated for
fiscal year 2006 - Cancer -- $4.38 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.6 billion estimated for fiscal year 2006
- Diabetes -- $688 million in fiscal year 2001 to more than $1 billion estimated for fiscal year 2006.
- Parkinson's Disease -- $175 million in fiscal year 2001 to $223 million estimated for fiscal year 2006
- Spinal cord injury -- $71 million in fiscal year 2001 to $88 million estimated for fiscal year 2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
LIFE vs DEATH or STEM CELLS vs HEART TRANSPLANTS
So that small cluster of cells that have no defined form are human life. OK, if life begins at conception is it safe to say that life ends when all cell activity ceases? When the cells stop reproducing! Its the same standard isn't it?
Does life end when the heart stops beating? Does it begin when the heart starts beating? Does it begin and end when a person starts and stops breathing? Does it begin and end when the cells stop reproducing? If life starts at conception isn't it safe to say that it doesn't end until all the cells die!
What about a transplanted heart, who's heart is it? Twenty years after the transplant is the DNA in the cells of that heart the donor's or the recipient's?
Just wondering!
Does life end when the heart stops beating? Does it begin when the heart starts beating? Does it begin and end when a person starts and stops breathing? Does it begin and end when the cells stop reproducing? If life starts at conception isn't it safe to say that it doesn't end until all the cells die!
What about a transplanted heart, who's heart is it? Twenty years after the transplant is the DNA in the cells of that heart the donor's or the recipient's?
Just wondering!
Monday, August 28, 2006
OPPOSE The Renewed Measure M
Fom the OCTA's growth management plan!
"ACCESS ridership has grown steadily over the past few years at a rate of more than 10 percent. Ridership in 2002 was 690,000, growing to 840,000 in 2003, and exceeding 1 million in 2004. In the upcoming year, we expect ridership to double what is was in 2002. By law, ACCESS must be provided wherever and whenever fixed route bus service is operated within a ¾ mile corridor of the fixed route network. Because the service is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil right's law, OCTA cannot restrict the growth by placing a cap on the money spent on the program. This has some other transit properties in the position of meeting paratransit program growth by cutting back on their fixed route service. At OCTA, we are fortunate not to be in that position today, but left unchecked, this growth could begin to affect our ability to grow the fixed route program or even maintain the level of service provided today. Funds used to provide ACCESS are the same funds used to provide fixed route service. With only one pot of money, it is imperative that we look at the proper balance between fixed route and ACCESS service to meet the transportation needs for all residents throughout the county."
What about the Measure M funds?
From the Measure M assesment, http://www.octa.net/pdf/mm_assesment.pdf: Sec2:22 (page 27 of 53)
"Of all Measure M program and project line items, only the discount fare for senior citizens and the disabled and GMA's are capped at a set dollar amount and do not grow with sales tax revenue growth."
So.. even though the Measure M sales tax revenue has grown by approximately 33%. Not an additional dime has been directed to senior and disabled transit AND the Renewed Measure M offers the same prospects even with a projected 95% growth in senior citizen population and a 30 year extension of the tax.
The cap is in place and the OCTA intends to maintain it! Just read the assessment of ACCESS above and remember, the citizens of Orange County invested an additional 3+ billion dollars in our transportation system to date, and as we age the system will be seeking a balance between our needs and all other residents throughout the county.
Seems rather reminisant of the Social Security debacle doesn't it. Then it was a social need. Now it is an entitlement program!
"ACCESS ridership has grown steadily over the past few years at a rate of more than 10 percent. Ridership in 2002 was 690,000, growing to 840,000 in 2003, and exceeding 1 million in 2004. In the upcoming year, we expect ridership to double what is was in 2002. By law, ACCESS must be provided wherever and whenever fixed route bus service is operated within a ¾ mile corridor of the fixed route network. Because the service is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil right's law, OCTA cannot restrict the growth by placing a cap on the money spent on the program. This has some other transit properties in the position of meeting paratransit program growth by cutting back on their fixed route service. At OCTA, we are fortunate not to be in that position today, but left unchecked, this growth could begin to affect our ability to grow the fixed route program or even maintain the level of service provided today. Funds used to provide ACCESS are the same funds used to provide fixed route service. With only one pot of money, it is imperative that we look at the proper balance between fixed route and ACCESS service to meet the transportation needs for all residents throughout the county."
What about the Measure M funds?
From the Measure M assesment, http://www.octa.net/pdf/mm_assesment.pdf: Sec2:22 (page 27 of 53)
"Of all Measure M program and project line items, only the discount fare for senior citizens and the disabled and GMA's are capped at a set dollar amount and do not grow with sales tax revenue growth."
So.. even though the Measure M sales tax revenue has grown by approximately 33%. Not an additional dime has been directed to senior and disabled transit AND the Renewed Measure M offers the same prospects even with a projected 95% growth in senior citizen population and a 30 year extension of the tax.
The cap is in place and the OCTA intends to maintain it! Just read the assessment of ACCESS above and remember, the citizens of Orange County invested an additional 3+ billion dollars in our transportation system to date, and as we age the system will be seeking a balance between our needs and all other residents throughout the county.
Seems rather reminisant of the Social Security debacle doesn't it. Then it was a social need. Now it is an entitlement program!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
JUST VENTING
Ok, I've got a burr under my saddle and I just feel like bucking off the issues riding my back.
First is the Orange County Transportation Authority, aka the OCTA. It is now proposing an extension of the 1/2% sales tax for 30 years.
One of the accomplishments the OCTA touts is stabilizing senior and disabled citizen bus fares. Want to guess which segment of the populace saw the highest percentage increase in bus fares during the 14 years the tax has been in collected?
Now the proposed extension will rake in about eleven billion dollars and OCTA is planning to use 1% of that to fund senior and disabled transit programs. Please notice how non-specific that is. It's LIP SERVICE!!! Hey OCTA BULLETIN, BULLETIN, BULLETIN. WE BABY BOOMERS WILL SOON BEGIN RETIRING! WE BABY BOOMERS WILL BE A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE NEXT 30 YEARS!!! YOU ARE NOT THROWING ENOUGH OF OUR MONEY AT THE AGING POPULATION'S NEEDS!
First is the Orange County Transportation Authority, aka the OCTA. It is now proposing an extension of the 1/2% sales tax for 30 years.
One of the accomplishments the OCTA touts is stabilizing senior and disabled citizen bus fares. Want to guess which segment of the populace saw the highest percentage increase in bus fares during the 14 years the tax has been in collected?
Now the proposed extension will rake in about eleven billion dollars and OCTA is planning to use 1% of that to fund senior and disabled transit programs. Please notice how non-specific that is. It's LIP SERVICE!!! Hey OCTA BULLETIN, BULLETIN, BULLETIN. WE BABY BOOMERS WILL SOON BEGIN RETIRING! WE BABY BOOMERS WILL BE A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE NEXT 30 YEARS!!! YOU ARE NOT THROWING ENOUGH OF OUR MONEY AT THE AGING POPULATION'S NEEDS!
Lets see, you have built tollways we can use at additional cost. Car pool lanes most people can't use because they're not in a car pool. Built or refurbished bus stops, whoopee! Improved some freeway interchanges so that the bottlenecks are now someplace else. You've proposed a tunnel through the mountains; for which I'm sure you'll collect a toll. Now hybrid vehicles can use the car pool lanes so even the car poolers have cause to complain. And about that artwork on the walls lining the freeways... ENOUGH ALREADY!!! Hey OCTA, two words...MASS TRANSIT!
The way its going we won't be able to afford the gas to use OCTA's great feats of engineering and infrastructure! Maybe the traffic will diminish to the point that we'll have excess capacity on the highways and byways.
I am suggesting that everyone I know contact their city council and voice their opposition to the renewed Measure M. Before it can be presented to the voters via proposition, more than half the citys in the O.C. must to approve it.
That's enough for today, I'll continue tomorrow. I'll have the drug companys on my mind then!
2006 MS Walk; Irvine, CA
Well, I set a personal goal of $1000.00 for the walk. As of today I’ve got donations to my web page totaling $1710.00 and I’ve got at least $200.00 yet to turn in. I am very happy with the outcome of a fundraising event held at the Vineyard Terrace Trattoria. That event raised $200.00 for the cause and the turnout was far beyond my expectations. I recommend this restaurant to anyone looking for a friendly quality dining experience in the Tustin area. Oh, they also cater special events.
While I am pleased with my personal effort my attempt to form a team and raise $8000.00 failed miserably.
The manager in me motivates me to analyze this performance. So, here’s my story! My sphere of influence has declined to the point that my ability to move people to act is becoming very limited. I can still count on family and close friends but moving beyond that is very tough. I’m not inclined to use Multiple Sclerosis to garner sympathy. I find myself traveling in circles that include fellow MS patients that are more mature and generally retired. That doesn’t strike me as a philanthropic gold mine! I sent 545 email messages to the Tustin and Irvine, CA Chambers of Commerce member companies. The result was one donation and I have an ongoing relationship with them. So…
I am going to, “throw in the towel” on trying to go big and bold. I will recognize the limits of my influence and work within those boundaries. I think I can dedicate myself to my individual effort and forget the team effort. I may even be able to top this year’s total!
While I am pleased with my personal effort my attempt to form a team and raise $8000.00 failed miserably.
The manager in me motivates me to analyze this performance. So, here’s my story! My sphere of influence has declined to the point that my ability to move people to act is becoming very limited. I can still count on family and close friends but moving beyond that is very tough. I’m not inclined to use Multiple Sclerosis to garner sympathy. I find myself traveling in circles that include fellow MS patients that are more mature and generally retired. That doesn’t strike me as a philanthropic gold mine! I sent 545 email messages to the Tustin and Irvine, CA Chambers of Commerce member companies. The result was one donation and I have an ongoing relationship with them. So…
I am going to, “throw in the towel” on trying to go big and bold. I will recognize the limits of my influence and work within those boundaries. I think I can dedicate myself to my individual effort and forget the team effort. I may even be able to top this year’s total!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)