The New York Times has a sum up:

Navigating between scientists who say that much basic research remains to be done and patients' advocates who want the focus to be on new treatments, the institute says it will spend $823 million on basic stem cell research, $899 million on applied or preclinical research and $656 million on taking new treatments through clinical trials.

A further $273 million is allocated for universities to construct "N.I.H-free" buildings, meaning laboratories in which none of the equipment has been bought with money from the National Institutes of Health. In this way, researchers can be sure of not violating the rules that restrict federal money to research using government-approved stem cell lines.

The San Jose Mercury News focuses on the fact that therapies could be 10 years down the road:

To the dismay of some advocates for the disabled and sick, a draft report issued today by California's $3 billion stem-cell institute says the agency is unlikely to develop cures for diseases or other ailments any time soon.

I can sympathize with that disappointment, but this is not the first time scientists have said this. Tons of basic research remains to be done, which is traditionally funded by the National Institutes of Health. The very reason the CIRM exists is because NIH funding for embryonic stem cell research is hamstrung by President Bush's policy.

Purdue scientists have created the first two-dimensional images s of biological samples using a new mass spectrometry technique called desorption electrospray ionization, or DESI. The technology could help doctors more effeciently detect diseases like cancer.  

The image shows lipids in a rat brain tissue sample. "A" is an optical image, and the others are ion images created by the DESI technology.
(Image courtesy of Angewandte Chemie)

Mood:  quizzical

But where is StemPac? Last year, John Hlinko, who launched the political action committee, promised a crusade against politicians who put "theoretical possible life ahead of actual life," and vowed to support members of congress who support stem cell research. He's been fairly quiet so far on the mid-terms, but perhaps he's planning a sneak attack.

And that's not all. As an encore, the winning team will be paid $1 million more to decode another 100 people's genes, including a bevy of wealthy donors and celebrities. Already accepted for future decoding: Google Inc. co-founder Larry Page, Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul G. Allen and former junk-bond king Michael Milken.

Also:

Foundation officials said other well-known people had agreed to be decoded, including physicist Stephen Hawking and television personality Larry King. In an email, Dr. Hawking's office praised the project. A representative for Mr. King couldn't be reached late Tuesday to confirm his participation.

The National Human Genome Research Institute has had a call out for a machine that could decode one human genome for $1,000. Francis Collins didn't get that for Christmas in 2004 like he hoped, but the $10 million prize should speed up the spectrum of genome decoding efforts.

Scientists decoded a draft composite human genome in 2000, but since all humans share DNA that's about 99.9 percent identical, comparing individual genome will likely be a big step towards meaningful medical discoveries.

Our excellent freelance science writer Elizabeth Svoboda has a story today on our sister site, Wired News, that can satisfy both the scientifically curious and vain among us. University of Kentucky scientists are devising a self-tanner that will look natural as well as protect us from skin cancer if studies in mice bear out in humans. It should work so well because it activates many of the same molecular machinery as lying in the sun, without the damaging effects.

Apologies for the sad state of these mice. But the images are instructional as to the tanning potion's ability to increase melanin and reduce melanoma. In the circle on the right, the dark spots indicate increased melanin as compared with the control mouse on the left. 

Most of them come down against euthanasia, though they each have unique and compelling reasons. One example:

If we allow exceptions to the prohibition of euthanasia, how should the exceptions be defined and applied? Endless questions would naturally arise, setting the stage for unintended consequences and a dangerous slippery slope. R. Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, speaking of the alleged New Orleans mercy killings, told The New York Times: "But if the killing was intentional, even if it was meant to be merciful, it is something that society draws a 'bright line' against for fear that it will get out of hand."

Via Kevin, M.D.

This article (registration required) from The Scientist examines the allegations including cherry picking, distorting and withholding data.

The study included 5,475 children and mothers in the U.S. who participated in an ongoing youth development survey. The findings were published today in BMJ Online First.

The researchers also identified 332 sibling pairs in which one child was breastfed and the other was not. No significant difference in intelligence was found among the breastfed and nonbreastfed siblings.

"The mother's IQ was by far the most important variable, accounting for 70% to 75% of the difference [between children who were and were not breastfed]", researcher Geoff Der, MCS, tells WebMD.

The researchers said that breastfeeding is still better for other reasons, like preventing infections.

This is a bit moldy at this point, but disturbing if not all that shocking. The underground sale of organs taken from executed prisoners is thriving in China, according to an undercover BBC investigation.

Organs from death row inmates are sold to foreigners who need transplants.

One hospital said it could provide a liver at a cost of £50,000 ($94,400), with the chief surgeon confirming an executed prisoner could be the donor.

China's health ministry did not deny the practice, but said it was reviewing the system and regulations.

One official told a BBC reporter that China had an organ surplus because of an increase in executions leading up to the October 1, the country's National Day.
Amnesty International says that while 1,770 prisoners were reported executed in 2005 in China, the real number is likely much higher. By any count, China executes more prisoners than any other nation.

Via Blog.bioethics.net.

Via KevinMD